Frank Apisa wrote:Ahhh...the ethically challenged abetting the ethically challenged. What a gas!
Life is so good.
Ethically challenged when your assertion requires an antiquated definition of atheist?
Languages change with time. Should we still be using thee, thou, and thine?
Wake the hell up Frank !!! :wink:
OBill wrote awhile back:
Frankyboy; you need to read more carefully. The above, essentially rhetorical question, is asking you to confirm there is ZERO evidence that can prove the nonexistence of each of the above entities. Now we know you reject the thought of evidence against the existence of God. That much is clear. Now I'd like you to show me evidence against the existence of any of the other above entities that is any more concrete then that which you reject in respect to God. Meanwhile, for as long as you're silly enough to try, I'll just kick back and take potshots at your apparent stupidity in not recognizing the futility of the task. Considering your treatment of atheists, this strikes me as the fair and noble thing to do until you either provide the evidence to back your untenable position, or admit your hypocrisy, or (and this is the most likely) you ignore the big bold challenge above while pretending your hypocrisy hasn't been exposed. Anyone may feel free to come up with an answer for anything he may produce. You will find, just as when he does it to atheists, it's exceedingly simple.
Atheism is a joke, Mesquite.
And atheists are the punch line.
Watching atheists pretend to be reasonable and logical is like watching John Cleese do his silly walk routine on Monty Python.
Atheists mocking agnosticism is like a wart hog making fun of what a swan looks like.
Atheism finding fault with theism is the stuff of farce.
ci...I already gave a long response to Bill's silliness.
In any case, I am tired of this nonsense.
Atheists are no more able to see through their own bullshyt than theists are...and watching people I consider intelligent continue to act stupidly in rationalization of the garbage...is more than I want to deal with at this stage of my life.
It's been fun...over 10 years of interaction with some of you...and by bailing out now, I will still have fond memories of you all.
But all things come to an end...and this is it for me in this forum.
I will never ever post in A2K again after this post...and after a personal message to Phoenix...I intend to erase the site from my computer.
I hope some of the things I've said come to bear fruit in the future...and as I have said many time, I hope the realizations do not come when you are repairing a roof...or defusing a bomb...because if it comes, it will be a muthaf****r.
I am looking forward to seeing the A2K folks coming to New York this summer...and will stay in touch with Kicky, Joe, Bernie and Lola.
Live a good life folks.
f.
Well, Frank, I don't know if you'll be reading this, but it's been nice knowing you.
I wish you a long and happy life, and if you ever get bored you know where to find us... :wink:
In Part II there are a number of different ways I might make my approach, a story is always fun:
- We'll assume you are an accomplished man of science, you respect and appreciate the scientific method, its self-correcting potential, and the pragmatic real world nature on which it is based.
- We'll assume you respect and appreciate the scientific community to the extent that said community follows the scientific method, its self-correcting potential, and the pragmatic real world nature on which it is based.
- We'll assume this story-world is very similar to your world, except that no one has ever heard of, nor has any concept of god.
Frank's World:
You decide to go before your vaunted peers in the Great Hall of Science with your newest dissertation. It is many pages in length, and you have thought long and hard about it. But when the dust settles, it has boiled down to one simple point: "I believe that it is possible for there to be a god."
Your esteemed colleagues are rather taken aback, and stare at you slack jawed for a painfully long moment. You get a queasy feeling in your bowels they are going to simply dismiss your dissertation. But due to your reputation, they are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your views, and they pose three questions to you:
i) What were the circumstances by which you became convinced there was a possibility for this thing you call god?
ii) We have never heard of this thing you call god, what is it?
iii) Given that you contend there is a possibility for this thing you call god, and if by some set of circumstances you were to become convinced of this thing you call god, by what scientific methodology would you expect to demonstrate this thing you call god to the scientific community?
Good bye, good luck!
Chumly
Ever heard of Ofgoof? It's a small bug that lives on a planet orbiting the star Agape in the constellation Lyra.
Bullshyt you say? Probably, but since none of us can go there and check, since there is absolutely no way for us to refute this outrageous claim we have to say that the existence of Ofgoof is a possibility.
That brings to mind one of the best SF stories I have ever read (I'm a bit of an SF nut)!
