# The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

RationalRespons...
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread

This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...

Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.

A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.

Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data

Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.

Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.

Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins

Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism

UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.

AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:

THE FULL DEBATE!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
fool1      /ful/

fool1 –noun

 1 a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
 2 a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
 3 a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
 4 an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually prec. by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
 5 a weak-minded or idiotic person.
–verb (used with object)
 6 to trick, deceive, or impose on: They tried to fool him.
–verb (used without object)
 7 to act like a fool; joke; play.
 8 to jest; pretend; make believe: I was only fooling.
9.fool around,
 a. to putter aimlessly; waste time: She fooled around all through school.
 b. to philander or flirt.
 c. to be sexually promiscuous, esp. to engage in adultery.
 10 fool away, to spend foolishly, as time or money; squander: to fool away the entire afternoon.
 11 fool with, to handle or play with idly or carelessly: to be hurt while fooling with a loaded gun; to fool with someone's affections.
 12 be nobody's fool, to be wise or shrewd.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
There is no evidence for a

There is no evidence for a 'former' of natural processes, believing something that has no evidence is not rational.

Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't make 'god-did-it' any more likely,....just exceedingly unlikey, due to the lack of any evidence. IMO

Could we please move this discussion to this forum-?

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
DUG853 wrote:There is no

A Couple posts above this I wrote that your argument fals into 0 contradictions, thats obviously not true, and it is to late for an edit, so just letting you know about the falsity of your argument again.

Duggy Brother, where are you hiding?

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
true      /tru/

 1 being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
 2 real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.
 3 sincere; not deceitful: a true interest in someone's welfare.
 4 firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast: a true friend.
 5 being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something: the true meaning of his statement.
 6 conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like: a true copy.
 7 exact; precise; accurate; correct: a true balance.
 8 of the right kind; such as it should be; proper: to arrange things in their true order.
 9 properly so called; rightly answering to a description: true statesmanship.
 10 legitimate or rightful: the true heir.
 11 reliable, unfailing, or sure: a true sign.
 12 exactly or accurately shaped, formed, fitted, or placed, as a surface, instrument, or part of a mechanism.
 13 honest; honorable; upright.
 14 Biology. conforming to the type, norm, or standard of structure of a particular group; typical: The lion is a true cat.
 15 Animal Husbandry. purebred.
 16 Navigation. (of a bearing, course, etc.) determined in relation to true north.
 17 Archaic. truthful.
–noun
 18 exact or accurate formation, position, or adjustment: to be out of true.
 19 the true, something that is true; truth.
 20 in a true manner; truly; truthfully.
 21 exactly or accurately.
 22 in conformity with the ancestral type: to breed true.
–verb (used with object)
 23 to make true; shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately: to true the wheels of a bicycle after striking a pothole.
 24 (esp. in carpentry) to make even, symmetrical, level, etc. (often fol. by up): to true up the sides of a door.
 25 come true, to have the expected or hoped-for result; become a reality: She couldn't believe that her dream would ever come true.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist Here is a statement

theist

Here is a statement with 0 Zilch, contra-dictions, unlike your statements dug, which fall into contra-dictions, i am sorry that you have been raised with 0 understanding of what Logic is, when you fall into 0 contradictions, now I know that you also are foolosu like tilberian, and will reside in a contra-diction no matter what the evidence against it, you are a fool.

The artificial heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of manufacturing.

The human heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of evolution.

All things Form-ed require a Form-er.

Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of Formation, Therefore they can not be the Former.

The Former of the artificial heart is Man.

The Former of the human heart is God.

The Human Heart exists, therefore God exists.[/quote wrote:

I have shown that the freezing 'process' does in fact 'form' icicles, among everything else in THIS universe

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises ([1] [2] [3] [4]).

Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning.

As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean "suggests the question".

This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
DUG853 wrote:theistHere

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises ([1] [2] [3] [4]).

Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning.

As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean "suggests the question".

This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself.

oh and the "proof is in itself" wierd, where else would the proof be, but "in itself"

remember

THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING!!!!

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
Dug, it is apparent to me

Dug, it is apparent to me that you are of some sort of authority on this website, as you try to move me out of this room, who are you really, why do you have some sort of fake name your using? why would a random guy with 27 posts try and move me out of a room? why would he care what room we were debating in?

Who are you Dug?

Who are you?

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
Where art thou Dug, where

Where art thou Dug, where art thou?

