Rupert > wrote:
> > >> It really does suck to be you.
> >
> > > You are wrong on both counts.
> >
> > I'm right on all *three* counts, Your Wobbliness. =A0You forgot the third
> > one: =A0that it sucks to be you.
>
> I can think of quite a few advantages to being me.

Religion claims that immorality always springs from a lack of religion,
but the facts prove just the opposite. Christianity has never been
stronger than it is today, Christians have churches in every community,
they monopolize radio and television time with religious propaganda,
they have forced their religion into our government, our laws, and into
our schools. They have done these things against the Constitution of the
United States, and against the most basic and sacred rights of all other
Americans. Like a sinking ship, with water rushing in and filling every
compartment where it was not supposed to be, so religion has attacked
our nation, rushed in where it was not supposed to be, where it has no
business to be, silencing all opposition, all opposing views, poisoning
the wells of our knowledge, and endangering the very roots of our
nation.

Christianity is that strong today, and yet we have not achieved any
respectable amount of morality in this country. Nowhere is the failure
of Christian morality more evident than in America. During the same time
that Christianity has been growing ever stronger and ever richer, over
the past thirty years or so, the use of harmful drugs has became a
national scandal, the crime rate has been climbing ever higher and ever
faster, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and during that time our
nation has been embroiled in more wars and international conflicts than
in any other similar time period in its history. During that time, our
nation was also getting its 5000 or so weird religious cults, a
byproduct of Christian indoctrination. Right to-day we have the highest
narcotics abuse rate, the highest crime rate, the highest divorce rate,
and the highest 'religion rate' that we have ever had in the history of
this nation. What does Christianity say about these facts and how to
cure them? They tell us we need more religion and they are determined to
force it upon us. Christianity feels so strong today that it is moving
into politics to try to force its failing morality upon every American
through a Christian Dictatorship and a new Dark Age.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Goo lied:
>>
>> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
>> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>> >> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.
>>
>> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
>> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
>> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
>> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>>
>> * * Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
>> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
>> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
>> ignore that one and if so why?
>
>Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
>extraterrestrials if they existed?

It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not. For example if
such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:07:23 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>America was not established to have any dominant ideology, The United
>>>States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every
>>>opinion could be heard and considered.
>>
>> Then why can school kids no longer celebrate Christmas at Christmas, and
>> Easter at Easter?
>
>Rubbish, of course they can.
>
>The government (through the schools) just cannot endorse a specific
>religion. As per the US Constitution.
>
>> . . .
>>>The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
>>>there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.
>>
>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>> of it.
>
>That's not faith.

Faith is faith. Too bad you don't like it, but that's how it is. WHY don't
you like the fact that faith is faith, can you explain that?

>You assert there's a intelligent creator,

No I sure don't. I do go farther than you're apparently capable of going and
consider the possibility though.

>you prove it. Until then we
>won't believe in it.
>
>Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe.

If God exists science teaches us things about how he did/does things even if
you are honestly unable to comprehend.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:54:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can
>>>>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
>>>>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
>>>>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
>>>>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
>>>>>> incapable of even making an attempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep
>>>>> you from being labelled a ****wit.
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct.
>>>
>>> You proved that you're a moron.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
>>>>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
>>>>>> on individual interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as
>>>>> you do, is moronic.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!!
>>>
>>> I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are
>>> not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.."
>>> That's horseshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
>>>>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
>>>>>> out that they don't?
>>>>>
>>>>> You pose it as a fact
>>>>
>>>> Because it's a fact.
>>>
>>> Yes, with no importance.
>>
>> It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination.
>
>Not ones with any sense.

ALL who are willing to consider the entire situation, whether they have any
sense or not.

>> It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to
>> those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into
>> consideration.
>
>It's unimportant to almost everyone, because almost everyone can see
>what meaningless bullshit it is.

It's a true aspect of the situation that you don't want people to take into
consideration.

>>>>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them,
>>>>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".
>>>>
>>>> I post in favor of decent AW
>>>
>>> No you don't,
>>
>> That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a
>> stupidly blatant lie, if anyone?
>
>Everybody who is paying attention believes that

Try presenting evidence that I don't. You can't. But every post in which I
point out that you people are opposed to everyone appreciating when decent AW
successfully results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock, I'm
posting in favor of decent AW.

>truth, even your
>ass-chum Smartypants.
>
>> . . .
>>>> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people
>>>> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You
>>>> goobers really are pathetic.
>>>
>>> It just keeps getting worse for you
>>
>> LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what you
>> think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in
>> multiple lives.
>
>I've never said I think you believe in multiple lives.

Good that you haven't agreed with Goo about his lies regarding that issue
then, IF you really never have.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:29:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>****wit thinks there are.
>>>>
>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo
>>. . .
>>> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of
>>> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,
>>> and whose welfare I can affect.
>>
>> Your first remark is no less stupid just because you put it before another
>>remark Goob. The stupidity factor of that particular remark remains, while the
>>stupidity factor of you overall increases because you thought you could reduce
>>some of the stupidity of your first remark by adding another POSSIBLY slightly
>>less stupid remark.
>
>It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn
>animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.

LOL!!!

"at the end of the gestational period, there will be" - Goo

LOL!!!

>> I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can
>>affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go:
>>
>>(prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt,
>>though it could be great fun if he would try)
>>
>>>Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare
>>>before they are born?
>>
>> Goober, you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both
>>existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade.
>
>Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they
>exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to
>experience life."

ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives Goob, as
we have seen and you yourself have demonstrated for us. People in no other group
have any reason to oppose consideration of that particular aspect.

>>Are you now
>>changing your position entirely and saying that it's finally okay for people to
>>take both into consideration, Goo?

