Comments by Roland_F
251. Two More Fleas
Comment #144887 by Roland_F on March 17, 2008 at 1:12 am
332. Comment #144840 by GordonYKWong
The issue I see here is that many poster here are using very clever arguments against him, but judging from Clearmind's reply, he doesn't seem to be grasping any of those arguments, fully or partially. (No offense, Clearmind, those are just my opinions)
I am just curious to see what level of sophistication should I be operating at when I engage with him.
Sounds weird... yeah I know...
In January Wooter was admitting himself that he has the mindset and 'reason sieve' of an elementary school kid, where Evolution is just not fitting through.
He/she/it thinks that
1) The hyper creative God creates every snowflake differently,
2) That God is spinning planets and rotate them every morning around the sun,
3) The sun is made out of Oil
4) That God created all the plants and animals to only serve humans
5) That at the end of times God will move selected humans to another planet and all other life on earth (animals and plants) will perish
6) That there is a Birmingham palace as evidence of design
7) That the Mona Lisa was painted from Picasso (and the painting is speaking to Wooter in its stories written here in 'Salamander's tale')
My reply to (5) from where this specific scenario which is not part of any common religious teaching (Catholic, J.W., Mormon)is coming from, I got the reply that all religions have these scenario including Buddhism (!!!) and I am just uneducated not to know God that is moving humans to another planet and animals will die here !
In January my simple explanation attempt (made for Wooter's elementary school class) why humans and animals can move around 'from alone by muscle power' without God to have invisible strings to move them around, I was using the word Mitochondria as small power plant of the muscle cells. Wooter replied with a copy from a creationist website that Mitochondria are too complicated so it must be designed. Even if the food, God provided handpicked to Wooter's refrigerator and even if Mitochondria would be designed, still muscle cells can move the body around without invisible strings hold from God.
So the only scientific explanation understandable is 'God did it'.
252. I don't believe in atheists
Comment #144073 by Roland_F on March 15, 2008 at 3:01 am
to inflict maximum damage you go for the infrastructure targets. Take out power stations, sewage treatment plants, computer centres and the like.
Or when hitting the churches the Christians loose all there moral guidance and divine help, which will then inflict the ultimate damage of self-destruction ??
253. Two More Fleas
Comment #144071 by Roland_F on March 15, 2008 at 2:45 am
196. Comment #143337 by windweaver :
About the fine tuning of then universe 'Goldilocks' like mentioned from Paul Davies.
Then divine intervention was only one of the possibilities discussed from Paul Davies. And this option was branded from him as the most unlikely; despite this 'Goldilocks Enigma' book was sponsored from Templeton just to include this option.
A: The constants are just as they are no deeper reason behind them.
B: We just don't know yet why the constant are appearing so 'fine-tuned' but in a couple of years we might find a theory of everything (M-String or something else) which simply explains it why it is like this and just different facets of the same unified constant.
C: There are zillions of Multiverse and we just living in one which has these constants fine-tuned like they are
D: The universe is the divine fart.
E: A weird explanation based on remote quantum entanglement: this double slit experiment where the observation of the remote photon (after the other half already hit the screen before) prevents the interference pattern to show up on the screen. Based on these backwards in time 'influence' Davies argues that the Goldilocks parameters were set later to ensure the possibility of life to emerge.
When considering the history of science, we humans often don't have an explanation at hand in the beginning. Like Newton was thinking the rotation of all planets around the sun in the same direction must be some divine miracle, now we can laugh at this as we know how the solar system evolves from a rotating dust disk compressing into the center star and planets based on gravitation, so the rotation is in the same plain and in the same direction.
Maybe in a few decades when we have a common explanation why the constants are like this and have to be like this for some known reasons, we might laugh then about our current divine explanations of these constants and the God of the gaps has to retreat another step backwards.
Comment #142198 by Roland_F on March 12, 2008 at 6:26 am
661. Comment #142176 by Tyler Durden
Many thanks, Roland :)
You are welcome.
And we see again theist are notorious liars, who are misquoting RD and 'selling' his quotes and jokes about Francis Crick's fantasy as RD's own ideas.
Comment #142171 by Roland_F on March 12, 2008 at 5:37 am
656. Comment #142105 by Tyler Durden : Taking a page straight out of Francis Crick's atheist escapism playbook - he proposes Directed Panspermia. Prof. Dawkins explains that he believes that it was through Darwinian mechanisms."
The directed Panspermia is not mentioned in the index of 'the blind watchmaker' . The only mentioning I find is in :
'The ancestor's tale' page 563 : Francis Crick, no less, has speculated semi-seriously in "Life itself" that bacteria might not have originated on this planet but been seeded from elsewhere. In Cricks fantasy, they were sent in the nose-cone of a rocket by alien beings, who wanted to propagate their form of life, but shrank from technically harder problems of transporting themselves and relied, instead, upon natural evolution to finish the job once the bacterial infection had taken root. Crick and his colleague Leslie Orgel, who originally suggested the idea with him, supposed that the bacteria had originally evolved by natural process on the home planet, but they could equally, while in the mood for science fiction, have added a touch of nanotechnological artifice to the mix, perhaps a molecular gearwheel like the flagellar motor which we see in Rhizobium and many other bacteria.
Comment #141586 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The satire by Mitchell Gilks posing as 'Wheeler'
I think the reaction of the RD forum participants here showed clearly that we are not immediately starting abuses and throwing around f* words, like mentioned on the Fleabites forum.
This was a very civilized discussion.
And this even when Wheeler (aka Mitchell) had a spoiling start as Wooter-clone and no neutral unspoiled initial appearance.