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
Dug you R   si·lence

Dug you R

si·lence      /ˈsaɪləns/ Pronunciation Key[sahy-luhns] Pronunciation Key noun, verb, -lenced, -lenc·ing, interjection

–noun
 1 absence of any sound or noise; stillness.
 2 the state or fact of being silent; muteness.
 3 absence or omission of mention, comment, or expressed concern: the conspicuous silence of our newspapers on local graft.
 4 the state of being forgotten; oblivion: in the news again after years of silence.
 5 concealment; secrecy.
–verb (used with object)
 6 to put or bring to silence; still.
 7 to put (doubts, fears, etc.) to rest; quiet.
 8 Military. to still (enemy guns), as by more effective fire.
–interjection
 9 be silent! “Silence!” the teacher shouted.
GOODNIGHT LOSER!

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline

As usual Jesus Christ made me feel bad about being mean and calling "Dug" whoever he is a "loser" even though he is the loser of the debate, I am here to apoligize, I am sorry for my rudeness, I love you like I love all humans with Universal Love from Jesus Christ, So I am Sorry "Dug".

God Bless you and hopefully he will open your eyes to True logic, instead of a Lie of the Father of Lies who is your master, Good Luck.

Much Love from me and Jesus Christ Brothers.

goodnight.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
Example proofs The

Example proofs

### The square root of 2

One proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 is the following reductio ad absurdum. The proposition is proved by assuming the contrary and showing that doing so leads to a contradiction (hence the proposition must be true).

1. Assume that $\sqrt{2}$ is a rational number. This would mean that there exist integers a and b such that a / b = $\sqrt{2}$.
2. Then $\sqrt{2}$ can be written as an irreducible fraction (the fraction is shortened as much as possible) a / b such that a and b are coprime integers and (a / b)2 = 2.
3. It follows that a2 / b2 = 2 and a2 = 2 b2.
4. Therefore a2 is even because it is equal to 2 b2 which is also even.
5. It follows that a must be even (odd square numbers have odd square roots and even square numbers have even square roots).
6. Because a is even, there exists an integer k that fulfills: a = 2k.
7. We insert the last equation of (3) in (6): (2k)2 = 2b2 is equivalent to 4k2 = 2b2 is equivalent to 2k2 = b2.
8. Because 2k2 is even it follows that b2 is also even which means that b is even because only even numbers have even squares.
9. By (5) and ( a and b are both even, which contradicts that a / b is irreducible as stated in (2).

Since we have found a contradiction, the assumption (1) that $\sqrt{2}$ is a rational number must be false; that is to say, $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational.

This proof can be generalized to show that any root of any natural number is either a natural number or irrational.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
The same statistics also

The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response

this is a real laugh haha, The entirety of athiesm is contained in NO, hahahha, man what a genius, he explained it all with NO, hahahhaha, man the Father of Lies pulled a fast one on Sam Harris, thats the joke of the century.

So he wants me to beleive him on his genius logic and here it is, here is why God is not "real"

NO

hahahhahahahahah

from Sam Harris Athiest Manifesto.

what a joke.

Jesus is a real Jokester, as he is the Author of Humor, I do not mind Joking also, its fun!

Praise God!

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
Oh ans for clarification,

Oh ans for clarification, if I was a Greek in the Past when Zues, The King of the Gods Rules over his Populace, yes I would have beliveied in Zues and Gotten my Moral Values From him, God Set up All Religions, From the very First Legend of Assur 8000 years ago which inspired the Entire Egyption Religion up Till now with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God of Today, All of them are Veils that God hangs over the Truth, do you know what a Veil is? that is why God RE-Viels his Eternal Truth as Time goes by, as you can see St. Paul was having Re-Veilations of Truth, Zeus was a Viel, Christ is a Viel (in human Form, he came in the Flesh), The truth is invisible to this material Universe so God Veils it with material Substance so Humans can Understand and Learn the Ways of God.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
One thing that impresses me

One thing that impresses me about this site is that the core members are willing--more than willing, in fact--to take advice from anyone with a sound argument.  todangst, you usually make sound arguments, but I noticed when someone new showed up and spelled out a few arguments, Sapient was thankful.  Very cool.

Taken from the bottom of the first page of this thread, written by nikoru nomornuti or something, Lets all see if this is really the truth about Sapient, but indeed as sapient Considers "lying" to be "normal" I highly doubt this is true.

Put the Money where the mouth is Brothers.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: erosion is

thiest wrote:

erosion is a proccess therefore it can not be the former, go read what a proccess is, proccesses are implemented by formers,

Support this or shut up. Processes do not have to implemented by intelligent formers.

thiest wrote:

everything that is formed requires a former tilberion, it is a fact, like i said you can not show me a form that does not have a former, therefore it is not refuted.