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:24:37 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:01:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:17:43 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:00:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:11:50 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:49:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> > So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
>>>>>>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
>>>>>>>claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard
>>>>>>trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did
>>>>>>believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.
>>>>>>Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the
>>>>>>possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why
>>>>>>is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?
>>>>>>How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo:
>>>>>
>>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>>> ****wit - 12/09/1999
>>>>>
>>>>>You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would
>>>>>experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing".
>>>>> But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing."
>>>>
>>>> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more
>>>>than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not
>>>>be confused by it. You stupid Goober.
>>>
>>>No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than
>>>just 'nothing'"
>>
>> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more
>>than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not
>>be confused by it. You stupid Goober.
>
>you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs
>based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.

The way I suggested they are more than just nothing is that they are a
concept Goo. Whether or not any beings have multiple lives, and if they do what
that involves is something none of us can know Goob, and I'm aware of the fact
even if you're not.

On 8/13/2012 4:19 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:07:23 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> America was not established to have any dominant ideology, The United
>>>> States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every
>>>> opinion could be heard and considered.
>>>
>>> Then why can school kids no longer celebrate Christmas at Christmas, and
>>> Easter at Easter?
>>
>> Rubbish, of course they can.
>>
>> The government (through the schools) just cannot endorse a specific
>> religion. As per the US Constitution.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>> The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
>>>> there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.
>>>
>>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>>> of it.
>>
>> That's not faith.
>
> Faith is faith.

Meaningless tautology.

On 8/13/2012 4:23 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:54:26 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:52:58 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:40:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know whether any beings have multiple lives or not much less can
>>>>>>> you lay out an explanation as to whether or not any do. You in particular are
>>>>>>> far too small minded and shallow to even have a realistic interpretation as to
>>>>>>> whether or not it's possible, and if so how it possibly could be. It's amusing
>>>>>>> to think you could lay it out, but it's amusing because you're so very very
>>>>>>> incapable of even making an attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BZZZTTTTT, you just wandered into the Twilight Zone. That will not keep
>>>>>> you from being labelled a ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pointed out something else you can't attempt, and you proved me correct.
>>>>
>>>> You proved that you're a moron.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW I don't have a belief one way or the other about it, but I am able to
>>>>>>> consider the possibility unlike yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I point out that they don't. Whether that's an "attack" or not would depend
>>>>>>> on individual interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, believing that it is an "attack" (or a meaningful criticism), as
>>>>>> you do, is moronic.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! Then you're moronic for calling it an attack, you moron. Hilarious!!!
>>>>
>>>> I don't call it an attack, you do. It's not a valid argument, vegans are
>>>> not morally suspect because "they don't support decent.. blah blah.."
>>>> That's horseshit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since eliminationists want to NOT contribute to
>>>>>>> future lives for livestock, what makes you feel it's an attack for me to point
>>>>>>> out that they don't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You pose it as a fact
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, with no importance.
>>>
>>> It has importance to people who honestly favor decent AW over elimination.
>>
>> Not ones with any sense.
>
> ALL who are willing to consider the entire situation,

No. You are not "considering" something that others do not or cannot.

"Getting to experience life" is meaningless.


>>> It's unimportant ONLY to eliminationists, and actually it has importance to
>>> those people as well since they are OPPOSED to seeing it taken into
>>> consideration.
>>
>> It's unimportant to almost everyone, because almost everyone can see
>> what meaningless bullshit it is.
>
> It's a true aspect of

It's meaningless bullshit. You are not "considering" anything "for the
animals". That's simply a lie.


>
>>>>>> that we should consider as unfavorable for them,
>>>>>> that means you consider it a valid criticism or an "attack".
>>>>>
>>>>> I post in favor of decent AW
>>>>
>>>> No you don't,
>>>
>>> That's as blatant a lie as you could tell. Who do you think believes such a
>>> stupidly blatant lie, if anyone?
>>
>> Everybody who is paying attention believes thattruth, even your
>> ass-chum Smartypants.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>> LOL!!! You have no idea wtf it would do for you if you can persuade people
>>>>> to think I believe in multiple lives, but you lie about it anyway. LOL!!! You
>>>>> goobers really are pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> It just keeps getting worse for you
>>>
>>> LOL!!! It's hilarious for me that you can't even attempt to explain what you
>>> think you might possibly gain by persuading people to believe I believe in
>>> multiple lives.
>>
>> I've never said I think you believe in multiple lives.
>
> Good that you haven't agreed with Goo about his lies

I've never told any lies about you.

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ****wit thinks there are.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them"

Fake quote.


>>>
>>> Your first remark

What I said:

If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of
the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,
and whose welfare I can affect.


>> It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn
>> animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.

>>> I challenge you

No.


>>>> Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare
>>>> before they are born?
>>>
>>> you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both
>>> existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade.
>>
>> Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they
>> exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to
>> experience life."
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives

There is *nothing* to consider until they exist.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
>>>>>>>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
>>>>>>>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
>>>>>>>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
>>>>>>>> claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obvious that Goo's lying, and for some weird reason he's working hard
>>>>>>> trying to promote his lie. Here's another way to know Goo's lying: If I did
>>>>>>> believe in multiple lives as billions of people do, I would explain why I do.
>>>>>>> Since I don't I explain that I don't, but also explain that I consider the
>>>>>>> possibility that we somehow do have multiple lives. So the question remains: Why
>>>>>>> is the Goober so determined to convince people to believe this particular lie?
>>>>>>> How does Goo think it could possibly benefit him???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's obvious that *you're* the one lying, Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>>>>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>>>>>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>>>>>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>>>>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>>>>>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>>>>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>>>>> ****wit - 12/09/1999
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed you *couldn't* believe the unconceived animals would
>>>>>> experience a loss, ****wit, because you considered them to be "nothing".
>>>>>> But it's a lie, ****wit - you do *NOT* consider them to be "nothing."
>>>>>
>>>>> They exist as a concept Goob, and some people consider a concept to be more
>>>>> than nothing. That confuses you, but people who are able to comprehend would not
>>>>> be confused by it. You stupid Goober.
>>>>
>>>> No, sorry, ****wit, that just won't do. You said they are "more than
>>>> just 'nothing'"
>>>
>>> They exist as a concept
>>
>> you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs
>> based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.