Comment #141245 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 7:51 am
Nice user profile:
Username: Wheeler
Location: Soon to be heave, while you're in hell.
Occupation: Atheist deprogrammer.
Interests: egotism.
Just created today, so how soon you will be in heaven then ?? Thought you are not Christian ?! Or very soon in heaven as Muslim with 72 virgins ?
Comment #141239 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 7:39 am
575. Comment #141228 by Wheeler : think that since science is restricted to the natural and physical world by definition, it goes without saying that it doesn't apply to non-natural, non-physical things.
So again this D'Souza word games of 'non-natural' phenomena: God can do everything even being not bound to the own laws under which he created the universe.
Unfortunately the creator of the universe is outside space and time and can be therefore not inside the universe to influence it. Additionally a God bound to the limits of his own creation (speed of light) can not be present at all places and can't process all information real times. A God influencing material beings must be materialized himself, for example by whatever kind of energy fields.
But I think this we had a page ago, seems we are running in circles.
Comment #141227 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 7:25 am
570. Comment #141223 by Wheeler : I'd say that it makes perfect sense to believe that a being capable of anything could influence in universe without disruption the conservation of energy and momentum.
With this you just disproved v. Anselm's 'proof of God's existence' you fantasy is bigger than an actual existing God can be under the limitations of his own created laws of nature.
Comment #141215 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 7:10 am
558. Comment #141204 by Wheeler
The last point is just a silly one. Did Pluto not exist before we discovered it? You can't declare something can't be so because we have yet to wittness it.
Good you havn't read this refutale of Omipresence it's about something else than not yet dicovered (Russels teapot). When you have some time read the arguments in MPhil's #138081 or my additons in following posts based on cosmolgy limiting the sphere of influence for God.
Comment #141189 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 6:48 am
540. Comment #141178 by Wheeler: God and people are fundamental different things
Then read your Bible genesis 1.24-26 Humans are like us God's [plural by the way].
So you are insulting the name and word of your God and therefore you and your offspring will be punished down to 4 generations.
Sorry you just screwed it.
Comment #141180 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 6:42 am
539. Comment #141177 by MPhil Can we expect to be presented any good arguments against the position I defended in my post? Somehow, I doubt it
Did you ever get good arguments from theists ??
Comment #141171 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 6:30 am
This Omnipotence Myth was already busted on another tread (Comment #136661 by MPhil)
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page50#136661
Ominpresence: Comment #138081 by MPhil :
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page62#138081
Comment #141139 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 5:26 am
No in January after moving Wooter to the alternate tread the user showing up for inquiry was 'Selfishmind'.
And wheeler is unlikely to be Wooter, just imitating spelling errors.
Comment #141110 by Roland_F on March 10, 2008 at 3:36 am
507. Comment #141078 by wipeout: Look jackass Roland I don't give a shit what kind of psycological problems you have in your airhead.
I was living, working and meeting disabled persons for decades, most of them really manage to life a somewhat normal life, having fun, make holidays, do some limited sports up to world-class Paralympics (disabled Olympic games) and all things.
As mentioned the German interior minister in a wheelchair or let's see Steven Hawking: are they aggressive and insulting others and feel to be entitled to it because of their disability ?
The really self-confident disabled persons are even getting angry for special help and privileges offered, so what is this pity you expecting from us and expectation to excuse your insults.
So I am the 'jackass with psychological problems' for showing you that you can have a regular life as disabled person ?
About the Wooter = Wipeout similarity hints who are obvious popping up in all postings, for several different occasions, which I just exemplified.
What's the topic with this to get extremely insulting when I bring this up. You know when somebody would bring up the idea that I am the same person like Philip, Steve, Reverend Dark etc. I would have a hearty laugh not an explosion of aggression about this wrong conclusion. So why do I hit a raw nerve with this highlight of similartities ?
There seems to be something deeply wrong with you and I am not the first one who mentioned it here.
Comment #141053 by Roland_F on March 9, 2008 at 10:30 pm
501. Comment #141045 by wipeout : am crippled from birth. I can't walk or run or go to the movie theatre or any place I want to go unless I have some help.
You can still life your life even when walking on crutches or sitting in a wheelchair. I don't know in which rundown country you might be living but in most countries this is no problem to get into shopping malls, theaters, office buildings and even air travel is possible.
In Germany the Interior minister is bound to a wheelchair and still performs all his duties even when disabled.
I can't get married
I know so many disabled persons who are married. Maybe you should stop your self pity and rethink your mindset and attitude to find someone who loves you.
He cannot have a baby? So what? What about me what me? What about me?
I don't know if the stage of your alleged disability includes the reproductive organs or 'only' your legs, if the later then it's the problem of your self-pity and mindset not a biological prevention.
I am reading this web page to look for some hope why these things HAPPENED TO ME.
Hope ? Maybe you can get here some explanation about inherited genetic defects : wrong copy of DNA , wrong medication, drug or alcohol consumption during first weeks of pregnancy or whatever might have caused the disability.
I am thinking about what the wooter guy wroteguess he is right. We are the taker not the giver. God if he exists gave us everything in return for what?
Do you really think an egoistic, jealous, gambling with the devil God (the story of Job), sadistic (entire Old testament) is giving you hope ?
Then your sickness is a fault of evolution. Then your swearing goes to blindwatcmaker or Darwin or whomever behind this? Stupid air head?
This is more an argument that a pitiless Evolution is the reason not the proclaimed 'merciful and loving' God.
Rest of clowns, you will give a well done ha. You crippled minds.