Repeating yourself is not the same as supporting your argument.

thiest wrote:

Like I said, i am not accountable for ignorant muslims who ignore the entire bible and the teaching of their own messiah jesus christ, what a muslim says and what the Quran says are two totally differant things, compare it to the crusades, what the pope was saying was not what the bible said, the pope corrupted the Logos of God to serve his evil purposes, much like imams do today, as God ordained it for the redemption of mankind.

From the Koran, regarding unbelievers:

"Slay them where ever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. <snip> Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme."

The Koran commands you to kill unbelievers. Muslims that kill Christians, Jews and others are following the Koran more closely than you are. Similarly, the Crusaders were following the instructions of the Bible more closely than any Christians alive today.

thiest wrote:

My reception is alligned with how much you fear the truth as it will invade upon your own created world that you live in, i am not evangilizing, i have come to the only place that will accept the truth at this point in time, if i take this true knowledge to religious folk, they will call me the devil.

You really do think you're Jesus, don't you? Come on, admit it, you're getting your instructions directly from God, aren't you?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline

I already refuted the things you keep saying, so go back and read the posts again for knowledge.

From the Koran, regarding unbelievers:

"Slay them where ever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. <snip> Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme."

The Koran commands you to kill unbelievers. Muslims that kill Christians, Jews and others are following the Koran more closely than you are. Similarly, the Crusaders were following the instructions of the Bible more closely than any Christians alive today.

Hence as I have already shown, Islam is a Holy Decree from God in Retribution for the Death of His Son Jesus Christ.

You really do think you're Jesus, don't you? Come on, admit it, you're getting your instructions directly from God, aren't you?

How can I be Jesus? He died and Rose from the Dead 2000 Years ago, He sits at the Right hand of Power as displayed in the Ten Sephiroth, Untill he Makes his Enemies his Footstool, then he shall Return.

I am a Man. I am not God

And yes I am recieveing Direct Instruction From My Lord and King Jesus Christ.

THATS THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER!!!!!!!

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: As i said

thiest wrote:

As i said before, The Father still exists in the single point at the top of the ten sephiroth diagram, in the realm of the air, The Father set the Son Jesus Christ as God of the Universe as he was deemed worthy through his sacrifice. The Son, or God Jesus Christ is at the Right hand Of Power, In the Realm of the Water.

So God is in a diagram on a piece of paper?

thiest wrote:
The Word Became Flesh

Oh I see, JC was there but he wasn't flesh yet. Then what was he?

thiest wrote:

I know about God threough entering into marriage with jesus christ, entering the kingdom of God which is inside of us, as stated in the new testement, The kingdom of God is on Earth as it exists inside anyone who enteres into marriage with jesus Christ. The kingdom of Heaven is differant, it is in the realm of the Air, The kingdom of God is how I know all these things, it is our Link to God, like our Umbilical Cord at birth.

How does any of this answer my question? It is a complete non sequiteur.

To recap: YOU have stated that God is outside the universe. YOU have stated that we can have no knowlege of things outside the universe. And YOU have claimed to have knowledge of God. RECONCILE THIS CONTRADICTION OR SHUT UP.

thiest wrote:

here you go, I accept yer double dare.

Tilberian says this,

Because the Big Bang is necessary to explain the events immediately following the beginning of the universe

Well I'm flattered that you give me credit for making up the Big Bang theory, but actually that honor goes to a lot of people much smarter than I am. So I haven't made up anything and your lie is still exposed.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
people much smarter than

people much smarter than I am

Indeed as I am much much much smarter (through The knowledge that God has Gifted me with, only from him, not by my Own Work) than you are in the Basic knowledge of Religion and History, you should listen to me, and I am under Direct Instruction from the Lord of the Universe.

At least you are accepting the Humilty I am spoonfeeding you, as you would nevar Humble yourself without someone doing what they do with babies, "look at the airplane, here it comes, weeeeee"

Now that you have shown you are not smart, please step aside and Allow Cult leader Sapient to come forward and recieve his delicious Humble Pie.

