I have Done Evil. I Do Evil Now. I will Continue To Do Evil.

What is Worse. I applaud Evils of Others. I Rejoice In It. I Wish Evil On Others.

Using the word Sin, The Greater Sin is Not Doing Evil, but Loving Evil. I Love Evil.

My Evil is Not In The Name Of Any GOD. It Just Is.

Unfortunately, Evil Does Not make me Happy. I get a Kick out of it sometimes and a feeling of Joy is sometimes felt. But the general Essense of My Being is of Unhappiness.

I want to take The Doing of Evil out of My Life. The Wishing Of Evil on others, I don't think I can stop. Maybe reduce, but not stop.

Hopefully this will make me Feel a little Better as Time Goes On. I have less Time Going Forward than Time Past, so, it would be nice to Feel Better about myself when Death Comes.

With the above said, what would A Belief in GOD do for me? Nothing I say. For to Believe In GOD I would have to Hypnotize Myself Into Believing. And that would be Crap.

And If I somehow Really Became Faithful, I mean, Evil People have Become Faithful right?-how could My Mind justify it?

The Battle To Justify, to Be Faithful, to Live With Myself would take more Out of Me than Being Evil.

So, to Believe seems to be a No Go. It is A Substitute. It is Hypocritical and A Fakery.

Instead, I will put in The Effort to be Less Evil. No Religion involved. No Science needed.

EvilDullNanDo

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The earth is what it is. It and all the people and other life on behave exactly as it would with no creator at all.

Steve

Except, Steve, for the fact that with no Creator, none of it would exist.

That's not a fact. That's a matter of unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought the causal principal had been disproved. AFIK the new theory in cosmology creates the universe without cause, simply it must be. That goes along with the mathematical proof that an intelligence (computer program) can not know if it is real or simulated. And of course Renee Descartes work Meditations on First Philosophy is good in this also. Descartes had to assume God to get to a causal principal. Rather circular to then use the causal principal to derive God.

I know this upsets a lot of people. To not have a being that cares about them to protect them. That they are completely on their own.

God is the dice.

---

The earth is what it is. It and all the people and other life on behave exactly as it would with no creator at all.

Steve

Except, Steve, for the fact that with no Creator, none of it would exist.

That's not a fact. That's a matter of unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought the causal principal had been disproved. AFIK the new theory in cosmology creates the universe without cause, simply it must be. That goes along with the mathematical proof that an intelligence (computer program) can not know if it is real or simulated. And of course Renee Descartes work Meditations on First Philosophy is good in this also. Descartes had to assume God to get to a causal principal. Rather circular to then use the causal principal to derive God.

I know this upsets a lot of people. To not have a being that cares about them to protect them. That they are completely on their own.

God is the dice.

I personally do not buy into the gambit that we would have been destined to exist without some higher power kicking things into place.

We would not be here, I think, without the intervention of some power far beyond our simple human grasp.

We cannot identify it. We are powerless to know exactly what it was.

We can come up with many hypothesis about how we came to be. And just how and when we came to self realization.

But....as much as I would like to sympathize with those who think it was all just happenstance.

I do not believe for a moment that is true.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I will add more later.

But Fred was right about open and closed systems.

I still don't agree with everything he had to say in his writting I posted here but he did make me stop and second guess myself.

I think I get why your absolutism can wind some folks up -- it is similar in its faith of 'rightness' and denial of evidence to the the birther mythology.

You invent a 'Biblical science' and use what they have invented to prove what they believe.

You have confirmed yet again the fruitlessness of this discussion.

I think you and the Dullster should start a new topic and the two of you should devote the totality of your posting efforts in a battle of wits...

And religion is not science. Now we are getting somewhere. Glad you agree.

You missed the point by at least a mile. No logic here. Theory is not fact. Fact is not theory.

Ever hear of Biblical science? Apparently not.....

Well, I think I bow out now from this version of this discussion.

Some here seem to be more bent on arguing fine points rather that addressing the actual issue.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

After you joined in with the others in belief that Im Guy, I find myself not willing to believe in a thing you post. You lack credibility.

