Christmas vs "Holidays"

[Nearl J Icarus]

In article <svFxd.5265$ef5.3741@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk says...

I find this page really interesting:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Going back 2k years, you won't find direct evidence of anybody. Most of the
information we have about Billy Shakespeare is from his will. Verification,
none.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:21:37 -0600, Nearl J Icarus
<nj_toothenbecker@hotmail.com> wrote:

Going back 2k years, you won't find direct evidence of anybody. Most of the
information we have about Billy Shakespeare is from his will. Verification,
none.

The fact that verification is made all the more difficult through that deep veil
of time and lack of independent supporting material certainly does not help the
arguments for scriptural descriptions as being historical. To the contrary, it
simply means we need to be remain circumspect and not credulous.

Jon

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:42:15 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

Well, there is informaion that claims to be more recent, and claims
to be channeled from God himself, that explains all that. I find it
fascinating, and kind of sad, that people who claim to be merely
skeptical reject the very idea that such a thing could happen,
based on nothing but their own blind faith in atheism.

This is a nonsense statement. One doesn't have to have "faith" in
atheism. There is zero credible evidence for a god, so it don't take
faith to dismiss such a daft idea.

Of course it takes faith to dismiss "such a daft idea". Just because
you're in denial, doesn't make it not so.

Rich, you are simply silly. There is no faith involved.

Claims require affirming evidence, not just the absence of
disconfirming evidence. Consider the claim that "there is an
invisible dragon in my garage." It is quite reasonable to withhold
belief until I supply you with affirming evidence, not just my
yelling at you that you can't disprove it and that it is all just
_your_ fault because it is your flawed _faith_ that dismisses the
"daft idea" I'd be suggesting to you.

I cannot fathom how you can be so dense as to imagine that it takes
faith to insist that people making extraordinary claims provide
commensurate levels of affirming evidence to support their claims.
What's truly sad, Rich, are people who sell their credulity so
cheaply as you would apparently have them do.

I don't take Kevin's position that there is clear evidence disproving
"conventional gods," because I'm hard put trying to find anyone
providing a definition of a god that wasn't so broad or vague as to
lack any propositional content or that otherwise wasn't an
inexhaustible series of excuses to explain away contradicting
evidence.

By "conventional gods" I was using the common notion of an all
powerfully, all knowing, everywhere at once, can do anything, sort of
god. Not only is this type of god experimentally, proven false beyound
reasonable doubt, it is also contradictory logically wise. e.g. a god
that can make an object so heavy that no one can lift it, but if so
heavy, god cant lift it either, therefore god is not all powerfully etc.
The root cause of this is the infinites involved.

You are claiming in essence that _up_ is _down_, Rich, when you
suggest anything of the kind that atheism requires faith. Quite the
opposite, is the fact of the situation.

Rich is deluded in such a manner that there is no realistic hope that he
will ever see the light, and will always cam the it is us rational dudes
that are confused.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:37:45 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:42:15 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

Well, there is informaion that claims to be more recent, and claims
to be channeled from God himself, that explains all that. I find it
fascinating, and kind of sad, that people who claim to be merely
skeptical reject the very idea that such a thing could happen,
based on nothing but their own blind faith in atheism.

This is a nonsense statement. One doesn't have to have "faith" in
atheism. There is zero credible evidence for a god, so it don't take
faith to dismiss such a daft idea.

Of course it takes faith to dismiss "such a daft idea". Just because
you're in denial, doesn't make it not so.

Rich, you are simply silly. There is no faith involved.

Claims require affirming evidence, not just the absence of
disconfirming evidence. Consider the claim that "there is an
invisible dragon in my garage." It is quite reasonable to withhold
belief until I supply you with affirming evidence, not just my
yelling at you that you can't disprove it and that it is all just
_your_ fault because it is your flawed _faith_ that dismisses the
"daft idea" I'd be suggesting to you.

I cannot fathom how you can be so dense as to imagine that it takes
faith to insist that people making extraordinary claims provide
commensurate levels of affirming evidence to support their claims.
What's truly sad, Rich, are people who sell their credulity so
cheaply as you would apparently have them do.

I don't take Kevin's position that there is clear evidence disproving
"conventional gods," because I'm hard put trying to find anyone
providing a definition of a god that wasn't so broad or vague as to
lack any propositional content or that otherwise wasn't an
inexhaustible series of excuses to explain away contradicting
evidence.

By "conventional gods" I was using the common notion of an all
powerfully, all knowing, everywhere at once, can do anything, sort of
god. Not only is this type of god experimentally, proven false beyound
reasonable doubt, it is also contradictory logically wise. e.g. a god
that can make an object so heavy that no one can lift it, but if so
heavy, god cant lift it either, therefore god is not all powerfully etc.
The root cause of this is the infinites involved.

Well, there _is_ new information, and that new information is that all
of the models of the all-powerful, bearded white guy are false.

He never was perfect, or even supposed to be, and it was his addiction
to perfection that has caused all of the pain and suffering there are.

But you guys are weary of this. I'll leave you to your own devices. You
have Free Will, after all, and the only "sin" is to override the Free
Will of another. And, of course, overriding your own Free Will is what
ultimately causes death.

You are claiming in essence that _up_ is _down_, Rich, when you
suggest anything of the kind that atheism requires faith. Quite the
opposite, is the fact of the situation.

Rich is deluded in such a manner that there is no realistic hope that he
will ever see the light, and will always cam the it is us rational dudes
that are confused.

"No realistic hope that will ever see the light?" Aylward, you don't
even know what the light _is_. And you won't until you see outside of your
own, self-imposed box.

But it doesn't matter. I'm never insulted, because the truth increases my
wisdom, and an untruth is simply not worthy of note.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:50:01 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Have you considered that much of what Rich writes just might not be
meant 100% seriously. My problem is identifying which bits ARE meant to
be serious.

I believe I have a bead on which is which. That's why I respond to very little
of it, which is neither here nor there, and only focus my replies on those
places where I know he is exposing some of his inner core to view.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:59:08 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net>
wrote:

Here's one opinion about Truth and Reality that I tend to go along with:
http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html

Read it from top to bottom. My statements remain.

Jon