I say all of this with Love for you all, as Humility is Is Virtuus before God, I want people to be Humble becasue it is Good for them, not to make you feel badly, remember

The Humble shall be exalted

The exalted shall be Humbled.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: proc·ess

thiest wrote:
proc·ess /ˈprɒsɛs; especially Brit. ˈproʊsɛs/ Pronunciation Key[pros-es; especially Brit. proh-ses] Pronunciation Key noun, plural proc·ess·es /ˈprɒsɛsɪz, ‑əsɪz, ‑əˌsiz or, especially Brit., ˈproʊsɛs‑, ˈproʊsə‑/ Pronunciation Key[pros-es-iz, uh-siz, uh-seez or, especially Brit., proh-ses‑, proh-suh] Pronunciation Key, verb, adjective –noun
 1 a systematic series of actions directed to some end: to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
 2 a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: the process of decay.
 4 Photography. photomechanical or photoengraving methods collectively.
 5 Biology, Anatomy. a natural outgrowth, projection, or appendage: a process of a bone.
 6 the action of going forward or on.
 7 the condition of being carried on.
 8 course or lapse, as of time.
 9 conk4 (defs. 1, 2).
–verb (used with object)
 10 to treat or prepare by some particular process, as in manufacturing.
 11 to handle (papers, records, etc.) by systematically organizing them, recording or making notations on them, following up with appropriate action, or the like: to process mail.
 12 to require (someone) to answer questionnaires, perform various tasks, and sometimes to undergo physical and aptitude classification examinations before the beginning or termination of a period of service: The army processes all personnel entering or leaving the service.
 13 to convert (an agricultural commodity) into marketable form by a special process, as pasteurization.
 14 to institute a legal process against.
 15 to serve a process or summons on.
 16 Computers. to carry out operations on (data or programs).
 17 conk4 (def. 3).
–verb (used without object)
 18 to undergo the activities involved in processing personnel: The recruits expected to process in four days.
 19 prepared or modified by an artificial process: process cheese.
 20 noting, pertaining to, or involving photomechanical or photoengraving methods: a process print.
 21 Informal. of or pertaining to hair that has been conked.
22.

Movies. created by or used in process cinematography: a moving background on a process screen.

Now look at the underlined and boldened words, these "actions" are not carried out by the Process themselves but by "Formers" of Procceses.

for·mer1 /ˈfɔrmər/ Pronunciation Key[fawr-mer] Pronunciation Key –adjective
 1 preceding in time; prior or earlier: during a former stage in the proceedings.
 2 past, long past, or ancient: in former times.
 3 preceding in order; being the first of two: Our former manufacturing process was too costly.
 4 being the first mentioned of two (distinguished from latter): The former suggestion was preferred to the latter.
 5 having once, or previously, been; erstwhile: a former president.  Proccess = Former = FALSEFormer+ Process = Product = True The "natural Process" that you are speaking of when water becomes ice cycles is instituted by God, Who else could be the Former of the Process? Tell me who is the Former of the Process?

Look at your own definition 2. It pertains to the process that formed the rock in my garden and requires no intelligent intervention at all. You are refuted.

I'm going to point out, again, that dictionary definitions give us a common ground for understanding the words that we speak. They refer to language not to reality itself. People who write dictionaries are linguists, not philosphers or scientists. Therefore, we are barking up the wrong tree if we try to use dictionary definitions to discover the nature of the universe.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: As we have

thiest wrote:

As we have already defined the fact that Proccess = Former is a Contra-Diction, it can not be true.

do you understand the word Contr-diction?

It is against logic and is not accaptable.

Do you even know how to show that something is a logical contradiction? Hint: repeating your assertion that it is over and over is not how to do it.

thiest wrote:

Process = Former = False

If you want to continue to defy the Logic of the universe go ahead, but you will always fall into a contradiction.

This can not be true under any circumstances

process= former = False

I am sorry, you are wrong.

We know the definitions of form, process and contradiction. What you are totally failing to do is show how ANYTHING in those definitions requires a process to be initiated by intelligence. We can point to thousands of examples in nature of processes that start, do their work, created a form then stop with no intelligent intervention at all.

The mistake you are making is to note that people can initiate processes and create forms, and that nothing artificial comes into existence except by those means. But how do you justify applying this logic to the natural world? How do you make the leap from artificial to natural? They are two different concepts!

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: All things

thiest wrote:

All things Form-ed require a Form-er.

Still not supported, and repeating it for the hundreth time (or thousandth, or millionth) will not make it any more true.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline

thiest wrote:

I already refuted the things you keep saying, so go back and read the posts again for knowledge.

Liar.

thiest wrote:

Hence as I have already shown, Islam is a Holy Decree from God in Retribution for the Death of His Son Jesus Christ.

How many Christians have you killed, Theist?

thiest wrote:

And yes I am recieveing Direct Instruction From My Lord and King Jesus Christ.

