Discussion:
Where is the Soul?
(too old to reply)
Budikka666
2007-10-16 23:36:59 UTC
Permalink
The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
apart:
http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8

The article begins with "Kate Bainbridge, a twenty-six-year-old
schoolteacher who had become comatose after a flulike illness, and was
eventually diagnosed as being in what neurologists call a vegetative
state."

Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist began studying patients like
Bainbridge. When he put her in a PET (positron-emission tomography)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
scanner and showed her pictures of her family, it seemed to generate a
response in the fusiform gyrus portion of her brain that was exactly
like that of a so-called "normal" person.

Rather than throw his hands up and praise god for a miracle like any
creationist or ID advocate would, Owen pursued the scientific method.
Because apparent image recognition might be an unreliable guide to
brain activity, Owen experimented with auditory stimuli rather than
visual, and switched to using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
imaging)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
scanner. He also fed the patients ambiguous sentences - one might
begin: "The shell was" leading the patient to think it was going to be
about a sea shell, but it would end with "fired at the tank" changing
the context entirely.

Since vegetative states are pretty much the end of the line, Owen
found only two people out of all those he tested who seemed to give an
appropriate response to this switch in meaning. To these two, he gave
the auditory request that they imagine they were playing a sport -
with Bainbridge it was tennis, with the other patient, soccer.
Bainbridge "produced a beautiful activation, indistinguishable from
those of the group of normal volunteers". The other patient responded
similarly.

The article goes on to discuss how poorly we have been able to define
consciousness, and therefore to determine whether it is present or
absent in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury

Such patients have been effectively written off when, in fact, they
were able to recover to an extent with appropriate external
stimulation:
"[Joseph Giacino] recalled making rounds at the institute with two
eminent neurologists and stopping at the bedside of a woman who had
had a brain hemorrhage. The neurologists examined the woman, who lay
with her eyes half closed and did not respond to the doctors'
commands. The neurologists concluded that she was in a vegetative
state. 'So I sort of sheepishly said, 'Let me show you what happens
when we stimulate her,' Giacino recalled. He had been using a
technique called 'deep-pressure stimulation,' which involves squeezing
a patient's muscles with force and precision. Giacino started with the
woman's face and worked his way down to her toes, pinching her muscles
between his fingers. As he explained, the nerve endings of the muscles
send impulses to the brain stem, which relays them to other brain
structures and rouses the patient to consciousness. 'I did a cycle of
deep-pressure stimulation, and within a minute or so she was talking
to us,' Giacino said. 'The neurologists were flabbergasted.' The woman
was able to say her name and her husband's name, and answer simple
questions, such as 'Is there a cup at your bedside?' After a few
minutes, however, she became unresponsive again.

Another patient had electrodes implanted in his brain. "When the
electrodes were turned on in the man's thalamus, his speech improved,
his movements became more fluid, and he was able to chew and swallow.
When the researchers turned off the electrical stimulation, the man
soon relapsed. He is now being given regular doses of electrical
stimulation and is able to speak in short sentences and to chew and
swallow."

Prayer, Bible reading, divine revelation - none of it has led to a
single revelations about these people.

Scientific study, on the other hand, has led to interesting
discoveries. One of these is that the brain seems to be a series of
discrete modules, all of which have to be up and running before
consciousness can truly be present. This division of labor is shown
in people said to have "blindsight".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

Such people may be unable to register items in one field of vision
(say on their left) but acquire them clearly in the other. On such
patient was shown two identical pictures of a house, one for each eye,
except that one house had flames coming from it. The patient reported
seeing no difference between the houses, but when asked in which she
would prefer to live, almost always chose the house that wasn't
burning. This indicated that the information was being processed, but
at a subconscious level.

The question behind all this is: where is the soul?

If the soul is unable to influence us in any way whatsoever, then it
is meaningless and a complete waste of time and thought. Indeed, the
soul cannot even be said to meaningfully inhabit the body if it cannot
interact with it in any way.

On the other hand, if there is a soul which does interact with our
physical body, then why has it never been discovered?

There are those simpletons who would argue that the soul does indeed
interact, but its interaction is below the threshold of humanity's
ability to detect it.

Yeah, right. God is always just around the corner! No matter how
many corners are flooded with illumination by the brilliant light of
science, he's always around the next one.

But guess what? If the soul is undetectable, by what occult criterion
do they even pretend to claim that they have one?

Clearly, either there is no soul or it isn't able to influence us, or
control us, or make any effort on our behalf, or even pretend it can
make up for deficits, either mental or physical. Part of the brain
goes missing, so does part of our personality. There is no soul to
fill in the gap, to take over, to pick up the slack. We're entirely
physical and only physical according to the best evidence we have
available.

Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
either?

Budikka
Bill M
2007-10-16 18:44:42 UTC
Permalink
SOUND SCIENCE AND REASONING BUT IT WILL BE REJECTED BY PEOPLE WITH THEIR
HEADS TUCK IN THEIR RELIGION.

"Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:***@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
> apart:
> http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
>
> The article begins with "Kate Bainbridge, a twenty-six-year-old
> schoolteacher who had become comatose after a flulike illness, and was
> eventually diagnosed as being in what neurologists call a vegetative
> state."
>
> Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist began studying patients like
> Bainbridge. When he put her in a PET (positron-emission tomography)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
> scanner and showed her pictures of her family, it seemed to generate a
> response in the fusiform gyrus portion of her brain that was exactly
> like that of a so-called "normal" person.
>
> Rather than throw his hands up and praise god for a miracle like any
> creationist or ID advocate would, Owen pursued the scientific method.
> Because apparent image recognition might be an unreliable guide to
> brain activity, Owen experimented with auditory stimuli rather than
> visual, and switched to using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
> imaging)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
> scanner. He also fed the patients ambiguous sentences - one might
> begin: "The shell was" leading the patient to think it was going to be
> about a sea shell, but it would end with "fired at the tank" changing
> the context entirely.
>
> Since vegetative states are pretty much the end of the line, Owen
> found only two people out of all those he tested who seemed to give an
> appropriate response to this switch in meaning. To these two, he gave
> the auditory request that they imagine they were playing a sport -
> with Bainbridge it was tennis, with the other patient, soccer.
> Bainbridge "produced a beautiful activation, indistinguishable from
> those of the group of normal volunteers". The other patient responded
> similarly.
>
> The article goes on to discuss how poorly we have been able to define
> consciousness, and therefore to determine whether it is present or
> absent in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
>
> Such patients have been effectively written off when, in fact, they
> were able to recover to an extent with appropriate external
> stimulation:
> "[Joseph Giacino] recalled making rounds at the institute with two
> eminent neurologists and stopping at the bedside of a woman who had
> had a brain hemorrhage. The neurologists examined the woman, who lay
> with her eyes half closed and did not respond to the doctors'
> commands. The neurologists concluded that she was in a vegetative
> state. 'So I sort of sheepishly said, 'Let me show you what happens
> when we stimulate her,' Giacino recalled. He had been using a
> technique called 'deep-pressure stimulation,' which involves squeezing
> a patient's muscles with force and precision. Giacino started with the
> woman's face and worked his way down to her toes, pinching her muscles
> between his fingers. As he explained, the nerve endings of the muscles
> send impulses to the brain stem, which relays them to other brain
> structures and rouses the patient to consciousness. 'I did a cycle of
> deep-pressure stimulation, and within a minute or so she was talking
> to us,' Giacino said. 'The neurologists were flabbergasted.' The woman
> was able to say her name and her husband's name, and answer simple
> questions, such as 'Is there a cup at your bedside?' After a few
> minutes, however, she became unresponsive again.
>
> Another patient had electrodes implanted in his brain. "When the
> electrodes were turned on in the man's thalamus, his speech improved,
> his movements became more fluid, and he was able to chew and swallow.
> When the researchers turned off the electrical stimulation, the man
> soon relapsed. He is now being given regular doses of electrical
> stimulation and is able to speak in short sentences and to chew and
> swallow."
>
> Prayer, Bible reading, divine revelation - none of it has led to a
> single revelations about these people.
>
> Scientific study, on the other hand, has led to interesting
> discoveries. One of these is that the brain seems to be a series of
> discrete modules, all of which have to be up and running before
> consciousness can truly be present. This division of labor is shown
> in people said to have "blindsight".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
>
> Such people may be unable to register items in one field of vision
> (say on their left) but acquire them clearly in the other. On such
> patient was shown two identical pictures of a house, one for each eye,
> except that one house had flames coming from it. The patient reported
> seeing no difference between the houses, but when asked in which she
> would prefer to live, almost always chose the house that wasn't
> burning. This indicated that the information was being processed, but
> at a subconscious level.
>
> The question behind all this is: where is the soul?
>
> If the soul is unable to influence us in any way whatsoever, then it
> is meaningless and a complete waste of time and thought. Indeed, the
> soul cannot even be said to meaningfully inhabit the body if it cannot
> interact with it in any way.
>
> On the other hand, if there is a soul which does interact with our
> physical body, then why has it never been discovered?
>
> There are those simpletons who would argue that the soul does indeed
> interact, but its interaction is below the threshold of humanity's
> ability to detect it.
>
> Yeah, right. God is always just around the corner! No matter how
> many corners are flooded with illumination by the brilliant light of
> science, he's always around the next one.
>
> But guess what? If the soul is undetectable, by what occult criterion
> do they even pretend to claim that they have one?
>
> Clearly, either there is no soul or it isn't able to influence us, or
> control us, or make any effort on our behalf, or even pretend it can
> make up for deficits, either mental or physical. Part of the brain
> goes missing, so does part of our personality. There is no soul to
> fill in the gap, to take over, to pick up the slack. We're entirely
> physical and only physical according to the best evidence we have
> available.
>
> Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> either?
>
> Budikka
>
Bill M
2007-10-16 19:53:18 UTC
Permalink
The soul only exists in the imaginations of religionists. They put it there
to overcome their panic fear of the finality of death!

"Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:***@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
> apart:
> http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
>
> The article begins with "Kate Bainbridge, a twenty-six-year-old
> schoolteacher who had become comatose after a flulike illness, and was
> eventually diagnosed as being in what neurologists call a vegetative
> state."
>
> Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist began studying patients like
> Bainbridge. When he put her in a PET (positron-emission tomography)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
> scanner and showed her pictures of her family, it seemed to generate a
> response in the fusiform gyrus portion of her brain that was exactly
> like that of a so-called "normal" person.
>
> Rather than throw his hands up and praise god for a miracle like any
> creationist or ID advocate would, Owen pursued the scientific method.
> Because apparent image recognition might be an unreliable guide to
> brain activity, Owen experimented with auditory stimuli rather than
> visual, and switched to using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
> imaging)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
> scanner. He also fed the patients ambiguous sentences - one might
> begin: "The shell was" leading the patient to think it was going to be
> about a sea shell, but it would end with "fired at the tank" changing
> the context entirely.
>
> Since vegetative states are pretty much the end of the line, Owen
> found only two people out of all those he tested who seemed to give an
> appropriate response to this switch in meaning. To these two, he gave
> the auditory request that they imagine they were playing a sport -
> with Bainbridge it was tennis, with the other patient, soccer.
> Bainbridge "produced a beautiful activation, indistinguishable from
> those of the group of normal volunteers". The other patient responded
> similarly.
>
> The article goes on to discuss how poorly we have been able to define
> consciousness, and therefore to determine whether it is present or
> absent in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
>
> Such patients have been effectively written off when, in fact, they
> were able to recover to an extent with appropriate external
> stimulation:
> "[Joseph Giacino] recalled making rounds at the institute with two
> eminent neurologists and stopping at the bedside of a woman who had
> had a brain hemorrhage. The neurologists examined the woman, who lay
> with her eyes half closed and did not respond to the doctors'
> commands. The neurologists concluded that she was in a vegetative
> state. 'So I sort of sheepishly said, 'Let me show you what happens
> when we stimulate her,' Giacino recalled. He had been using a
> technique called 'deep-pressure stimulation,' which involves squeezing
> a patient's muscles with force and precision. Giacino started with the
> woman's face and worked his way down to her toes, pinching her muscles
> between his fingers. As he explained, the nerve endings of the muscles
> send impulses to the brain stem, which relays them to other brain
> structures and rouses the patient to consciousness. 'I did a cycle of
> deep-pressure stimulation, and within a minute or so she was talking
> to us,' Giacino said. 'The neurologists were flabbergasted.' The woman
> was able to say her name and her husband's name, and answer simple
> questions, such as 'Is there a cup at your bedside?' After a few
> minutes, however, she became unresponsive again.
>
> Another patient had electrodes implanted in his brain. "When the
> electrodes were turned on in the man's thalamus, his speech improved,
> his movements became more fluid, and he was able to chew and swallow.
> When the researchers turned off the electrical stimulation, the man
> soon relapsed. He is now being given regular doses of electrical
> stimulation and is able to speak in short sentences and to chew and
> swallow."
>
> Prayer, Bible reading, divine revelation - none of it has led to a
> single revelations about these people.
>
> Scientific study, on the other hand, has led to interesting
> discoveries. One of these is that the brain seems to be a series of
> discrete modules, all of which have to be up and running before
> consciousness can truly be present. This division of labor is shown
> in people said to have "blindsight".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
>
> Such people may be unable to register items in one field of vision
> (say on their left) but acquire them clearly in the other. On such
> patient was shown two identical pictures of a house, one for each eye,
> except that one house had flames coming from it. The patient reported
> seeing no difference between the houses, but when asked in which she
> would prefer to live, almost always chose the house that wasn't
> burning. This indicated that the information was being processed, but
> at a subconscious level.
>
> The question behind all this is: where is the soul?
>
> If the soul is unable to influence us in any way whatsoever, then it
> is meaningless and a complete waste of time and thought. Indeed, the
> soul cannot even be said to meaningfully inhabit the body if it cannot
> interact with it in any way.
>
> On the other hand, if there is a soul which does interact with our
> physical body, then why has it never been discovered?
>
> There are those simpletons who would argue that the soul does indeed
> interact, but its interaction is below the threshold of humanity's
> ability to detect it.
>
> Yeah, right. God is always just around the corner! No matter how
> many corners are flooded with illumination by the brilliant light of
> science, he's always around the next one.
>
> But guess what? If the soul is undetectable, by what occult criterion
> do they even pretend to claim that they have one?
>
> Clearly, either there is no soul or it isn't able to influence us, or
> control us, or make any effort on our behalf, or even pretend it can
> make up for deficits, either mental or physical. Part of the brain
> goes missing, so does part of our personality. There is no soul to
> fill in the gap, to take over, to pick up the slack. We're entirely
> physical and only physical according to the best evidence we have
> available.
>
> Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> either?
>
> Budikka
>
Budikka666
2007-10-17 22:35:45 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 2:53 pm, "Bill M" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The soul only exists in the imaginations of religionists. They put it there
> to overcome their panic fear of the finality of death!
>
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:***@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The New Yorker has a fascinating article about how the mind can fall
> > apart:
> >http://tinyurl.com/yrv4a8
>
> > The article begins with "Kate Bainbridge, a twenty-six-year-old
> > schoolteacher who had become comatose after a flulike illness, and was
> > eventually diagnosed as being in what neurologists call a vegetative
> > state."
>
> > Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist began studying patients like
> > Bainbridge. When he put her in a PET (positron-emission tomography)
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
> > scanner and showed her pictures of her family, it seemed to generate a
> > response in the fusiform gyrus portion of her brain that was exactly
> > like that of a so-called "normal" person.
>
> > Rather than throw his hands up and praise god for a miracle like any
> > creationist or ID advocate would, Owen pursued the scientific method.
> > Because apparent image recognition might be an unreliable guide to
> > brain activity, Owen experimented with auditory stimuli rather than
> > visual, and switched to using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance
> > imaging)
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
> > scanner. He also fed the patients ambiguous sentences - one might
> > begin: "The shell was" leading the patient to think it was going to be
> > about a sea shell, but it would end with "fired at the tank" changing
> > the context entirely.
>
> > Since vegetative states are pretty much the end of the line, Owen
> > found only two people out of all those he tested who seemed to give an
> > appropriate response to this switch in meaning. To these two, he gave
> > the auditory request that they imagine they were playing a sport -
> > with Bainbridge it was tennis, with the other patient, soccer.
> > Bainbridge "produced a beautiful activation, indistinguishable from
> > those of the group of normal volunteers". The other patient responded
> > similarly.
>
> > The article goes on to discuss how poorly we have been able to define
> > consciousness, and therefore to determine whether it is present or
> > absent in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
>
> > Such patients have been effectively written off when, in fact, they
> > were able to recover to an extent with appropriate external
> > stimulation:
> > "[Joseph Giacino] recalled making rounds at the institute with two
> > eminent neurologists and stopping at the bedside of a woman who had
> > had a brain hemorrhage. The neurologists examined the woman, who lay
> > with her eyes half closed and did not respond to the doctors'
> > commands. The neurologists concluded that she was in a vegetative
> > state. 'So I sort of sheepishly said, 'Let me show you what happens
> > when we stimulate her,' Giacino recalled. He had been using a
> > technique called 'deep-pressure stimulation,' which involves squeezing
> > a patient's muscles with force and precision. Giacino started with the
> > woman's face and worked his way down to her toes, pinching her muscles
> > between his fingers. As he explained, the nerve endings of the muscles
> > send impulses to the brain stem, which relays them to other brain
> > structures and rouses the patient to consciousness. 'I did a cycle of
> > deep-pressure stimulation, and within a minute or so she was talking
> > to us,' Giacino said. 'The neurologists were flabbergasted.' The woman
> > was able to say her name and her husband's name, and answer simple
> > questions, such as 'Is there a cup at your bedside?' After a few
> > minutes, however, she became unresponsive again.
>
> > Another patient had electrodes implanted in his brain. "When the
> > electrodes were turned on in the man's thalamus, his speech improved,
> > his movements became more fluid, and he was able to chew and swallow.
> > When the researchers turned off the electrical stimulation, the man
> > soon relapsed. He is now being given regular doses of electrical
> > stimulation and is able to speak in short sentences and to chew and
> > swallow."
>
> > Prayer, Bible reading, divine revelation - none of it has led to a
> > single revelations about these people.
>
> > Scientific study, on the other hand, has led to interesting
> > discoveries. One of these is that the brain seems to be a series of
> > discrete modules, all of which have to be up and running before
> > consciousness can truly be present. This division of labor is shown
> > in people said to have "blindsight".
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
>
> > Such people may be unable to register items in one field of vision
> > (say on their left) but acquire them clearly in the other. On such
> > patient was shown two identical pictures of a house, one for each eye,
> > except that one house had flames coming from it. The patient reported
> > seeing no difference between the houses, but when asked in which she
> > would prefer to live, almost always chose the house that wasn't
> > burning. This indicated that the information was being processed, but
> > at a subconscious level.
>
> > The question behind all this is: where is the soul?
>
> > If the soul is unable to influence us in any way whatsoever, then it
> > is meaningless and a complete waste of time and thought. Indeed, the
> > soul cannot even be said to meaningfully inhabit the body if it cannot
> > interact with it in any way.
>
> > On the other hand, if there is a soul which does interact with our
> > physical body, then why has it never been discovered?
>
> > There are those simpletons who would argue that the soul does indeed
> > interact, but its interaction is below the threshold of humanity's
> > ability to detect it.
>
> > Yeah, right. God is always just around the corner! No matter how
> > many corners are flooded with illumination by the brilliant light of
> > science, he's always around the next one.
>
> > But guess what? If the soul is undetectable, by what occult criterion
> > do they even pretend to claim that they have one?
>
> > Clearly, either there is no soul or it isn't able to influence us, or
> > control us, or make any effort on our behalf, or even pretend it can
> > make up for deficits, either mental or physical. Part of the brain
> > goes missing, so does part of our personality. There is no soul to
> > fill in the gap, to take over, to pick up the slack. We're entirely
> > physical and only physical according to the best evidence we have
> > available.
>
> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > either?
>
> > Budikka

An' they got no *soul*, man!

Budikka
p***@hotmail.com
2007-10-20 17:31:33 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:

snippy

> Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> either?

Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.

http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/

<g>

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
chibiabos
2007-10-21 17:18:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> snippy
>
> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > either?
>
> Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/

Last night he was in Santa Barbara County. I finally got to see B.B.
King live. This is one incredible 82-year-old gentleman. He could only
play for an hour or so, and all the while sitting down with Lucille,
but I have never heard the blues played with more soul in that hour in
my entire life.

Les not quibble about "blues" and "soul." It's all good when it's
played by the Masters.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
p***@hotmail.com
2007-10-21 23:11:38 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 21, 1:18 pm, chibiabos <***@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <***@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > snippy
>
> > > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > > either?
>
> > Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> >http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/
>
> Last night he was in Santa Barbara County. I finally got to see B.B.
> King live. This is one incredible 82-year-old gentleman. He could only
> play for an hour or so, and all the while sitting down with Lucille,
> but I have never heard the blues played with more soul in that hour in
> my entire life.
>
> Les not quibble about "blues" and "soul." It's all good when it's
> played by the Masters.

Amen, brother! I saw him about 20yrs ago. I'm glad to hear he's still
playing. Then again, the way those guys got screwed on royalties-they
probably *need* to. I saw Son Thomas in college-the archetecture
students hired him for a private party.

Still kicking myself for never going to see John Lee Hooker.

-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
655321
2007-10-22 01:40:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
***@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 16, 7:36 pm, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> snippy
>
> > Why is this? Is it because not only is there no soul, there's no god
> > either?
>
> Don't be silly. The "soul" is in Memphis, TN.
>
> http://www.soulsvilleusa.com/

It's moving: http://myspace.com/139522321

--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
Michael Rippie
2007-10-22 08:31:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:40:26 -0700, 655321
<***@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>In article <***@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
It is the heart of the earth And expressed in the heart man.