What I actually wrote, that you snipped:

First of all, Goo, "concepts" of potential beings don't deserve any
moral consideration.

Second of all, Goo, you're lying: *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
"in some sense" as individual potential "future farm animals." What
you're saying, Goo, is that the potential for life of individual "future
farm animals" deserves moral consideration - but it does not.

If "vegans" were to succeed at stopping the breeding of livestock, Goo,
no potential "future farm animals" would be "denied life", as you once
put it. You can't "deny" anything to an entity that doesn't exist.

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999

If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu

I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
****wit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox

In *ALL* of those, Goo, you are not talking about potential "future farm
animals" as a concept - you are talking about them as some kind of
entity that deserves moral consideration *today*, and you insist that
that consideration necessarily must lead to wanting the animals to
exist. But that's stupid.

You can't *do* it, Goo - you just can't turn this into a set of beliefs
based on sound logic, because it's utter bullshit.


>
> The way I suggested they are more than just nothing is

Is that you think they *EXIST* in some sense, Goo - some sense in which
they are "owed" some kind of moral consideration.

That's what you meant. I didn't lie about your beliefs. You're lying
to try to escape the implication of them.

You just aren't up to my level on this, Goo - and you never will be.
You *know* it, too.

On 8/9/2012 2:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:14:04 -0500, BroilJAB > wrote:
>
>> "james g. keegan jr." > wrote:
>>>>>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." =A0That's what he means.Your claims strike me as absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
>>>> "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism;Shut the **** up. This isn't about religious belief.
>>
>> America was not established to have any dominant ideology, The United
>> States was meant to be 'a free marketplace of ideas,' where every
>> opinion could be heard and considered.
>
> Then why can school kids no longer celebrate Christmas at Christmas, and
> Easter at Easter?

They can - just not in school.


>> The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
>> there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.
>
> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
> that no intelligent being(s)

No. People say they have no reason to believe in any intelligent beings.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-13, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>The government (through the schools) just cannot endorse a specific
>>religion. As per the US Constitution.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
>>>>there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.
>>>
>>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>>> of it.
>>
>>That's not faith.
>
> Faith is faith. Too bad you don't like it, but that's how it is. WHY don't
> you like the fact that faith is faith, can you explain that?

More pearls of wisdom. Yes faith is faith.

Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.

>>You assert there's a intelligent creator,
>
> No I sure don't. I do go farther than you're apparently capable of going and
> consider the possibility though.

You do, the fact that you attempt to hide it in some pathetic attempt to
make your theism palatable to atheists.

>>you prove it. Until then we
>>won't believe in it.
>>
>>Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe.
>
> If God exists science teaches us things about how he did/does things even if
> you are honestly unable to comprehend.

And there's no evidence God exists, so science doesn't teach us about
God.

Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.

Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlApl4MACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5qGgP/TYJwkCiqiXMIcQ0JBmilgdHe
ZMmCRpxb2I6sOYvUWnviyLdp4gNbNhDs4nIm3N5TraHEvouNlk KC+dHdJV2Gv+KA
yoZrYJNau6SCqKeLn0VtJO6Gsjn4kurn2Rx838W7Y9jHatxxFR 2RjNIZb3J16D45
V7bItWMpTzIT73vf/AE=
=rTUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Aug 14, 1:19*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Goo lied:
>
> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>
> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
> >> >> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.
>
> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>
> >> * * Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>
> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>
> * * It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.

That is different to what you said before.

> For example if
> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?

No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo wrote:

>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>"in some sense"

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
problem." - Goo

"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo

"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo

"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect" - Goo

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:49:49 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:24:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:29:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit thinks there are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo
>>>>. . .
>>>>> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of
>>>>> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,
>>>>> and whose welfare I can affect.
>>>>
>>>> Your first remark is no less stupid just because you put it before another
>>>>remark Goob. The stupidity factor of that particular remark remains, while the
>>>>stupidity factor of you overall increases because you thought you could reduce
>>>>some of the stupidity of your first remark by adding another POSSIBLY slightly
>>>>less stupid remark.
>>>
>>>It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn
>>>animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>>"at the end of the gestational period, there will be" - Goo
>>
>>LOL!!!
>>
>>>> I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can
>>>>affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go:
>>>>
>>>>(prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt,
>>>>though it could be great fun if he would try)
>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare
>>>>>before they are born?
>>>>
>>>> Goober, you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both
>>>>existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade.
>>>
>>>Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they
>>>exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to
>>>experience life."
>>
>> ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives Goob, as
>>we have seen and you yourself have demonstrated for us. People in no other group
>>have any reason to oppose consideration of that particular aspect.
>
>There is *nothing* to consider until they exist.

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are "in the pipeline", so
to speak, a lot of consideration" - Goo

>>>>Are you now
>>>>changing your position entirely and saying that it's finally okay for people to
>>>>take both into consideration, Goo?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:10:51 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-13, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>The government (through the schools) just cannot endorse a specific
>>>religion. As per the US Constitution.
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>>>The American people have a right to know that in Atheism
>>>>>there is a moral, sensible, and scientific alternative to religion.
>>>>
>>>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>>>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>>>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>>>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>>>> of it.
>>>
>>>That's not faith.
>>
>> Faith is faith. Too bad you don't like it, but that's how it is. WHY don't
>> you like the fact that faith is faith, can you explain that?
>
>More pearls of wisdom. Yes faith is faith.

