Continuing with our weekend series, we shall have a closer look at the
atheist assertion that belief in God the Creator (whom you cant see is
silly mythical nonsense).  These weekend reviews are for the serious
Seeker to ponder and not intended for the atheist who doesnt want any
personal Creator to exist, regardless.

I always find atheism quite ironic because it often asserts the very
thing which atheists hold to ;  example :  Atheists claim its silly to
believe in a Person you cannot see (the Creator of the Universe), when
their own Faith System requires belief in something that cannot be
observed either (IE: the alleged 'Big Bang' , Nothing causing the
universe to come into existence, or a 'Natural' Cause for the universe
coming into existence, first life popping into existence from dead
chemicals, accidents upon mutational accidents going from Pond Scum to
206 bone Human Beings, and Materials such as rocks,dirt, planets,
etc..giving us our personality traits that are NON material such as
love, compassion, abstract thinking, reason, etc...    ALL OF THESE
have never been observed...yet the atheist thinks its quite rational
to beleive in them !

Now...if you were to take ANY ardent atheist and stand him in front of
Mt. Rushmore  with the faces of the U.S. Presidents carved in rock and
ask him if this displays evidence of Design and Engineering...he would
immediately answer 'YES'  yet he never saw Mt. Rushmore being
constructed.  The point is,  even 'atheists'  know that Design always
implies a Designer, or, a Person .   BUT...when ones personal autonomy
and need for lifestyle authority is challenged , as with a personal
moral intelligent Designer required for the Universe....suddenly  its
supposed to make perfect sense that the enormous complex design and
engineering needed for this Universe to exist speciifically for earth
to exist for us to live on it....was all just caused by 'random
accidents naturally'  ... as if the universe doesnt show anything
special in its construction and operation. And suddenly, the
'atheist'  cant be bothered to allow his fingers to google the massive
scientific evidence for the 250 plus Physics Constants
(www.reasons.org/design evidences)  which are ALL required,
simultaneously, and working in perfect unison... which is the clearcut
emphirical evidence that they so often ask for !   Gee,  I wonder what
is truly behind this psychology and rationale of 'the atheist' ?!
The Bible in Romans 1:18-22  makes it very very clear what its really
all about :  That NO ONE is without excuse for denying a personal
intelligent Creator for this Universe because of the Design evidence
he has left behind for all to witness and know more about.  And the
reason the Creator is rejected, is purely based on personal
philosophical reasons thereby justifying ones desire to personal
lifestyle freedom., unencumbered.    And there we have the real motive
behind atheism ;  its not for lack of evidence, rather, its for
preservation of maximum lifestyle freedom (often encompassing sexual
immorality).

If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and functions like a
Duck...then it IS a Duck ;   yet famous atheist Guru Dr. Dawkins keeps
reminding his followers 'not to be fooled when you look at the
evidence even though it looks like it required Intelligence for its
Design ; (and) we must keep telling ourselves that it didnt' .   This
Mantra is echoed thousands of times per day by atheists in an attempt
not to believe (yet they do) ;  thus ,  the personal charade goes
forward, for,  as one leading Evolutionist said :'We cannot allow the
foot of the Divine thru the door' .

Join us next weekend as we examine why atheism is not only
scientifically unsupported, but quite personally dishonest .

Dave
Former 'atheist' of 10 plus years.

nothing here

On May 30, 9:26 am, Ken  wrote:
> nothing here

REPLY:  Nothing of interest to the 'atheist' who already had his mind
made up around the age of 10 when he started to desire total
autonomy , regardless.

Not many 10 year olds have sufficient maturity to appreciate that gods
are just the invention of mankind.  Children are inclined to believe
what they are told by those in authority and it is only as they grow up
that they realise that much of what they have been told is false.  

Has anyone ceased to believe in gods because of a desire for personal
freedom in their social life?  It is yet another non sequitur but the
idiot seems to be driven by his personal aberrations and fears.

Does the idiot not realise that it is lack of belief in gods, as a
result of the total absence of any credible evidence for their
existence, which characterises atheism and that there is no ulterior
motive for such disbelief.

-- 
********
David WG
********

a écrit dans le message de news: 
9a113ea1-a6fe-43ef-a176-c78c7bb28113@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

<(snip usual drivel from DILV)>

"Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that 
man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of 
human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born 
of ignorant assurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitates his 
master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."

from  "Some Reasons Why" (Ingersoll), 1881

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
31303030313034394840433011@zetnet.co.uk...
| Not many 10 year olds have sufficient maturity to appreciate that gods
| are just the invention of mankind.  Children are inclined to believe
| what they are told by those in authority and it is only as they grow up
| that they realise that much of what they have been told is false.