.
...................
***@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.the-last-church
Http://www.thelastchurch.org
http://cafepress.com/the_last_church

A preacher is the blind leading the blind.
Robibnikoff
2007-10-22 09:16:32 UTC
Permalink
"Michael Rippie" <***@thelastchurch.org> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:40:26 -0700, 655321
> <***@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>>In article <***@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
> It is the heart of the earth And expressed in the heart man.

Earth has a heart? Where is it located? Got a picture you'd like to share
with the class?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Budikka666
2007-10-25 23:46:25 UTC
Permalink
It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.

Scientists cannot find an iota of evidence for the soul or any logical
rationale as to what it is, or where it is, or what it does, or how
it's even supposed to interact with the material world.

I'm going to take this as proof that there isn't one.

It's pretty pathetic, isn't it? I put out this request to the entire
online world in these public fora. This is the most critical thing to
your eternal existence and not one of FOUR BILLION BELIEVERS can even
hope to defend it or support it?

How pathetic is that?

How on Earth (or even in "Heaven") do you hope to live in eternal
bliss with your god if you don't even have a soul?

I spit on your juvenile fairy tales.

Budikka
BAM
2007-10-26 02:17:21 UTC
Permalink
"Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.

Self movement is evidence of a soul.

BAM
Enkidu
2007-10-26 03:07:27 UTC
Permalink
"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.

So flatworms have a soul?

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA




Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government
when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
Michael Gray
2007-10-26 05:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:

>"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
>@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>>
>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>
>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
>So flatworms have a soul?

As must bi-metallic strips.
duke
2007-10-26 11:07:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:08:09 +0930, Michael Gray <***@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:
>
>>"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
>>@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>>
>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>
>>So flatworms have a soul?
>
>As must bi-metallic strips.

Nope, no life there.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
2007-10-27 13:26:50 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:38 am, Michael Gray <***@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:
>
> >"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
> >@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> >>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> >>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> >> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> >So flatworms have a soul?
>
> As must bi-metallic strips.

Let's leave the sexuality of metal strips out of this...

Budikka
duke
2007-10-26 11:07:23 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:

>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>So flatworms have a soul?

Yep, a flatworm soul.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-26 11:14:32 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:
>
>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.

>>So flatworms have a soul?
>
> Yep, a flatworm soul.

Oh dear.
You really are starting to lose the plot aren't you?
The scary part is that you aren't joking.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-26 16:42:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:14:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>>>So flatworms have a soul?
>> Yep, a flatworm soul.

>Oh dear.
>You really are starting to lose the plot aren't you?
>The scary part is that you aren't joking.

You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.

Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better know
that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the human
is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.

It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.

ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Enkidu
2007-10-26 17:00:32 UTC
Permalink
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we
who know . . .

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!! Stop it! You're likking me!



--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA




"The constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens."
-Wendell Willkie
duke
2007-10-26 22:16:08 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2007 17:00:32 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:

>duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we
>who know . . .
>
>HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!! Stop it! You're likking me!

Bud the dud is THAT good????

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
2007-10-27 13:35:29 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:00 pm, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:
> duke <***@cox.net> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>
> > Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we
>
> who know . . .
>
> HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!! Stop it! You're likking me!
>
> --
> Enkidu AA#2165
> EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
> ULC, Modesto, CA
>
> "The constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens."
> -Wendell Willkie

Any normal person would have to complete a four-year university course
in Moronism (not to be confused with Mormonism, although the two do
have many things in common) to be a fundamentally stupid as Duke so
effortlessly manages.

How can someone persistently miss the point of a thread or a question,
and provide a response that completely fails to address the actual
topic at hand?

Well you have to be stupid, as we know Duke is.

You have to be ignorant, as we know Duke is.

You have to have seriously deficient comprehension skills as we know
Duke does.

You have to be futilely trying to score points rather than make a
supported point as we known Duke addictively does.

And you have to be habituated to being endlessly wrong as we know Duke
is.

Budikka
Cary Kittrell
2007-10-26 17:06:39 UTC
Permalink
duke <***@cox.net>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:14:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:
>

I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
paragraph:

> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.

was followed by this:

> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.


-- cary
Steve O
2007-10-26 19:19:58 UTC
Permalink
"Cary Kittrell" <***@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fft6qv$8ja$***@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> duke <***@cox.net>
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:14:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
>> wrote:
>>
>
> I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
> paragraph:
>
>> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious
>> effort to
>> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>
> was followed by this:
>
>> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.
>
It's Friday night.
Perhaps he's been drinking.

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-26 22:16:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:

>I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
>paragraph:

>> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
>> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.

>was followed by this:

>> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.

That's right. She the bride of satan.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 01:15:48 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> Kittrell) wrote:
>
>> I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
>> paragraph:
>
>>> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
>>> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>
>> was followed by this:
>
>>> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.
>
> That's right. She the bride of satan.

Sounds like a cool movie.
Steve O
2007-10-26 19:19:03 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:14:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>>>So flatworms have a soul?
>>> Yep, a flatworm soul.
>
>>Oh dear.
>>You really are starting to lose the plot aren't you?
>>The scary part is that you aren't joking.
>
> You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.
>
> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better
> know
> that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the
> human
> is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.

Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
Is it human or non- human, and what does it look like? (or is it invisible?
where is it housed?
Inside the body?
Outside the body?
The reason I ask is that usually, when someone is trying to describe some
kind of airy- fairy concept, they usually decribe it an an "essence" rather
than a real, tangible thing.
I've had this same debate with ghost hunters.
They also describe the spirit or ghost of a person as an "essence" without
really bothering or trying to demonstrate exactly an "essence " is.
They seem to take it as read that we would automatically know or understand
what this "essence"is supposed to be, when quite frankly, I haven't got a
clue.
Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean something.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-26 22:23:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:19:03 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>
>"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...

>> You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.
>
>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better
>> know that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the
>> human is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.

>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.

Quality of self. And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
over wrong, love over hate.

The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose to go
against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad, right over
wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.

>Is it human or non- human, and what does it look like? (or is it invisible?
>where is it housed? Inside the body? Outside the body?

Gosh, I would have assumed you understood above when I said it's not a thing
like an organ, but an essence of humanity. Mistake on my part.

>The reason I ask is that usually, when someone is trying to describe some
>kind of airy- fairy concept, they usually decribe it an an "essence" rather
>than a real, tangible thing.

Wow, after my describing it to you twice, you're still looking for something
like an organ. Good grief.

>Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean something.

If two posts and explained 4 times total doesn't do it for you, ask somebody
else. Maybe bud the dud .............. nah, forget her. She's as ignorant of
the subject matter as anybody.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-27 00:15:32 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:19:03 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>>> You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.
>>
>>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know
>>> better
>>> know that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of
>>> what the
>>> human is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of
>>> hate, etc.
>
>>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
>
> Quality of self.

ooookay.
Perhaps you could explain what "quality of self" is and what it has to do
with an "essence of human"
You see, I have seen qualities in a human, but I have never seen this
essence thingy which you seem to think is real and tangible and has
something to do with a "soul"

>And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
> over wrong, love over hate.

>
> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
> to go
> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
> right over
> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>
>>Is it human or non- human, and what does it look like? (or is it
>>invisible?
>>where is it housed? Inside the body? Outside the body?
>
> Gosh, I would have assumed you understood above when I said it's not a
> thing
> like an organ, but an essence of humanity. Mistake on my part.
>
>>The reason I ask is that usually, when someone is trying to describe some
>>kind of airy- fairy concept, they usually decribe it an an "essence"
>>rather
>>than a real, tangible thing.
>
> Wow, after my describing it to you twice, you're still looking for
> something
> like an organ. Good grief.
>
>>Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean something.
>
> If two posts and explained 4 times total doesn't do it for you, ask
> somebody
> else. Maybe bud the dud .............. nah, forget her. She's as
> ignorant of
> the subject matter as anybody.
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
duke
2007-10-27 11:59:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>>>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
>> Quality of self.

>ooookay.
>Perhaps you could explain what "quality of self" is and what it has to do
>with an "essence of human"
>You see, I have seen qualities in a human, but I have never seen this
>essence thingy which you seem to think is real and tangible and has
>something to do with a "soul"

Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference for good
over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in every
human being.

Then we get to those that choose to ignore these infused qualities, and instead
turn to evil, hatred, wrong.

And for the fifth time, so, the soul is not a "thingy" like an organ, but the
essence of all humankind.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-27 13:44:23 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
>>> Quality of self.
>
>>ooookay.
>>Perhaps you could explain what "quality of self" is and what it has to do
>>with an "essence of human"
>>You see, I have seen qualities in a human, but I have never seen this
>>essence thingy which you seem to think is real and tangible and has
>>something to do with a "soul"
>
> Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference for
> good
> over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in
> every
> human being.
>
> Then we get to those that choose to ignore these infused qualities, and
> instead
> turn to evil, hatred, wrong.
>
> And for the fifth time, so, the soul is not a "thingy" like an organ, but
> the
> essence of all humankind.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Steve O
2007-10-27 13:48:10 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:15:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
>>> Quality of self.
>
>>ooookay.
>>Perhaps you could explain what "quality of self" is and what it has to do
>>with an "essence of human"
>>You see, I have seen qualities in a human, but I have never seen this
>>essence thingy which you seem to think is real and tangible and has
>>something to do with a "soul"
>
> Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference for
> good
> over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in
> every
> human being.

People are good and bad, and they love and hate
Fair enough, no real revelations there, but what the hell has that got to do
with this imaginary "soul" of yours?
You still haven't explained it at all.
>
> Then we get to those that choose to ignore these infused qualities, and
> instead
> turn to evil, hatred, wrong.

My word, there are people who are "bad" too?
what a surprise!
So what has THAT got to do with this imaginary "soul" of yours you keep on
insiting exists?
>
> And for the fifth time, so, the soul is not a "thingy" like an organ, but
> the
> essence of all humankind.

There you go again with the word salad.
What the hell is the "essence of all humankind" supposed to mean and why
does it indicate that a soul exists?
It's just meaningless garbage, surely?
I'm getting a strong whiff of bullshit from you here, duke.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-27 17:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:48:10 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>> Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference for
>> good
>> over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in
>> every
>> human being.

>People are good and bad, and they love and hate
>Fair enough, no real revelations there, but what the hell has that got to do
>with this imaginary "soul" of yours?
>You still haven't explained it at all.

And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
comprehend.

>There you go again with the word salad.
>What the hell is the "essence of all humankind" supposed to mean and why
>does it indicate that a soul exists?
>It's just meaningless garbage, surely?
>I'm getting a strong whiff of bullshit from you here, duke.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-28 00:05:17 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:48:10 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference
>>> for
>>> good
>>> over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in
>>> every
>>> human being.
>
>>People are good and bad, and they love and hate
>>Fair enough, no real revelations there, but what the hell has that got to
>>do
>>with this imaginary "soul" of yours?
>>You still haven't explained it at all.
>
> And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
> comprehend.

