Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-03-2008, 03:22 PM   #31
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
are you some sort of group speacher here, and represent the meaning and thinking of the collective ?
Yes.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:24 PM   #32
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
you have a main problem, which you wont be able to solve by reason.

1. I start with the premisse : God always existed. He had never been created. This is a fact, above our comprehension, but it is not against reason.

2. The only possible alternative is : in the beginning was nothing. And from nothing came everything. This is however not a reasonable and illogical fact. From nothing, nothing derives. Starting from this point of fact, all your ponderation about chance is senseless and unreasonable as well.
In other words : the alternative claim would be 0 x 0 = 1
The first claim however is God x his power = everything.

You won't come over this.

And second.

Life only derives from Live. It has not been possible to create life in laboratory. The experiment from the fifties is invalid, because a external force was needed, to put the aminoacids together.

Look the net for Perry Marshall papers. DNA, the basic build element for life, has a code . Coded information needs always a encoder.
what is it with you idiotic religionists?
PROOF PROOF PROOF please

and an explanation of what the fuck half your badly constructed sentences mean


and- p...lllleeeeeease - we have heard all this before

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:27 PM   #33
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
GodLovesU doesn't understand that she isn't the first proselytizer to come here and present her 'proofs'... we've seen hundreds, and not one has come forth to admit that the burden of proof lies on themselves.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:28 PM   #34
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
Quote:
psychodiva wrote View Post
yeah- I'd vote for Dogpet and wouldn't mind him speaking for me or rather 'speaching'
I think you can speach for yourself

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:29 PM   #35
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
dogpet wrote View Post
I think you can speach for yourself
mmm I wanna know what 'speaching' is first- is it like 'Kipling'?

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 03:32 PM   #36
Mog
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
you have a main problem, which you wont be able to solve by reason.

1. I start with the premisse : God always existed. He had never been created. This is a fact, above our comprehension, but it is not against reason.
That premise is neither provable but unprovable, but it does add extra complexity to a system that doesn't need it. Its like adding an elephant to a petri dish.


Quote:
2. The only possible alternative is : in the beginning was nothing. And from nothing came everything. This is however not a reasonable and illogical fact.From nothing, nothing derives. Starting from this point of fact, all your ponderation about chance is senseless and unreasonable as well.
In other words : the alternative claim would be 0 x 0 = 1
So you misunderstand the big bang and what a singularity is, also. Our knowledge of our universe's origin only goes back to a certain point. Before that point, the different conditions of the universe make anything before it conjecture. At no point do we claim the universe came from nothing, however it was vastly compressed. The fact is, that we never ever claim what you are claiming.

Quote:
And second.

Life only derives from Live. It has not been possible to create life in laboratory. The experiment from the fifties is invalid, because a external force was needed, to put the aminoacids together.

Look the net for Perry Marshall papers. DNA, the basic build element for life, has a code . Coded information needs always a encoder.
You have to admit that at a certain level it is hard to define life, so that is a broad claim that life only derives from life, and claiming that the experiment from the fifties is invalid because an external force was needed? Hasn't the earth been subject to external forces many times in its history?

As for DNA needing a basic code, that code is of course RNA.

from http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

Quote:
  1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
Now abiogenesis is a study still in its infancy, so who knows? but the meanderings of Perry Marshall and others doesn't disprove its viability.

Now, for the most part, all your dialogue merely leads to deism. To lead to your specific form of theism, namely Christianity, leads to jumps of illogic that are beyond me, assuming the existence of souls, heaven, hell, angels, devils, fantasy stories that are on flimsy ground both physically and archaeologically.

"It's puzzling that Eden is synonymous with paradise when, if you think about it at all, it's more like a maximum-security prison with twenty-four hour surveillance." -Ann Druyan
Mog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:08 PM   #37
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Godlovesyou, no offense (though I do find your attitude pretty offensive), but you're not going to accomplish anything here. You sound exactly like a multitude of other Christian theists who have driven by or parked themselves at this site.

Thing is, I don't want to be preached at by you, because I don't believe you know anything about what you speak. I'm confident that you are just as ignorant of the unknowable as I am. If a god exists and it is incomprehensible to me and all other human beings, it stands to reason that it is equally incomprehensible to you.

You're just speculating on what we don't know, indeed, cannot know, and egregiously embellishing on unfounded assertions. I call that preaching, and I think it's the rudest, most unwelcome thing you can do at a Website populated mostly by skeptics. If your comments are met with rudeness, keep in mind that you asked for it by engaging rudeness first.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:14 PM   #38
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
psychodiva wrote View Post
um no- I actually do not have to 'hear' what you are babbling - are you too used to people listening to your babble?
then you are free to search a other thread.

Quote:
Don't expect to be listened to here, this is not a doorstep on a Saturday morning but metaphorical doors can still be shut in metaphorical faces
your staying at this thread is pointless - search another one.

Quote:
As an aside - Is English not your native language or are you just bad at it? I can point you to a good dictionary or provide a few lessons on grammar and punctuation
that actually would make sense - i apprechiate your correction - and , guess what ?!! you are right. I made a 3 month english course. That's my base.

Quote:
I am not searching for anything- I have been here for quite a while- what is your reason for being here?
read my first post - there i explain it.

Quote:
oh- and edited to add- no I'm never 'polite' to people who come on here and immediately start proselytising and babbling.
then i will see soon a reason to ignore you.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:17 PM   #39
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Tenspace wrote View Post
GodLovesU doesn't understand that she isn't the first proselytizer to come here and present her 'proofs'... we've seen hundreds, and not one has come forth to admit that the burden of proof lies on themselves.
might you read too my first post - i am not here to bring proof's - because - i have not any. To talk about proofs is senseless anyway - since nobody has proofs.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:20 PM   #40
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Godlovesyou, no offense (though I do find your attitude pretty offensive), but you're not going to accomplish anything here. You sound exactly like a multitude of other Christian theists who have driven by or parked themselves at this site.