You know, some days ago you shown up here as user Wipeout and speak in the first person complaining of being insulted (from Reverend) as Wooter. You have the same writing style, using the same phrases, same wrong quotes etc. Your spelling of 'blindwatcmaker' is the same wrong spelling as Wooter like as Wipeout for dozen of times in the posts !!
Wipeout shows up initially like before Wooter himself under a user id Selfishmind only to inquire especially and only about removed = 'wiped out' Wooter posts.
So my conclusion ( 317. Comment #139429 ) was, that you are quite likely the same person posting under different names.
Now as user Wooter stirs up angry reaction by insensitive statements about genetic defects wanted from God, suddenly the user Wipeout comes in apologetic and claims to be entitled to insult us as an even more tragic disabled person.
Conclusions = ?!?
267. Fleabytes
Comment #141048 by Roland_F on March 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
4286. Comment #140902 by Paula Kirby Robertson and his acolytes see attacks on atheists as being attacks on the devil.
Yes indeed they assume atheist = antichrist.
So lying, betraying, twisting and distorting is all allowed in 'their fight against the antichrist' and also needed to reinforce their own self-deception.
That's why they even linking Catholic Dictators who colluded heavily with their country churches and the Vatican like Hitler, Mussolini and Franco to Atheism based on theist self deception everything negative must be Atheism, Nihilism, Darwinism.
Needless to say that the Catholic doctrine of going to heaven based on faith and not on earthly actions and deeds will see these dictators in heaven, but all persons not faithful to Yahweh will go to hell even if there are peaceful and nice (M. Gandhi, Dalai Lama etc.).
268. Fleabytes
Comment #140894 by Roland_F on March 9, 2008 at 4:08 am
4273. Comment #140883 by Steve Zara : Does anyone have any ideas about the motivations of so many of the theists who post here? They rarely seem to ask questions that they are willing to hear answered. Are they here to preach? Do they think they can change minds? Is it some kind of personal test (can I stay on RD.net for weeks without losing my faith)? Is it to show off to others how brave they are?
Hi Steve,
- Maybe all of this motives for different people:
- just tease some people who have other ideas,
- test and increase their own faith (be strong against nonbelievers)
- some Mormon or JW door-knocking exercise (The Bishop)
- some Vox Day and Robertson like book promotion and mining for angry responses
- Just stir up annoyance (Wooterism could also promote alcohol on Blue Cross self help treads, or chauvinistic rants on treads for abused woman, or inquire for vibrators in the name of little girls etc. )
269. Fleabytes
Comment #140887 by Roland_F on March 9, 2008 at 3:40 am
4194. Comment #140643 by whatthe..?! :
Your just parroting the Richard Dawkins mantra which has been rejected by every thinking person on this planet. See the philosopher Alvin Plantinga
So an Intelligent Design preacher who is rejecting science is "every thinking person on the planet".
'Everything which HAS A BEGINNING has a cause'. Human consciousness must have been caused and that cause must have been sufficient to account for it. To argue that mind/consciousness originated from non-mind/consciousness is the height of absurdity and demonstrates the idiocy of materialism.
Absurdity ? Maybe you own statement is absurd when you consider that
- Quantum Fluctuation shows the possibility of spontaneous 'creation' matter where there was nothing before
- And what's with the spontaneous self organizing in Chaos theory where complex (beautiful and amazing) structures evolve without 'external' creator's guidance. Or do you want to postulate like Wooter that your creator has to design every single snowflake for example.
Now, it is futile for the disciple of Prof Dawkins to reject a Designer on the grounds that it MUST have been designed for this only applies to that which has a beginning and a Necessary Being emphatically doesn't.
This is a very strange and wrong assumption : a 'necessary being' does not need a designer. How can you proof that the Creator of humans is the first and last and only creation instance ?
He can be just the # 3 creator created himself from a creator #2 (creator of the earth and of creator #3) . And creator #2 itself was created from a creator #1 (who created the universe and creator #2) and only creator number #1 is the last and final creator as 'necessary being' like you call it. And this is only a small example which could be expanded ad infinitum.
This is also disproving your claim:
1) the universe can't be eternal (2) a Necessary Being must be eternal (3) the "Christian God" (whom I haven't mentioned but I'll humour you) IS eternal.
The Christian God can't be eternal as he is only one of many creators in the creators line up, mentioned above and this you can't disprove.
The eternal God must be outside of our universe, outside of space and time, so only a possible #2 can be inside space and time of our universe, and as the theist style of God depends on information processing in an accelerated expanding universe the visual content of the universe is getting smaller all the time so his sphere of influence is shrinking. So you need a localized #3 !
This Christina God can't be omnipotent as proofed from MPHIL:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page50#136661
(I say) MPhil you are talking nonsense. You are not even discussing consciousness here but only "increasment of complexity". . . How do you logically defend the notion that a series of non-conscious discriminations over millions of years will result in human consciousness? The reality is as Locke argued there must be a intelligent conscious designer to explain human intelligence and consciousness.
I am afraid you miss or ignore a few centuries of scientific knowledge here. For example missing the entire evolution of the nervous system up to the brain. Neural Software for pattern recognition is even available in simple animals like chicken. In the lab chicken who receive some food based on randomized stimuli (light signals) perform a 'rain dance' to get new food, try to reconstruct earlier 'dance patterns' to the light which yielded randomize food. Not to much different form the rain dance of shamans or the liturgics of priests following their theist mind patterns.
Domesticated animals feel emotions with their owner, also chimps mourning a couple of days for the death of a close relative; so just rejecting all this different stages of development shows only your anthropocentric worldview and credulity, not the proof for a designer.