I fully comprehend and understand everything you have ever said about a
"soul"
Despite that, I still reject the idea, mainly because it's bullshit, but
mostly because there isn't a scrap of evidence for your musings and
ramblings on the subject whatsoever.
It's just something you believe in - something you and your buddies made up,
with no basis in reality whatsoever.
It doesn't work on people with reasonable bullshit detectors, duke.
Prove me wrong, if you can.

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-28 11:54:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:05:17 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>> And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
>> comprehend.

>I fully comprehend and understand everything you have ever said about a
>"soul"

>Despite that, I still reject the idea, mainly because it's bullshit, but
>mostly because there isn't a scrap of evidence for your musings and
>ramblings on the subject whatsoever.

"A" soul? How many times do I have to tell you it's not "a thing". Have you
tried to put your "thoughts" in a bottle?

>It's just something you believe in - something you and your buddies made up,
>with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Yet the basis in reality is right there in front of your nose.

Mankind prefers: good over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's natural
to mankind, but not this man here or that man over there. It's as natural to
mankind as having 10 fingers and 10 toes.

The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are born
preferring to hate rather than love.

>It doesn't work on people with reasonable bullshit detectors, duke.
>Prove me wrong, if you can.

Done.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-28 20:46:45 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:05:17 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
>>> comprehend.
>
>>I fully comprehend and understand everything you have ever said about a
>>"soul"
>
>>Despite that, I still reject the idea, mainly because it's bullshit, but
>>mostly because there isn't a scrap of evidence for your musings and
>>ramblings on the subject whatsoever.
>
> "A" soul? How many times do I have to tell you it's not "a thing". Have
> you
> tried to put your "thoughts" in a bottle?

Thoughts exist - I can experience thoughts.
They are a "thing"
If a soul is not "a thing", then it doesn't exist.

>
>>It's just something you believe in - something you and your buddies made
>>up,
>>with no basis in reality whatsoever.
>
> Yet the basis in reality is right there in front of your nose.

You mean my computer?
My computer is evidence of a soul?
Please expand on that.

>
> Mankind prefers: good over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's
> natural
> to mankind, but not this man here or that man over there. It's as natural
> to
> mankind as having 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
> The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are born
> preferring to hate rather than love.

What a stupid thing to say.
You're claiming that anyone born with an abnormality prefers hate over love?
could you say anthing more stupid than that?

>
>>It doesn't work on people with reasonable bullshit detectors, duke.
>>Prove me wrong, if you can.
>
> Done.

Not in the slightest

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-28 21:41:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:46:45 -0000, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>> "A" soul? How many times do I have to tell you it's not "a thing". Have
>> you
>> tried to put your "thoughts" in a bottle?

>Thoughts exist - I can experience thoughts.

People experienced the risen Lord. I've never experienced your thoughts.

>If a soul is not "a thing", then it doesn't exist.

I have no reason to believe you have an thoughts.

>> Yet the basis in reality is right there in front of your nose.

>You mean my computer?
>My computer is evidence of a soul?
>Please expand on that.

Wow, what a WACKO!!!!!

>> Mankind prefers: good over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's
>> natural
>> to mankind, but not this man here or that man over there. It's as natural
>> to
>> mankind as having 10 fingers and 10 toes.

>> The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are born
>> preferring to hate rather than love.

>What a stupid thing to say.

Swoosh - right over your head.

>You're claiming that anyone born with an abnormality prefers hate over love?
>could you say anthing more stupid than that?

Wow, you need to go see a shrink.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-29 01:54:43 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:46:45 -0000, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> "A" soul? How many times do I have to tell you it's not "a thing".
>>> Have
>>> you
>>> tried to put your "thoughts" in a bottle?
>
>>Thoughts exist - I can experience thoughts.
>
> People experienced the risen Lord. I've never experienced your thoughts.

You have never experienced the risen Lord.
You didn't meet the guy.
You only have other people's word for what happened.
Actually, you don't even have that- you have the written word of someone who
purports to have been there when it happened.


>
>>If a soul is not "a thing", then it doesn't exist.
>
> I have no reason to believe you have an thoughts.

I am transferring my thoughts to you right now.
On this page.
In writing.
Duh!

>
>>> Yet the basis in reality is right there in front of your nose.
>
>>You mean my computer?
>>My computer is evidence of a soul?
>>Please expand on that.
>
> Wow, what a WACKO!!!!!

The only thing right in front of my nose right now is my PC.
What were you referring to?

>
>>> Mankind prefers: good over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's
>>> natural
>>> to mankind, but not this man here or that man over there. It's as
>>> natural
>>> to
>>> mankind as having 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
>>> The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are
>>> born
>>> preferring to hate rather than love.
>
>>What a stupid thing to say.
>
> Swoosh - right over your head.

Nothing went over my head at all.
It's not my fault if you talk utter meaningless bullshit
How am I supposed to know what is going on inside your weird mind?

>
>>You're claiming that anyone born with an abnormality prefers hate over
>>love?
>>could you say anything more stupid than that?
>
> Wow, you need to go see a shrink.

You need to learn how to make a statement that makes any sense at all.
It's there, in black and white.
You said (quote)
>>>The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are
>>>born
>>> preferring to hate rather than love.

How am I supposed to think that means anything other than what it says?
If you didn't speak meaningless garbage most of the time, there wouldn't be
a problem.

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
Steve O
2007-10-29 01:55:01 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:46:45 -0000, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> "A" soul? How many times do I have to tell you it's not "a thing".
>>> Have
>>> you
>>> tried to put your "thoughts" in a bottle?
>
>>Thoughts exist - I can experience thoughts.
>
> People experienced the risen Lord. I've never experienced your thoughts.

You have never experienced the risen Lord.
You didn't meet the guy.
You only have other people's word for what happened.
Actually, you don't even have that- you have the written word of someone who
purports to have been there when it happened.


>
>>If a soul is not "a thing", then it doesn't exist.
>
> I have no reason to believe you have an thoughts.

I am transferring my thoughts to you right now.
On this page.
In writing.
Duh!

>
>>> Yet the basis in reality is right there in front of your nose.
>
>>You mean my computer?
>>My computer is evidence of a soul?
>>Please expand on that.
>
> Wow, what a WACKO!!!!!

The only thing right in front of my nose right now is my PC.
What were you referring to?

>
>>> Mankind prefers: good over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's
>>> natural
>>> to mankind, but not this man here or that man over there. It's as
>>> natural
>>> to
>>> mankind as having 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
>>> The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are
>>> born
>>> preferring to hate rather than love.
>
>>What a stupid thing to say.
>
> Swoosh - right over your head.

Nothing went over my head at all.
It's not my fault if you talk utter meaningless bullshit
How am I supposed to know what is going on inside your weird mind?

>
>>You're claiming that anyone born with an abnormality prefers hate over
>>love?
>>could you say anything more stupid than that?
>
> Wow, you need to go see a shrink.

You need to learn how to make a statement that makes any sense at all.
It's there, in black and white.
You said (quote)
>>>The abnormal are born with less than 10 fingers, and the abnormal are
>>>born
>>> preferring to hate rather than love.

How am I supposed to think that means anything other than what it says?
If you didn't speak meaningless garbage most of the time, there wouldn't be
a problem.

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 01:22:47 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:48:10 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:
>
>>> Of course you can't see it. How can one see in another the preference for
>>> good
>>> over bad, right over wrong, love over hate. It's inherently there in
>>> every
>>> human being.
>
>> People are good and bad, and they love and hate
>> Fair enough, no real revelations there, but what the hell has that got to do
>> with this imaginary "soul" of yours?
>> You still haven't explained it at all.
>
> And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
> comprehend.

I'm not seeing a coherant explanation. Many social animals routinely
co-operate for mutual benefit and display the same kind of traits that
you described as the "essence of all humankind". Why the jump to ascribe
some supernatural element to it? Do elephants go to heaven?
duke
2007-10-28 12:02:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:22:47 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>>> People are good and bad, and they love and hate
>>> Fair enough, no real revelations there, but what the hell has that got to do
>>> with this imaginary "soul" of yours?
>>> You still haven't explained it at all.

>> And after all this, you well show it's clearly beyond your ability to
>> comprehend.

>I'm not seeing a coherant explanation. Many social animals routinely
>co-operate for mutual benefit and display the same kind of traits that
>you described as the "essence of all humankind".

Yet all animals, social or not, do the same due to their breed type. All cats
act like cats and not like chickens, all dog's act like dogs and not birds.

Only man has the ability to utilize logic and reason in his decision making
process. A cat is always a cat is always a cat. Dogs don't fall in love.

> Why the jump to ascribe
>some supernatural element to it?

Breed type.

>Do elephants go to heaven?

Nobody knows.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-27 00:29:37 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:19:03 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>>> You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.
>>
>>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know
>>> better
>>> know that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of
>>> what the
>>> human is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of
>>> hate, etc.
>
>>Please explain what an "essence of a human" is.
>
> Quality of self.

Oookay.
Perhaps you could explain what "quality of self "means, and what it has to
do with an "essence of a human"."
You see, I've seen plenty of qualities in myself, and others but I've never
seen this "essence" you talk about.

> And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
> over wrong, love over hate.

Well, that is fairly debatable.
And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?


>
> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
> to go
> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
> right over
> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.

No, it's simply part of the human condition.
Evolutionary speaking, it's always been an advantage to cooperate with
others rather than harming them.
>
>>Is it human or non- human, and what does it look like? (or is it
>>invisible?
>>where is it housed? Inside the body? Outside the body?
>
> Gosh, I would have assumed you understood above when I said it's not a
> thing
> like an organ, but an essence of humanity. Mistake on my part.

You still haven't even remotely explained what this "essence" thing is
supposed to be.
Until you do, I can only assume that such a thing does not exist.
You keep throwing suggestions out that an "essence of a human being" is a
"quality of self", but all that amounts to is meaningless word salad.
Why can't you just face facts and accept that there is no such thing as "an
essence of a human being", or a "soul" , for that matter?
You are also moving the goalposts.
First of all, you claimed it was an "essence of a human being", and now
you're claiming that it's "an essence of humanity"
That would be two completely different things wouldn't it?
You're making all of this up as you8 go along, aren't you?



>
>>The reason I ask is that usually, when someone is trying to describe some
>>kind of airy- fairy concept, they usually decribe it an an "essence"
>>rather
>>than a real, tangible thing.
>
> Wow, after my describing it to you twice, you're still looking for
> something
> like an organ. Good grief.

I'm not looking for any organ.
I am simply asking you to explain what a soul is, or what an 2essence of a
human being" is, and so far, you have failed completely.
>
>>Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean something.
>
> If two posts and explained 4 times total doesn't do it for you, ask
> somebody
> else. Maybe bud the dud .............. nah, forget her. She's as
> ignorant of
> the subject matter as anybody.

