Atheism vs Christianity Google Group

Re: The relativity of wrong

rupertmccal...@yahoo.com (Rupert) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:25:23 UT

Not really. He made the remark "Not many English literature students
have anything to teach me about science." I could correctly make that
remark as well, just as the English literature student could correctly
remark "Not many maths Ph.D.'s have anything to teach me about English
literature." It's just a factual statement.

Re: Time was, Time is, Time will be.

ornamentalm...@yahoo.com (ornamentalmind) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:24:12 UT

All excellent areas of examination LE and, the truth is that science
as a monolith does not know about such things when it comes to matter,
energy, light, time etc. Human study of local events can proffer
practical ‘answers’ in that they can be used however, in a large
sense, physicists freely admit to not knowing the nature of reality

Re: Time was, Time is, Time will be.

allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca (Treebeard) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:18:32 UT

A couple of things here:

1) You make the presumption that time is a thing, and therefore can be
created. Who says that time has to be an actual thing? Why can't
time simply be "rate of change"? After all, even in a universe where
nothing is happening, any intelligent being's thoughts, at least, are

Re: The relativity of wrong

allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca (Treebeard) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:15:40 UT

His continual references to him being an English literature student
are, in fact, the problem. I am not saying that the arguments require
that reference, and in fact am stating the opposite. He's coming
close to an ad hominem because he continually brings up an irrelevant
feature to remind us that the original argument came from an English

Re: The relativity of wrong

allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca (Treebeard) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:00:44 UT

I accept that they accept that their answers could be wrong. However,
all of them who put forward or accept their theories don't think they
ARE wrong; they think their theories are correct. And that's all I
charged them with.

It's religious people, by and large, who

Re: My grandfather has passed away

rupertmccal...@yahoo.com (Rupert) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:56:09 UT

Well, that is a good question. Of course I unlike some round here
believe that he no longer exists, it is not that I think that he has
"passed away" to some other realm. However, I suppose sometimes we
still like to use that turn of phrase to soften the blow a bit.

But yes, as you say, he died last night, and it is sad that I can't

Re: [AvC] Re: Thomas Jefferson on Questioning Faith

khurram...@gmail.com (khurram chaudhry) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:46:17 UT

you are assuming that not believing in him equates to living a life that
breaks all his commandments?

Re: Why don't all peoples have the same creation story?.

ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:32:42 UT

From Muslims. The following has the relevant references to the Koran.
[link]

He got the information from himself?

Re: Time was, Time is, Time will be.

smwil...@tpg.com.au (philosophy) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:16:29 UT

Strike a light Lawrey. You don't want to know much, do you? :-)
I am an ignorant person, so how about you ask one who has
spent his life studying the concept?
Enjoy:
[link]

Time was, Time is, Time will be.

lawrenc...@btinternet.com (Lawrey) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:01:45 UT

ΩΩΩΩΩ.. IS IT SIMPLY A QUESTION OF TIME.. ΩΩΩΩΩ

I lay myself open to the critcal review of my peers, not for the
first time on this same subject, yet still it plagues and taunts my
sense in my logical conclusions.

I freely confess I have read much and understood little on the

Re: The relativity of wrong

musquods...@gmail.com (Kent) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:54:21 UT

The English literature student is used as a foil. The arguments hold
without reference to him.

It seems you have missed the entire point. Go back and read the long-
winded discussion a few times, especially on the shape of the earth.
The point is that all proposed shapes of the earth are "wrong" since

Re: Logos vs. Mythos

ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:58:25 UT

If it were to explain the first cause, then the first cause wouldn't
be unexplainable.

I said "what existed before the universe is the first cause of the
universe", not "what existed before the universe is the cause of the
first cause".

Re: A TIME FOR GIVING ?

ornamentalm...@yahoo.com (ornamentalmind) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:47:31 UT

"Well then, just pass the loaded word "pets" and look at "respect for
other life forms on the planet"." - phil

I have respect for everything I eat...

Re: Logos vs. Mythos

smwil...@tpg.com.au (philosophy) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:38:04 UT

This might help:
[link]

Re: Do you despise the concept of God?

smwil...@tpg.com.au (philosophy) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:31:12 UT

Smoley, smoley - why do I have to choose either of your options on
offer?
Personally, I neither love nor hate the character of Jesus. If he
lived, he
is probably a distant ancestor of mine, so I would treat him with
respect.
However, to expect me to love or hate him, is a bit much to ask,