Please provide a link to a post I have made that leads you to believe I have joined in with others in this belief. I cannot recall making such a post, and if you can't find one, please apologize, or it will be you lacking credibility.

ID, no link to support your claim, and no apology. Thanks for confirming it is you that lacks credibility.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It was your tone.

And when Im sent a Private Message I understand the key word Private.

Between the two--I assumed.

You have my apology for the assumption.

As for my lacking credibility, I bothered to get your side of this argument before I stated mine. In effect, all during my posting here you all wanted to know what I knew before I started getting dribbles of facts from you all. Some wanted to put me on the couch. Other's like yourself, wanted to talk only science. Some wanted to post science as something else other then science, an example is the cat conversation that was posted here. Then there was the plain old BS session.

I asked you if you believed in absolutes. Mainly because you seemed like you knew what you was talking about. Also because of the science that you believe in so strongly is nothing more then chance in some directions, only theory in other directions. Nothing, nothing based in the simple facts of there being only round circles and right angles with equal length sides. The truth is that science does tell us that there are absolutes. People are born, people live their lives, and then we hope in very old age--die. Once one understands the absoulte then trust can be formed. One only needs that gram of trust and the ounce of Faith comes later. I cannot place trust in something that isn't absolute. Nor do I place trust in science that isn't absolute. As I understand science it moves from theory to science fact. Mr. E had a theory that light would bend in the gravity well of our star. This has been proved over and over again. From this, science has told us that a whole galaxy will bend light that is being seen from behind said galaxy. Intelligent Design Theory is just another theory that has yet to move into science fact--fully. I happen to believe in ID and in time hope to see it move into science fact. I see no reason not to teach science of chance. I see not reason not to teach theory that has not been proven. I see no reason not to seek absolutes. I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.



You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

I asked you if you believed in absolutes. Mainly because you seemed like you knew what you was talking about. Also because of the science that you believe in so strongly is nothing more then chance in some directions, only theory in other directions. Nothing, nothing based in the simple facts of there being only round circles and right angles with equal length sides. The truth is that science does tell us that there are absolutes. People are born, people live their lives, and then we hope in very old age--die. Once one understands the absoulte then trust can be formed. One only needs that gram of trust and the ounce of Faith comes later. I cannot place trust in something that isn't absolute. Nor do I place trust in science that isn't absolute. As I understand science it moves from theory to science fact. Mr. E had a theory that light would bend in the gravity well of our star. This has been proved over and over again. From this, science has told us that a whole galaxy will bend light that is being seen from behind said galaxy. Intelligent Design Theory is just another theory that has yet to move into science fact--fully. I happen to believe in ID and in time hope to see it move into science fact. I see no reason not to teach science of chance. I see not reason not to teach theory that has not been proven. I see no reason not to seek absolutes. I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

The whole problem with your ID as "science fact" is that there is still no supporting evidence to prove or disprove a Grand Designer. Such teaching would be similar to teaching faith, and therefore cannot be taught as science.

As for absolutes... well, I wish I could live in such a simple world.

Matt.....
I have faith.

No one's perfect.

Faith, I think has already been defined here as belief in something for which no scientific evidence exists to prove.

Then do not call it a fact unless you are willing to call all other gods facts. Of course that still means a novel definition for the word fact, that personal belief constitutes fact, faith based reality as in creationism, but at least it will have the benefit of consistency.

It resides in one's heart and soul, and cannot be removed by your dissertations or your casual dismissal of such.

It is clearly not reasonable to propose something resides in metaphors such as heart and soul. Current research suggests it might reside in the left temporal region of the brain and can be artificially stimulated.

As I posted earlier, faith in and of itself is really not a debatable issue.

It is not debatable for the same reason there is no debate on whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit. The issue is not above and beyond debate. Rather it does not rise to the level of debate. I used to know it in Latin but in English it is roughly, opinions cannot be argued.

It is not quantifiable or identifiable other than by the peace that tends to surround those who have it.