Your ignorance is showing here.
wen pinned down on the question, you start throwing out meaningless
statements like "oh, it's a quality of self" and expect US to swallow that
kind of bullshit?
That may be where your brain stopsworking, but it doesn't cut the mustard
with the average thinker or atheist.
You'll have to try much harder
You'll have to try harder


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-27 12:09:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:29:37 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>> And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
>> over wrong, love over hate.

>Well, that is fairly debatable.
>And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?

God.

>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
>> to go
>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>> right over
>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.

>No, it's simply part of the human condition.

That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.

It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can exist on
it's own, but not because of God

>Evolutionary speaking, it's always been an advantage to cooperate with
>others rather than harming them.

Led by God.

>You still haven't even remotely explained what this "essence" thing is
>supposed to be.
>Until you do, I can only assume that such a thing does not exist.

Well, obviously you can't think, because you can't find a "thought" either.

>You keep throwing suggestions out that an "essence of a human being" is a
>"quality of self", but all that amounts to is meaningless word salad.

Greek psyche; Latin anima; French ame; German Seele.

>Why can't you just face facts and accept that there is no such thing as "an
>essence of a human being", or a "soul" , for that matter?
>You are also moving the goalposts.
>First of all, you claimed it was an "essence of a human being", and now
>you're claiming that it's "an essence of humanity"
>That would be two completely different things wouldn't it?
>You're making all of this up as you8 go along, aren't you?

Nope.

>> Wow, after my describing it to you twice, you're still looking for
>> something like an organ. Good grief.

>I'm not looking for any organ.
>I am simply asking you to explain what a soul is, or what an 2essence of a
>human being" is, and so far, you have failed completely.

See above.

>>>Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean something.
>> If two posts and explained 4 times total doesn't do it for you, ask
>> somebody else. Maybe bud the dud .............. nah, forget her. She's as
>> ignorant of the subject matter as anybody.

>Your ignorance is showing here.

Show me one of our "thoughts".

>wen pinned down on the question, you start throwing out meaningless
>statements like "oh, it's a quality of self" and expect US to swallow that
>kind of bullshit?
>That may be where your brain stopsworking, but it doesn't cut the mustard
>with the average thinker or atheist.
>You'll have to try much harder
>You'll have to try harder

With some people like you, it's impossible to open the door.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-27 13:54:36 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:29:37 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
>>> over wrong, love over hate.
>
>>Well, that is fairly debatable.
>>And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>>Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?
>
> God.

I should have known you were going to say that.
>
>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
>>> to go
>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>> right over
>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>
>>No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>
> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.

No, just part of the human condition to do good or bad things- nothing to do
with God whatsoever, no matter what you claim.
>
> It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can exist
> on
> it's own, but not because of God

It amazes me how you theist wannabe's think that the universe can exist with
a God in it.

>
>>Evolutionary speaking, it's always been an advantage to cooperate with
>>others rather than harming them.
>
> Led by God.

Oh, give up with the God crap, will you?
First of all, you need to demostrate God exists before you can attribute
anything to it.

>
>>You still haven't even remotely explained what this "essence" thing is
>>supposed to be.
>>Until you do, I can only assume that such a thing does not exist.
>
> Well, obviously you can't think, because you can't find a "thought"
> either.

What are you babbling on about now?

>
>>You keep throwing suggestions out that an "essence of a human being" is a
>>"quality of self", but all that amounts to is meaningless word salad.
>
> Greek psyche; Latin anima; French ame; German Seele.

Different words for a soul - not impressive
>
>>Why can't you just face facts and accept that there is no such thing as
>>"an
>>essence of a human being", or a "soul" , for that matter?
>>You are also moving the goalposts.
>>First of all, you claimed it was an "essence of a human being", and now
>>you're claiming that it's "an essence of humanity"
>>That would be two completely different things wouldn't it?
>>You're making all of this up as you go along, aren't you?
>
> Nope.

It sure looks that way.
>
>>> Wow, after my describing it to you twice, you're still looking for
>>> something like an organ. Good grief.
>
>>I'm not looking for any organ.
>>I am simply asking you to explain what a soul is, or what an "essence of a
>>human being" is, and so far, you have failed completely.
>
> See above.

See above where you failed to explain it?

>
>>>>Perhaps you could explain it to me in terms that actually mean
>>>>something.

>>> If two posts and explained 4 times total doesn't do it for you, ask
>>> somebody else. Maybe bud the dud .............. nah, forget her. She's
>>> as
>>> ignorant of the subject matter as anybody.
>
>>Your ignorance is showing here.
>
> Show me one of our "thoughts".
>
>>When pinned down on the question, you start throwing out meaningless
>>statements like "oh, it's a quality of self" and expect US to swallow that
>>kind of bullshit?
>>That may be where your brain stops working, but it doesn't cut the
>>mustard
>>with the average thinker or atheist.
>>You'll have to try much harder
>>You'll have to try harder
>
> With some people like you, it's impossible to open the door.

There's no door to open , duke - the room behind the imaginary door exists
only in your mind.
You have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-27 18:01:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:54:36 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>>>Well, that is fairly debatable.
>>>And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>>>Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?
>> God.
>I should have known you were going to say that.

I wasn't expecting you to understand.

>>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
>>>> to go
>>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>>> right over
>>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>
>>>No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>>
>> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>
>No, just part of the human condition to do good or bad things- nothing to do
>with God whatsoever, no matter what you claim.

Then why would anyone believe you?

> It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can exist
> on it's own, but not because of God

>It amazes me how you theist wannabe's think that the universe can exist with
>a God in it.

It meets all the criteria for logic and reason.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Steve O
2007-10-28 00:09:36 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:54:36 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Well, that is fairly debatable.
>>>>And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>>>>Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?
>>> God.

>>I should have known you were going to say that.
>
> I wasn't expecting you to understand.

I understand you perfectly well, duke, far better than you imagine yourself.
>
>>>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that
>>>>> choose
>>>>> to go
>>>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>>>> right over
>>>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>>
>>>>No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>>>
>>> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>
>>No, just part of the human condition to do good or bad things- nothing to
>>do
>>with God whatsoever, no matter what you claim.
>
> Then why would anyone believe you?

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for a soul, or a God?

>
>> It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can
>> exist
>> on it's own, but not because of God
>
>>It amazes me how you theist wannabe's think that the universe can exist
>>with
>>a God in it.
>
> It meets all the criteria for logic and reason.

That's just a different way of saying "All evidence demands the existence of
God" (your former mantra)
Once again, it is not evidence for a God or gods, it is simply an
unsupported assertion.
You can make the assertion if you like, but if you want anyone to accept it,
you're going to have to back it up with the proper criteria, something which
you have singularly failed to do so far..


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-28 12:06:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:09:36 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:

>>>>>Well, that is fairly debatable.
>>>>>And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>>>>>Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?
>>>> God.

>>>I should have known you were going to say that.
>> I wasn't expecting you to understand.
>I understand you perfectly well, duke, far better than you imagine yourself.

And you ask what "good" means?

>>>>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that
>>>>>> choose
>>>>>> to go
>>>>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>>>>> right over
>>>>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>>>
>>>>>No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>>>>
>>>> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>>
>>>No, just part of the human condition to do good or bad things- nothing to
>>>do
>>>with God whatsoever, no matter what you claim.
>>
>> Then why would anyone believe you?

>Because there is no evidence whatsoever for a soul, or a God?

You claim to understand, yet still think "the soul" is a thing. And the
accident across town still didn't happen because you didn't see it.

>>>It amazes me how you theist wannabe's think that the universe can exist
>>>with a God in it.
>> It meets all the criteria for logic and reason.

>That's just a different way of saying "All evidence demands the existence of
>God" (your former mantra)

All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence to be found
that even suggests that God does not exist.

>Once again, it is not evidence for a God or gods, it is simply an
>unsupported assertion.

Try supporting your own assertion that God doesn't exist.

>You can make the assertion if you like, but if you want anyone to accept it,
>you're going to have to back it up with the proper criteria, something which
>you have singularly failed to do so far..

That's the reason I would never believe you that God doesn't exist.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 01:33:58 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:29:37 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:
>
>>> And it is constant in mankind - to prefer good over bad, right
>>> over wrong, love over hate.
>
>> Well, that is fairly debatable.
>> And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>> Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?
>
> God.

Which one? The Judeo-Christian guy? Why? Anyway, he's notoriously
fickle, can we pick a fairer arbiter?

>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
>>> to go
>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>> right over
>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>
>> No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>
> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>
Or naturally-evolved social instinct.

> It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can exist on
> it's own, but not because of God
>
Why not believe it?

>> Evolutionary speaking, it's always been an advantage to cooperate with
>> others rather than harming them.
>
> Led by God.
>
Which one again? Why? Why go for the mysterious explanation when the
mundane one is perfectly adequate?

>> You still haven't even remotely explained what this "essence" thing is
>> supposed to be.
>> Until you do, I can only assume that such a thing does not exist.
>
> Well, obviously you can't think, because you can't find a "thought" either.
>
>> You keep throwing suggestions out that an "essence of a human being" is a
>> "quality of self", but all that amounts to is meaningless word salad.
>
> Greek psyche; Latin anima; French ame; German Seele.
>
This is a list of translations of the same vague concept; It doesn't add
anything to the explanation. I still can't see anything particularly
unique or special in what you've described as the soul. I value those
traits, but don't see anything supernatural in them.

<snip>
duke
2007-10-28 12:09:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:33:58 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>>> Well, that is fairly debatable.
>>> And what do you mean by "good" or "bad"
>>> Who gets to decide what's "good" or "bad"?

>> God.

>Which one? The Judeo-Christian guy? Why? Anyway, he's notoriously
>fickle, can we pick a fairer arbiter?

He's the only one, and totally sound of mind and body.

>>>> The only variance in the human essence, the soul, is the bad that choose
>>>> to go
>>>> against God. But even the atheist has a soft spot for good over bad,
>>>> right over
>>>> wrong, love over hate - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>
>>> No, it's simply part of the human condition.
>>
>> That's right - a positive reaction to the call of God.
>>
>Or naturally-evolved social instinct.

Why does a chicken never act like a cat?

>> It's amazing how you atheist wannabe's believe that the universe can exist on
>> it's own, but not because of God

>Why not believe it?

Where's your support?

>>> Evolutionary speaking, it's always been an advantage to cooperate with
>>> others rather than harming them.
>> Led by God.
>Which one again? Why? Why go for the mysterious explanation when the
>mundane one is perfectly adequate?

There's only one.

>>> You keep throwing suggestions out that an "essence of a human being" is a
>>> "quality of self", but all that amounts to is meaningless word salad.

>> Greek psyche; Latin anima; French ame; German Seele.