Do you get these instructions via a voice in your head, by any chance? And does this voice happen to coincide with you being due for your meds?

thiest wrote:

THATS THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER!!!!!!!

Since you claim to have read the Bible back-to-back I know I won't have to post the passages here that order believers to slaughter unbelievers. Or are you going to try to deny they exist and end up looking like an even bigger idiot?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: Indeed as I

thiest wrote:

Indeed as I am much much much smarter (through The knowledge that God has Gifted me with, only from him, not by my Own Work) than you are in the Basic knowledge of Religion and History, you should listen to me, and I am under Direct Instruction from the Lord of the Universe.

Holy narcissistic delusion, Batman.

thiest wrote:

At least you are accepting the Humilty I am spoonfeeding you, as you would nevar Humble yourself without someone doing what they do with babies, "look at the airplane, here it comes, weeeeee"

Now that you have shown you are not smart, please step aside and Allow Cult leader Sapient to come forward and recieve his delicious Humble Pie.

Precisely the response I'd expect from someone with your delusions of grandeur. You see, Theist, some of us can admit that others are smarter than they and not feel any reduction of being. You, on the other hand, are so tortured by your diseased ego that you can't stand the idea that even one person could know more than you.

Luckily, we have the record of your posts on this board to show that you're incapable of even the most basic reasoned thought.

Other theists, take note! This clown is the kind of guy you should be slapping down yourselves before he gets to spew his drivel all over a public place. I hear theists wonder all the time why we atheists are feeling the need to write books and create websites attacking theism. Here's your answer: because moderate theists allow delusional psychopaths like this bozo to push their agenda in the name of the same God you worship. You say you want atheists to be tolerant of religious belief? How can we afford to when numbnuts like Theist can use it to justify all manner of egregiously insane bullshit? On current polling numbers, you moderate theists would vote Theist into public office before you'd vote in an atheist. How is that right?

Time to clean house, theists.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, I need to sleep, I

theist, I need to sleep, I also have a 'Real-Life' that I must attend-to.

My mother and I are both 'disabled', therefore at some times other things MUST take precedence to debating this issue.

Please do not take my lack of an immediate-response as any kind of 'concession' to Your postulation/s of a god/s as being the 'former' of "all that is".

My original point of joining this thread was to show You that things actually DO pop into and out of existence on a regular basis.

theist, You had stated that You would "concede" if scientific evidence were produced that says that something/s just 'appeared' in this universe,

So, either You are true to your word, or You are not.

Please examine these sites for the proof You require in order to allow You to 'concede' this claim.

Thank You.

theist wrote:
"If you can show me Something Within this Universe which just "appeared" and was not Formed in Some way, scientifically I might add, then I will concede,

But as we all know, Nothing Just appears out of nowhere in "this Universe"

Yes, things DO, 'appear-out-of-nothing-ness' as shown by scientific evidence.

This is an interesting couple of items. IMO

Just 'appeared'-?  Scientifically-Proven-?

Hmmmmm,........ Concede-?

Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)
Mark I. Vuletic

Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.

This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.

Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.

Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence?

Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

One more site, with links to experimental data.

This is where I will be from now on, feel free to create any thread You choose.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
In any case, that which has

In any case, that which has NO evidence can-NOT be shown to be "true" .....

NO [REAL] 'evidence'

NO "truth" invlolved...... end of story,,,,IMO

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
My Work is Done.   Those

My Work is Done.

Those whose Fate is to understand will understand what I have spoken, they shall understand, those that can not open their eyes to the truth, that is their Fate.

Farewell.

From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
You 'will-not' acknowledge reality

You 'will-not' acknowledge reality, therefore You are irrational,..... if You will not acknowledge rational-thought then You cannot be rational, period.

I really feel 'sorry' for You. (in some ways)

Being that You 'will-not' see "reality" for what it really IS, You are depriving Yourself of what You Yourself 'claim' that a 'god/s' has/had created.

At the very least, allow 'us' to know that Your 'faith' has been 'shaken' to the point of Your being 'taken-towards-rationality'.

All the BEST to You 'theist' and Your trek towards the REAL TRUTH-!  (which precludes ANY god/s)

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Will You 'concede'' to this

Will You 'concede'' to this point 'theist', as You had stated-?

Quote:

theist wrote:
"If you can show me Something Within this Universe which just "appeared" and was not Formed in Some way, scientifically I might add, then I will concede,

But as we all know, Nothing Just appears out of nowhere in "this Universe"

Yes, things DO, 'appear-out-of-nothing-ness' as shown by scientific evidence.