Your entire Quoting of Locke philosophy about material movement and mind-dualism, philosophy from the 17th century, shows where you mindset is currently stuck.
Locke knows nothing about the expanding universe, nothing about gravity to comprehend material motion, nothing about evolution and of course nothing about Chaos theory or Quantum mechanics (my examples above). Also the entire area of IT that dead silicon matter can process information (much faster for algorithms then a brain, no emotional processing yet) And also Neuroscience or brain scanner and all the insights how the mind works where not known in the 17th century.
Prof Dawkins "look like they were designed by an intelligence"
Paul Davies: "The impression of design is overwhelming"
The impression of design or 'looking like' design is not accepting and especially no proof of an intelligent designer, and both scientists are vehemently rejecting the idea.
270. Out of the Blue
Comment #140874 by Roland_F on March 9, 2008 at 12:44 am
So the problem of hardware is also from the architecture, just adding faster processors and more processors of the current standard design is not solving the problem of the large number of synaptic connections (10**10 Neurons , 10**30 connections) . Inside a processor it's still easier, but how many cables you need to connect every processor which each other processor ?? How could you assemble a 3 dimensional processor with several thin layers which interconnections going thru the individual layers ?
The other area is the software, I just remember that somewhere in the 1980s my first PC was running WORD processing and Excel with a slow 8bit processor and 512KB RAM., in 1990 the same staff with 16 bit and 2MB RAM just to write documentation, whereas the entire steel smelter of the company was controlled still by an old 8bit 640KB system. Now I am running basically the same staff of WORD and Excel and need 32bit Dual-Core and 2GB RAM for it.
To cut a long story short increase in hardware (Moor's law) doesn't mean necessarily increase in application output.
The software of the Brain is also a problem, it must be self learning Meta-software package preloaded with fears of (dark places, snakes), a simulation of mood recognition (facial expression , angry voice), preloaded morality plus a self learning algorithm bases on all these preloads plus external stimuli and feedbacks. Just plugging in a big blue number cruncher is not yielding an artificial brain.
Also the memory must be associative, just throw in some stimuli and see which memory connected to which processors is 'firing' a response and then sort out different responses to form a conclusion.
271. Fleabytes
Comment #140570 by Roland_F on March 7, 2008 at 10:18 pm
4164. Comment #140563 by robotaholic How come no matter how many posts i make it always says im a lurker or a newbie- i have lol obviously posted a billion times- am i doing something wrong?
Your status is first 'Lurker' and after a specific number of posts and/or registration period you become a 'Newbie'.
You made 391 posts not a billion.
Steve Zara made more than 2800 posts and is still 'Newbie' - so don't worry.
Comment #140230 by Roland_F on March 7, 2008 at 4:07 am
Maybe Wooter was trained from Kent Hovind about DNA soup ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM&feature=related
Comment #140087 by Roland_F on March 7, 2008 at 12:48 am
389. Comment #139881 by wooter (I did a 90 metre bungee-jump a few years back. Try it. Puts lots of things into a more reasonable perspective.)
Ok that explains it all !!
But next time you use a shorter rope, so your head is not hitting the ground again.
Comment #139561 by Roland_F on March 6, 2008 at 4:57 am
Maybe Wooter is not a young earth creationist, but an old Human creationist ?!
Or God left the earth empty an unused for 5 billion years and started the creation of every creature in 4004BC ?
Comment #139558 by Roland_F on March 6, 2008 at 4:48 am
The age of the earth was already answered from Wooter:
Comment #128461 by wooter on February 17, 2008 at 4:15 am
So how old do you think the earth is?
The question is that when did the first human being started living on the earth?
The earth's age is a very controversial issue; ok let's say 5 billion years and your point is and how do you relate this to evolution?
Which leaves the questions if Wooter assumes that all humans are also 5 billion years old e.g. same age like all other living creature created from God at the same time.
Comment #139429 by Roland_F on March 5, 2008 at 8:06 pm
230. Comment #138954 by wipeout : To reverend, stop saying about me or insulting me,
234. Comment #138984 by wipeout on March 5, 2008 : You have no idea how intimidating you and your answers are.
The Reverend Dark is struggling with user id Wooter the last days, and you feel insulted now as user Wipeout ??
After not posting under user id Wipeout since 25.February !!
Comment #126658 by wipeout on February 13: YOU ARE AS PATHETIC AS A ROTTEN EGG. LEAVE ME ALONE
When getting angry you use capital letters as Wipeout and as Wooter :
Comment #122206 122207 122656 It is a pity(!) that only 16% world population is atheists. Is that the reason? God help those who are struggling in a Dna Soup trying to find out millions kinds of creatures.
The 16% non God believers are USA not the world, and the primordial soup is not a DNA soup : same person same mistake.
anybody sounds logical is Wooter for you
Only Wooter itself can find itself logical, or as Wooter even on par with Newton and Einstein, despite having a self admitted mindset and reason sieve of a 6 year old child !
Comment #132687 by wipeout on February 25 You are all afraid of Wooter guy because he wipes you out in your delusional world
Catch you !! Wooter = Wipeout
And earlier you started inquiring as user Selfishmind about Wooter's Troll comments moved to the alternate tread.
As shown above most likely Wooter = Wipeout = Selfishmind.
Wooter , Never give up! , I think this guy is really a good debater
So what do we think about a person who used several identities, addressing posts to the other self to sheer himself on and this as 3 different users ?
Schizophrenia ?
Comment #126307 by wipeout on February 13 : He got popular already in other web pages as the best debater who silence entire dawkins web page
Which you could never proof by providing a link.