>This is a list of translations of the same vague concept; It doesn't add
> anything to the explanation. I still can't see anything particularly
>unique or special in what you've described as the soul. I value those
>traits, but don't see anything supernatural in them.

But it's more than you've presented for your own case.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 01:14:32 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:14:32 +0100, "Steve O" <***@nospamhere.thanks> wrote:
>
>>>> So flatworms have a soul?
>>> Yep, a flatworm soul.
>
>> Oh dear.
>> You really are starting to lose the plot aren't you?
>> The scary part is that you aren't joking.
>
> You're right. I'm not joking. A flatworm does not have a human soul.
>
> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better know
> that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the human
> is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.
>
Well why call that a "soul"? You're just dressing up the parts of human
nature that you feel are noble and slapping a big "soul" label on it.
There's nothing supernatural in what you just described.

> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>
Okay, so some people are nice and some people are nasty. Do the nasty
people have no soul?
Budikka666
2007-10-28 12:08:44 UTC
Permalink
What you're seeing here from Earl Weber (aka Early Weasel, aka Duke,
aka Duck Shit, aka Puke, aka Hurl, aka Duck & Run) is impotence at its
most raw.

The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.

He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!

The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.

I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aren't aimed at
the material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.

His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.

He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!

His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc

He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk

He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg

He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!

He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm

He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!

He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43

He has fifty questions he can't answer or dare not answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y

In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.

Budikka
Budikka666
2007-10-28 12:54:28 UTC
Permalink
And just to prove what a Liar Duck & Run is when he LIES that I kill
filed him, here's a look at a couple of the idiotic claims he's made
in this thread (Oct 28th) before anyone else has responded. The only
way I could know of these claims is if I directly saw them.

He asserts (without a shred of support): "Only man has the ability to
utilize logic"

I guess that lets out woman. This goes to prove that Duck & Run
blindly and stupidly promotes the misogynistic bullshit that is the
Bible.

He continues: "and reason in his decision making process."

This is, unsurprisingly, a LIE! Lots of other organisms employ
decision-making, from chimpanzees to birds. This isn't a human trait,
it's a living organism trait that is readily detectable in those
organisms with higher brain function:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xal4egf8wbeg9e4t/
http://web.pdx.edu/~bath/sxcwc/orians23nov04.htm

"A cat is always a cat is always a cat. Dogs don't fall in love."

A human is always a human! This is supposed to be some sort of proof
of the soul? LoL! Since love is merely a chemical reaction in the
brain:
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html
then yes, any organisms with sufficient gray matter can do what we
call "falling in love". And anyone who claims dogs cannot love is
clearly brain dead and knows squat about dogs and their devotion to
their owners

"You claim to understand, yet still think "the soul" is a thing. And
the accident across town still didn't happen because you didn't see
it."

Either the soul is a "thing" or it's nothing! LoL!

It either exists or it doesn't. Claiming that something exists
*because* we cannot see it is the desperate act of a complete moron.
But I'm stating the obvious here. It's axiomatic that Duke is a
complete moron.

The request was for evidence of the soul, preferably scientific.
Failing that some sort of intelligent, supported rationale would serve
at least as a basis for discussion. If there were evidence, it would
have been presented by someone by now. This thread is going out to
FIVE public world-wide Internet news groups, and not one single
response has presented any evidence whatsoever.

Oh, I see a lot of whining. I see a lot of unsupported and idiotic
counter-claims. But I see not a single instance of anyone offering
objective evidence that there is indeed a soul, and I see a lot of
evidence against such a position.

What the idiotic Duke does here, in his profound ignorance, impotence,
and blindness is conveniently and fallaciously step past the **FACT**
that the reason we accept that there was an accident across town
(which his god did nothing to prevent) is that even though we
personally didn't see it, there is objective evidence supporting the
fact that it happened.

If we were reduced to accepting things only seen by us personally,
then no criminal would *ever* be brought to justice because no one or
almost no one in the courtroom would have seen the crime.

How is it that crimes are prosecuted when there are no eye witnesses?

BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE.

If the evidence is objective, compelling and sufficient (and the jury
not idiots) then the crime will indeed be prosecuted even if there
were no eye witnesses.

This is what idiot Duke is completely blind to. He's proven
repeatedly that he has no clue whatsoever what evidence actually is.

It ultimately has little or nothing to do with eye witnesses. Eye
witness tends to be the least reliable form of evidence Resolving an
issue has to do with the quality of the overall evidence, even more so
in science than in the courtroom.

With the exception of dedicated murderers, if a criminal, say a purse-
thief, gets away with a crime because it was improperly prosecuted,
it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things. They'll catch him
next time and make the charge stick.

But if we get the science wrong, people can die, as the I-35W bridge
disaster showed back on August 1st.

So can Duke present evidence for the soul of the same quality which
would lead any reasonable person to accept that an accident occurred
across town?

Short Answer: Absolutely not. That's why he's reduced to these
vacuous responses that typify him and his ilk.

"All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence to
be found that even suggests that God does not exist."
LIE! as this series demonstrates:
Parts 1-5 at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
Parts 326-360 at: http://tinyurl.com/8unme
Parts 361-400 at: http://tinyurl.com/89tdu
Parts 401-500 at: http://tinyurl.com/8un3t
Parts 501-550 at: http://tinyurl.com/8snjp
Parts 551-600 at: http://tinyurl.com/nakgj
Parts 601-640 at: http://tinyurl.com/lrzuz
Parts 641-666 at: http://tinyurl.com/pjjg7

And what evidence can Duck & Run offer in response? None! The best
"evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a lackluster
five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on back of
Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in
alt.atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got from
a.a. regulars.

I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

"Try supporting your own assertion that God doesn't exist."

Been there, done that. Duck and Run ducked and ran from every single
one and couldn't even *pretend* he could mount a rebuttal.

That's how pathetic he is and why he isn't worth any response other
than this.

Budikka
duke
2007-10-28 13:34:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:54:28 -0700, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:

>And just to prove what a Liar Duck & Run is when he LIES that I kill
>filed him,

Oh, are you back after hiding all these months?

>He asserts (without a shred of support): "Only man has the ability to
>utilize logic"
>I guess that lets out woman. This goes to prove that Duck & Run
>blindly and stupidly promotes the misogynistic bullshit that is the
>Bible.

If you're reduced to that silly game, I may be right about you.

>He continues: "and reason in his decision making process."
>This is, unsurprisingly, a LIE! Lots of other organisms employ
>decision-making, from chimpanzees to birds.

Breed type limits only. None of them can take past history, recognize the
details and errors, and formulate a plan of action around the history based on
logic and reasoning. Only mankind (or man only for silly you) can do that.

>"A cat is always a cat is always a cat. Dogs don't fall in love."

>A human is always a human! This is supposed to be some sort of proof
>of the soul?

ONly if you're ignorant enough to keep asking "where is it"?

>LoL! Since love is merely a chemical reaction in the
>brain:
>http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Only between 2 specific people when falling in love, dud. Now what?

>"You claim to understand, yet still think "the soul" is a thing. And
>the accident across town still didn't happen because you didn't see
>it."
>Either the soul is a "thing" or it's nothing! LoL!

It's why a cat will never be a bird.

>The request was for evidence of the soul, preferably scientific.

Well, you are incapable of understanding it's not a "thing", so you'll never
understand.

>What the idiotic Duke does here, in his profound ignorance, impotence,
>and blindness is conveniently and fallaciously step past the **FACT**
>that the reason we accept that there was an accident across town

...is because you select and choose what you believe based on your own desires
rather than a common set of standards.

>How is it that crimes are prosecuted when there are no eye witnesses?
>BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE.

**People judgment** based on evidence.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2007-10-28 16:32:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:54:28 -0700, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:

>And just to prove what a Liar Duck & Run is when he LIES that I kill
>filed him, here's a look at a couple of the idiotic claims he's made
>in this thread (Oct 28th) before anyone else has responded. The only
>way I could know of these claims is if I directly saw them.
>He asserts (without a shred of support): "Only man has the ability to
>utilize logic". I guess that lets out woman.

No, that's not what I meant, but when you're so paranoid over man being
different from mankind, there's no telling what's swirling around in vast
expanse of vacuum between your ears.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2007-10-28 13:52:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:08:44 -0700, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:

>He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
>Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
>"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
>thoroughly discredited.

Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
biblical flood.

>He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
>atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
>Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
>http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
>but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
>I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
>God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
>there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
>the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
>since they were so pathetic.

Of course you didn't include them. You knew you were getting ready to make a
bigger fool of yourself.

> His despicable behavior and his
>slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
>mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
>regular set on a.a.:
>http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

And the entire regular set, whatever you see as that, disappeared.

Let's face facts, it's embarrassing for you to make points with the ignorant's
of the world when you stand constantly corrected by a Roman Catholic.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
2007-10-28 14:50:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:52:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
<***@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:08:44 -0700, Budikka666 <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
>>Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
>>"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
>>thoroughly discredited.
>
>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
>biblical flood.

You have zero evidence.

>>He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
>>atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
>>Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
>>http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
>>but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
>>I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
>>God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
>>there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
>>the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
>>since they were so pathetic.
>
>Of course you didn't include them. You knew you were getting ready to make a
>bigger fool of yourself.
>
>> His despicable behavior and his
>>slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
>>mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
>>regular set on a.a.:
>>http://tinyurl.com/9gycg
>
>And the entire regular set, whatever you see as that, disappeared.
>
>Let's face facts, it's embarrassing for you to make points with the ignorant's
>of the world when you stand constantly corrected by a Roman Catholic.
>
>
>duke, American-American
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****
duke
2007-10-28 16:35:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
>>biblical flood.

>You have zero evidence.

ALL evidence demands the existence of God.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
2007-10-28 17:04:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:35:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
<***@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
>>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
>>>biblical flood.
>
>>You have zero evidence.
>
>ALL evidence demands the existence of God.

That is an unsupported assertion. So far, you have been completely
unable or unwilling to provide any support for it.
duke
2007-10-28 17:12:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:35:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
>duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
><***@4ax.com>:
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
>>>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
>>>>biblical flood.
>>
>>>You have zero evidence.
>>
>>ALL evidence demands the existence of God.
>
>That is an unsupported assertion. So far, you have been completely
>unable or unwilling to provide any support for it.

All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
existing.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
2007-10-28 17:30:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:12:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
<***@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:35:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
>><***@4ax.com>:
>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own, more than
>>>>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record rejecting the
>>>>>biblical flood.
>>>
>>>>You have zero evidence.
>>>
>>>ALL evidence demands the existence of God.
>>
>>That is an unsupported assertion. So far, you have been completely
>>unable or unwilling to provide any support for it.
>
>All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
>existing.

You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.
Virgil
2007-10-28 17:46:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:12:32 -0500, in alt.atheism
> duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
> <***@4ax.com>:
> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:35:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
> >>duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
> >><***@4ax.com>:
> >>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own,
> >>>>>more than
> >>>>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record
> >>>>>rejecting the
> >>>>>biblical flood.
> >>>
> >>>>You have zero evidence.
> >>>
> >>>ALL evidence demands the existence of God.
> >>
> >>That is an unsupported assertion. So far, you have been completely
> >>unable or unwilling to provide any support for it.
> >
> >All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
> >existing.
>
> You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.

It is true enough that there is no compelling evidence of God not
existing.

But it is equally true that there is no compelling evidence of any god
existing.
duke
2007-10-28 19:00:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
>>existing.

>You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.

Nor make it untrue.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
2007-10-28 20:35:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:00:40 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
<***@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:30:19 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>>All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
>>>existing.
>
>>You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.
>
>Nor make it untrue.

If it were true, you would be able to provide evidence.
duke
2007-10-28 21:42:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:35:00 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
>>>>existing.
>>>You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.
>>Nor make it untrue.

>If it were true, you would be able to provide evidence.

And if it were untrue, you'd be able to provide evidence.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Free Lunch
2007-10-29 01:59:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:42:16 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
<***@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:35:00 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>>>>All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God not
>>>>>existing.
>>>>You keep repeating that assertion. Repeating it will not make it true.
>>>Nor make it untrue.
>
>>If it were true, you would be able to provide evidence.
>
>And if it were untrue, you'd be able to provide evidence.

Please describe what evidence I can provide about nonexistent items.

Why not prove to me that Ba'al does not exist so I can see what you
mean?
Steve O
2007-10-29 01:43:28 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:35:27 -0500, in alt.atheism
>>duke <***@cox.net> wrote in
>><***@4ax.com>:
>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Nope, not a chance, bud the dud. I arrived at those 5 all on my own,
>>>>>more than
>>>>>I can say about your travesty of justice re the geological record
>>>>>rejecting the
>>>>>biblical flood.
>>>
>>>>You have zero evidence.
>>>
>>>ALL evidence demands the existence of God.
>>
>>That is an unsupported assertion. So far, you have been completely
>>unable or unwilling to provide any support for it.
>
> All evidence demands the existence of God. There is no evidence for God
> not
> existing.

Looks like you've reset yourself to your default mantra.
Do you do this every time your beliefs are shaken?

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
Steve O
2007-10-29 01:42:10 UTC
Permalink
"duke" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:

>>You have zero evidence.
>
> ALL evidence demands the existence of God.

This is your assertion
It is not evidence.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion?



--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
duke
2007-10-28 12:11:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:14:32 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better know
>> that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the human
>> is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.

>Well why call that a "soul"?

Ok, call it blueberry pie.

> You're just dressing up the parts of human
>nature that you feel are noble and slapping a big "soul" label on it.
>There's nothing supernatural in what you just described.

The accident across town never happened because you didn't see it.

>Okay, so some people are nice and some people are nasty. Do the nasty
>people have no soul?

Sure they do. They're turning against their nature al psyche as a human being.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 19:00:46 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:14:32 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better know
>>> that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the human
>>> is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.
>
>> Well why call that a "soul"?
>
> Ok, call it blueberry pie.
>
Why? That's even more misdirecting than calling it a soul.

>> You're just dressing up the parts of human
>> nature that you feel are noble and slapping a big "soul" label on it.
>> There's nothing supernatural in what you just described.
>
> The accident across town never happened because you didn't see it.
>
I'm not saying that humans don't posess the traits you listed, merely
that we can't see anything supernatural in them.

If that accident across town happened, it would be a matter of public
record. So I may not have seen it, but I can be confident it occured.

>> Okay, so some people are nice and some people are nasty. Do the nasty
>> people have no soul?
>
> Sure they do. They're turning against their nature al psyche as a human being.

If it's no use as a moral compass, then what use is the soul?
duke
2007-10-28 21:44:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:00:46 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:14:32 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>>>> Now for those of you that get sucked in by bud the dud, we who know better know
>>>> that the soul is not a "thing" like an organ, but the essence of what the human
>>>> is, to prefer right over wrong, good over evil, love instead of hate, etc.

>>> Well why call that a "soul"?
>> Ok, call it blueberry pie.
>Why? That's even more misdirecting than calling it a soul.

Why?

>> The accident across town never happened because you didn't see it.
>I'm not saying that humans don't posess the traits you listed, merely
>that we can't see anything supernatural in them.

Cool.

>If that accident across town happened, it would be a matter of public
>record. So I may not have seen it, but I can be confident it occured.

And Jesus died on the cross.

>>> Okay, so some people are nice and some people are nasty. Do the nasty
>>> people have no soul?
>> Sure they do. They're turning against their nature al psyche as a human being.
>If it's no use as a moral compass, then what use is the soul?

It is THE moral compass of mankind.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Enkidu
2007-10-26 15:52:17 UTC
Permalink
duke <***@cox.net> wrote in news:fii3i3dike630g67crpmgk16v47af0mnn0
@4ax.com:

> On 26 Oct 2007 03:07:27 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:
>
>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>So flatworms have a soul?
>
> Yep, a flatworm soul.

That would mean you have an ignorant-asshole soul. Yousure you WANT eternal
life with an ignorant-asshole for a soul?

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
whosoever would believe in him would probably believe just about anything.
-- unknown
duke
2007-10-26 16:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2007 15:52:17 GMT, Enkidu <***@trashmail.net> wrote:

>>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>So flatworms have a soul?
>> Yep, a flatworm soul.

>That would mean you have an ignorant-asshole soul.

YOU are not my soul.




duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cary Kittrell
2007-10-26 23:20:43 UTC
Permalink
duke <***@cox.net> writes:
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> Kittrell) wrote:
>
> >I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
> >paragraph:
>
> >> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
> >> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>
> >was followed by this:
>
> >> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.
>
> That's right. She the bride of satan.

You Jane?



-- cary
duke
2007-10-27 11:55:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:20:43 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:

>duke <***@cox.net> writes:
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
>> Kittrell) wrote:
>>
>> >I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
>> >paragraph:
>>
>> >> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
>> >> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>>
>> >was followed by this:
>>
>> >> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.
>>
>> That's right. She the bride of satan.
>
>You Jane?

No, asu, she's the bride of satan.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
2007-10-27 13:39:40 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 6:20 pm, ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> duke <***@cox.net> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> > Kittrell) wrote:
>
> > >I trust I'm not the only one to marvel at the dissonance when this
> > >paragraph:
>
> > >> It's the same in all human, except for those that make the conscious effort to
> > >> be bad as opposed to good, evil over instead of good, hate over love.
>
> > >was followed by this:
>
> > >> ONe that follows the dummy bud the dud will never learn or understand.
>
> > That's right. She the bride of satan.
>
> You Jane?

Me Tarzana, neighbor of Santa Monica, cigar supplier to Bill
Clinton....

Budikka
Michelle Malkin
2007-10-26 06:28:05 UTC
Permalink
"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> BAM
So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
heaven when they die?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
duke
2007-10-26 11:08:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>heaven when they die?

But you have a human soul that you disregard.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2007-10-27 12:12:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>
>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>
>> BAM

>So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>heaven when they die?

Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 01:37:05 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>
>>> BAM
>
>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>> heaven when they die?
>
> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.

ZING! ;-)

I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
as good as a human one.
a***@gmail.com
2007-10-28 02:44:53 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 9:37 pm, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> >>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> >>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
> >>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> >>> BAM
>
> >> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
> >> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
> >> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
> >> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
> >> heaven when they die?
>
> > Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>
> ZING! ;-)
>
> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
> as good as a human one.

see this link:-
http://www.theosophical.ca/ProofsOfSoulAB.htm
Budikka666
2007-10-28 12:15:32 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 8:44 pm, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 27, 9:37 pm, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > duke wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > >>>news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> > >>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> > >>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
> > >>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> > >>> BAM
>
> > >> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
> > >> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
> > >> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
> > >> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
> > >> heaven when they die?
>
> > > Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>
> > ZING! ;-)
>
> > I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
> > as good as a human one.
>
> see this link:-http://www.theosophical.ca/ProofsOfSoulAB.htm

The request was for positive scientific evidence or at least some sort
of intelligent rationale. There's none in that article. Besant was a
lame-brained theosophist who betrayed her upbringing and education by
throwing it away on undemonstrable bullshit.

Now where is your **POSITIVE** **SCIENTIFIC** **EVIDENCE**? If you
have trouble understanding that request, it's okay to get an adult to
help you. really.

Budikka
Michelle Malkin
2007-10-28 19:28:33 UTC
Permalink
"Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 8:44 pm, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 9:37 pm, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > duke wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
>> > > <***@comcast.net>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > >>news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> > >>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> > >>>news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > >>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> > >>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST
>> > >>>> SHRED OF
>> > >>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>> > >>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>
>> > >>> BAM
>>
>> > >> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>> > >> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>> > >> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>> > >> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>> > >> heaven when they die?
>>
>> > > Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>>
>> > ZING! ;-)
>>
>> > I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
>> > as good as a human one.
>>
>> see this link:-http://www.theosophical.ca/ProofsOfSoulAB.htm
>
> The request was for positive scientific evidence or at least some sort
> of intelligent rationale. There's none in that article. Besant was a
> lame-brained theosophist who betrayed her upbringing and education by
> throwing it away on undemonstrable bullshit.
>
> Now where is your **POSITIVE** **SCIENTIFIC** **EVIDENCE**? If you
> have trouble understanding that request, it's okay to get an adult to
> help you. really.
>
> Budikka
>
Don't hold your breath. BAM, Duke and their handpuppets
never give any. That's because they can't. They have nothing
scientific to support their fantasyland spewing. BuddyThunder
is merely another of their handpuppets posting nonsense sites.
-
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
duke
2007-10-28 21:36:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:28:33 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> The request was for positive scientific evidence or at least some sort
>> of intelligent rationale. There's none in that article. Besant was a
>> lame-brained theosophist who betrayed her upbringing and education by
>> throwing it away on undemonstrable bullshit.

>> Now where is your **POSITIVE** **SCIENTIFIC** **EVIDENCE**? If you
>> have trouble understanding that request, it's okay to get an adult to
>> help you. really.

>Don't hold your breath. BAM, Duke and their handpuppets
>never give any.

If you think we have a problem, try supporting your own beliefs. 1-2-3 - you're
OUT.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
John Baker
2007-10-28 15:36:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:44:53 -0000, ***@gmail.com wrote:

>On Oct 27, 9:37 pm, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> >>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> >>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>> >>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>
>> >>> BAM
>>
>> >> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>> >> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>> >> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>> >> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>> >> heaven when they die?
>>
>> > Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>>
>> ZING! ;-)
>>
>> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
>> as good as a human one.
>
>see this link:-
>http://www.theosophical.ca/ProofsOfSoulAB.htm


This is what you call evidence? <sheesh>

Don't forget to leave a bowl of milk in the garden for the fairies...
Michelle Malkin
2007-10-28 03:31:23 UTC
Permalink
"BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4723e7c2$***@clear.net.nz...
> duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
>> <***@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>>
>>>> BAM
>>
>>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>>> since they move. Did trilobites have souls? They
>>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>>> heaven when they die?
>>
>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>
> ZING! ;-)
>
> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just as
> good as a human one.

You imagine incorrectly, then, since you still
haven't shown any evidence for the existence
of a soul of any kind. You don't even know
that there aren't any trilobites anymore, just
fossils.

I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
lack of evidence.
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 05:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> "BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:4723e7c2$***@clear.net.nz...
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
>>> <***@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>>>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>>>
>>>>> BAM
>>>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>>>> since they move. Did trilobites have souls? They
>>>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>>>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>>>> heaven when they die?
>>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>> ZING! ;-)
>>
>> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just as
>> good as a human one.
>
> You imagine incorrectly, then, since you still
> haven't shown any evidence for the existence
> of a soul of any kind. You don't even know
> that there aren't any trilobites anymore, just
> fossils.
>
> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
> lack of evidence.
>
My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't
care less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.
Michelle Malkin
2007-10-28 06:04:14 UTC
Permalink
"BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:472422fa$***@clear.net.nz...
> Michelle Malkin wrote:
>> "BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:4723e7c2$***@clear.net.nz...
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
>>>> <***@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED
>>>>>>> OF
>>>>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>>>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BAM
>>>>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>>>>> since they move. Did trilobites have souls? They
>>>>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>>>>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>>>>> heaven when they die?
>>>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>>> ZING! ;-)
>>>
>>> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
>>> as good as a human one.
>>
>> You imagine incorrectly, then, since you still
>> haven't shown any evidence for the existence
>> of a soul of any kind. You don't even know
>> that there aren't any trilobites anymore, just
>> fossils.
>>
>> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>> lack of evidence.
> My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't care
> less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.

Then, your point was not clear and sounded as though
you were supporting BAM. And, since I din't know you at
all, how could I tell that were being sarcastic? Winkies
and smilies are rarely used anymore, since so many
people were using them incorrectly.
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 07:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> "BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:472422fa$***@clear.net.nz...
>> Michelle Malkin wrote:
>>> "BuddyThunder" <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:4723e7c2$***@clear.net.nz...
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:28:05 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
>>>>> <***@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:56cUi.9310$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>>>>>>>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED
>>>>>>>> OF
>>>>>>>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>>>>>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BAM
>>>>>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>>>>>> since they move. Did trilobites have souls? They
>>>>>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>>>>>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>>>>>> heaven when they die?
>>>>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>>>> ZING! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
>>>> as good as a human one.
>>> You imagine incorrectly, then, since you still
>>> haven't shown any evidence for the existence
>>> of a soul of any kind. You don't even know
>>> that there aren't any trilobites anymore, just
>>> fossils.
>>>
>>> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>>> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>>> lack of evidence.
>> My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't care
>> less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.
>
> Then, your point was not clear and sounded as though
> you were supporting BAM. And, since I din't know you at
> all, how could I tell that were being sarcastic? Winkies
> and smilies are rarely used anymore, since so many
> people were using them incorrectly.
>
All good points.
duke
2007-10-28 11:20:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:04:14 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>>> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>>> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>>> lack of evidence.
>> My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't care
>> less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.

>Then, your point was not clear and sounded as though
>you were supporting BAM. And, since I din't know you at
>all, how could I tell that were being sarcastic? Winkies
>and smilies are rarely used anymore, since so many
>people were using them incorrectly.

Gotcha.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
BuddyThunder
2007-10-28 18:56:30 UTC
Permalink
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:04:14 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>>>> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>>>> lack of evidence.
>>> My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't care
>>> less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.
>
>> Then, your point was not clear and sounded as though
>> you were supporting BAM. And, since I din't know you at
>> all, how could I tell that were being sarcastic? Winkies
>> and smilies are rarely used anymore, since so many
>> people were using them incorrectly.
>
> Gotcha.
>
Yep. Quite the victory for creationism.
duke
2007-10-28 21:38:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:56:30 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:04:14 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>>>>> your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>>>>> lack of evidence.
>>>> My point was that neither term is actually meaningful, so we wouldn't care
>>>> less either way. The zinger was sarcastic.
>>
>>> Then, your point was not clear and sounded as though
>>> you were supporting BAM. And, since I din't know you at
>>> all, how could I tell that were being sarcastic? Winkies
>>> and smilies are rarely used anymore, since so many
>>> people were using them incorrectly.
>>
>> Gotcha.
>>
>Yep. Quite the victory for creationism.

When dealing with bud the dud and malkin, it doesn't take much to show them the
error of their ways. They despise that.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2007-10-28 11:19:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:31:23 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.
>
>> ZING! ;-)

>> I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just as
>> good as a human one.

>You imagine incorrectly, then, since you still
>haven't shown any evidence for the existence
>of a soul of any kind.

Gosh, what an uneducated response.

Remember, that accident across town didn't happen because you didn't see it.

> You don't even know
>that there aren't any trilobites anymore, just
>fossils.

Wow, and again - can't see one, so they don't exist.

>I smash your ZING! and raise you the ZING!! of
>your own ignorance and and the ZING!!! of your
>lack of evidence.

And I'll see your ZING and raised you 5 more ZINGS. No one can see your
"thoughts", so therefore they don't exist.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2007-10-28 11:14:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:37:05 +1300, BuddyThunder <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>>> So, I guess you believe that amoebas have souls,
>>> since they move. Did trilobytes have souls? They
>>> moved. How about sharks? They move. Do dung
>>> beetles have souls? They move. Do they all go to
>>> heaven when they die?

>> Trilobytes have trilobite souls. Atheists have trilobite souls also.

>ZING! ;-)
>I imagine that most atheists would think that a trilobite soul is just
>as good as a human one.

Probably - they think a soul is a joke.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
cactus
2007-10-26 15:27:00 UTC
Permalink
BAM wrote:
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> BAM
>
>
Amoebas have souls! Flatworms have souls! Trilobites had soules, and
all the good ones must be in heaven. I like it.
p***@hotmail.com
2007-10-26 23:08:38 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 10:17 pm, "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> > SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> > EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.

Bowel movement is evidence of soul food.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Michael Gray
2007-10-26 23:56:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:08:38 -0700, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Oct 25, 10:17 pm, "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> > SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> > EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>>
>> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
>Bowel movement is evidence of soul food.

Ah, soul food!
Budikka666
2007-10-27 13:36:09 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 6:08 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:17 pm, "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> > > SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> > > EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> > Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> Bowel movement is evidence of soul food.

LoL! I like that one.

Budikka
Doc Smartass
2007-10-27 01:11:55 UTC
Permalink
"BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in news:56cUi.9310$a9.4274
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
>> SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
>> EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.

Then my pet salamander has a soul.

My intestinal tract had a massive soul last night.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.

--Edward R. Murrow
Budikka666
2007-10-27 13:26:09 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 9:17 pm, "BAM" <***@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's been nine whole days since I started this thread and NOT ONE
> > SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF
> > EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.
>
> Self movement is evidence of a soul.
>
> BAM

Your asinine, unsupported one line response is proof that you have
nothing to offer on this or any other topic as you've proven
repeatedly by fleeing every single time I challenge you to support
your claims in debate.

BAM! You're gone. Next please...

Budikka
Budikka666
2007-10-27 19:52:30 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 7:35 am, ***@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
wrote:
> 'NOT ONE SINGLE THEIST HAS EVEN PRETENDED THEY CAN OFFER THE SLIGHTEST
> SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL.'
>
> REPLY: It cant be seen, but it can be felt and it can be described as i
> have done so in the past. It can also be denied.

If it can be felt then it can be detected scientifically. Where is
your scientific evidence that you're not completely delusional with
your claims that it can be felt and described??

The soul will indeed be denied if not a single one of you can offer a
shred of objective evidence for it.

> 'Scientists cannot find an iota of evidence for the soul or any logical
> rationale as to what it is, or where it is, or what it does, or how it's
> even supposed to interact with the material world.'
>
> REPLY: Scientists cant explain 'Love' either

Yes they can. Again, please read up on a topic before you start
spouting your ignorance:
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

>, or many other things in
> a material world.

Your position is nothing but argument from ignorance - the god of the
gaps. If science cannot explain it **YET** (and you've already
demonstrated quite admirably that you're not qualified to pontificate
about what science can explain let alone about what it hasn't got
around to yet) then this somehow proves your point? Nonsense!

> 'I'm going to take this as proof that there isn't one.'
>
> REPLY: Im sure you will if it coincides with your desired lifestyle
> choices to live totally autonomous placed YOU at the center of the
> universe.

That's your position, not mine. Again, you don't even know your own
weaknesses, yet you feel quite free to expose them in these worldwide
public fora. I find that very sad.

So here we are, halfway through your "response" and you haven't even
pretended you can offer a single shred of positive science, rationale,
or any kind of objective evidence in support of your fairy tale of the
human soul! Again, how pathetic is that?

> 'How on Earth (or even in "Heaven") do you hope to live in eternal bliss
> with your god if you don't even have a soul?'
>
> REPLY: Thats your assumption. , based on personal ulterior motives .

Why do you need to LIE about this? This has nothing to do with any
motive or lack of motive. It has to do with one thing, and one thing
only: THE 100 PERCENT COMPLETE, UTTER, ABSOLUTE, AND OVERWHELMING
IMPOTENCE OF THEISTS IN SUPPORTING A SINGLE CLAIM THEY'VE EVER MADE on
these supernatural subjects using objective evidence and rationale.

In short, all you have is fairy tales.

How pathetic is that?

> If there is no Soul , can you tell the NG where in our material body our
> Will, Mind, and Intellect is precisely ?

Your brain. But you'd actually have to use your brain to see that.

Did you not read a single thing I wrote in the opening message in this
thread? If you did read it, what is your difficulty in understanding
it? Go back and read it and actually address what I wrote - if you
can. If you cannot, then you're in the wrong thread.

> Because the Creator infused a
> Soul into each person during/after conception,

Where is your evidence for this? If you cannot provide any, then all
you're doing is turning yourself into yet another LIAR For The
LORD(TM).

> the real inner you will
> live forever ---

Where is your evidence for this? If you cannot provide any, then all
you're doing is turning yourself into yet another LIAR For The
LORD(TM).

> and YOU get to choose the eternal residence.

Where is your evidence for this? If you cannot provide any, then all
you're doing is turning yourself into yet another LIAR For The
LORD(TM).

> 'I spit on your juvenile fairy tales.
> Budikka'
>
> REPLY: Save your saliva ; its pride and arrogance that allows God to
> grant what you always wanted while here on earth (but for all of
> eternity) : Greater Distance from him. And only you can change that.

Where's your evidence for this god you keep talking about? Do you
have any scientific evidence? Any objective evidence of any kind
outside of scriptural fairy tales written by scientifically ignorant
ancients? Any rationale for this god?

I thought not.

Budikka
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...