This is an interesting couple of items. IMO

Just 'appeared'-?  Scientifically-Proven-?

Hmmmmm,........ Concede-?

Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)
Mark I. Vuletic

Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.

This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.

Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.

Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence?

Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

One more site, with links to experimental data.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, You have been

theist, You have been pwned, as much as I 'hate' the term, You have been pwned.

There is no denying it.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest wrote: My Work is

thiest wrote:

My Work is Done.

Those whose Fate is to understand will understand what I have spoken, they shall understand, those that can not open their eyes to the truth, that is their Fate.

Take care theist. Remember to take those meds at the same time every day. I know the fuzzy feeling is annoying, but you are better off on them, believe me.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, You have NO

theist, You have NO rational standpoint to Your claim/s of a god/s being 'real'.

theist, You 'wanted' Your claim/s about a god/s refuted as 'irrational',... this has been accomplished.

Please concede, as You said You would.

benvolio
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-11
Offline
The 'debate' was a joke.

The 'debate' was a joke. Both sides were poor representatives. It was fitting in that both sides are so like-minded; two sides of the same coin.

Challenging Christians to prove the existence of God using only science is like challenging the physically handicapped to a boxing match. You should have an easy win but you're as ass for doing it. And then to perform as poorly as Brian did… And then to brag about it... Pure PUNK. Whatever it is that he has, I don't want any of it.

Best part was the interview by Todd Friel, LMAO!

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
The 'debate' was 'lost' as

The 'debate' was 'lost' as soon as the 'bible' was used as a 'point of 'proof',.... as this was a 'main-point' of this 'debate', in the first place-!

thiest1
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
hey Sapient and Crew, Rook,

hey Sapient and Crew, Rook, Kelly, the "Core" Cult members, 1 question before I go, specially to you Fako Dug, how many fake log in names do you have so that you can come on here and lose debates without looking like total jack asses? I am just wondering, bunch of immoral liars, by your own addmission mind you, I do not judge you, you can judge yourself, and you have, as a liar, a follower of the father of lies, you are his child.

So , how many names do you have?

like 10, i assume so , as without them you would lose all of your devoted followers, oh master Sapient.

Peace, and Remember

Only those who "Seek" Find.

You do none of these things.

thats why you are all so ignorant.

Peace my brothers in the flesh, May the God of Mercy have mercy on your souls when you go through the Fire as we all must, Hopefully it will not consume you.

Much Love.

djneibarger
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
Offline
thiest1 wrote: Peace my

thiest1 wrote:
Peace my brothers in the flesh, May the God of Mercy have mercy on your souls when you go through the Fire as we all must, Hopefully it will not consume you. Much Love.

you're not my brother, your god can shove his mercy up his ass, and the "fire" is your problem, not mine.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
benvolio wrote: The

benvolio wrote:

The 'debate' was a joke. Both sides were poor representatives. It was fitting in that both sides are so like-minded; two sides of the same coin.

Challenging Christians to prove the existence of God using only science is like challenging the physically handicapped to a boxing match. You should have an easy win but you're as ass for doing it. And then to perform as poorly as Brian did… And then to brag about it... Pure PUNK. Whatever it is that he has, I don't want any of it.

Best part was the interview by Todd Friel, LMAO!

If the terms of the debate were so unfair, why did Comfort and Cameron agree to them?

If it's punk to brag about a debate in which you (ostensibly) didn't do well, then what is it when you give a bunch of shit to someone who was in a debate on network TV and you weren't? Come on, Benvolio, let's here about all your ringing logical victories on a public stage. What's that? There aren't any?

Punk.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
thiest1 wrote: hey Sapient

thiest1 wrote:
hey Sapient and Crew, Rook, Kelly, the "Core" Cult members, 1 question before I go, specially to you Fako Dug, how many fake log in names do you have so that you can come on here and lose debates without looking like total jack asses? I am just wondering, bunch of immoral liars, by your own addmission mind you, I do not judge you, you can judge yourself, and you have, as a liar, a follower of the father of lies, you are his child. So , how many names do you have? like 10, i assume so , as without them you would lose all of your devoted followers, oh master Sapient. Peace, and Remember Only those who "Seek" Find. Only those who "ask" Recieve. You do none of these things. thats why you are all so ignorant. Peace my brothers in the flesh, May the God of Mercy have mercy on your souls when you go through the Fire as we all must, Hopefully it will not consume you. Much Love.