Comment #138911 by Roland_F on March 5, 2008 at 12:14 am
225. Comment #138902 by Jon_Sociologist : Some of those stars exploded spreading dust, gas, and ice far and wide.
Sorry Jon this is too high for Wooter as according to his posts from January the sun is made from oil.
but they don't fall in because they are spinning around it fast enough not to fall in
Sorry again according to Wooter God has to spin the sun, the earth and circle the plants around the sun. Also God therefore has to spin every time the water when Wooter empty a washing bowl or flush a toilet, as well as spinning Cyclones, Tornados etc.
The only thing learned in the last 2 month is that it is Buckingham palace not Birmingham palace.
don't think I can dumb it down any further.
Yes Jon you can dump it down further so that also Wooter understand it: GOD DID IT !!
Comment #138815 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm
52. Comment #138566 by notsobad : If they actually found Jesus' grave
Actually they did found it already for the entire family clan in 1980 during construction work for a new apartment complex. The bones were buried at a new secret place only the ossuaries remain at the museum.
As this is shaking the Jesus = Horus resurrection myth to its foundations, you will find a truckload of red herrings thrown out from faithheads, when searching the internet for "Talpiot tomb".
I already put some info about this into another earlier post.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page29#134721
Comment #138800 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 7:43 pm
59. Comment #138741 by unbelievable : Padre Pio has visited me in the past. I have smelled the unmistakable fragrance of his wounds in my house
Yes carbonic acid smells strange.
I also read articles that beside his huge consumption of carbonic acid Padre Pio was also ordering huge amount of painkillers in the same pharmacy. Of course frequently penetrating you wound with new acid hurts.
I had really lost my faith in the kindness of people before I came to know Padre Pio. He has a very peaceful spirit.
Peaceful spirit or not: fraud is fraud. And more Catholic faithful are praying to a fraud than to Mary or Jesus.
Shows how gullible religious people are.
280. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai
Comment #138766 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm
There were many trials to explain the biblical miracle stories by some natural phenomena.
Crossing their Red Sea at low tide (there is not too much tide difference) on a sand bench by foot, where the following Egypt army used later shortcut trough deeper water.
Then the burning bush as some gas eruption, so it's burning without being consumed.
Walking over water in Lake Galilee, as a flat area with some rocks thrown in the night before to appear like standing on the water.
Washing the dust encrusted eyes of people from the desert so that they can see again.
And so on, I think this entire attempt is in vain, e.g. barking up the wrong tree.
It is possible that also the prophets of Yahweh took drugs to get their revelations from God like so many shamans and other medicine mans and priests do. But this is of course no proving that the biblical fairy tales are true.
The global flood is a Babylonian myth merged into the Pentateuch (Torah) but haven't left any traces of evidence in sediments, ice shelf's, no traces in archeological records and even no disruption of history records in neighboring countries.
There are no records in Egypt about an exodus, about a drowning army, no archeological traces of an entire nation camping 40 years in the Sinai desert, no traces of the 3000 slaughtered followers after dancing around the golden calf.
Jericho had no walls to crumble down during they alleged siege 1200-1100 BC, the next destroyed city with the help of mighty Yahweh was not big like Babylon but just a small nomadic encampment with max. 5 families living there and even there no traces of ancient fight is found.
Kings with which Abraham allegedly fought wars never existed during this time, and so on and on.
The virgin birth of Jesus, all his miracles like walking on water, the resurrection after 3 days, including the attributes 'the light' 'the way' 'the truth' can be found in Egypt 2000 BC as Horus son of virgin Isis myth. So even this NT is mainly the invention from Saul/Paul.
In the end the Bible is more like the Hansel and Gretel, Frog King, Sleeping beauty, Snow-white and the 7 Dwarfs and all these nice stories.
281. The Pagan Christ
Comment #138713 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 5:59 pm
322. Comment #138706 by Goldy : And are you SURE Matthew would recognize that book attributed to him?
The Gospel-2 is not even written from some person called Matthew, nobody knows who it was. Matthew is just some given name like Mark, Luke or John.
Beside this Gospel-4 from 'John' the worst Pauline PR (also the latest written earliest 95AD main guess 100AD) is written in the eyewitness 'first hand account' style despite Jesus being dead for 70 years. Also the beloved disciple is not this gospel writer called 'John' but of course James the next oldest brother of Jesus who took care of mother Mary as next in line and was new leader of the apostles until his assassination in 62AD which was the trigger for the Jewish revolt against Roman invaders. After this Simon (the Zealot) another younger brother from Jesus took over resistance movement until 106AD.
But the faithheads can't even comprehend the history of their own idol.
282. The Pagan Christ
Comment #138697 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 5:40 pm
317. Comment #138620 by albondigas : The character and the nature of God is very consistent throughout both the old and new testaments.
Consistent: The OT is an assembly of cruelties and would result in the bloodiest and worst horror movie ever made.
From the first generation expelled from Eden, the second generation brotherly killing (leaving by the way only 1 male human on earth, so humanity should grind to a hold). Next exterminating all life from earth (humans and animals beside some selected ones rescued) with the great flood.
The contractual partner for the covenant Abraham has to scarify is his son, and is just in the last second replaced with some animal coming along, Lot is rescued for being so good like offering his virgin daughters for gang rape, a sadistic God is gambling with poor victim Job, Moses let 3000 followers slain after coming down from Mt. Sinai, Then God order and hail genocide of your neighboring tribes, order to punish naughty children by stoning to death, same punishment for adultery …and on and on.
In the NT this cruelty is calming down = and this is consistent??