Congratulation...maybe.

>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.

Being a strong atheist does.

>>>You assert there's a intelligent creator,
>>
>> No I sure don't. I do go farther than you're apparently capable of going and
>> consider the possibility though.
>
>You do, the fact that you attempt to hide it in some pathetic attempt to
>make your theism palatable to atheists.

I consider possibilities that many atheists are necessarily unable to take
into consideration. I consider the ONE possibility that strong atheists are able
to consider, plus quite a few more that they are not able to consider.

>>>you prove it. Until then we
>>>won't believe in it.
>>>
>>>Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe.
>>
>> If God exists science teaches us things about how he did/does things even if
>> you are honestly unable to comprehend.
>
>And there's no evidence God exists,

Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
there were no evidence none the less.

>so science doesn't teach us about
>God.

It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
planet exists.

>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.

An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.

>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??

Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Aug 14, 1:19*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Goo lied:
>>
>> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. *We know that what he means is
>> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. *He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>> >> >> already patiently explained to you. *He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." *That's what he means.
>>
>> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
>> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
>> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
>> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>>
>> >> * * Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
>> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
>> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
>> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>>
>> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
>> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>>
>> * * It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.
>
>That is different to what you said before.

Like what?

>> For example if
>> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
>> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
>> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
>> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
>> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
>> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
>> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
>> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
>> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
>> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
>> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
>> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
>> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
>> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
>> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
>> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?
>
>No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.

Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
go find out.

****wit David Harrison, who ardently believes in "pre-existence",
attempted to lie:

>
>> *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>> "in some sense"
>
> [snip fake quotes]

Sorry, Goo, but it's you:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ****wit thinks there are.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them"

Fake quote.


>>>
>>> Your first remark

What I said:

If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of
the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,
and whose welfare I can affect.


>> It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn
>> animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.

>>> I challenge you

No.


>>>> Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare
>>>> before they are born?
>>>
>>> you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both
>>> existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade.
>>
>> Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they
>> exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to
>> experience life."
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives

There is *nothing* to consider until they exist.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-16, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>>>>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>>>>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>>>>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>>>>> of it.
>>>>
>>>>That's not faith.
>>>
>>> Faith is faith. Too bad you don't like it, but that's how it is. WHY don't
>>> you like the fact that faith is faith, can you explain that?
>>
>>More pearls of wisdom. Yes faith is faith.
>
> Congratulation...maybe.
>
>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.
>
> Being a strong atheist does.

Which I'm not, and the vast majority of people here aren't either.

Which you should know by now.

>>>>You assert there's a intelligent creator,
>>>
>>> No I sure don't. I do go farther than you're apparently capable of going and
>>> consider the possibility though.
>>
>>You do, the fact that you attempt to hide it in some pathetic attempt to
>>make your theism palatable to atheists.
>
> I consider possibilities that many atheists are necessarily unable to take
> into consideration. I consider the ONE possibility that strong atheists are able
> to consider, plus quite a few more that they are not able to consider.

You better talk to a strong atheist about this.

>>>>Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe.
>>>
>>> If God exists science teaches us things about how he did/does things even if
>>> you are honestly unable to comprehend.
>>
>>And there's no evidence God exists,
>
> Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
> one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
> that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
> there were no evidence none the less.

Wrong, it's called faith. Belief and faith.

There's no evidence God exists.

>>so science doesn't teach us about
>>God.
>
> It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
> planet exists.

Which hasn't been proved, so we cannot insert God into an explanation of
anything.

>>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.
>
> An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.

An agnostic-theist might ;-)

>>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??
>
> Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.

The fact you avoided the question gives me the answer I need ;-)


Science teaches us about the things fairies do
Science teaches us about the things goblins do
Science teaches us about the things leprechauns do


Why are these invalid yet "God" is valid? You cannot insert into an
explanation something not proved to exist, it's just idiotic.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAtcDgACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7IZQP/SFe2J3KdjqUgvg1e/89TnkIk
F0Wd9n+D8IugcSJSErCsHuXIDkGt/kSPrQTDhsoo2xRByOimB1M3o7UnCJuhEcRg
Uk1mefoGrBqEXjpmFMFz3dGUrA/74FmEnHkyNxyySuWyOzKFE6p1rFAZfvE/dD4u
mzeetzrnYF8FQICUMm8=
=SQVP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Aug 16, 11:47*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 14, 1:19 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Goo lied:
>
> >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
> >> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>
> >> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
> >> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
> >> >> >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
> >> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>
> >> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
> >> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
> >> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
> >> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>
> >> >> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
> >> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
> >> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
> >> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>
> >> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
> >> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>
> >> It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.
>
> >That is different to what you said before.
>
> * * Like what?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> For example if
> >> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
> >> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
> >> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
> >> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
> >> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
> >> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
> >> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
> >> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
> >> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
> >> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
> >> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
> >> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
> >> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
> >> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
> >> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
> >> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?
>
> >No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.
>
> * * Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
> detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
> go find out.

That is not what you said. You didn't say that it was a possibility
that they might go undetected. If you had said that you would have got
no argument from me. You said categorically that they would go
undetected. This is the claim that I asked you to justify.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Aug 16, 11:47*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 14, 1:19 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Goo lied:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>> >> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>> >> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>> >> >> >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>> >> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
>> >> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
>> >> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
>> >> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>>
>> >> >> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
>> >> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
>> >> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
>> >> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>>
>> >> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
>> >> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>>
>> >> It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.
>>
>> >That is different to what you said before.
>>
>> * * Like what?
>>
>> >> For example if
>> >> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
>> >> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
>> >> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
>> >> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
>> >> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
>> >> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
>> >> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
>> >> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
>> >> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
>> >> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
>> >> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
>> >> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
>> >> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
>> >> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
>> >> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
>> >> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?
>>
>> >No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.
>>
>> * * Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
>> detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
>> go find out.
>
>That is not what you said. You didn't say that it was a possibility
>that they might go undetected. If you had said that you would have got
>no argument from me. You said categorically that they would go
>undetected. This is the claim that I asked you to justify.