It's OK theist, remember what we talked about - square breathing....in and hold it....out and hold it...in and hold it...out and hold it. Use a paper bag if you have to.

There, feeling a little better? Now go take your meds. Right now, please. Good boy.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Veils of Maya
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
Offline
thiest1 wrote: I will try

thiest1 wrote:

I will try and let you understand in a deiferant way, I think design is to loaded of a word, it is connotated in your mind, so let me use the word "former", here is the definition.

form·er2 /ˈfɔrmər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fawr-mer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    a person or thing that forms or serves to form.
formed, form·ing, forms

v. tr.

1. to give form to; shape: form clay into figures.
2. To develop in the mind; conceive: form an opinion.

The artificial heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of manufacturing.

who is the Former?

The human heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of evolution.

who is the Former?

All things Form-ed require a Form-er.

Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of Formation, Therefore they can not be the Former.

The Former of the artificial heart is Man.

The Former of the human heart is God.

The Human Heart exists, therefore God exists.

Back so soon?

Switching from 'designer' to 'former' doesn't negate your need to actually support your position.

1.    a person or thing that forms or serves to form.
formed, form·ing, forms

I can break that down to the following.

"A thing that forms."

The word 'thing' could indicate anything. And nowhere does it claim this thing must be intelligent.

As for your definition of God.

Zeus |zoōs| Greek Mythology

the supreme god, the son of Cronus (whom he dethroned) and Rhea, and brother and husband of Hera. Zeus was the protector and ruler of humankind, the dispenser of good and evil, and the god of weather and atmospheric phenomena (such as rain and thunder). Roman equivalent Jupiter .

While our modern definition defines Zeus as part of Greek Mythology, if you looked up Zeus a few thousand years ago, there would have been no disclaimer. Zeus was considered a true God that existed. And the dictionary definition at the time reflected that belief.

Did the fact that Zeus was at one time defined as real, just as God is defined today, mean that Zeus really was a God? Was Zeus real until the qualifier "Greek Mythology" was added to his definition in the dictionary?

Again, come back when you have something other than naked assertions.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.

Veils of Maya
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
Offline
On second thought, maybe

On second thought, maybe Theist1 is on to something here...

Let's just get all the major dictionaries to make the following changes to the following definitions of words.

For the entry for Cancer, lets add..

"The cure for cancer was found on June 14th, 2007"

For the definition of World Peace, lets add...

"All nations signed the world peace treaty on June 14th 2007. Under this treaty, all weapons of war, including conventional and nuclear weapons, are to be destroyed by June 14th, 2008."

We can do the same thing for the definition of all known diseases, crime, hatred and World Hunger too!

And if Thieist1's premise really is true, we should be able to revisit the definitions of past events, such as the Holocaust, define them as myths and prevent them from ever happening in the first place!

Wow.. I guess we're lucky that Jesus commanded Theist1 to attack this website. Otherwise, we couldn't have solved all of these problems!

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, I DUG853, have only

theist, I, DUG853, have only ONE login-name, I am ONE person, with NO affiliation to Sapient nor any other person as far as being 'instructed' or 'directed' goes.

"Google" my name, theist, and You will see that I, "with this name'' have been on the net, for YEARS before this site was created. (or 'formed' LMAO)

I have had this 'name' since my "31-X-Ray" days on the CB radio.

You are the one that ignores 'reality'.

Please 'concede' as You had stated that You would,... do it NOW-!

Either that, or You cannot be taken seriously, as a person.

You will be relegated to a person that cannot be taken for their word.

Period.

benvolio
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-11
Offline
Tilberian wrote: If the

Tilberian wrote:
If the terms of the debate were so unfair, why did Comfort and Cameron agree to them?

You're asking me?  Obviously the answer is with Comfort and Cameron and I would imagine they have shared it.
Tilberian wrote:
If it's punk to brag about a debate in which you (ostensibly) didn't do well, then what is it when you give a bunch of shit to someone who was in a debate on network TV and you weren't?

I have no issue with how badly Brian did, I just don't like having someone acting like a dickhead represent atheists on national TV and I'm not alone.

Tilberian wrote:
Come on, Benvolio, let's here about all your ringing logical victories on a public stage. What's that? There aren't any?

Too many to list here, I'm a trail attorney...but I don't roll like that.

Why do you feel the need to defend him?

thiest
Posts: 133
Joined: 2007-05-22
Offline
I Concede to your

You do not Seek.

Good Luck. Farewell.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline

Could You please 'concede' to Your 'Own word/s' regarding the issue of things being 'scientifically-proven' to pop into and out of existence, as You  had previously stated-?