This quote comes from the book of Matthew and has nothing to do with any of Paul's writings.
What else is Mathew Gospel from 80AD than influenced from Paul's teaching ? A 60% copy from Gospel 1 (Mark 70AD) 20% original Jesus source 'Q' from 50AD plus adding some own Pauline propaganda.
To make a short wrap up of the last days of Jesus thinks by imitating some OT prophecies God will intervene to kick out Roman invaders and install a new kingdom on earth. So Jesus rides on an ass (actually a donkey) into Jerusalem, clear the temple form bad influence by turning over the tables of money changers and is late the evening arrested. Hanging on the cross Jesus is waiting for God's intervention to rescue him and kick out the Roman occupation forces. But God has him forsaken despite his previous actions described in OT prophecies.
The dead body is brought to a temporary burial site before Passover evening. After Passover already in the night the body is brought to the final burial tomb before 'the women' (different Gospel versions up to 3: mother Mary, Sister Salome, wife Mary Magdalena) find the empty temporary Passover tomb.
The resurrection is not found in the older original writings, Mark's Gospel is just ending that the temporary tomb is empty. Only later spin doctored additions continue with the Horus resurrection myth coming from Saul/Paul. After God failed to intervene the apostles moved frustrated home to the Galilee, and no highly motivated continuation of their struggle boosted by a resurrection.
And this Saul/Paul who never meet Jesus and just had a heatstroke and heard voices, this Saul/Paul mentioned in the dead sea scroll (Habakkuk commentaries) from the remaining apostles only the Liar because he brought in all this weird miracle stories from Horus and was ordered back to Jerusalem and nearly stoned to death from the real followers of Jesus for all his crazy inventions.
Even the next in line his brother James hardly makes it into the NT and the other short original teaching of Peter is completely 'paulinised' rewritten.
There are even scholars who question the existence of Jesus because no history record outside the Bible exists and even Josephus was not mentioning Jesus, so that a clumsy fake addition was done after Nicaea in the 4th century AD. The absence of historical records could be the purgatory of files including burning the libraries in Egypt after Nicaea, to erase all history of the real Jesus.
There are a couple of books like 'The Jesus dynasty' digging into the life of the real Jesus, or biblical history like 'The unauthorized version', 'The pagan Christ' etc.
Even books written from faithful Christians on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem who found out that the Pauline Jesus/Horus myth has nothing to do with the real historical Jesus
albondigas when would study a little history to find more out about the real Jesus, self acclaimed heir to the Davidic throne you can see that the Pauline teachings flooding the NT are totally obstructed the entire idea. So open your mind instead lying to yourself and living in a fantasy world. And before you try to search for little splinters in the eye of atheist: remove your giant log from your own eyes first!
283. Fleabytes
Comment #138267 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 5:44 am
3108. Comment #138230 by Steve Zara : see an example of ME over-reacting, check back on this site. There was a discussion on Paul Davies, and I got into a mood, and said I would take a break from the site.
I think taking a break was not because our nice exchange about the shrinking content of the "event horizon" despite expanding space where you brought Paul Davies up.
It was just that this day you were more "helicopter Steve" working and flying over several topics in parallel and missed out some points made in the post to which you replied and this additionally in the middle of your argument with NMcC:
2823. Comment #137521 by Steve Zara : Sorry (it seems to be a day for saying that!)
But good is Steve and NMcC are still around here after cooling down.
284. Fleabytes
Comment #138154 by Roland_F on March 4, 2008 at 2:15 am
3074. Comment #138148 by MPhil
Best would be first to wrap up the article with all the falsification by logical reasoning of God's Omni's on a philosophical level and spiced up with some cosmology and physics.
This we could try to place here as an article for further discussion, there are quite a number of frequent posters here supporting this idea.
The Atheist Wiki-database of arguments as handbook for refuting all kind of theist BS is a much bigger effort and a permanent refinement and actualization exercise. Of course this kind of knowledge-database must be moderated/safeguarded to avoid being high jacked and screwed up with nonsense like Wooterism.
285. Fleabytes
Comment #138088 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 10:17 pm
3054. Comment #138081 by MPhil Why 'Omnipresence' cannot apply to God
So this is more from the nonphysical feature of God to derive he can't be physically present and intervene. Also a good perspective to argue against God..
I was thinking more (or additionally) about the limitation of a physical God based on a limited speed of light, limiting information processing and control ability, plus that the accelerating expansion of the universe is permanent limiting the sphere of influence over time e.g. the 'event horizon of shrinking content (my discussion yesterday on this blog p58 with Steve Zara). So the initial 'creation' is already limiting the creators ability, plus this ability will further shrink over time in an accelerated expanding ' thinning out' universe.
I think all this arguments combined are a much more logical sound against the existence of God, rather than for example Robertson's "proof of existence" based on a 50 GBP money collection of parents for a field trip put in an envelope and anonymous donated to the trip organizer.
Maybe a combined post of these arguments should be opened as a new topic so others could share also their thoughts as own tread
286. Fleabytes
Comment #138072 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Guten Morgen MPhil,
Where is the continuation of your post 2500 ?
Next chapter of showing there can't be omnipresence and even no existence of God using logic reasoning.
See my [ 2796. Comment #137452 by Roland_F] plus some follow up posts which are drowning in the sheer mass of postings.