Quote:Case of Conscience is a science fiction novel by James Blish, first published in 1959. It is the story of a Jesuit who investigates an alien race that has no religion; they are completely without any concept of God, an afterlife, or the idea of sin; and the species evolves through several forms through the course of its life cycle. The story was originally published as a novella in 1953, and later extended to novel-length, of which the first part is the original novella. The novel is the first part of Blish's thematic "After Such Knowledge" trilogy, followed by Black Easter/The Day After Judgment and Dr Mirabilis.
The story is unusual in several respects. Few science fiction stories of the time attempted religious themes, and still fewer did this with Catholicism. Some of the first part is taken up with the Jesuit's attempt to solve a puzzle, a long description of scandalous intrigue between various pseudonymous characters. As he is about to leave for Earth, he realizes the puzzle is soluble, but also that it was nothing more than a piece of distracting mischief by an author who made a career of attacking Catholicism. The puzzle is contained within the pages of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce.
Many reacted negatively to the story, but surprisingly few educated Catholics were among them. One even sent James Blish a copy of the actual Church guidelines for dealing with extra-terrestrials. These are not detailed, but merely suggest overall strategy based on whether the beings have souls or not, and if they have them, whether they are fallen like humans, or exist in a state of grace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Conscience
Frank Apisa wrote:ci...I already gave a long response to Bill's silliness.
Actually, you ducked the big highlighted question, as I predicted you would. No surprise there.
Don't know why you're leaving us, but you have my best wishes.
Oh Frank's not really leaving us. He's not the type to use rejection as a tool of aggression. He'll just beat you to the ground with sub-human language and enjoy every bit of it.
One day he'll jump out at us from the bushes with a resounding "BOO", just you watch and see.
Or after much thought while walking in the mountains, he'll return to tell me that I am right (but still an a$$hole).
"Epitaphs" for Frank...?
How about ...."The most dogmatic of us all"
or ....."He was to agnosticism what the crusaders were to Chritianity."
or....."He guessed he knew what guessing was about."
Phoenix, A guess is always a guess when there are no evidence to show otherwise. To continue to argue between A, B and C, and claim only B is correct is not only illogical but stubborn.
Man made concepts of god doesn't exist, and "nature" isn't god.
BTW, Frank is a grown man; he can make his own decisions about staying or leaving - like everybody else. He can also change his mind after a short "break."
As I have noted before, it was one of Frank's posts that showed up in a Google search which first brought me to A2K. Posting manners aside, I agree with his view on most of the discussions I have seen here, with this atheist vs agnostic differentiation being one of the few exceptions and one that has little importance to me other than to have fun with.
This exit seems different from the others. I hope that it is not something more serious than A2K indigestion. I wll sincerely miss his postings.
May the golf gods be with him.
Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University
He had only one major publication.
It was in Hebrew; had no references; wasn't published in an academic journal; and some doubt he wrote it himself.
He may have created the world, but what has he done since?
The scientific community cannot replicate his results.
He never received permission from the ethics board to use human subjects.
When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
He rarely came to class; telling the students to, "Read the book."
Some say he had his son teach the class.
He expelled his first two students.
His office hours were irregular and sometimes held on a mountain top.
Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed.
Why god/religion really never got tenure in my brain.
Most religious groups become paternalistic (demands followers to behave in certain ways) and out of touch with the world at-large.
Most practitioners of religion has conflict with other religious groups.
Nothing in nature shows any proof of any god; babies are born dead or with deformities both physical and mental.
There's no relationship between common sense, logic, and religious belief.
Religous belief produces extremism in humans.
Nothing has shown that religion improves humanity.
Religion has shown to create division, not equality and humanity.
cicerone imposter wrote:
There's no relationship between common sense, logic, and religious belief.
Religous belief produces extremism in humans.
Nothing has shown that religion improves humanity.
Religion has shown to create division, not equality and humanity.
I think you are confusing religion with "Western Mainstream Religions".
Hinduism promotes free thinking and reexamination of your beliefs.
Hinduism still believe in gods; all fiction.
Bye bye, Frank. Guess I won't have anyone to argue with about how we should use words anymore, huh?