If any exist it's pretty obvious that we couldn't detect any of them even if
they inhabit every other star system in the universe, since we haven't detected
any even if they inhabit every other star system in the universe.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:10:38 -0700, Goo agreed:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>"in some sense"
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
>>problem." - Goo
>>
>>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
>>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
>>
>>"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
>>for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>>
>>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>>existing entities" - Goo
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>
>>"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
>>improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>life we can detect" - Goo
>
>You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

"we don't know if that move" - Goo

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:11:28 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:24:10 -0400, dh@. challenged:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Goo wussed:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400, dh@. challenged the Goober:
>>>
>>>> I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can
>>>>affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go:
>>>>
>>>>(prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt,
>>>>though it could be great fun if he would try)
>
>No.

LOL!!! I didn't mean it could be fun for YOU Goob, but fun for other people
watching you try and fail because you're so completely inept. But unfortunately
for us Goober, you're too inept to even make an attempt.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:12:13 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-16, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>> All you're referring to is people putting their faith in the possibility
>>>>>> that no intelligent being(s) had any deliberate influence on how things
>>>>>> developed on this or probably any other planet. If God does exist, science
>>>>>> teaches us how he did and does things and atheism does nothing to help with any
>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not faith.
>>>>
>>>> Faith is faith. Too bad you don't like it, but that's how it is. WHY don't
>>>> you like the fact that faith is faith, can you explain that?
>>>
>>>More pearls of wisdom. Yes faith is faith.
>>
>> Congratulation...maybe.
>>
>>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.
>>
>> Being a strong atheist does.
>
>Which I'm not

Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
their own faith. Very ashamed.

>, and the vast majority of people here aren't either.
>
>Which you should know by now.
>
>>>>>You assert there's a intelligent creator,
>>>>
>>>> No I sure don't. I do go farther than you're apparently capable of going and
>>>> consider the possibility though.
>>>
>>>You do, the fact that you attempt to hide it in some pathetic attempt to
>>>make your theism palatable to atheists.
>>
>> I consider possibilities that many atheists are necessarily unable to take
>> into consideration. I consider the ONE possibility that strong atheists are able
>> to consider, plus quite a few more that they are not able to consider.
>
>You better talk to a strong atheist about this.

You better talk to someone who asserts that there's a creator. Sometimes it
appears you like to think you're able to consider the possibility of his
existence, but you never show any evidence of it.

>>>>>Science doesn't teach us about God, it teaches us about the Universe.
>>>>
>>>> If God exists science teaches us things about how he did/does things even if
>>>> you are honestly unable to comprehend.
>>>
>>>And there's no evidence God exists,
>>
>> Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
>> one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
>> that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
>> there were no evidence none the less.
>
>Wrong

If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
believe in.

>, it's called faith. Belief and faith.
>
>There's no evidence God exists.

In contrast to that the belief and faith you referred to are in what people
consider to be evidence of God's existence. You really are clueless about some
basic stuff.

>>>so science doesn't teach us about
>>>God.
>>
>> It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
>> planet exists.
>
>Which hasn't been proved, so we cannot insert God into an explanation of
>anything.

Some of us can consider possibilities involving the existence of God, and
others of you aren't able to. You probably amusingly want people to believe you
can for whatever reason, but I doubt you could explain why you'd want them to.

>>>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.
>>
>> An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.
>
>An agnostic-theist might ;-)

You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
persuade themselves that you're not???

>>>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??
>>
>> Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.
>
>The fact you avoided the question gives me the answer I need ;-)
>
>
>Science teaches us about the things fairies do
>Science teaches us about the things goblins do
>Science teaches us about the things leprechauns do
>
>
>Why are these invalid yet "God" is valid?

Because of things humans have learned about the possibility of some things,
but are still in no position to have learned about others. You might think
you're in the position to know God does not exist, which would be extra amusing
since I still suspect you want people to think you're also capable of
considering the possibility that he does exist.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-21, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.
>>>
>>> Being a strong atheist does.
>>
>>Which I'm not
>
> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
> their own faith. Very ashamed.

Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.

That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.

>>You better talk to a strong atheist about this.
>
> You better talk to someone who asserts that there's a creator. Sometimes it
> appears you like to think you're able to consider the possibility of his
> existence, but you never show any evidence of it.

There is no evidence for a creator. Doesn't mean I exclude the
possibility.

Deal with the facts and you won't be disappointed.

>>>>And there's no evidence God exists,
>>>
>>> Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
>>> one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
>>> that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
>>> there were no evidence none the less.
>>
>>Wrong
>
> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
> believe in.

It's called faith.

>>, it's called faith. Belief and faith.
>>
>>There's no evidence God exists.
>
> In contrast to that the belief and faith you referred to are in what people
> consider to be evidence of God's existence. You really are clueless about some
> basic stuff.

You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??

Yes I am clueless to that incorrect statement.

>>>
>>> It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
>>> planet exists.
>>
>>Which hasn't been proved, so we cannot insert God into an explanation of
>>anything.
>
> Some of us can consider possibilities involving the existence of God, and
> others of you aren't able to. You probably amusingly want people to believe you
> can for whatever reason, but I doubt you could explain why you'd want them to.

There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
proved to exist.

Would you say this...

"It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
if he's not aware that this planet exists."