287. God, power and money
Comment #138066 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Really a big industry, here an example of a Philippine priest who came to fame after raising a dead. In a Canadian hospital, coming too later for the prayer the patient was already dead but after some prayer resurrected, since then father Fernando is faith healer, here some testimonial of 'healed' persons ( based on placebo effect ? )
http://www.fatherfernando.com/testimonial.shtml
And here a video about one of these faith healing session, including catching the collapsing people from his assistants, maybe not that well organized like the Hill Showtime.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6CUWrwd5z4
288. Fleabytes
Comment #137534 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 5:20 am
2832. Comment #137529 by Steve Zara So, you see, I just don't get the "decreasing" bit
Event horizon :
Increase in size over time (currently 12 Billion light-years for us)
BUT decrease in visible content based on acceleration.
So under the assumption (in continuation from MPhil ) that also God's information processing and control and influence is limited by the speed of light and this information processing and control is centralized, this means God's scope gets smaller all the time simultaneously to the decreasing content of the "event horizon".
289. Fleabytes
Comment #137527 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 4:50 am
2830. Comment #137521 by Steve Zara I just don't get the "decreasing access to information" part. But perhaps this is a bit too obscure for general reading :)
An omnipresent all knowing God has to know what's going on EVERYWHERE in the universe. And he has to process this information about all places centrally, and to act (like miracles) everywhere, ergo his sphere of influence if decreasing with time or there are many God's for every "event horizon = 1 God" and with decreasing "event horizon" there needs to be more God's all the time to cover the whole universe. I know its sound weird, is there any fallacy you see ??
Sorry (it seems to be a day for saying that!)
Never mind, I am used to exchange of arguments , and I enjoy discussing with you very much !
290. Fleabytes
Comment #137519 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 3:56 am
2823. Comment #137509 by Steve Zara : Oh I see. Is this based on the holographic principle? (The information content of the universe is proportional to its surface area, not its volume). Surely then this only means that the access to information grows less rapidly than expected, not shrinks?
Actually I don't know exactly what Paul Davies means with the growing information based on expansion which by the way you brought up not me and I am not defending P.D.'s position in any case.
I made the point that the increasing age will increase the history of information and therefore the quantity of data (check your PC had drive and you will agree), please don't interpret this as acknowledgement of Paul David's formula: size increase = information increase, which I would not agree per se.
There is some pretty weird stuff even in his most recent books
Let's say especially weird in his latest book funded from Templeton 'the Goldilocks Enigma'. Sorry can't check your 'increase of information due to increase of size' as I can't locate this book at the moment (possible forget it when returning home from Europe last week).
Ideas that the quantum entanglement (double slit experiment with remote detection devise) ensures the ability to adjust backwards in time the properties of the universe to be Goldilocks like (his scenario 'E') is very weird indeed. So don't misunderstand my post as supporting P.D's ideas. I even don't blame him for getting Templeton funding, I am not sure about his financial situation after not publishing bestselling books for 10 years, if someone offered me Millions of USD just to get the hypothesis of God stated as alternative in my book even if I can shredder this scenario to pieces I would happily cash in.
Actually the whole idea of my post was to encourage MPhil to continue his post #2500 of the logical reasoning to disprove of God, which he started for the omnipotence, and I proposed to add to disprove omnipresence and finally disprove the existence of God by logical derivation.
291. Fleabytes
Comment #137506 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 2:52 am
2815. Comment #137496 by Steve Zara : Some physicists consider that not only is the information content of the universe is increasing
Yes with the lapse of time the history record (= information content) is growing, however the ability to access this entire information of the universe gets smaller based on the shrinking content of the event horizon.
some kind of "potential processing power" goes up as the universe expands. OK, so this is the work of Paul Davies (he of the Templeton Prize), but I am not sure it is that nutty.
The Templeton sponsored book is not that bad, 2/3 a repetition of his earlier books and at the end the comparison of possible universe scenarios including scenario 'D' the deist scenario (added to gain Templeton funding) which he is actually shredder as most unlikely nonsense scenario in his book.
292. Fleabytes
Comment #137459 by Roland_F on March 3, 2008 at 12:03 am
2804. Comment #137454 by Steve Zara I don't follow your 4th point here.
Hi Steve,
This should mean that when the universe is accelerated expanding, the event horizon (currently visible area; not the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole) is size wise expanding but content wise shrinking.
So the visible part of the universe get's less and less in content e.g. Galaxies currently at the edge will be invisible some time. From this follows that there is an information and control loss of an 'almighty instance' towards zero over long time or the capabilities will be localized to a galaxy cluster.
So the information processing and control span will follow a tendency towards zero, wherever a central processing logic of 'God' might be located, God will be loosing his sphere of influence by his own design and creation of an expanding universe.
293. Fleabytes
Comment #137452 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 10:47 pm
MPHIL: with anti Aquinas I meant not the specific refutation of T.A. word games, but it meant your approach to disprove God via logical reasoning.
MPhil: 2500 we want to concentrate on the problem of "Omnipotence".
So this is only chapter 1: where is the refutation that God can not be omnipresent ?
No omnipresence as chapter 2 with topics like:
- limited speed of light : no chance to be at all places at the same time
- no chance to relay information from 1 part of the universe to another, above that speed limit
- therefore no centralized Universe wide information processing capabilities
- especially when the expansion at the edges is faster than the speed of light, e.g. the event horizon get's more limited (number of galaxies) even when increasing horizon, so knowledge and Information processing horizon gets smaller
And as chapter 3 challenge to the existence itself
- listening to prayers, decision making etc. need information processing, which itself can not be immaterial
- miracle intervention need physical presence inside the 3D space itself, even if God is assumed inside a 4D or 5D space. Still the presence is existing inside our subset of 3D space (Flatland analogy: the ball moving in 3 dimensions is still visible in 2D Flatland even if moving in D3 (up and down)
- communication like prayer towards God or instructions from God to humans needs a medium like electromagnetic waves (brainwave : scanner and instruction sender) which could be measured if existing
294. Fleabytes
Comment #137010 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 6:15 am
2500. Comment #136661 by MPhil : The Problem of Omnipotence - or how the Idea of an Omnipotent Creator is Doomed from the Outset
Ok a long Anti Aquinas.