The self-reported benefits of faith cannot be distinguished from the self-reported benefits of drinking magnetically charged hexagonal water. http://www.amazon.com/Vitalizer-Hexagonal-Oxygen-Water-Mineral/dp/B000MTSLYG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1335614970&sr=8-4 That this peace has been a sales pitch for any number of gods and other things singly or in combination at best demonstrates it is independent of the object of said faith. That it comes to small children in the form of stuffed animals to sleep with shows it can be induced by the silliest things.

One can acquire it if one desires to, but once found, it is very rarely lost.

The social pressure to avoid public admission it was a one time event has most recently been found in the diaries of Mother Theresa. That it is a one time feeling, whatever it is and regardless of what triggered it, that it rapidly fades to a pale imitation and then to only a memory is not in the salvation sales pitch. A requirement of faith is to say the first moment lasts forever regardless of the reality. That believers tell the same lie about not being lost leaves each individual feeling the outsider, keeping his peace and proclaiming it does last forever.

Best wishes to all who come here.

I think there is nothing more I can add to your discussion.

I was commenting on your assertions.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/americas/cnnheroes-villard-appolon-haiti-rape/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
This is one example of what goes on in the world. There are millions more through out history. This is an example of people behaving like animals, or visa-versa. Whether caused by humans, or as a result of natural disaster, people suffer terribly. Suffering seems to be more common, depending on when and where one is born, not whether they believe in on God or another, or whether they pray repeatedly, or not at all. I, myself, have absolutely no religious belief at all, and am very happy, with clean water and a roof over my head. Many of these people in Haiti believe very much in a God, and are in misery. Yes, they were living on an active fault zone, and yes earthquakes happen on fault zones, but neither the people there, or some particular God is doing much to alleviate their suffering. Many of the children have never even heard of God, and suffer anyway.

Jesus supposedly died for our sins, but what does that really mean? People have been committing atrocious acts long before the time of Jesus, during the time of Jesus, and long after the time of Jesus. I see no change in human behavior. Through out history I see no evidence of any savior saving much of anything.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

That's not a fact. That's a matter of unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought the causal principal had been disproved. AFIK the new theory in cosmology creates the universe without cause, simply it must be. That goes along with the mathematical proof that an intelligence (computer program) can not know if it is real or simulated. And of course Renee Descartes work Meditations on First Philosophy is good in this also. Descartes had to assume God to get to a causal principal. Rather circular to then use the causal principal to derive God.

I know this upsets a lot of people. To not have a being that cares about them to protect them. That they are completely on their own.

God is the dice.[/quote]

The issue can be most simply resolved by observing the common idea of time as a linear progression has contaminated thought throughout history. It even contaminates relativity with the assumption of four dimensional Minkowski space, treating time the same as a spatial dimension, is not found in relativity. Or as I do http://www.giwersworld.org/science/time.html blame it on HG Wells. Time has the property of locality whether the measure is femtoseconds or billions of years. It does not exist outside of what is being measured.

The simplest relevant consideration here is that because time is local it did not come into existence in the beginning. It has no absolute existence.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I personally do not buy into the gambit that we would have been destined to exist without some higher power kicking things into place.

We would not be here, I think, without the intervention of some power far beyond our simple human grasp.

Wait until you get to the 13th Step.

In the mean time you should recognize those exact same words can be applied to everything that is not understood. It used to apply to storms and earthquakes with equal validity, giving a new meaning to validity in the process.

In the end it is an appeal to ignorance. That appeal is compounded by a very particular explanation is offered in place of the truth we are all a dream in the mind of Vishnu. It completely ignores the Raven having saved the Peapod man and that the gods are the children of the titans.

We cannot identify it. We are powerless to know exactly what it was.

To pretend the insertion of exactly is meaningful is also duplicitous. If your royal we is powerless to know then it is powerless to know. Yet you claim knowledge simply not exact knowledge. Yet you have admitted you have no evidential basis for whatever knowledge you claim to have. You have also clearly stated all you have (at least had at one time) is no more than a feeling. You may have knowledge of your feelings but your feelings are not knowledge.

It is disingenuous to raise a feeling to knowledge. You can are only presenting knowledge of your feelings. Those are different things.