You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
proven to exist.

Why pick God out of the list? Special pleading? ;-)

>>>>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.
>>>
>>> An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.
>>
>>An agnostic-theist might ;-)
>
> You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
> do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
> persuade themselves that you're not???

Not what?

I'm an agnostic-atheist. What am I trying to convince people I'm not??

>>>>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??
>>>
>>> Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.
>>
>>The fact you avoided the question gives me the answer I need ;-)
>>
>>
>>Science teaches us about the things fairies do
>>Science teaches us about the things goblins do
>>Science teaches us about the things leprechauns do
>>
>>
>>Why are these invalid yet "God" is valid?
>
> Because of things humans have learned about the possibility of some things,
> but are still in no position to have learned about others. You might think
> you're in the position to know God does not exist, which would be extra amusing
> since I still suspect you want people to think you're also capable of
> considering the possibility that he does exist.

So what evidence do you have that God exists then??

Why are those things above all invalid apart from "God". It's special
pleading and it's indicative that you believe in God.


Now maybe you do believe in God but are ashamed about it, I know a lot
of theists like this --- He-he.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA0HtMACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4RjQQAwhVNNV9Urs bSe5PYG0ROsYD/
lGtY290WVyi34zPd+CXbvverkgvKhenUjc4Bd+ZoJqBHfxxZLy tyynmylnrKrXld
9fmKe1CKCQOh/n+8LX6PdK2XP8FzAZJFwJhuUYhDgN66CF9HbZwzLue0h8VSS5t d
CD3fOJ5ANT2N188MNg8=
=TEU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:50:47 -0500, Mike Lovell >
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-21, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.

>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>> their own faith. Very ashamed.

What "faith" is the returning serial liar lying about?

>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>
>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>
>>>You better talk to a strong atheist about this.
>>
>> You better talk to someone who asserts that there's a creator. Sometimes it
>> appears you like to think you're able to consider the possibility of his
>> existence, but you never show any evidence of it.
>
>There is no evidence for a creator. Doesn't mean I exclude the
>possibility.

Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
mean.

Most of us don't even give it a thought because there's nothing
whatsoever in the real world that suggests one.

>Deal with the facts and you won't be disappointed.

He's a fundie - they can't.

>>>>>And there's no evidence God exists,
>>>>
>>>> Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
>>>> one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
>>>> that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
>>>> there were no evidence none the less.

Here's a basic clue for the lying idiot: people do not believe because
it is real, but because they were taught to in childhood.

>>>Wrong
>>
>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>> believe in.

People believe on all sorts of stupid things.

But why doesn't the moron try substituting another god he doesn't
believe in?

"If there were no evidence of Zeus there would have been nothing for
people to have believed in".

>It's called faith.
>
>>>, it's called faith. Belief and faith.
>>>
>>>There's no evidence God exists.
>>
>> In contrast to that the belief and faith you referred to are in what people
>> consider to be evidence of God's existence. You really are clueless about some
>> basic stuff.

The clueless moron is no different from all the other idiots who lie
about evidence for their hypothetical God - he bullshit's that there
is but never provide any.

>You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??

He's an idiot.

>Yes I am clueless to that incorrect statement.
>
>>>>
>>>> It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
>>>> planet exists.
>>>
>>>Which hasn't been proved, so we cannot insert God into an explanation of
>>>anything.
>>
>> Some of us can consider possibilities involving the existence of God, and
>> others of you aren't able to. You probably amusingly want people to believe you
>> can for whatever reason, but I doubt you could explain why you'd want them to.

What a ****ing moron.

>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>proved to exist.

Exactly.

These morons have no idea just how much work they have to do before
invoking it outside their religion.

Personal and other lies, fallacies etc instead of that, simply
reinforce the realisation that they have nothing.

>
> "It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
> if he's not aware that this planet exists."
>
>
>You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
>proven to exist.

Which is his problem, not ours - because until he justifies it instead
of lying about and to us, there is nothing even to give a thought to.

>Why pick God out of the list? Special pleading? ;-)

He doesn't even know what that means, let alone that it's a fallacy.

>>>>>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.
>>>>
>>>> An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.
>>>
>>>An agnostic-theist might ;-)
>>
>> You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
>> do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
>> persuade themselves that you're not???

What a ****ing moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

>Not what?
>
>I'm an agnostic-atheist. What am I trying to convince people I'm not??
>
>>>>>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??
>>>>
>>>> Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.

What a ****ing moron.

>>>The fact you avoided the question gives me the answer I need ;-)

He's too stupid to realise this.

It's different for him therefore it is for everybody else too.

>>>Science teaches us about the things fairies do
>>>Science teaches us about the things goblins do
>>>Science teaches us about the things leprechauns do
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are these invalid yet "God" is valid?
>>
>> Because of things humans have learned about the possibility of some things,
>> but are still in no position to have learned about others. You might think
>> you're in the position to know God does not exist, which would be extra amusing
>> since I still suspect you want people to think you're also capable of
>> considering the possibility that he does exist.

What a ****ing moron.

>So what evidence do you have that God exists then??

None whatsoever.

>Why are those things above all invalid apart from "God". It's special
>pleading and it's indicative that you believe in God.

Special pleading is one example of begging the question.

He first has to show that it exists outside his deluded imagination,
for it to be different.

>Now maybe you do believe in God but are ashamed about it, I know a lot
>of theists like this --- He-he.