And since the causal closure of space-time renders an interventionist supernatural deity impossible
To wrap up the long article: the intra-universal God can't be the omnipotent creator of the universe, a God who created the universe is extra-universal out of space and time and can therefore not intervene into anything which is going on inside our universe inside space-time. The only intervention possible would be to blow up our universe by starting a new fast expanding Multiverse at the same location.
So the Christian YHWH God is far from omnipotent and the Christian churches are immobilized in the entanglement of their own dogmas.
Or to borrow Winston Churchill's phrase this "needs to be protected by a bodyguard of lies" -- never mind how clumsy, crude, and colossally illogical the lies are becoming.
And Robertson is one of these fact twisting spin doctors, and far from being a good one to say it frankly.
295. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher
Comment #136982 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 4:51 am
51. Comment #136967 by AtheistJon : I don't buy the Buddhist BS anymore than the Christian.
Just in addition if my parallel post 52 hasn't answered it already: Forget the reincarnation crap but the general statements of peaceful happiness, without all this mediation and religious style surrounding, go to the core message of really deep fulfillment in spite of daily small insignificant setbacks : light-years away from the Christian misery Cult !!
296. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher
Comment #136972 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 4:42 am
44. Comment #136943 by AtheistJon : Here's a question to sum up my feelings about Buddhism. Do I need to waste my time thinking about it? If so, why?
Some personal statement : you don't have to waste your time about the Buddhist doctrine like reincarnation, or stages of meditation or the different ways of enlightenment.
But for example the book 'The Art of Happiness' or the follow up book 'The Art of Happiness at work' from the Dalai Lama and H.C. Cutler are very interesting and inspiring (even or especially) for a long term atheist like myself.
297. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher
Comment #136960 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 4:27 am
40. Comment #136932 by JanChan about Buddihist Karma: As I said, not much different from a sky daddy meeting out punishments in this life or the afterlife.
The difference here is that in Buddhism every person is itself responsible for it's own future, you can't bribe a priest, bishop, cardinal with increasing amounts to shorten your time in purgatory or abolish your sins,
You can't gain your place in eternal heaven despite being a mass murderer just as reward for holding the Catholic faith, so as Buddhist you have to 'sit out' your current accumulated Karma in the next life.
At least Buddhism is the encouragement of living and improving your current live, not the Christian 'opium for the masses' agenda of the kleptocracy-theocracy joint venture doctrine to bear all suffering as slave like peasant for the dim hope of the eternal heaven in afterlife.
Without believing all the rebirth crap, or the glorification of meditation experience of deep autohypnosis as enlightenment , I am still convinced the world would be a safer and much more peaceful place if there would be more Buddhist (Dalai Lama types) than fundamental Muslims or Christina Bible-Belt Taliban's.
298. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher
Comment #136884 by Roland_F on March 1, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Perhaps, more accurately: ...magical Mormon underpants...worthless.
No they are needed for the almighty all knowing God at the end of days, to separate the good Mormons from the bad (non Mormon) people.
Very logical: an all knowing God needs a special marker of fancy underpants to know, otherwise the all-knowing God would not know ?!?!
299. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection
Comment #136882 by Roland_F on March 1, 2008 at 11:37 pm
From then until last autumn, at a cost of around two million euros a year, she enjoyed special 24-hour Dutch police protection, even after she went to live in the US.
So 2,000,000 Euro = 3,000,000 USD per year for the next ?? years. So we are talking about 100Mio USD for the next decades forced upon the EU taxpayers because of a low cost attack on Theo Van Gogh (walking or driving a bicycle some blocks in Amsterdam and using a knife). The attack of 9/11 financed from Saudi Arabia cost them half a Million USD causing damages, disruption of global business worth hundred of Billions not to mention the reduction of civil liberty etc.
This simply tells me the Muslims are winning their game by economic means, every pretending of being offended will calm critics, every threatening letter to Islam critics will cause protection measures costing millions of USD, causing a high financial burden on 'The West'.
So before the mop will attack me here for being so heartless unemotionally and economic just 2 things:
1) Look at Darfur in Sudan: 2 million humans are threatened from (Sudan state supported) Muslim death squadrons. Hundred thousands have already died at the hand of Muslim attackers : Your reaction = ??
2) Read about the moral emotions and the on/off trigger and some of the weird economic implications if giving in. See Steven Pinker 'The blank slate' (just come along this Yesterday ; chapter 14) .
300. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher
Comment #136870 by Roland_F on March 1, 2008 at 10:51 pm
22. Comment #136864 by JanChan Talking about Buddhism, believing that some kind of invisible force that causes bad things to happen
There seems to be a misunderstanding about Buddhism : there is no invisible bad force (Evil, Devil, Satan) everything is inside and is coming from the person itself. And this person is only itself responsible for the own Karma. Accumulating good Karma allows a rebirth of the soul into a better future life of another sentient being.
And when the ultimate stage of goodness and enlightenment is reached (= Buddha hood) the cycle of endless rebirth and suffering of physical existence is reached and the soul don't have to suffer longer in physical existence and is reaching Nirvana. The Buddha statues are not for prayer or worship but can be possibly used to concentrate and focus the mind for meditation.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