Yes, exactly. I realised how ludicrous it was when I was 13.

| Has anyone ceased to believe in gods because of a desire for personal
| freedom in their social life?  It is yet another non sequitur but the
| idiot seems to be driven by his personal aberrations and fears.

Absolutely not, and I have never come across a single atheist with that 
motivation.

| Does the idiot not realise that it is lack of belief in gods, as a
| result of the total absence of any credible evidence for their
| existence, which characterises atheism and that there is no ulterior
| motive for such disbelief.

Apparently not.

pga

On May 30, 6:56 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:

Snipped the usual drivel from DILV


"Religion is the opiate of the people"
Karl Marx 1843

"What can us atheists use to get loaded?"
Ken 2008

wrote

> (IE: the alleged 'Big Bang' , Nothing causing the
> universe to come into existence, or a 'Natural' Cause for the universe
> coming into existence,

The Big Bang is the event which caused the Universe so it is not 'Nothing'.

How do you account for the three major pieces of evidence supporting the Big 
Bang?

Just because you are too thick to understand even basic things, like the 
difference between 'co-founder' and 'co-discoverer', doesn't mean that 
complicated things can't happen.

Your premise is that we can't see God, but it is that we find no evidence at 
all of a God. We do have good evidence for the Big Bang. We do have evidence 
for the age and development of the Earth and the life upon. Speciation has 
been observed! Science has triumphed in finding a lot of the answers about 
life. Probably most of it was achieved by religious people, so to dismiss it 
as atheist ideas is utter nonsense. But that's all we can expect of you, 
isn't it? You have provided no evidence for your silly claims. There is more 
evidence for the Big Bang than for anything you have ever said.

Steve M

On May 30, 12:10 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
wrote:
> Not many 10 year olds have sufficient maturity to appreciate that gods
> are just the invention of mankind.  Children are inclined to believe
> what they are told by those in authority and it is only as they grow up
> that they realise that much of what they have been told is false.  
>
> Has anyone ceased to believe in gods because of a desire for personal
> freedom in their social life?  It is yet another non sequitur but the
> idiot seems to be driven by his personal aberrations and fears.
>
> Does the idiot not realise that it is lack of belief in gods, as a
> result of the total absence of any credible evidence for their
> existence, which characterises atheism and that there is no ulterior
> motive for such disbelief.
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:  David,  You sure arnt going to rationally explain the
precision of the Universe by appealing to accidents and 'Nothing'  !
Its far more likely that first life came about by accident than the
Universe and its 250  anthropics...but .... according to atheist Dr.
Crick, youre looking at something far greater than 10^40,000  ;   now
thats FAITH man !!!    Have you got that much David ?!

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 30, 12:10 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths 
> wrote:
>> Not many 10 year olds have sufficient maturity to appreciate that
>> gods are just the invention of mankind. Children are inclined to
>> believe what they are told by those in authority and it is only as
>> they grow up that they realise that much of what they have been told
>> is false.
>>
>> Has anyone ceased to believe in gods because of a desire for personal
>> freedom in their social life? It is yet another non sequitur but the
>> idiot seems to be driven by his personal aberrations and fears.
>>
>> Does the idiot not realise that it is lack of belief in gods, as a
>> result of the total absence of any credible evidence for their
>> existence, which characterises atheism and that there is no ulterior
>> motive for such disbelief.
>>
>> --
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
>
> REPLY:  David,  You sure arnt going to rationally explain the
> precision of the Universe by appealing to accidents and 'Nothing'  !
> Its far more likely that first life came about by accident than the
> Universe and its 250 + anthropics...but .... according to atheist Dr.
> Crick, youre looking at something far greater than 10^40,000  ;   now
> thats FAITH man !!!    Have you got that much David ?!

Please explain what is meant by terms such as "the precision of the 
universe": I don't want to hear parroted bullshit about two million 
parameters or whatever unintelligible shite that the reply usually contains: 
I want to hear what DiLV personally understands that so convinces him, if 
indeed he is capable of understanding anything. If I wanted to hear a pack 
of lies and a load of crap I'd visit fundy websites myself.

- So Dimwit; in *your* *own* *words* using your *own* *thoughts*, if such 
things exist, convince me in the face of overwhelming evidence that 
creationism has got it right. If you can't then admit it and be honest for 
once in your life. I await with cynicism the first logical piece of credible 
evidence in support of your case...

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:


> I await with cynicism the first logical piece of credible 
> evidence in support of your case...
> 

You've got a lot of time, have you?

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  David,  You sure arnt going to rationally explain the
> precision of the Universe by appealing to accidents and 'Nothing'  !
> Its far more likely that first life came about by accident than the
> Universe and its 250 + anthropics

More invalid argument from ignorance/incredulity?