On Aug 22, 12:56*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 16, 11:47*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 14, 1:19 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On 9 Aug., 23:43, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:37:45 -0500, Samuel Harrigon >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Goo lied:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
> >> >> >> >> >> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
> >> >> >> >> > is not what he means.He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
> >> >> >> >> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
> >> >> >> >> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>
> >> >> >> >Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
> >> >> >> >look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
> >> >> >> >has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
> >> >> >> >form of earthly based DNA life-forms.
>
> >> >> >> Of course the only ones we're in any position to be able to detect are those
> >> >> >> same life forms, and we couldn't detect any others if they inhabitted every
> >> >> >> other star system in the universe. Do you consider that fact too, or just try to
> >> >> >> ignore that one and if so why?
>
> >> >> >Why do you think we wouldn't be able to detect intelligent
> >> >> >extraterrestrials if they existed?
>
> >> >> It would depend on whether they want us to be able to or not.
>
> >> >That is different to what you said before.
>
> >> * * Like what?
>
> >> >> For example if
> >> >> such beings do come to this planet and some of the thousands or millions of ufo
> >> >> sightings are actually of xts, it means the people were able to see them because
> >> >> the xts wanted to be seen. It's always their lights that allows people to see
> >> >> them, so it must be intentional if it's happening at all. If they do exist they
> >> >> apparently want us to be isolated and not know about it for sure. Humans do the
> >> >> same sort of thing, and have non-interference ideas and try to have zero or very
> >> >> little influence etc with wildlife. So even if they exist and are having and
> >> >> have had tremendous influence there's no reason to think we'd be able to know
> >> >> about it, unless some ufo sightings and crop circles etc are for real. If some
> >> >> are then they're giving us little glimpses but not enough that we can say for
> >> >> sure they exist, much less allow us to detect their transmissions of whatever
> >> >> they use to communicate. And we damn sure can't jump around to check out a bunch
> >> >> of star systems to see what's going on. For all we know there could be star
> >> >> systems with hundreds of inhabitted worlds filled with beings far more
> >> >> intelligent and advanced than we are whithin 20 light years of here, or not. We
> >> >> have no way of knowing. Were you unaware of that?
>
> >> >No, and I gave you no grounds for thinking that I was.
>
> >> * * Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
> >> detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
> >> go find out.
>
> >That is not what you said. You didn't say that it was a possibility
> >that they might go undetected. If you had said that you would have got
> >no argument from me. You said categorically that they would go
> >undetected. This is the claim that I asked you to justify.
>
> * * If any exist it's pretty obvious that we couldn't detect any of them even if
> they inhabit every other star system in the universe, since we haven't detected
> any even if they inhabit every other star system in the universe.

It is not valid to infer from the observation

(1) We have not detected any extraterrestrial life

to the hypothetical statement

(2) If extraterrestrial life existed, it would not be possible for us
to detect it.

There are good reasons to think that if extraterrestrial life existed
we would probably be able to detect it. So if one thinks that it is
likely that extraterrestrial life exists, the fact that we have not
detected it presents a puzzle.

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

****wit David Harrison, who ardently believes in "pre-existence",
attempted to lie:

>
>> *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>> "in some sense"
>
> [snip fake quotes]

Sorry, Goo, but it's you:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

****wit David Harrison, who ardently believes in "pre-existence",
attempted to lie:

>>>>
>>>>> I challenge you
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! I didn't mean

No. You didn't "challenge" me, Goo. You can't - you're too far below
my level.

George Plimpton > wrote:
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999
>
> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>

A message to the theists...

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

You beliefs are dismissed!

George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > LOL!!! I didn't mean
>
> No. You didn't "challenge" me, Goo. You can't - you're too far below
> my level.
>

Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing [in the ten
commandments] about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing
about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it
too exactingly €œin context€� to notice that some of these very offenses
are about to be positively recommended?

George Plimpton > wrote:
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999
>
> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>

The fact is, no religion is actually more likely to hand you truth or
salvation than any other. If any of them are right about God and God's
rules, there's just no way for us to know which one it is. If there was,
we'd all have picked the same religion by now.

That means atheists understand that no person believing one religion
over another has any real justification for doing so. Communication
styles, rituals, and norms - these can differ between people and still
be true in their contexts, but statements about the ultimate, like
"Heaven can only be reached via Mormonism," have no grounds.

Atheists aren't gullible, either. We understand that the burden of proof
rests on extraordinary claims, and that Occam's razor is a useful
thinking tool dictating that the simplest explanation for the way things
are is also the most likely one. Atheists believe in things that really
work - medicine is more effective than prayer for health, and reason is
better than blind faith for learning.

Chance is a tricky thing to fully understand. A lottery winner might
thank God she won, and a lighting-strike victim might thank God he
survived (rather than cursing Him for the inconvenience), but did God
really cause these things to happen?

While the lottery winner thanks the heavens for beating such amazing
odds, the lottery company has made sure that there would definitely be a
winner somewhere. It just happened to be that one woman. Meteorologists
know that lighting just has to strike somewhere when it storms. It just
happened to be that man, and credit for his survival belongs more to the
doctors who saved him than to God.

George Plimpton > wrote:
> *could* get to live, is for people not to
> consider the fact that they are only keeping
> these animals from being killed, by keeping
> them from getting to live at all.
> Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999
>
> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city
and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no
pity! Kill them all €“ old and young, girls and women and little
children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right
here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders.
"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the
bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and
did as they were told.

On 8/22/2012 7:59 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
> George Plimpton > wrote:
>> *could* get to live, is for people not to
>> consider the fact that they are only keeping
>> these animals from being killed, by keeping
>> them from getting to live at all.
>> Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999
>>
>> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>>
>
> Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,

No, you didn't.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:27:04 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by BroilJAB
>:

<snip idiocies>

Nothing left...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:50:47 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-21, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.
>>>>
>>>> Being a strong atheist does.
>>>
>>>Which I'm not
>>
>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>
>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>
>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.

It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
also pathetic.