We can come up with many hypothesis about how we came to be. And just how and when we came to self realization.

But....as much as I would like to sympathize with those who think it was all just happenstance.

I do not believe for a moment that is true.

You should not take it amiss when others note you cannot explain any material difference between your belief in this matter and your belief in fairies and leprechauns. Nor may you like those two examples of your belief but that is only because they are better defined not different from your belief. One might reasonably suggest your working definition is "that which is not silly and that which is not benign and that which is not arbitrarily excluded."

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Prayer can work by putting someone in a positive frame of mind about achieving a wish or aim. E.g. if someone prays to their god hard enough that they will pass an important exam, then it is quite possible that they will sub-consciously try that much harder and achieve their aim. Wow, praying works they say, my god smiled upon me.

And I suggest it is completely reasonable to expect a double-blind test establishing that as a fact before taking such equivocations seriously.

A preacher, albeit a smart one, might suggest that his congregation of say 100 people, all pray together for something good to happen in all their lives as a demonstration of the power of prayer. Statistically probably 25% will hear some good news about something in the next few days. Hey this preacher is good!

That is what we call a con artist, a grifter, the king we lock up as quickly as we can arrest them.

If you find that the power of prayer and self belief works for you, then I am very pleased for you.

Double blind test results first. Anecdotes are evidence of nothing. People lie. There have been a couple double blind tests of prayer. We learned from those tests that believers lie about the test results claiming they showed prayer works.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

What some of you do not accept as fact is that those that believe do not need your validation or acceptance.

As I do not.
My original post in this gendre got bombed.
Too few believers, I guess.

And I got more than a few PMs from others so otherwise inclined that they had to tell me about it.
There are more believers around these parts than you know.

I thank them for those thoughts.

I am undaunted by your dismissal of my faith.

It truly does not diminish it.

I think it only serves to strengthen it's resolve.
As it did for Jesus, our saviour, when he gave his life for our sins.

Amen, brother.
Amen.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It was your tone.

And when Im sent a Private Message I understand the key word Private.

Between the two--I assumed.

You have my apology for the assumption.

Very decent of you, apology accepted. You should know that I sent both you and Guy PMs this past week, in these exchanges I don't believe I mentioned the possibility that you were one and the same, I had no reason to. I understand Guy is of the faithful community, though I don't recall him/her ever having mentioned ID theory in the past. As for "tone", in posts to message boards that seems to me to be a tricky thing, for instance, you quite rightly noted that I appeared to be speaking on behalf of others with the comment "Are we to believe", this is a figure of speech I picked up in open debates, when a person says something, another may respond and ask a question that implies it is one any of the audience might also be thinking, I'll do my best to refrain from this approach if you find it objectionable.

As for my lacking credibility, I bothered to get your side of this argument before I stated mine. In effect, all during my posting here you all wanted to know what I knew before I started getting dribbles of facts from you all. Some wanted to put me on the couch. Other's like yourself, wanted to talk only science. Some wanted to post science as something else other then science, an example is the cat conversation that was posted here. Then there was the plain old BS session.

I also responded to your comments about murder in a different thread.

I asked you if you believed in absolutes. Mainly because you seemed like you knew what you was talking about. Also because of the science that you believe in so strongly is nothing more then chance in some directions, only theory in other directions. Nothing, nothing based in the simple facts of there being only round circles and right angles with equal length sides. The truth is that science does tell us that there are absolutes. People are born, people live their lives, and then we hope in very old age--die. Once one understands the absoulte then trust can be formed. One only needs that gram of trust and the ounce of Faith comes later. I cannot place trust in something that isn't absolute. Nor do I place trust in science that isn't absolute. As I understand science it moves from theory to science fact. Mr. E had a theory that light would bend in the gravity well of our star. This has been proved over and over again. From this, science has told us that a whole galaxy will bend light that is being seen from behind said galaxy. Intelligent Design Theory is just another theory that has yet to move into science fact--fully. I happen to believe in ID and in time hope to see it move into science fact. I see no reason not to teach science of chance. I see not reason not to teach theory that has not been proven. I see no reason not to seek absolutes. I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

I suspect "science fact" stems from a lay view of science rather than an expert one. I believe a reading of Karl Popper's philosophy of science helps develop a better understanding of how modern science conducts itself. While the practitioners of science may treat the current best approximations as if they appear to be facts, it is my understanding that it is a widely held view of the practitioners that this is a deliberate and conscious oversimplification, and one that is typically acknowledged with phrases along the lines of "from X we arrive at Y", which are admissions that should X be disproved, Y no longer can be held to be true. A key component in Popper, and now for modern science in general, is that the theories of scientists must be falsifiable.