 >
>...but .... according to atheist Dr.
> Crick, youre looking at something far greater than 10^40,000  ;   now
> thats FAITH man !!!    Have you got that much David ?!

We don't need your sort of blind faith.

Read why your assessment is plain wrong, written by people who 
understand their subject (and not "quote mined" out of context, as 
your number above):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

We can all see the real reason you (and all creationists) deny the 
scientific fact - as soon as you acknowledge it as fact, your fairy 
belief goes up in smoke.

Pouffe!

regards, Ian

X-No-Archive: yes

"Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:gt6dnf5HUME2P93VRVnyhQA@bt.com...
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:



>> REPLY:  David,  You sure arnt going to rationally explain the
>> precision of the Universe by appealing to accidents and 'Nothing'  !
>> Its far more likely that first life came about by accident than the
>> Universe and its 250 + anthropics...but .... according to atheist Dr.
>> Crick, youre looking at something far greater than 10^40,000  ;   now
>> thats FAITH man !!!    Have you got that much David ?!




> - So Dimwit; in *your* *own* *words* using your *own* *thoughts*, if such 
> things exist, convince me in the face of overwhelming evidence that 
> creationism has got it right.


...but he cannot do that......
He cannot,  because firstly, there is no evidence for a creator and 
adherents to such an ideology can only ever have  *irrational* faith.
Such faith, whilst for some may be explainable, is not evidenced.  It is, by 
definition (only)  'faith'.
However,  more to the point of your question, dilv is incapable of rational, 
intellectual cohesive thought......  he just isn't.
I'm not sure which way round this works, whether this type of nonsensical 
beliefs attract those without certain intellectual capabilities, or whether 
the intellectually challenged form together and create the nonsensical 
belief system.  Or perhaps a modicum of both...
dilv is not able,  actually due to lack of sufficient evolution (!) - 
hmm...... I wonder if this is a root cause of the inability to question 
information given to him - to be objective about his belief system, he's in 
it and that's that.  He re-enforces his beliefs with fundamental preaching 
and fundamental websites that are deeply disingenuous and the worst of all 
situations is that he (along with his 'puppet masters') is trying to support 
his irrationality with scientific questioning - and extremely mistaken and 
bad scientific questioning at that.
You could spend your life running around behind dilv providing data, 
research, evidence, facts and even probability assumptions to counter 
rubbish just plucked out of the air by ignorant, myopic faith adherents.  As 
Dawkins says,  just because someone asks a question doesn't make that 
question of any value worth replying to.....    and so it is with dilv.  His 
assertions about evolution are so ridiculous and inconsistent with modern 
knowledge that the questions that derive from the base false premise are not 
worth answering...... even if you have the time to do so.
Worse, he is unable to 'step outside' himself to look back in at the image 
he exports and portrays.  An image that re-enforces incredibly the notion 
that fundamentals like dilv are incapable of personal rationalisation and 
free thought relying upon a (ancient...) dogma built upon quicksand which is 
rapidly sinking from the fountain of knowledge...



Mark

The message 
from "mark"  contains these words:

>  His 
> assertions about evolution are so ridiculous and inconsistent with modern 
> knowledge that the questions that derive from the base false premise
> are not 
> worth answering...... even if you have the time to do so.
> Worse, he is unable to 'step outside' himself to look back in at the image 
> he exports and portrays.  An image that re-enforces incredibly the notion 
> that fundamentals like dilv are incapable of personal rationalisation and 
> free thought relying upon a (ancient...) dogma built upon quicksand
> which is 
> rapidly sinking from the fountain of knowledge...

The current pc terms are 'learning difficulties' or 'intellectually
challenged'.  Persons so affected sometimes reach a state of invincible
ignorance where they cannot tell the difference between fiction and fact
and can only parrot endlessly the trivia and nonsense they have been fed
with.  I think we are seeing a classic example.

-- 
********
David WG
********

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> The message 
> from "mark"  contains these words:
> 
>>  His 
>> assertions about evolution are so ridiculous and inconsistent with modern 
>> knowledge that the questions that derive from the base false premise
>> are not 
>> worth answering...... even if you have the time to do so.
>> Worse, he is unable to 'step outside' himself to look back in at the image 
>> he exports and portrays.  An image that re-enforces incredibly the notion 
>> that fundamentals like dilv are incapable of personal rationalisation and 
>> free thought relying upon a (ancient...) dogma built upon quicksand
>> which is 
>> rapidly sinking from the fountain of knowledge...
> 
> The current pc terms are 'learning difficulties' or 'intellectually
> challenged'.  Persons so affected sometimes reach a state of invincible
> ignorance where they cannot tell the difference between fiction and fact
> and can only parrot endlessly the trivia and nonsense they have been fed
> with.  I think we are seeing a classic example.
> 