I would be greatly 'impressed' by Your veracity.

NOW is the time to show Your 'true-colour/s'.

Or,.....NOT.

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, I

theist, I 'seeked',......and I found,.....the TRUTH-!

Have You-?.....

Or just an 'imagination/s' of someone over 2000 years ago-?

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, do You 'concede'-to

theist, do You 'concede'-to MY 'reality'-?

The 'real'-reality-?

As shown by scientific-evidence-?

Or, 'NO'-?

DUG853
Posts: 40
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
theist, the FACT that You

theist, the FACT that You have NO evidence to support the idea of a god/s current existence in THIS universe, is 'proof'-enough that Your claim/s can NOT be taken seriously, and, are patently FALSE, on their face.

NO evidence,....means NO-valid-claim/s.

Or NOT,.....it's entirely up to You.

Believe 'sophistry' or believe "demonstrable-reality'.

Veils of Maya
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-05-10
Offline
thiest wrote: You do not

thiest wrote:

You do not Seek.

I hear theists say this all the time. It simply makes no sense, because I could say the exact same thing to you.

It's could be just as likely that you see God wherever you look because you assume that God did it and stop there. You don't look for explanations, you simply look for assertions.

It's not that I'm not seeking, it's that I'm not finding the answers you want me to find.

We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.

Tilberian
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
Offline
benvolio wrote: You're

benvolio wrote:

You're asking me? Obviously the answer is with Comfort and Cameron and I would imagine they have shared it.

They have and they did it because they thought their arguments really added up to scientific proof of God. It isn't Brian's fault that these guys are idiots. But it was necessary to expose that, since so many people are taken in by their half-baked rhetoric.

benvolio wrote:

LOL you couldn't hurt my feelings if you tried.

benvolio wrote:

I have no issue with how badly Brian did, I just don't like having someone acting like a dickhead represent atheists on national TV and I'm not alone.

It's still better than no one representing atheists at all. Which is precisely what has been happening for the last thirty years or so.

benvolio wrote:

Too many to list here, I'm a trail attorney...but I don't roll like that.

I see. So you're a trial attorney and an atheist. Sounds like you might have a lot to contribute. Sounds like you might have been able to do a better job in that debate than Brian.

Yet the only contribution we're seeing from you is name-calling from the sidelines.

I'm not exactly out there storming the religious barricades either. But at least I have the sense to respect someone who is trying to make a difference on my behalf and not go calliing him a punk on his own website.

benvolio wrote:

Why do you feel the need to defend him?

Because I sincerely hope that Brian would not feel the need to take time away from his important work to defend himself against a jerk like you.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

thaservant77
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-17
Offline
existence of God debate

I watched the debate on the existence of God and it seemed to me it turned out to be a debate on the existence of the God of the bible.....as far as scientifical evidence goes in proving or disproving the existence of God there is no abosolute for either side....Just as brian said at one point in the debate science makes mistakes and changes......so there are many scientists who believe the evidence points to a creator and many who beleive the opposite......I am a christian.....i was never an atheist.......i dont hate atheists , i understand ur arguments and your frustration with people who believe in God at least in this country it seems to be mainly christians.....i think like ray comfort said that if u open your heart that u will see the truth....even the very argument of the existence of God should be proof enough that theres something instilled in us from the time we are born...that something the bible says is a knowledge of eternity that God placed in each mans heart, that void that nothing in our lives or in this world can fill except God alone....and i want to apologize to all of you atheists on behalf of real christians for some of the nasty comments that ppl claiming to be christian leave......i dont agree with  wat you guys do or how u try to turn ppl to atheist and encourage them to blashpeme the Holy Spirit, but were not called as christians to retaliate with hate but rather with Love......if anyone would like to respond to what i have to say feel free to....God blessI

thaservant77
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-17
Offline
also i would like to ask

also i would like to ask this question to both brian and kelly....at one point in the interview the point was made by kirk of personal experience, (which i beleive is a very valid point) , and after that brian began to refute it and said taht at one point both he and kelly were chrisitans.....well i would like to know than what made you turn away from God or lose your faith.....bcuz i find that many ppl lose faith in God at some point not mainly because of a lack of evidence of God, but more because of some type of tragedy or hurt, which causes them to begin to question God or be angry with God, or also some people just decide they would rather live for their own pleasures rather than submit to the Lord....so wat was it for you both?, and i would really appreciate it if you could be as forthright as possible i understand though if u cant because it may be too personal.....