Thing is, I don't want to be preached at by you, because I don't believe you know anything about what you speak. I'm confident that you are just as ignorant of the unknowable as I am. If a god exists and it is incomprehensible to me and all other human beings, it stands to reason that it is equally incomprehensible to you.

You're just speculating on what we don't know, indeed, cannot know, and egregiously embellishing on unfounded assertions. I call that preaching, and I think it's the rudest, most unwelcome thing you can do at a Website populated mostly by skeptics. If your comments are met with rudeness, keep in mind that you asked for it by engaging rudeness first.
might i ask you : have you already fixed your standpoint ant belief ? you don't belief in any deity ? fine. Then i guess , you have " nothing ", good, or bad to talk about, since you don't belief in God.

What do you search here ?
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:20 PM   #41
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
then you are free to search a other thread.



your staying at this thread is pointless - search another one.



that actually would make sense - i apprechiate your correction - and , guess what ?!! you are right. I made a 3 month english course. That's my base.



read my first post - there i explain it.



then i will see soon a reason to ignore you.
oo bossy little thing aren't you ?

I will stay and comment in any thread on this site that I so choose to do

I have no wish to let my brain drain out of my ears by re-reading your first post

please do place me on your ignore list- I am certain that it will rapidly become long and filled with the very esteemed names of an awful lot of regular posters on here

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:22 PM   #42
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post

What do you search here ?
this is the RAVING ATHEIST FORUM

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:34 PM   #43
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Mog wrote View Post
That premise is neither provable but unprovable, but it does add extra complexity to a system that doesn't need it. Its like adding an elephant to a petri dish.
It has to do with logic. Are you agnostic, or Atheist ? If you are a Agnostic, than you can defend the standpoint : " i don't know ". If you define yourself a atheist, then your confession should be : I don't belief there is any God.
Since this is a Atheist forum, i guess your standpoint is the second one. If this is the case, then , before the Big Band, would have been simply " nothing ". There relies the unlogic. If nothing were before the Big Bang, then simply nothing would exist eternally. Since from nothing, any forces, any time, any space, any matter, any spirit, simply nothing could derive. Do you know actually, that everything, that exists, has been defined only in the 19th century from a fellow named Herbert Spencer ? However, the bible, in the very first chapter , written almost 4000 years ago, by a fellow named Moses , wrote and defined everything that exists : 1. Time 2. Force 3. Action 4. Space 5. Matter . Interesting, don't you think ?


Quote:
So you misunderstand the big bang and what a singularity is, also. Our knowledge of our universe's origin only goes back to a certain point. Before that point, the different conditions of the universe make anything before it conjecture. At no point do we claim the universe came from nothing, however it was vastly compressed. The fact is, that we never ever claim what you are claiming.
The only alternative of a God, creator of the universe, is no God as origin.
one of both. there is no other possibility. If you claim, no God was the origin, then automatically you claim : " nothing " was the origin.


Quote:
You have to admit that at a certain level it is hard to define life, so that is a broad claim that life only derives from life, and claiming that the experiment from the fifties is invalid because an external force was needed? Hasn't the earth been subject to external forces many times in its history?
What i want to say, is following : if the first aminoacids formed the first dna string, then it didn't solely happen by chance. There is also the factor force and action needed. Where did it come from ?

Quote:
As for DNA needing a basic code, that code is of course RNA.
excellent. there is no coded in the nature known, that formed by itself. There is always a intelligent source needed to form a code.


Quote:
[/list]Now abiogenesis is a study still in its infancy, so who knows? but the meanderings of Perry Marshall and others doesn't disprove its viability.
well, Perry Marshall made a challenge, and up to now, no atheist was able to give a valid answer.

Quote:
Now, for the most part, all your dialogue merely leads to deism. To lead to your specific form of theism, namely Christianity, leads to jumps of illogic that are beyond me, assuming the existence of souls, heaven, hell, angels, devils, fantasy stories that are on flimsy ground both physically and archaeologically.
sorry, but what cannot be perceived with out limited senses, does not mean, it does not exist. Does it ? illogical, again, is to believe, no God would be needed to start creation. From nothing, nothing derives, and despite your denying, if you claim, no God exists, than you say exactly this.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:35 PM   #44
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
might i ask you : have you already fixed your standpoint ant belief ? you don't belief in any deity ? fine. Then i guess , you have " nothing ", good, or bad to talk about, since you don't belief in God.

What do you search here ?
Don't misunderstand me. I know very well that I could ignore you. That's not the point. Besides, I have over 4,000 posts and 20-months residency here, compared to your meager 11 posts and one day's worth of participation at ravingatheists.com. I think I know more about this place and what is tolerated here than you do.

I come here mostly to interact with the like-minded and, possibly, to engage the one or two honest theists who deign to visit this forum. I am telling you that you are just another distraction from the enjoyment of this sanctuary, what with us already having our hands full with YWHW and Missionary, two other arrogant and impenetrable theists who took up residence here months ago and won't go away.

They've already taken up your cause, Godlovesyou and, as far as I can see, Missionary, at least, has a far better ability than you do in your pitiable attempts to defend the indefensible.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Last edited by Irreligious; 08-03-2008 at 04:45 PM. Reason: spelling
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 04:35 PM   #45
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
psychodiva wrote View Post
this is the RAVING ATHEIST FORUM
yes, so what ? rave and make your point. but one that makes sense, please. so far, you have not made it.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational