Discussion:
OT: An end to this God debate
(too old to reply)
- ikabopo -
2007-06-15 06:37:40 UTC
Permalink
-To the atheists and the "science-rules-all" crowd:

To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst. A dog's brain cannot comprehend religion,
physics, poker, etc. It is possible that there are concepts and things
going on in the whole of existence that our brains simply are not
capable of comprehending or processing strictly due to the physical
limitations of our evolution. (Visualization of 4-dimensional physical
space is an example of this.)

Also, we have evolved to have only 5 physical senses. But who is to say
that there are only 5 ways to perceive phenomena going on in the
universe? Imagine a race of beings just like us, but without a sense of
sight. What would this race know of light, photons, etc? Certainly a
lot less than we do. There could be races of aliens in the universe
with 6, 7, 8, or more senses, observing things going on in the universe
that we can't even fathom. Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst. To think that "5 senses is all that are possible" is
reminiscent of the days of "the Earth is the center of the Universe."

So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe, does not mean that you are
absolutely correct. Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.


-To the believers in God, an afterlife, and supernatural phenomena:

You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does. Even after you die, you might not get to know. Who knows?
You can certainly believe, believe strongly, whatever; but you can't be
100% sure.

To use arguments like "Well, there must be a God because (fill in some
argument about order in the universe, phenomena on Earth that appears to
make sense, intelligent design, blah, blah, blah), please take about
5-10 minutes and read something about the "Anthropic Principle." I'm
not going to type a huge explanation of the principle here. The fact
is, we humans are here. Just because we are here, does not mean that we
are here "because."

-To everyone:

Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way. Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other. These debates remind me of the "Got You Last" games played by
Plus and Minus on the old Nickelodeon series Pinwheel. (Anyone who has
seen the show will understand the analogy exactly.) One hundred years
from now, we'll probably all know the answer for sure, one way or
another. So let's wait and find out.

Please post more poker topics, or even stupid garbage like your
political debates. At least the political stuff can yield some
productive discussion at times. Thank you.

-ikabopo-
Omaha Chris
2007-06-15 07:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ikabopo -
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does.
That is incorrect.

I agree that arguing about these things is stupid, but anybody who has
experienced precognition, astral projection, near-death experience,
seeing auras, channeling, ghosts, etcetera, knows for sure. Regardless
of whether or not they can "prove" anything to the world at large, they
know for themselves. All it takes is one or two slam-dunk experiences to
make even the most skeptical person understand that there's a lot more
going on than the materialist paradigm says there is.

The nature of these phenomena tends to be subjective and non-repeatable
though. Put that together with the huge mainstream fundamentalist
scientific bias against Things That Violate The Paradigm and no, society
at large will not be sold on them anytime soon. People will not face
cognitive dissonance unless they are forced to.

"Knowing for sure" happens on an individual basis.
Post by - ikabopo -
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way.
Debates on RGP are primarily dick-measuring/feather-displaying contests.
They are rarely about actually resolving things.
Pepe Papon
2007-06-15 09:29:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:46:36 -0700, Omaha Chris
Post by Omaha Chris
Post by - ikabopo -
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does.
That is incorrect.
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid, but anybody who has
experienced precognition, astral projection, near-death experience,
seeing auras, channeling, ghosts, etcetera, knows for sure. Regardless
of whether or not they can "prove" anything to the world at large, they
know for themselves. All it takes is one or two slam-dunk experiences to
make even the most skeptical person understand that there's a lot more
going on than the materialist paradigm says there is.
The nature of these phenomena tends to be subjective and non-repeatable
though. Put that together with the huge mainstream fundamentalist
scientific bias against Things That Violate The Paradigm and no, society
at large will not be sold on them anytime soon. People will not face
cognitive dissonance unless they are forced to.
"Knowing for sure" happens on an individual basis.
That is incorrect. Believing you know for sure isn't the same as
actually knowing for sure. An illusion or a hallucination can seem
real, yet it's still merely an illusion or a hallucination.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
readyfireaim
2007-06-15 14:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
actually knowing for sure. An illusion or a hallucination can seem
real, yet it's still merely an illusion or a hallucination.
Uh, have you ever seen a hallucination?





_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2007-06-15 18:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Pepe Papon
actually knowing for sure. An illusion or a hallucination can seem
real, yet it's still merely an illusion or a hallucination.
Uh, have you ever seen a hallucination?
Yes.  Seen.  Heard.  Felt.  Experienced.  Very real. 


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
readyfireaim
2007-06-15 20:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Yes.  Seen.  Heard.  Felt.  Experienced.  Very real. 
That hardly sounds like depression, but the point I was trying to make with pepe
is that unless their is someone with you to tell you that the giant pink
elephant is not really real - it is really real to you at the time. Two days
latter you may wonder about it but you'll never know for sure that it was just a
hallucination. Well maybe not a pink elephant but say a ufo or something. A
hallucination that you know is a hallucination is pretty much a contradiction.
And an illusion is not the same.




_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2007-06-15 20:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Gary Carson
Yes.  Seen.  Heard.  Felt.  Experienced.  Very real. 
That hardly sounds like depression, but the point I was trying to make with pepe
is that unless their is someone with you to tell you that the giant pink
elephant is not really real - it is really real to you at the time.
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.  You can experience it, know it's not
real, but it still feels real.  You don't have to have someone else to tell you
at the time that's it's not real. 

It's entirely possible to have two conflicting thoughts your head at the same
time.  Some people might call that rapid-cycling, but I think it's different
from that.
Post by readyfireaim
Two days
latter you may wonder about it but you'll never know for sure that it was just a
hallucination. Well maybe not a pink elephant but say a ufo or something. A
hallucination that you know is a hallucination is pretty much a contradiction.
And an illusion is not the same.
You don't know what you're talking about.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
readyfireaim
2007-06-15 21:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.  You can experience it, know it's not
real, but it still feels real.  You don't have to have someone else to tell you
at the time that's it's not real. 
Yeah but in most cases you have to know that what your hallucinationg is
impossible in order to know its not real. If you hallucinate a pink elephant you
know that's not real and so you know its a hallucination. Even if you still
swerve to miss it. But if you hallucinate tree in an area your unfamiliar with
you end up walking away thinking there's a tree there when in fact its not. You
wont know its not a real tree until you mention it to someone and they tell you
that there is no tree there - or until you revisit the site and see its not
there. If on the other hand you leave town and never return your going to
remember a tree where there never was one. Now thats a hallucination. One where
the question (was that a hallucination) just never comes up.
Post by Gary Carson
It's entirely possible to have two conflicting thoughts your head at the same
time.  Some people might call that rapid-cycling, but I think it's different
from that.
I'll take your word for it...
Post by Gary Carson
You don't know what you're talking about.
uh, see above...



_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
2007-06-16 01:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Gary Carson
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.  You can experience it, know it's not
real, but it still feels real.  You don't have to have someone else to tell you
at the time that's it's not real. 
Yeah but in most cases you have to know that what your hallucinationg is
impossible in order to know its not real.
No.  You don't.

You just don't get it.  You've never experienced it and it's not likely you will
get it.

Delusions are based on errors in thinking.  Belief in the delusions are based on
other kinds (related by different) errors in thinking.    Various
anti-depressants and anti-psychotics treat different kinds of errors in
thinking.  It's possible, through  the use of both psychiatric drugs and various
behavioral talk therapies, to have successful treatment of some of the errors in
thinking in such a way that the delusions don't stop, but some other part of
your brain understands it's a delusion.

Delusions aren't only visual delusions such as pink elephants.  Much more common
is delusional thinking of the sort that causes misinterpretation of meaning of
real visual cues or the hearing of voices (both inside your head and from
external sources).   

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 02:41:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 07 1:33:42 GMT, Gary Carson
Post by Gary Carson
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Gary Carson
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be.  You can experience it, know it's not
real, but it still feels real.  You don't have to have someone else to tell you
at the time that's it's not real. 
So how can you tell when someone has lost the ability to separate the
reality from their feelings?

For sure, you can ask them.
Post by Gary Carson
Post by readyfireaim
Yeah but in most cases you have to know that what your hallucinationg is
impossible in order to know its not real.
No.  You don't.
You just don't get it.  You've never experienced it and it's not likely you will
get it.
You mean that someone has to have been delusional at some point in
order to diagnose someone else as delusional/not delusional?

I've heard of the blind leading the blind, but that's ridiculous.
Post by Gary Carson
Delusions are based on errors in thinking.  Belief in the delusions are based on
other kinds (related by different) errors in thinking.    Various
anti-depressants and anti-psychotics treat different kinds of errors in
thinking.  It's possible, through  the use of both psychiatric drugs and various
behavioral talk therapies, to have successful treatment of some of the errors in
thinking in such a way that the delusions don't stop, but some other part of
your brain understands it's a delusion.
Specifically as in both religion and politics, I don't see much hope
of anyone being smart enough to conclusively define an "error in
thinking".

From my standpoint in the VRWC, I see "errors of thinking" in a
massive scale coming from the other side of the political chasm.

Undoubtedly, those people on the other side of the chasm think the
same thing about me.

What drug do you recommend to solve that problem?
Post by Gary Carson
Delusions aren't only visual delusions such as pink elephants.  Much more common
is delusional thinking of the sort that causes misinterpretation of meaning of
real visual cues or the hearing of voices (both inside your head and from
external sources).   
For sure.

We can agree a lot of times about "what happened."
The sticky part is to analyze "why did it happen?".

GL on the quest to define what is an "error of thinking".

(I will leave out the pink elephants- everyone knows they are real."
billb
2007-06-16 04:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
So how can you tell when someone has lost the ability to separate the
reality from their feelings?
You ask him if he still supports George Bush.
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 04:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
So how can you tell when someone has lost the ability to separate the
reality from their feelings?
You ask him if he still supports George Bush.
BADA BING !!

So have you have you decided if there is enough evidence that Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela is a Commie?

As I recall, you didn't have enough evidence a while ago.

And how is Mary Lou Finley?
I still miss her.
billb
2007-06-16 05:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
So have you have you decided if there is enough evidence that Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela is a Commie?
As I recall, you didn't have enough evidence a while ago.
I didn't say I didn't have enough evidence. I said I didn't know anything
about him.
Post by FL Turbo
And how is Mary Lou Finley?
I still miss her.
I don't know who Mary Lou Finley is.
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 05:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
So have you have you decided if there is enough evidence that Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela is a Commie?
As I recall, you didn't have enough evidence a while ago.
I didn't say I didn't have enough evidence. I said I didn't know anything
about him.
How about today?
Do you know anything about him now?
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
And how is Mary Lou Finley?
I still miss her.
I don't know who Mary Lou Finley is.
I guess I am showing my provincialism.
To boot, I spelled her name wrong.
It's Finlay.

I had thought Canadians knew all about her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Finlay

Mary Lou Finlay (born 1947) is a Canadian journalist who hosted the
CBC Radio One news program As It Happens from September 1, 1997 until
November 30, 2005.

Finlay graduated from the University of Ottawa in 1967 with a BA in
English and French literature. For three years she did writing and
researching for the Canadian War Museum before her leap to journalism
when she began hosting a CBC Ottawa television magazine.

In 1975, Finlay moved to Toronto to co-host CBC Television's Take 30.
She hosted her own program, Finlay and Company, in 1976 and 1977 and
developed a loyal following.

In 1978 she moved to CTV to co-host and produce the award-winning Live
It Up!.

In 1981 she became co-host with Barbara Frum of CBC Television's
nightly current affairs program, The Journal. After the program's
first year, Frum remained as host and Finlay became a documentary
reporter, remaining with the program until 1988. In that year she
became host of CBC Radio's current affairs program Sunday Morning,
where she remained until the spring of 1994. From 1994 to 1997, she
hosted Now The Details, CBC Radio's weekly media watchdog program.

Finlay became co-host with Barbara Budd of As It Happens on 1
September 1997, having to cover the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
on her first day. She retired following her last appearance on 30
November 2005, which was a tribute show for Finlay celebrating her
years with the CBC.

Finlay is now a fellow with the Centre for the Study of Democracy at
Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I listen to "As It Happens".
I thought she was delightful.
billb
2007-06-16 05:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
How about today?
Do you know anything about him now?
Well since then I learned he visited Castro in the hospital, has been
seeking or purchasing heavy military hardware from Iran, and has shut down
an opposition TV station. It all sounds very shady. I think we should at
least have Mr. Popinjay keep an eye on him.
Post by FL Turbo
Post by billb
I don't know who Mary Lou Finley is.
I had thought Canadians knew all about her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Finlay
Mary Lou Finlay (born 1947) is a Canadian journalist who hosted the
CBC Radio One news program As It Happens from September 1, 1997 until
November 30, 2005.
I listen to "As It Happens".
I thought she was delightful.
Oh. The only Canadian TV personality I listen to is Don Cherry. He may be
half nuts but he does know his hockey.
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 05:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
How about today?
Do you know anything about him now?
Well since then I learned he visited Castro in the hospital, has been
seeking or purchasing heavy military hardware from Iran, and has shut down
an opposition TV station. It all sounds very shady. I think we should at
least have Mr. Popinjay keep an eye on him.
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?

Okedokee.
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
Post by billb
I don't know who Mary Lou Finley is.
I had thought Canadians knew all about her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Finlay
Mary Lou Finlay (born 1947) is a Canadian journalist who hosted the
CBC Radio One news program As It Happens from September 1, 1997 until
November 30, 2005.
I listen to "As It Happens".
I thought she was delightful.
Oh. The only Canadian TV personality I listen to is Don Cherry. He may be
half nuts but he does know his hockey.
Yeah.
I had heard that Kanuckistanis didn't care about anything but hockey.

I didn't really believe it until now.
billb
2007-06-16 06:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?
Let's wait till we read Mr. Popinjay's report.
billb
2007-06-16 06:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?
Let's wait till we read Mr. Popinjay's report.
I did some of my own research.

The CIA is calling him a democratically elected "democratic socialist".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
(see: Background)

So yes, I would assume that fits your definition of "commie". So Chavez is
indeed a "commie". Happy now?
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 14:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?
Let's wait till we read Mr. Popinjay's report.
I did some of my own research.
The CIA is calling him a democratically elected "democratic socialist".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
(see: Background)
So yes, I would assume that fits your definition of "commie". So Chavez is
indeed a "commie". Happy now?
You?
Quoting the CIA as the final authority?
Chavez "democratic..."?

It does give me a good laugh.

I spose that is as close to happy as I will ever get thinking about
Hugo Chavez.
James L. Hankins
2007-06-16 14:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by billb
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?
Let's wait till we read Mr. Popinjay's report.
I did some of my own research.
The CIA is calling him a democratically elected "democratic socialist".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
(see: Background)
So yes, I would assume that fits your definition of "commie". So Chavez is
indeed a "commie". Happy now?
You?
Quoting the CIA as the final authority?
Chavez "democratic..."?
It does give me a good laugh.
I spose that is as close to happy as I will ever get thinking about
Hugo Chavez.
Look at you. Back from hiatus and gettin' all technical and stuff. But
here's a question for ya: With all the actual problems facing the U.S., why
would you ever think of Chavez in the first place? This guy is about in
199,000th place on the list of relevant things, right under Paris Hilton and
her jail problems.

Plus, Harkness is at the final table, dude!
Travel
2007-06-16 15:32:00 UTC
Permalink
To "Johnny Yooper": that's the standard reply to the question but it's
obviously not nearly good enough. It's code for "we don't know".

Is there anything in recorded history that presents evidence that this
twig bug was ever anything but a twig bug? No. Therefore there's zero
evidence tht th twig bug evolved from something else.

Then, there's logic. How could it know enough to blend in. How could it,
by sheer will or otherwise, transform itself; regardless of how many
thousands of years it tried.

Nature, right here on earth, truly is a mystery. How much more so, when
presuming to have the answers with regard to the universe.

Science tells us that we're all spinning around on a big blue beach ball
in the middle of nowhere, but it doesn't tell us why.


--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Bob T.
2007-06-16 16:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
To "Johnny Yooper": that's the standard reply to the question but it's
obviously not nearly good enough. It's code for "we don't know".
Nonsense - you mean that _you_ don't know.
Post by Travel
Is there anything in recorded history that presents evidence that this
twig bug was ever anything but a twig bug? No. Therefore there's zero
evidence tht th twig bug evolved from something else.
Insects don't fossilize well, so we don't have as much direct evidence
of their evolutionary history as we do for vertebrates. Despite that,
the evidence for the evolution of insects, as well as the evolution of
mammals, fish, and plants, is vast and irrefutable.
Post by Travel
Then, there's logic. How could it know enough to blend in. How could it,
by sheer will or otherwise, transform itself; regardless of how many
thousands of years it tried.
Once again you demonstrate that you haven't a clue about how evolution
actually works. There is no "will" involved. Insects that look more
like sticks survive to reproduce more often than insects that look
less like sticks. The next generation, there are slightly more stick-
like insects than there were the generation before. Repeat for
several thousand generations, and you have a species that looks
exactly like sticks.
Post by Travel
Nature, right here on earth, truly is a mystery. How much more so, when
presuming to have the answers with regard to the universe.
Nature is much less of a mystery than you think, dude. We know a
great deal about the natural history of life on this planet and the
relationship of our species to others.
Post by Travel
Science tells us that we're all spinning around on a big blue beach ball
in the middle of nowhere, but it doesn't tell us why.
Science is not supposed to tell us "why". Science is supposed to tell
us "what" and "how" and "when". Evolutionary science tells us that
life began on Earth several billion years ago, all creatures on Earth
are related to one another, and it tells us that we humans are closely
related to chimpanzees. Geological science tells us that the Earth is
over four billion years old. Astronomy tells us that the universe is
over fourteen billions years old. These things are all true, and yet
utterly irrelevant to the question of why you get up in the morning.

- Bob T.
Post by Travel
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Will in New Haven
2007-06-16 21:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
To "Johnny Yooper": that's the standard reply to the question but it's
obviously not nearly good enough. It's code for "we don't know".
Is there anything in recorded history that presents evidence that this
twig bug was ever anything but a twig bug? No. Therefore there's zero
evidence tht th twig bug evolved from something else.
Then, there's logic. How could it know enough to blend in. How could it,
by sheer will or otherwise, transform itself; regardless of how many
thousands of years it tried.
Nature, right here on earth, truly is a mystery. How much more so, when
presuming to have the answers with regard to the universe.
Science tells us that we're all spinning around on a big blue beach ball
in the middle of nowhere, but it doesn't tell us why.
For some reason, Google wouldn't show me your posts for long time. I
was just lucky I guess. You are still a moron and now on a different
subject.

Will in New Haven

--
Post by Travel
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Travel
2007-06-16 22:51:57 UTC
Permalink
To The Donkey In New Haven:


You're a babbling idiot, on every subject.

I especially enjoy watching your delusions of grandeur as you constantly
try to sneak in statements, at every opportunity, about retiring on
poker winnings. LOL! What a joke. You're clearly a disgruntled, life
long losing player in denial. You're just another miserable hack who
thinks he can get away with lying about himself on the internet.

And believe me, you're not even close to being even remotely mistaken as
being intellectual; as hard as you pathetically may try to impress with
your pompous drivel. You're not even half of a half assed writer; the
syntax sucks out loud, and is annoyingly self-conscious.

You're an old loser.

--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Palooka
2007-06-17 04:15:17 UTC
Permalink
"Travel"
Post by Travel
You're a babbling idiot, on every subject.
And you sir, are a total and utter wanker.

Palooka
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 16:09:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:31:52 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by FL Turbo
Post by billb
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
But you aren't convinced he's a Commie?
Let's wait till we read Mr. Popinjay's report.
I did some of my own research.
The CIA is calling him a democratically elected "democratic socialist".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
(see: Background)
So yes, I would assume that fits your definition of "commie". So Chavez is
indeed a "commie". Happy now?
You?
Quoting the CIA as the final authority?
Chavez "democratic..."?
It does give me a good laugh.
I spose that is as close to happy as I will ever get thinking about
Hugo Chavez.
Look at you. Back from hiatus and gettin' all technical and stuff. But
here's a question for ya: With all the actual problems facing the U.S., why
would you ever think of Chavez in the first place? This guy is about in
199,000th place on the list of relevant things, right under Paris Hilton and
her jail problems.
It's just another little demonstration of how Leftists are willing to
make excuses for Totalitarian regimes that coincidentally fall under
the Socialist category.

You are correct, though.

What could be more important than Paris Hilton?
Post by James L. Hankins
Plus, Harkness is at the final table, dude!
You are 100% correct again.
It does my heart good to see an RGPer make it.

Go John !!

If he does win the whole thing, he can always deal later with the
predictable railbirds here who will denigrate his accomplishment.

No big deal having to walk around some DoggyPoop laying on the
sidewalk.

A small price to pay for a lot of CaChing!
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-16 20:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
How about today?
Do you know anything about him now?
Well since then I learned he visited Castro in the hospital, has been
seeking or purchasing heavy military hardware from Iran, and has shut down
an opposition TV station. It all sounds very shady. I think we should at
least have Mr. Popinjay keep an eye on him.
Post by FL Turbo
Post by billb
I don't know who Mary Lou Finley is.
I had thought Canadians knew all about her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lou_Finlay
Mary Lou Finlay (born 1947) is a Canadian journalist who hosted the
CBC Radio One news program As It Happens from September 1, 1997 until
November 30, 2005.
I listen to "As It Happens".
I thought she was delightful.
Oh. The only Canadian TV personality I listen to is Don Cherry. He may be
half nuts but he does know his hockey.
Growing up in the Frigid North, within easy range of CBC (OTA), it was my
great pleasure to watch Mr. Cherry regularly during the Hockey Night in
Canada broadcasts.

I especially remember the OT games; they would drag Mr. Cherry out to do
some intermission commentary. He was usually 3/4 in the bag, at that
point; as they say, In vino veritas!

Only on CBC!

Oh, and I forgive him for all his disparaging comments toward our beloved
Red Wings. Hell, I half agreed with him, when it came to the Russian line.

Durn it, I miss getting CBC broadcasts!

Cheers.

--- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-06-16 05:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by billb
Post by FL Turbo
So how can you tell when someone has lost the ability to separate the
reality from their feelings?
You ask him if he still supports George Bush.
Unless he only started supporting Bush recently, he never had it to begin with.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-06-15 23:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Gary Carson
Yes.  Seen.  Heard.  Felt.  Experienced.  Very real. 
That hardly sounds like depression, but the point I was trying to make with pepe
is that unless their is someone with you to tell you that the giant pink
elephant is not really real - it is really real to you at the time. Two days
latter you may wonder about it but you'll never know for sure that it was just a
hallucination. Well maybe not a pink elephant but say a ufo or something. A
hallucination that you know is a hallucination is pretty much a contradiction.
And an illusion is not the same.
Bullshit. I've known people who have had schizophrenia and experienced
hallucinations, and were entirely aware that they were hallucinations. It
didn't make it stop.
readyfireaim
2007-06-16 01:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
Bullshit. I've known people who have had schizophrenia and experienced
hallucinations, and were entirely aware that they were hallucinations. It
didn't make it stop.
Yeah but they were told about it first, unless it was something impossible and
they are able to reason it out for themselves. Afterward they just learn to
recognize it. I was referring to visual hallucinations but it works the same
with audio. Originally they hear something and ask ever who's around "did you
here that?" and they reply "No, I didn't here anything..." Same thing with "did
you see that."

A lot of schizophrenics start out fairly young and when they first here a voice
they attribute it to God. Then someone explains it to them and they learn what
the deal is. Point is with visual hallucinations - if you see something normal
only absent you would not know it wasn't real. I guess you could hallucinate a
song while driving down the road and assume the radio was on when it wasn't.
Personally I can't imagine what hallucinations would be like if I saw or heard
one. I do not understand how the brain does that.

I don't even want to think about tactile feeling. Drunks and junkies do feel
bugs crawling on them when they're going through withdrawals. That's gotta
suck...





_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Pepe Papon
2007-06-16 07:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Post by Pepe Papon
actually knowing for sure. An illusion or a hallucination can seem
real, yet it's still merely an illusion or a hallucination.
Uh, have you ever seen a hallucination?
My personal experiences are quite irrelevant. Surely, you're aware of
the multitude of documented cases of people experiencing
hallucinations which they could not distinguish from reality.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
brewmaster
2007-06-15 15:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omaha Chris
Post by - ikabopo -
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does.
That is incorrect.
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid, but anybody who has
experienced precognition, astral projection, near-death experience,
seeing auras, channeling, ghosts, etcetera, knows for sure. Regardless
of whether or not they can "prove" anything to the world at large, they
know for themselves. All it takes is one or two slam-dunk experiences to
make even the most skeptical person understand that there's a lot more
going on than the materialist paradigm says there is.
ghosts???? LOL
Post by Omaha Chris
The nature of these phenomena tends to be subjective and non-repeatable
though. Put that together with the huge mainstream fundamentalist
scientific bias against Things That Violate The Paradigm and no, society
at large will not be sold on them anytime soon. People will not face
cognitive dissonance unless they are forced to.
"Knowing for sure" happens on an individual basis.
Post by - ikabopo -
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way.
Debates on RGP are primarily dick-measuring/feather-displaying contests.
They are rarely about actually resolving things.
______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
OrangeSFO
2007-06-15 19:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omaha Chris
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid,
NOT arguing them is what's stupid. You might as well say that
excercizing one's intellect is stupid.

Debate and exchange of ideas is fun and one of the best things about
owning a human brain.
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-15 19:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Omaha Chris
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid,
NOT arguing them is what's stupid. You might as well say that
excercizing one's intellect is stupid.
Debate and exchange of ideas is fun and one of the best things about
owning a human brain.
BING-freakin'-O! IAWTP! Well said! Hammer Strikes Nail, Centered
Beautifully!

Cuz, like, no activity is enjoyable in and of itself... there has to be
some end result, there has to be FRUIT.

I suppose these brilliant bastards would quit bumpin' uglies if they found
out they had slow swimmers! What's the point!

________________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2007-06-15 20:40:03 UTC
Permalink
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
there has to be FRUIT
An orange is a fruit.
Travel
2007-06-15 21:32:17 UTC
Permalink
How much does science really explain?

How about that bug who looks like a twig? How did that happen? It looks
like a twig because it needed to look like a twig?

Did it instinctively decide that: "I think I should start looking like a
twig because I'm getting my ass kicked standing round on this fucking
leaf all day"? Uh, I don't think so.

..Oh, I see, it "evolved", right. How did it survive during this
evolutionary process? When it only looked, sort of like a twig, are we
supposed to believe that the frogs said: "there's a bug but, Ahh, leave
'im alone, he's evolving"?

How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?

Nature is loaded with nothing but these unexplained by science
phenomena. And it's not like there is an explanation just waiting to be
discovered and understood by science. This is a dead end.

It does seem little bit like someone planned it all, doesn't it?...and
I'm not a big God Guy.

--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
FaceDownAcesUp
2007-06-15 21:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
How much does science really explain?
How about that bug who looks like a twig? How did that happen? It looks
like a twig because it needed to look like a twig?
Did it instinctively decide that: "I think I should start looking like a
twig because I'm getting my ass kicked standing round on this fucking
leaf all day"? Uh, I don't think so.
..Oh, I see, it "evolved", right. How did it survive during this
evolutionary process? When it only looked, sort of like a twig, are we
supposed to believe that the frogs said: "there's a bug but, Ahh, leave
'im alone, he's evolving"?
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
Nature is loaded with nothing but these unexplained by science
phenomena. And it's not like there is an explanation just waiting to be
discovered and understood by science. This is a dead end.
It does seem little bit like someone planned it all, doesn't it?...and
I'm not a big God Guy.
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
We will probably never know the answers to those mysteries. That's why
I choose to humble myself before Him and take solace in the fact that
there is an ultimate plan for all of us.
OrangeSFO
2007-06-16 00:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
We will probably never know the answers to those mysteries. That's why
I choose to humble myself before Him and take solace in the fact that
there is an ultimate plan for all of us.
You mean cop out and avoid the hard work of using your brain...?
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 01:23:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:07:00 -0700, OrangeSFO
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
We will probably never know the answers to those mysteries. That's why
I choose to humble myself before Him and take solace in the fact that
there is an ultimate plan for all of us.
You mean cop out and avoid the hard work of using your brain...?
Well, maybe.

That approach seems to work out quite well for you.
Will in New Haven
2007-06-16 21:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
We will probably never know the answers to those mysteries. That's why
I choose to humble myself before Him and take solace in the fact that
there is an ultimate plan for all of us.
You mean cop out and avoid the hard work of using your brain...?
Using his what?

Will in New Haven

--
art_classmn
2007-06-16 17:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
We will probably never know the answers to those mysteries. That's why
I choose to humble myself before Him and take solace in the fact that
there is an ultimate plan for all of us.- Hide quoted text -
Humble before who?
sng
2007-06-15 22:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
How much does science really explain?
How about that bug who looks like a twig? How did that happen? It looks
like a twig because it needed to look like a twig?
Did it instinctively decide that: "I think I should start looking like a
twig because I'm getting my ass kicked standing round on this fucking
leaf all day"? Uh, I don't think so.
..Oh, I see, it "evolved", right. How did it survive during this
evolutionary process?
--
S. Doyle
doyles AT mountaincable DOT net
JohnnyYooper
2007-06-16 00:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
How much does science really explain?
How about that bug who looks like a twig? How did that happen? It looks
like a twig because it needed to look like a twig?
Did it instinctively decide that: "I think I should start looking like a
twig because I'm getting my ass kicked standing round on this fucking
leaf all day"? Uh, I don't think so.
..Oh, I see, it "evolved", right. How did it survive during this
evolutionary process? When it only looked, sort of like a twig, are we
supposed to believe that the frogs said: "there's a bug but, Ahh, leave
'im alone, he's evolving"?
you apparently dont understand how evolution works. species dont
magically and suddenly change from one form to another. its takes
thousands and millions of years. in your example, you know why the
frogs left that stick insect alone? because he looked more like a twig
than his brothers and therefore harder for the frogs to see. he was
therefore more likely to survive and pass on his "better camouflage"
genes.
and how did he happen to get these "better camouflage" genes? thru
genetic mutation. many other stick insects were also born with other
different genetic mutations that werent helpful in survival so they
didnt survive as well as the twig with the improved camouflage.
and on and on, generation after generation. each tiny change would
be very difficult to see but still give that particular new animal a
slight survival edge. over thousands of generations, there could be a
huge change in a species appearance.
art_classmn
2007-06-16 17:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
So you think an invisible being made the twig bug and the kittycat?

Wow. Like I said, keep the discussion going, people like this need to
come out and share their views as often as possible.
James L. Hankins
2007-06-16 17:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by art_classmn
Post by Travel
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
So you think an invisible being made the twig bug and the kittycat?
Wow. Like I said, keep the discussion going, people like this need to
come out and share their views as often as possible.
Take it easy. I'd say a good number of religious persons, myself being one,
can believe in God without rejecting evolution. You can describe it as "an
invisible being [making] the twig bug and the kittycat" but that sort of
smartass attitude doesn't really help the discussion along.

Frame some issues or questions and I'll debate this with you.
Travel
2007-06-16 18:09:59 UTC
Permalink
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick. I think this is what we're talking about. Science can't
answer these questions and it certainly can't answer the question of
whether there is a God.

--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Bob T.
2007-06-17 03:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick.
Yes, I did. Here is is again, using only common English words:

* Some bugs look more like sticks than other bugs.
* The bugs that look less like sticks are easier for frogs to see and
eat.
* The bugs that look more like sticks therefore survive longer, and
have more offspring.
* This happens over and over and over again, with each new generation
becoming slightly more stick-like.
* After many generations, the stick-bugs look just like sticks.

Now, Travel, you try: why do gazelles and cheetahs run so fast?
Post by Travel
I think this is what we're talking about. Science can't
answer these questions and it certainly can't answer the question of
whether there is a God.
Science can easily answer the question "why does a stick bug look like
a stick?", which is a proper scientific question. Science cannot
answer the question "is there a God?". Science can answer the
question "was there a world-wide flood four thousand years ago?"
Science cannot answer the question "Can Thor beat up Shiva?".
Questions about gods are not subject to scientific answers - only
questions about the real world can be answered by science.

- Bob T.
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 03:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob T.
Post by Travel
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick.
* Some bugs look more like sticks than other bugs.
* The bugs that look less like sticks are easier for frogs to see and
eat.
* The bugs that look more like sticks therefore survive longer, and
have more offspring.
* This happens over and over and over again, with each new generation
becoming slightly more stick-like.
* After many generations, the stick-bugs look just like sticks.
"Bugs" have been around a very long time, and have very short lifespans and
reproduction cycles as well.  In the time of one generation of humans could have
thousands of generations of many bugs.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Bob T.
2007-06-17 03:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Bob T.
Post by Travel
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick.
* Some bugs look more like sticks than other bugs.
* The bugs that look less like sticks are easier for frogs to see and
eat.
* The bugs that look more like sticks therefore survive longer, and
have more offspring.
* This happens over and over and over again, with each new generation
becoming slightly more stick-like.
* After many generations, the stick-bugs look just like sticks.
"Bugs" have been around a very long time, and have very short lifespans and
reproduction cycles as well. In the time of one generation of humans could have
thousands of generations of many bugs.
Good point. This is why biologists work with fruit flies so often,
and in fact biologists have created new species of fruit flies in the
laboratory.

- Bob T.
Post by Super Steamer
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 03:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Bob T.
Post by Travel
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick.
* Some bugs look more like sticks than other bugs.
* The bugs that look less like sticks are easier for frogs to see and
eat.
* The bugs that look more like sticks therefore survive longer, and
have more offspring.
* This happens over and over and over again, with each new generation
becoming slightly more stick-like.
* After many generations, the stick-bugs look just like sticks.
"Bugs" have been around a very long time, and have very short lifespans and
reproduction cycles as well.  In the time of one generation of humans could have
thousands of generations of many bugs.
Or even millions of generations.

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 04:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Bob T.
Post by Travel
BobT didn't answer the question of how the stick bug happens to look
like a stick.
* Some bugs look more like sticks than other bugs.
* The bugs that look less like sticks are easier for frogs to see and
eat.
* The bugs that look more like sticks therefore survive longer, and
have more offspring.
* This happens over and over and over again, with each new generation
becoming slightly more stick-like.
* After many generations, the stick-bugs look just like sticks.
"Bugs" have been around a very long time, and have very short lifespans and
reproduction cycles as well.  In the time of one generation of humans could have
thousands of generations of many bugs.
Or even millions of generations.
I may have been out of line with that one.
http://ufbir.ifas.ufl.edu/chap06.htm

I'll stick with thousands.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
FL Turbo
2007-06-16 18:07:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:05:45 -0700, art_classmn
Post by art_classmn
Post by Travel
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
So you think an invisible being made the twig bug and the kittycat?
Wow. Like I said, keep the discussion going, people like this need to
come out and share their views as often as possible.
So what do you make of the theory that there is some built-in,
evolutionary tendency for humans to believe in the concept of a
"higher power", or a G_d for short?

Despite the best effort of Atheists over recorded history, that
intangible belief has persisted.

We see evidence that even a Master Triangulator such as Hillary!
includes reference to G_d in her speeches to audiences, even Moonbat
audiences.

Why do even Master Panderers always seem to include a reference to G_d
in their speeches?

Why are you and your Ilks so single minded and insistent to stamp out
something that looks so engrained in humans?

Yes.
Questions, questions, questions.
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-16 21:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:05:45 -0700, art_classmn
Post by art_classmn
Post by Travel
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
So you think an invisible being made the twig bug and the kittycat?
Wow. Like I said, keep the discussion going, people like this need to
come out and share their views as often as possible.
So what do you make of the theory that there is some built-in,
evolutionary tendency for humans to believe in the concept of a
"higher power", or a G_d for short?
You mean curiosity? Yeah, I think that's hard-wired in us humans. Work
hard, I'm sure you can come up with some evolutionary advantages!

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2007-06-17 13:33:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:09:04 -0700, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:05:45 -0700, art_classmn
Post by art_classmn
Post by Travel
How about the Snow Leopard who's fur color blends in perfectly with the
snow and grey rocks found at high elevations? How the fuck did that
happen? Pretty damn convenient for chasing big horn sheep, wouldn't you
say?
So you think an invisible being made the twig bug and the kittycat?
Wow. Like I said, keep the discussion going, people like this need to
come out and share their views as often as possible.
So what do you make of the theory that there is some built-in,
evolutionary tendency for humans to believe in the concept of a
"higher power", or a G_d for short?
You mean curiosity? Yeah, I think that's hard-wired in us humans. Work
hard, I'm sure you can come up with some evolutionary advantages!
No
I didn't mean curiosity.

Now I'm curious as to why you brought up the topic of curiosity.
Travel
2007-06-17 15:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Well, BobT is getting worse by the post. There's zero evidence that the
stick bug evolved from something else, yet, he insists that it did. Even
if it did, how did evolve into looking exactly like a stick? Why didn't
it evolved into a poisonous bug, as a defense? If the stick bug was
always a stick bug and didn't evolve, how did it just appear as a bug
who looks exactly like a stick?

Science can't answer these questions, and it certainly can't answer how
or why things in nature are the way they are. So, science most certainly
can't assert that a higher being didn't design the state, progress and
history of nature.

It's laughable that liberals actually think that they can tell
intelligent people a God is impossible because some communist weasels in
academe with an anti religious hate agenda, say so.

--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Bob T.
2007-06-17 16:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
Well, BobT is getting worse by the post. There's zero evidence that the
stick bug evolved from something else, yet, he insists that it did. Even
if it did, how did evolve into looking exactly like a stick? Why didn't
it evolved into a poisonous bug, as a defense? If the stick bug was
always a stick bug and didn't evolve, how did it just appear as a bug
who looks exactly like a stick?
Wow, you're really an idiot. I explained this twice already, and yet
you don't understand it at all. It's no wonder you don't believe in
evolution - you are completely clueless about how it works.
Post by Travel
Science can't answer these questions, and it certainly can't answer how
or why things in nature are the way they are.
Yes, science can answer these questions. I have already explained how
bugs evolve to look like sticks. It is a simple concept, but you are
either incredibly stupid or so emotionally tied to your religious
beliefs that your brain just refuses to grasp concepts that seem to
contradict your world view.
Post by Travel
So, science most certainly can't assert that a higher being didn't design the state, progress and
history of nature.
Obviously you didn't actually read my post, in which I stated clearly
that science does not tell us how many gods there are.
Post by Travel
It's laughable that liberals actually think that they can tell
intelligent people a God is impossible because some communist weasels in
academe with an anti religious hate agenda, say so.
Liberals? Communists? Science is science, dude. Most Christians
believe in both evolution and God.

- Bob T.
Post by Travel
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
JohnnyYooper
2007-06-17 16:40:44 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 17, 8:31 am, Travel <***@webtv.net> wrote:
Why didn't
Post by Travel
it evolved into a poisonous bug, as a defense?
look at snakes for example. some evolved into poisonous snakes,
some evolved into constrictors, etc.
same with bugs. many evolved into using poison as a defense. it
wouldnt surprise me if there are in fact poisonous stick bugs as
well.

anyway, i suspect youre just trolling now.
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-17 19:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
Well, BobT is getting worse by the post. There's zero evidence that the
stick bug evolved from something else, yet, he insists that it did. Even
if it did, how did evolve into looking exactly like a stick? Why didn't
it evolved into a poisonous bug, as a defense?
Why did I roll a seven, instead of a nine <I really *needed* that nine!!!>?

Ah, fuck. That's gonna go right over yer head.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Travel
2007-06-18 09:43:56 UTC
Permalink
This getting really funny, now. BobT is so confused and desperate that
he's now partially agreeing with my point and trying to present that
same agreement as a disagreement. The argument is pretty much over when
BobT needs to start "assigning" assertions that were never made.

How dumb can anyone get. Of course there's evolution, it's also called
change. Things in nature constantly change, duh! Evolution may very well
be created and designed by a higher being to perform in exactly that
way; and the stick bug may have always been a stick bug by design.

Also, evolution doesn't need to be the exclusive dynamic in nature, by
any means, as conveniently as the term is used by communists like BobT
as a propaganda "catch all" phrase.

Liberals use the term evolution to blow off anything they can't explain
in their quest to discredit religion.

They can't explain why things are the way they are in nature and they
certainly have no argument with regard to creationism.

--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Edward
2007-06-18 11:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel
How dumb can anyone get. Of course there's evolution, it's also called
change. Evolution may very well
be created and designed by a higher being to perform in exactly that
way; and the stick bug may have always been a stick bug by design.
All I want to know is - When is a package of hotdig buns going to
evolve from 8 to 10 in a pack to match the 10 hotdogs in a pack? God
better get off his ass, because I'm getting a little pissed that I
have to buy 16 buns just to get enough to make 10 pigs-in-a-blanket.
Super Steamer
2007-06-16 01:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omaha Chris
Post by - ikabopo -
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does.
That is incorrect.
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid, but anybody who has
experienced precognition, astral projection, near-death experience,
seeing auras, channeling, ghosts, etcetera, knows for sure. Regardless
of whether or not they can "prove" anything to the world at large, they
know for themselves. All it takes is one or two slam-dunk experiences to
make even the most skeptical person understand that there's a lot more
going on than the materialist paradigm says there is.
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily provable to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example.  Would this really prove or
disprove to you the existence of God?

If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp hormone in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Will in New Haven
2007-06-16 21:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Omaha Chris
Post by - ikabopo -
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does.
That is incorrect.
I agree that arguing about these things is stupid, but anybody who has
experienced precognition, astral projection, near-death experience,
seeing auras, channeling, ghosts, etcetera, knows for sure. Regardless
of whether or not they can "prove" anything to the world at large, they
know for themselves. All it takes is one or two slam-dunk experiences to
make even the most skeptical person understand that there's a lot more
going on than the materialist paradigm says there is.
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily provable to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example. Would this really prove or
disprove to you the existence of God?
If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp hormone in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?
If you defined god as "powers or energies that are not yet defined by
science," it is very likely that no one would be killing each other
over different beliefs about those things. No one would be telling me
that someone else's marriage vows are my problem if she gets lonely in
the afternoon. No one would be denying clear evidence about biology
and the age and nature of the universe. There would not be a whole
class of parasytes living off of the contributions of their
parishioners.

That would be fine with me.

Will in New Haven

--
Post by Super Steamer
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more -http://www.recpoker.com
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 00:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Super Steamer
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily provable to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example. Would this really prove
or
disprove to you the existence of God?
If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp hormone in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?
If you defined god as "powers or energies that are not yet defined by
science," it is very likely that no one would be killing each other
over different beliefs about those things. No one would be telling me
that someone else's marriage vows are my problem if she gets lonely in
the afternoon. No one would be denying clear evidence about biology
and the age and nature of the universe. There would not be a whole
class of parasytes living off of the contributions of their
parishioners.
That would be fine with me.
Will in New Haven
Well, in fact if that is the fair definition of God, then I would have to say
that I am a believer.  I don't believe in a guy with a long flowing beard like
the guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  I don't believe that there is a
deity that conforms necessarily with any specific religious dogma, but I believe
there is a lot more than "meets the eye" so to speak.

I don't believe that science has all the answers by a long shot, and neither
does religion.  I am not one to argue with evolution.

I don't know what that makes me, I don't necessarily believe there is a "deity",
or that there is not.  I guess that would make me agnostic, but I think there is
something out there, I just don't know what.

Really though, it doesn't matter how I define God, it matters how the rest of
the world does.

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 01:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Super Steamer
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily provable to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example. Would this really prove
or
disprove to you the existence of God?
If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp
hormone
in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?
If you defined god as "powers or energies that are not yet defined by
science," it is very likely that no one would be killing each other
over different beliefs about those things. No one would be telling me
that someone else's marriage vows are my problem if she gets lonely in
the afternoon. No one would be denying clear evidence about biology
and the age and nature of the universe. There would not be a whole
class of parasytes living off of the contributions of their
parishioners.
That would be fine with me.
Will in New Haven
Well, in fact if that is the fair definition of God, then I would have to say
that I am a believer.  I don't believe in a guy with a long flowing beard like
the guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  I don't believe that there is a
deity that conforms necessarily with any specific religious dogma, but I believe
there is a lot more than "meets the eye" so to speak.
I don't believe that science has all the answers by a long shot, and neither
does religion.  I am not one to argue with evolution.
I don't know what that makes me, I don't necessarily believe there is a "deity",
or that there is not.  I guess that would make me agnostic, but I think there is
something out there, I just don't know what.
Really though, it doesn't matter how I define God, it matters how the rest of
the world does.
I would take it a step further and say not only powers or energies that are not
yet defined by science, but also some that are actively denied by mainstream
science.  The existence of any such powers or energies, if proven to exist, do
not, to me, definitively prove the existence or non existence of God, but I have
to believe that science is in the dark about some things as much as they were
about the world being round, or the earth revolving around the sun (of course I
am aware that this was denied by the Catholic Church long after it was accepted
by mainstream science).


_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
2007-06-17 17:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Super Steamer
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily
provable
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Super Steamer
to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example. Would this really prove
or
disprove to you the existence of God?
If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp
hormone
in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?
If you defined god as "powers or energies that are not yet defined by
science," it is very likely that no one would be killing each other
over different beliefs about those things. No one would be telling me
that someone else's marriage vows are my problem if she gets lonely in
the afternoon. No one would be denying clear evidence about biology
and the age and nature of the universe. There would not be a whole
class of parasytes living off of the contributions of their
parishioners.
That would be fine with me.
Will in New Haven
Well, in fact if that is the fair definition of God, then I would have to say
that I am a believer.  I don't believe in a guy with a long flowing beard like
the guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  I don't believe that there is a
deity that conforms necessarily with any specific religious dogma, but I believe
there is a lot more than "meets the eye" so to speak.
I don't believe that science has all the answers by a long shot, and neither
does religion.  I am not one to argue with evolution.
I don't know what that makes me, I don't necessarily believe there is a "deity",
or that there is not.  I guess that would make me agnostic, but I think
there
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Super Steamer
is
something out there, I just don't know what.
Really though, it doesn't matter how I define God, it matters how the rest of
the world does.
I would take it a step further and say not only powers or energies that are not
yet defined by science, but also some that are actively denied by mainstream
science.  The existence of any such powers or energies, if proven to exist, do
not, to me, definitively prove the existence or non existence of God, but I have
to believe that science is in the dark about some things as much as they were
about the world being round, or the earth revolving around the sun (of course I
am aware that this was denied by the Catholic Church long after it was accepted
by mainstream science).
"Science" was never in the dark about the general shape of the Earth.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Super Steamer
2007-06-17 19:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Super Steamer
I would take it a step further and say not only powers or energies that are
not
Post by Super Steamer
yet defined by science, but also some that are actively denied by mainstream
science.  The existence of any such powers or energies, if proven to exist,
do
Post by Super Steamer
not, to me, definitively prove the existence or non existence of God, but I
have
Post by Super Steamer
to believe that science is in the dark about some things as much as they were
about the world being round, or the earth revolving around the sun (of
course I
Post by Super Steamer
am aware that this was denied by the Catholic Church long after it was
accepted
Post by Super Steamer
by mainstream science).
"Science" was never in the dark about the general shape of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

It is conjectured that the first person to have advocated a spherical shape of
the Earth was /wiki/Pythagoras (6th century BC), but this idea is not supported
by the fact that most /wiki/Presocratic /wiki/Pythagoreans considered the world
to be flat./#_note-Burch

***
Do you have any support for that statement that "science" (or men of science and
learning) were never in the dark about the world being flat?

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Will in New Haven
2007-06-18 13:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Super Steamer
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Super Steamer
Let's say you had absolute proof (for yourself, not necessarily provable to
anyone else) that you had precognition (about something you couldn't possibly
have known about otherwise), just for one example. Would this really prove
or
disprove to you the existence of God?
If you defined God as powers or energies that are not yet defined by science,
then I would think it would, but what if 30 years from now it became a commonly
accepted scientific fact that a small subset of the population occasionally
experienced precognition because of an excess production of the esp hormone in
the pituitary gland, would it still prove the existence of God?
If you defined god as "powers or energies that are not yet defined by
science," it is very likely that no one would be killing each other
over different beliefs about those things. No one would be telling me
that someone else's marriage vows are my problem if she gets lonely in
the afternoon. No one would be denying clear evidence about biology
and the age and nature of the universe. There would not be a whole
class of parasytes living off of the contributions of their
parishioners.
That would be fine with me.
Will in New Haven
Well, in fact if that is the fair definition of God, then I would have to say
that I am a believer. I don't believe in a guy with a long flowing beard like
the guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. I don't believe that there is a
deity that conforms necessarily with any specific religious dogma, but I believe
there is a lot more than "meets the eye" so to speak.
Sure there is but a bunch of guys, some of them my ancestors, in the
middle east thousands of years ago did not come up with any important
answers. Among many awful ideas, we can credit them with some decent
ethical insights but the mysteries are still mysteries.
Post by Super Steamer
I don't believe that science has all the answers by a long shot, and neither
does religion. I am not one to argue with evolution.
I don't know what that makes me, I don't necessarily believe there is a "deity",
or that there is not. I guess that would make me agnostic, but I think there is
something out there, I just don't know what.
Really though, it doesn't matter how I define God, it matters how the rest of
the world does.
Why would you care what other people think? If you want to win a
popularity contest, identify your awe of the universe, which is a
wonderful and justifiable feeling, with the god of the cretins. If you
no longer give a fuck what people think, tell them your actual opinion
of that long-bearded dude who is going to send you to hell.

Einstein struggled for years with people who would quote something he
said about the awesomeness of the universe to support their theistic
imbecility. People still do that to him after his death.

Will in New Haven

--
Post by Super Steamer
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Martin D
2007-06-16 23:38:52 UTC
Permalink
"anybody who has experienced seeing auras.."

Auras don't exist, stop watching
Leonard Nemoy's "In Search Of."
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-06-15 07:48:07 UTC
Permalink
To pinheads who think you can "end" the debate over God in an
RGP thread: FUCK OFF!

And *plonk* mental retard!
Necron99
2007-06-15 08:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
To pinheads who think you can "end" the debate over God in an
RGP thread: FUCK OFF!
And *plonk* mental retard!
I will prey for you.



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Pepe Papon
2007-06-16 07:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Necron99
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
To pinheads who think you can "end" the debate over God in an
RGP thread: FUCK OFF!
And *plonk* mental retard!
I will prey for you.
Cannibalism is sick!
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Necron99
2007-06-16 13:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by Necron99
Post by A Man Beaten by Jacks
To pinheads who think you can "end" the debate over God in an
RGP thread: FUCK OFF!
And *plonk* mental retard!
I will prey for you.
Cannibalism is sick!
--
~ Seth Jackson
not if you are catholic.



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-15 16:54:56 UTC
Permalink
<reading>
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst.
<reading/>

Wow! Most people aren't ballsy enough to lay out the straw in the very
first line!

Impressively dishonest! Repent! The end is nigh!

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
FaceDownAcesUp
2007-06-15 17:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst. A dog's brain cannot comprehend religion,
physics, poker, etc. It is possible that there are concepts and things
going on in the whole of existence that our brains simply are not
capable of comprehending or processing strictly due to the physical
limitations of our evolution. (Visualization of 4-dimensional physical
space is an example of this.)
Also, we have evolved to have only 5 physical senses. But who is to say
that there are only 5 ways to perceive phenomena going on in the
universe? Imagine a race of beings just like us, but without a sense of
sight. What would this race know of light, photons, etc? Certainly a
lot less than we do. There could be races of aliens in the universe
with 6, 7, 8, or more senses, observing things going on in the universe
that we can't even fathom. Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst. To think that "5 senses is all that are possible" is
reminiscent of the days of "the Earth is the center of the Universe."
So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe, does not mean that you are
absolutely correct. Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does. Even after you die, you might not get to know. Who knows?
You can certainly believe, believe strongly, whatever; but you can't be
100% sure.
To use arguments like "Well, there must be a God because (fill in some
argument about order in the universe, phenomena on Earth that appears to
make sense, intelligent design, blah, blah, blah), please take about
5-10 minutes and read something about the "Anthropic Principle." I'm
not going to type a huge explanation of the principle here. The fact
is, we humans are here. Just because we are here, does not mean that we
are here "because."
Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way. Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other. These debates remind me of the "Got You Last" games played by
Plus and Minus on the old Nickelodeon series Pinwheel. (Anyone who has
seen the show will understand the analogy exactly.) One hundred years
from now, we'll probably all know the answer for sure, one way or
another. So let's wait and find out.
Please post more poker topics, or even stupid garbage like your
political debates. At least the political stuff can yield some
productive discussion at times. Thank you.
-ikabopo-
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-15 18:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst. A dog's brain cannot comprehend religion,
physics, poker, etc. It is possible that there are concepts and things
going on in the whole of existence that our brains simply are not
capable of comprehending or processing strictly due to the physical
limitations of our evolution. (Visualization of 4-dimensional physical
space is an example of this.)
Also, we have evolved to have only 5 physical senses. But who is to say
that there are only 5 ways to perceive phenomena going on in the
universe? Imagine a race of beings just like us, but without a sense of
sight. What would this race know of light, photons, etc? Certainly a
lot less than we do. There could be races of aliens in the universe
with 6, 7, 8, or more senses, observing things going on in the universe
that we can't even fathom. Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst. To think that "5 senses is all that are possible" is
reminiscent of the days of "the Earth is the center of the Universe."
What sense do we use to detect x-rays?
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
Post by - ikabopo -
So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe, does not mean that you are
absolutely correct. Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does. Even after you die, you might not get to know. Who knows?
You can certainly believe, believe strongly, whatever; but you can't be
100% sure.
To use arguments like "Well, there must be a God because (fill in some
argument about order in the universe, phenomena on Earth that appears to
make sense, intelligent design, blah, blah, blah), please take about
5-10 minutes and read something about the "Anthropic Principle." I'm
not going to type a huge explanation of the principle here. The fact
is, we humans are here. Just because we are here, does not mean that we
are here "because."
Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way. Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other. These debates remind me of the "Got You Last" games played by
Plus and Minus on the old Nickelodeon series Pinwheel. (Anyone who has
seen the show will understand the analogy exactly.) One hundred years
from now, we'll probably all know the answer for sure, one way or
another. So let's wait and find out.
Please post more poker topics, or even stupid garbage like your
political debates. At least the political stuff can yield some
productive discussion at times. Thank you.
-ikabopo-
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Ha. Reminds me of the ol' psychobabble, catch 22.

Are you an alcoholic, or are you in denial about being an alcoholic??!?

Cheers <you freakin' alkie!>

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
OrangeSFO
2007-06-15 19:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
James L. Hankins
2007-06-15 19:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
OrangeSFO
2007-06-15 19:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.

Show me something "God" did.
Gary Carson
2007-06-15 20:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 15, 12:27 pm, "James L. Hankins"
"OrangeSFO" wrote in message
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.
Show me something "God" did.
God did gravity.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
2007-06-15 20:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.
Show me something "God" did.
Look around.
FaceDownAcesUp
2007-06-15 20:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.
Show me something "God" did.
Look around.
Exactly. The question he should be asking is: Show me something God
*didn't* do?
art_classmn
2007-06-16 17:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.
Show me something "God" did.
Look around.
Run everybody its the god of the gaps!!
Will in New Haven
2007-06-16 21:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
No. But I can observe its effects. Neither oxygen, but I can have
overwhelming evidence that it's there.
Show me something "God" did.
Look around.
Ok. <looks around> no proof of god at all. Certainly no proof of the
kind of intervening judgmental god that is postulated by most of the
god-did-it types. Nothing that wouldn't be in existance without god.
What would the universe look like without god?

Will in New Haven

--
James L. Hankins
2007-06-16 23:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
What would the universe look like without god?
When it gets down to it, you don't have a better explanation for the
existence of the universe and everything in it.
KilgoreTrout
2007-06-17 00:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Will in New Haven
What would the universe look like without god?
When it gets down to it, you don't have a better explanation for the
existence of the universe and everything in it.
Why does that bother you so much?

You say absolute knowledge... I say absolute BOREDOM!!!

------ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
James L. Hankins
2007-06-17 01:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Will in New Haven
What would the universe look like without god?
When it gets down to it, you don't have a better explanation for the
existence of the universe and everything in it.
Why does that bother you so much?
Because of the way they mock persons with religious beliefs as fools when in
fact any explanation they can articulate sounds just as foolish.
Gary Carson
2007-06-17 01:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Will in New Haven
What would the universe look like without god?
When it gets down to it, you don't have a better explanation for the
existence of the universe and everything in it.
Why does that bother you so much?
Because of the way they mock persons with religious beliefs as fools when in
fact any explanation they can articulate sounds just as foolish.
Religion has no explanation of the universe and everything in it.  It just
pretends it does by assuming a God outside of explanation.

That's the beginning of the nonsense.  The idea that replacing something you
don't understand with something that you define as being beyond understanding is
some kind of explanation is nonsense.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Will in New Haven
2007-06-18 13:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Will in New Haven
What would the universe look like without god?
When it gets down to it, you don't have a better explanation for the
existence of the universe and everything in it.
I don't NEED a better explanation. God is not the default explanation.
God, as you envision him, is so strikingly unlikely that the Flying
Spadgetti Monster is a better bet. May he enfold you in his noodly
appendage.

Will in New Haven

--
Gary Carson
2007-06-15 20:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
Out here in the Real Part of Oklahoma, we don't ascribe to things that you can't
be shown.  Gravity might be okay for those liberals in Stillwater, but here in
the Heartland we know the work of the devil when we see it.


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
2007-06-15 20:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Have you seen this "Lord"? or his son?
Have you ever seen gravity?
Out here in the Real Part of Oklahoma, we don't ascribe to things that you can't
be shown. Gravity might be okay for those liberals in Stillwater, but here
in
the Heartland we know the work of the devil when we see it.
I think Cushing is stifling you, Gary.

Stillwater is not a bad town. Any town with 20,000+ college kids is bound
to be at least somewhat interesting. I attended college there for a couple
of years in the late 80's and had a blast.
Pepe Papon
2007-06-16 08:07:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:26:23 -0700, FaceDownAcesUp
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
Surely, there must be some kind of award for twisted logic, because
you deserve it for this post. The fact that we don't know something
proves that we know it. Brilliant!

And I'll bet it would come as a huge surprise to all the Muslims,
Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. of the world that they can feel Jesus in
their hearts.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
art_classmn
2007-06-16 17:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
This is why it is important to have the debate. People like this need
to be drawn out and laughed at.
Will in New Haven
2007-06-16 21:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by FaceDownAcesUp
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst. A dog's brain cannot comprehend religion,
physics, poker, etc. It is possible that there are concepts and things
going on in the whole of existence that our brains simply are not
capable of comprehending or processing strictly due to the physical
limitations of our evolution. (Visualization of 4-dimensional physical
space is an example of this.)
Also, we have evolved to have only 5 physical senses. But who is to say
that there are only 5 ways to perceive phenomena going on in the
universe? Imagine a race of beings just like us, but without a sense of
sight. What would this race know of light, photons, etc? Certainly a
lot less than we do. There could be races of aliens in the universe
with 6, 7, 8, or more senses, observing things going on in the universe
that we can't even fathom. Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst. To think that "5 senses is all that are possible" is
reminiscent of the days of "the Earth is the center of the Universe."
So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe, does not mean that you are
absolutely correct. Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does. Even after you die, you might not get to know. Who knows?
You can certainly believe, believe strongly, whatever; but you can't be
100% sure.
To use arguments like "Well, there must be a God because (fill in some
argument about order in the universe, phenomena on Earth that appears to
make sense, intelligent design, blah, blah, blah), please take about
5-10 minutes and read something about the "Anthropic Principle." I'm
not going to type a huge explanation of the principle here. The fact
is, we humans are here. Just because we are here, does not mean that we
are here "because."
Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way. Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other. These debates remind me of the "Got You Last" games played by
Plus and Minus on the old Nickelodeon series Pinwheel. (Anyone who has
seen the show will understand the analogy exactly.) One hundred years
from now, we'll probably all know the answer for sure, one way or
another. So let's wait and find out.
Please post more poker topics, or even stupid garbage like your
political debates. At least the political stuff can yield some
productive discussion at times. Thank you.
-ikabopo-
The fact there is even a debate about Him is just more proof He
exists. People don't debate whether Santa Claus, Buddah or the Easter
Bunny are real because it's obvious they're not. However, every person
can feel Jesus in their heart. That's why we must go out of our way to
deny him. And make no mistake about it, if you're not believing in he
Lord then you're in denial.
You are truly a fucking moron. No one debates whether Sidhartha
Guatama, the Buddha, was real because he was a real historical human
being. He never claimed to be god or a god or the son of god and many,
if not most of his followers worship him. Which is ironic.

You think you feel Jesus in your heart and I saw him parking cars at
the Venetian last fall. It was on his name tag. Was your heart at the
Venetian in December?

Will in New Haven

--
James L. Hankins
2007-06-16 23:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
You think you feel Jesus in your heart and I saw him parking cars at
the Venetian last fall. It was on his name tag. Was your heart at the
Venetian in December?
Heh. You're going to Hell, dude.
WuzYoungOnceToo
2007-06-17 17:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Will in New Haven
You think you feel Jesus in your heart and I saw him parking cars at
the Venetian last fall. It was on his name tag. Was your heart at the
Venetian in December?
Heh. You're going to Hell, dude.
Not if he dons full pirate regalia and acknowledges the Flying Spaghetti
Monster.

May you be touched by his noodley appendage.

RAmen.

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
doggystyle
2007-06-15 17:54:27 UTC
Permalink
GOD HAS SPOKEN !!!
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst. A dog's brain cannot comprehend religion,
physics, poker, etc. It is possible that there are concepts and things
going on in the whole of existence that our brains simply are not
capable of comprehending or processing strictly due to the physical
limitations of our evolution. (Visualization of 4-dimensional physical
space is an example of this.)
Also, we have evolved to have only 5 physical senses. But who is to say
that there are only 5 ways to perceive phenomena going on in the
universe? Imagine a race of beings just like us, but without a sense of
sight. What would this race know of light, photons, etc? Certainly a
lot less than we do. There could be races of aliens in the universe
with 6, 7, 8, or more senses, observing things going on in the universe
that we can't even fathom. Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst. To think that "5 senses is all that are possible" is
reminiscent of the days of "the Earth is the center of the Universe."
So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe, does not mean that you are
absolutely correct. Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.
You can't know for sure. Not in this life, anyway. You just can't. No
one does. Even after you die, you might not get to know. Who knows?
You can certainly believe, believe strongly, whatever; but you can't be
100% sure.
To use arguments like "Well, there must be a God because (fill in some
argument about order in the universe, phenomena on Earth that appears to
make sense, intelligent design, blah, blah, blah), please take about
5-10 minutes and read something about the "Anthropic Principle." I'm
not going to type a huge explanation of the principle here. The fact
is, we humans are here. Just because we are here, does not mean that we
are here "because."
Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way. Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other. These debates remind me of the "Got You Last" games played by
Plus and Minus on the old Nickelodeon series Pinwheel. (Anyone who has
seen the show will understand the analogy exactly.) One hundred years
from now, we'll probably all know the answer for sure, one way or
another. So let's wait and find out.
Please post more poker topics, or even stupid garbage like your
political debates. At least the political stuff can yield some
productive discussion at times. Thank you.
-ikabopo-
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Pass
2007-06-15 20:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by readyfireaim
Yes. Seen. Heard. Felt. Experienced. Very real.
That hardly sounds like depression, but the point I was trying
to make with
Post by readyfireaim
pepe
is that unless their is someone with you to tell you that the
giant pink
Post by readyfireaim
elephant is not really real - it is really real to you at the
time.
It's not as simple as you'd like it to be. You can experience
it, know it's not
real, but it still feels real. You don't have to have someone
else to tell you
at the time that's it's not real.
It's entirely possible to have two conflicting thoughts your
head at the same
time. Some people might call that rapid-cycling, but I think
it's different
from that.
Post by readyfireaim
Two days
latter you may wonder about it but you'll never know for sure
that it was just
Post by readyfireaim
a
hallucination. Well maybe not a pink elephant but say a ufo or
something. A
Post by readyfireaim
hallucination that you know is a hallucination is pretty much a
contradiction.
Post by readyfireaim
And an illusion is not the same.
You don't know what you're talking about.
If you think this is a place where people know what they are
talking about, then you got off at the wrong bus stop.

Carry on, sailor.
O-PGManager
2007-06-15 20:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for your brilliant insights.  You are definitely one of the few people
here qualified to make off-topic posts about God chiding people for making
off-topic posts about God.  The debate is indeed over.

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
sng
2007-06-15 22:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by - ikabopo -
To think that the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities of rational thought is arrogant at best,
terribly foolish at worst.
Why would you think that atheists and the "sciences-rules-all" crowd
believe the human brain and mind are the be-all-end-all of the
possibilities and capabilities........

Talk about a strawman. You created something that wasn't said and I
would guess, most don't believe, then shot it down.
--
S. Doyle
doyles AT mountaincable DOT net
art_classmn
2007-06-16 17:01:47 UTC
Permalink
It is not "science-rules-all" is it reason. The same reason you use
every day in your life.

Do you really walk across a street saying things like "Well, I can
never really KNOW if that semi is going to hit me or pass through the
vast open spaces in my atoms and leave me unharmed. I have not
evolved the senses necessary to KNOW this. So it really could be
either one. I may not even be here, I may be sitting in my living
room safe and sound....I can never KNOW these.."

Of course not. You wait for the semi to pass and walk across the road
safely.
Post by - ikabopo -
Again, to think that our 5 senses are the
be-all-end-all of perception is arrogant at best, and terribly foolish
at worst.
And because of that Elvis and Neptune are sitting right next to you as
you type those words. You can't prove that is false, can you? You
just haven't evolved your "Elvis eyes" yet.
Post by - ikabopo -
So, just because your so-called "rational thought" and "science" tell
you that there is no God.
Rational thought and science tell you that there is absolutely no
evidence for this imaginary thing you called a god.
Post by - ikabopo -
and that there is nothing going on outside of
what we can perceive in the universe,
Rational thought and science say no such thing. Rational thought
says "Yes there is the possiblity that the ghost of Anna Nicole Smith
is giving you a hummer right now and you just have not evolved the
senses to feel it."

But that is no reason to believe there is any possiblity that the
ghost of Anna Nicole Smith is giving you head right now.
Post by - ikabopo -
Think deeply philosophically about these things
before you try to convince someone of your shortsighted views.
You first.
Post by - ikabopo -
Not too many of you are exceptionally smart. A select few of you are,
but most are not. You are arguing about things that are WAY, and I mean
WAAAAY over your heads, as far as philosophical depth is concerned.
Bullshit. These concepts are within the grasp of elementary students
- about the time they realize there is no such thing as santa claus.
Post by - ikabopo -
Please stop debating each other about something that you are never going
to resolve either way.
LOL. The debate is actually about real-world events. Like whether to
teach "intelligent design" in science class or whether a god wanted
GWB to invade Iraq.
Post by - ikabopo -
Neither side is closer to the answer than the
other.
You are clearly wrong about this. You have pitted "science" vs.
"god". What advancements have been made by science in the last 2000
years and what advancements have been made by religion.
Post by - ikabopo -
Please post more poker topics,
You first.

Coward.

"Oh, we can NEVER know, and you are all too dumb to comprehend the
discussion, so stop"

If that is all you really have to contribute to the discussion, then
you should shut the fuck up and go back to endlessly gazing at your
navel.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...