>>>You better talk to a strong atheist about this.
>>
>> You better talk to someone who asserts that there's a creator. Sometimes it
>> appears you like to think you're able to consider the possibility of his
>> existence, but you never show any evidence of it.
>
>There is no evidence for a creator.

You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.

>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>possibility.

You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.

>Deal with the facts and you won't be disappointed.
>
>>>>>And there's no evidence God exists,
>>>>
>>>> Here's a basic clue for you: If there were no evidence that God exists, no
>>>> one would believe that God exists. I doubt you'll ever be able to get as far as
>>>> that easy basic aspect of the situation, but no one would believe in God if
>>>> there were no evidence none the less.
>>>
>>>Wrong
>>
>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>> believe in.
>
>It's called faith.

People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.

>>>, it's called faith. Belief and faith.
>>>
>>>There's no evidence God exists.
>>
>> In contrast to that the belief and faith you referred to are in what people
>> consider to be evidence of God's existence. You really are clueless about some
>> basic stuff.
>
>You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??

The reasons people have for believing are evidence to them, and what causes
them to develop faith.

>Yes I am clueless to that incorrect statement.
>
>>>> It does if God exists, almost certainly even if he's not aware that this
>>>> planet exists.
>>>
>>>Which hasn't been proved, so we cannot insert God into an explanation of
>>>anything.
>>
>> Some of us can consider possibilities involving the existence of God, and
>> others of you aren't able to. You probably amusingly want people to believe you
>> can for whatever reason, but I doubt you could explain why you'd want them to.
>
>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>proved to exist.

I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.

>Would you say this...
>
> "It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
> if he's not aware that this planet exists."
>
>
>You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
>proven to exist.
>
>Why pick God out of the list?

Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
faith in it being the correct one as some people do.

>Special pleading? ;-)
>
>>>>>Only a theist would keep inserting God into everything.
>>>>
>>>> An agnostic might too, but you can't get that far.
>>>
>>>An agnostic-theist might ;-)
>>
>> You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
>> do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
>> persuade themselves that you're not???
>
>Not what?
>
>I'm an agnostic-atheist. What am I trying to convince people I'm not??

You seem completely unable to consider possibilities involving the existence
of God, yet you also seem like you what people to believe you're not unable,
which you mean that you are able but there's no evidence at all that you are.
Aslo, so far you haven't been able to explain why you would want people to
believe you are able to consider possibilities involving the existence of God.

>>>>>Why not fairies, goblins and leprechauns??
>>>>
>>>> Try to figure it out. See if you can even get close.
>>>
>>>The fact you avoided the question gives me the answer I need ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Science teaches us about the things fairies do
>>>Science teaches us about the things goblins do
>>>Science teaches us about the things leprechauns do
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are these invalid yet "God" is valid?
>>
>> Because of things humans have learned about the possibility of some things,
>> but are still in no position to have learned about others. You might think
>> you're in the position to know God does not exist, which would be extra amusing
>> since I still suspect you want people to think you're also capable of
>> considering the possibility that he does exist.
>
>So what evidence do you have that God exists then??

To me what we're doing is evidence that God could exist.

>Why are those things above all invalid apart from "God". It's special
>pleading and it's indicative that you believe in God.
>
>
>Now maybe you do believe in God but are ashamed about it, I know a lot
>of theists like this --- He-he.

I consider the possibility of God's existence. You appear unable to. If you
were able to, do you think it would mean you do believe in God? Do you think for
some reason that if you were able to, it would mean you would have to?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:03:02 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:50:47 -0500, Mike Lovell >
>wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 2012-08-21, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>>Lack of belief and lack of faith requires no faith.
>
>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>
>What "faith" is the returning serial liar lying about?
>
>>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>
>>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>>
>>>>You better talk to a strong atheist about this.
>>>
>>> You better talk to someone who asserts that there's a creator. Sometimes it
>>> appears you like to think you're able to consider the possibility of his
>>> existence, but you never show any evidence of it.
>>
>>There is no evidence for a creator. Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>possibility.
>
>Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
>mean.

So far there's no reason to believe he's capable of considering the
possibility of God's existence, so it's amusing that he seems to want people to
believe he is capable. Why do YOU think he'd want people to believe he's
capable? Do you think you know of any evidence that he might actually be
capable?
.. . .
>"If there were no evidence of Zeus there would have been nothing for
>people to have believed in".

It's the second thing on my list:

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Aug 22, 12:56*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Aug 16, 11:47*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> * * Then you should be able to appreciate why we wouldn't necessarily be able to
>> >> detect them, and especially if they didn't want us to. We're in no position to
>> >> go find out.
>>
>> >That is not what you said. You didn't say that it was a possibility
>> >that they might go undetected. If you had said that you would have got
>> >no argument from me. You said categorically that they would go
>> >undetected. This is the claim that I asked you to justify.
>>
>> * * If any exist it's pretty obvious that we couldn't detect any of them even if
>> they inhabit every other star system in the universe, since we haven't detected
>> any even if they inhabit every other star system in the universe.
>
>It is not valid to infer from the observation
>
>(1) We have not detected any extraterrestrial life
>
>to the hypothetical statement
>
>(2) If extraterrestrial life existed, it would not be possible for us
>to detect it.
>
>There are good reasons to think that if extraterrestrial life existed
>we would probably be able to detect it. So if one thinks that it is
>likely that extraterrestrial life exists, the fact that we have not
>detected it presents a puzzle.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

If even one UFO sighting is of an xt vehicle, or any of the things
associated with ancient humans were of xt influence then it has been detected.
They apparently don't want us to have proof if they're having influence.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:22:37 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>"in some sense"
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
>>problem." - Goo
>>
>>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
>>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
>>
>>"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
>>for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>>
>>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>>existing entities" - Goo
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>
>>"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
>>improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>life we can detect" - Goo
>
>You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

"they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
state was" - Goo