I think that Dave is more likely suffering from a group re-enforced 
delusion, where the completely preposterous can be believed provided 
you are surrounded by a large group of others chanting the same 
mumbo-jumbo.

regards, Ian

On May 31, 6:47 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> > The message 
> > from "mark"  contains these words:
>
> >>  His
> >> assertions about evolution are so ridiculous and inconsistent with modern
> >> knowledge that the questions that derive from the base false premise
> >> are not
> >> worth answering...... even if you have the time to do so.
> >> Worse, he is unable to 'step outside' himself to look back in at the image
> >> he exports and portrays.  An image that re-enforces incredibly the notion
> >> that fundamentals like dilv are incapable of personal rationalisation and
> >> free thought relying upon a (ancient...) dogma built upon quicksand
> >> which is
> >> rapidly sinking from the fountain of knowledge...
>
> > The current pc terms are 'learning difficulties' or 'intellectually
> > challenged'.  Persons so affected sometimes reach a state of invincible
> > ignorance where they cannot tell the difference between fiction and fact> > and can only parrot endlessly the trivia and nonsense they have been fed> > with.  I think we are seeing a classic example.
>
> I think that Dave is more likely suffering from a group re-enforced
> delusion, where the completely preposterous can be believed provided
>than  you are surrounded by a large group of others chanting the same
> mumbo-jumbo.
>
> regards, Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  Youll always be able to round up support for defamation
attempts Ian, but,  I KNOW none of the Fellas in this NG really have
honest faith in accidents thru naturalism . You cannot make a bigger
mistake in your life than to maintain your pride and totally turn from
the Creator.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Youll always be able to round up support for defamation
> attempts Ian, but,  I KNOW none of the Fellas in this NG really have
> honest faith in accidents thru naturalism . You cannot make a bigger
> mistake in your life than to maintain your pride and totally turn from
> the Creator.

Then all you have to is to provide the real positive evidence for 
your god!

regards, Ian

The message <JfydnTuECt5V39zVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from Ian Smith  contains these words:

"You cannot make a bigger mistake in your life than to maintain your
pride and  totally turn from the Creator."

A far more serious mistake is to think that there ever was any form of
creator!

-- 
********
David WG
********

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> REPLY:  Youll always be able to round up support for defamation
> attempts Ian

No-one is attempting to defame or insult you - well not me, it 
certainly isn't my style. However - I do think that my comments are 
fully justified.

I'm not sure how else we can regard your views but delusional. You 
seem to believe in a quite preposterous - literally "contrary to 
nature, reason, or sense" - notion, that there exists a magical 
entity that created everything and that this entity makes certain 
specific demands of us in the way we live our lives.

You seem incapable of providing even the most flimsy supporting 
evidence for these views (other than the "arguments from 
incredulity" which don't in any way provide any support for your own 
position).

You provide no evidence for why your "creating entity" is any more 
credible than any other (Thor, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Athena, 
... Jupiter, Mars, Minerva ...aliens in flying saucers etc etc) that 
are almost universally acknowledged to be mythical. All your 
arguments seem to fall under the "argument from 
ignorance/incredulity" which, even if we accepted them, would still 
leave an infinite number of possible alternative explanations to 
your own.

Even if we were to accept your incredulity arguments (we don't, as 
they simply don't stand up), we may as well prostrate ourselves in 
front of the nearest teapot and beg forgiveness.

So, demonstrate that you hold your views for a rational reason - 
i.e. that you have adequate information to show that your god is real.

Otherwise, we can take it that we are correct in assuming that you 
hold your views because it is an easy option within your local 
culture (i.e. a group re-enforced delusion) and that you find it 
warm, re-assuring and supportive, don't care if it is mythology and 
don't wish to see it challenged by considering the facts.

Let's have no more carping about defamation - you are one who comes 
here to voice these strange ideas. So, provide the real positive 
evidence for your own views or be seen publicly to have abdicated 
your position in the same way that you appear to have already 
abdicated all logic and reason.

regards, Ian

The message <iLydndyr6emw_dzVnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@plusnet>
from Ian Smith  contains these words:

> Let's have no more carping about defamation - you are one who comes 
> here to voice these strange ideas. So, provide the real positive 
> evidence for your own views or be seen publicly to have abdicated 
> your position in the same way that you appear to have already 
> abdicated all logic and reason.

It is odd that someone should want to proselytise to atheists on the
basis of a faith for which he can provide no credible evidence and
cannot defend on any logical basis.  It can only lead to ridicule and if
this upsets him then his easy remedy is to desist from posting here.

-- 
********
David WG
********

"Steve Marshall"  wrote

> How do you account for the three major pieces of evidence supporting the 
> Big Bang?

Yet again we don't get any response to difficult questions.

Forget replying to the troll. (At all!) It is utterly pointless.

Steve M