As mentioned in several of my previous posts, science limits itself to an inquiry of the natural, ID requires the supernatural and is thus not science. It seems to me that ID is an attempt by the faithful to introduce the supernatural into science and to discredit some aspects of modern science. I don't believe this is useful to the scientific endeavor, for it will result in science becoming something that it is not. For ID to become science, it is not enough that it use some of the same tools science uses, it must change the scientific method, to broaden the scope of science to include the supernatural, and to change the basis of scientific theories, as some will no longer be falsifiable. To my mind, such changes are a rejection of the rich heritage of science with little to no positive advantage.

Science does not, nor should it, instruct the faithful about their practices in faith, it asks for the same in return. This is not to say each may not comment on and criticize the other.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What some of you do not accept as fact is that those that believe do not need your validation or acceptance.

Because they keep making public statements that appear to have no other purpose than to gain validation and acceptance.

As I do not.
My original post in this gendre got bombed.
Too few believers, I guess.

Yet you continue to post. For what reasons other than validation and acceptance?

And I got more than a few PMs from others so otherwise inclined that they had to tell me about it.
There are more believers around these parts than you know.

I thank them for those thoughts.

I am undaunted by your dismissal of my faith.

You continue to repeat your declarations of faith for what reason?

It truly does not diminish it.

I think it only serves to strengthen it's resolve.
As it did for Jesus, our saviour, when he gave his life for our sins.

Osiris, Inanna, and Adonis also died for your sins. Why do you like that particular dier over the others?

BTW: The theology requires only death. Peacefully in bed is sufficient. The whole cross thing is production values.

Amen, brother.
Amen.

Amen aka Amun the first and chief god of the Egyptians. Being the first there were no other gods before him. He made the first people out of clay. He is depicted with the head of a ram whose horns are Shofar horns.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I asked you if you believed in absolutes. Mainly because you seemed like you knew what you was talking about. Also because of the science that you believe in so strongly is nothing more then chance in some directions, only theory in other directions. Nothing, nothing based in the simple facts of there being only round circles and right angles with equal length sides. The truth is that science does tell us that there are absolutes. People are born, people live their lives, and then we hope in very old age--die. Once one understands the absoulte then trust can be formed. One only needs that gram of trust and the ounce of Faith comes later. I cannot place trust in something that isn't absolute. Nor do I place trust in science that isn't absolute. As I understand science it moves from theory to science fact. Mr. E had a theory that light would bend in the gravity well of our star. This has been proved over and over again. From this, science has told us that a whole galaxy will bend light that is being seen from behind said galaxy. Intelligent Design Theory is just another theory that has yet to move into science fact--fully. I happen to believe in ID and in time hope to see it move into science fact. I see no reason not to teach science of chance. I see not reason not to teach theory that has not been proven. I see no reason not to seek absolutes. I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

The whole problem with your ID as "science fact" is that there is still no supporting evidence to prove or disprove a Grand Designer. Such teaching would be similar to teaching faith, and therefore cannot be taught as science.

As for absolutes... well, I wish I could live in such a simple world.

Blank Man,

If you don't believe in 'science fact' as 'theory' IS NOT science fact then why believe in science at all?

You're very welcome Guy.

Amen, amen I say to you.

Perhaps, and this is very much up to you--Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Matt 25:34-40?

[34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

To me this means what is and what is not, is in the end up to us. Grateful I am for the opportunity to serve, to help fix what is broken, to soften the hardened heart. To plant and not to reap.

Perhaps this will help in your aim here? Perhaps not?