Mike: You believe what you are told regardless of the truth.

Mike: Do you think there is a god?

Mike: Do you think at all?

Mike: Do you enjoy believing in your silly myths Vijai?

Mike: Just wondering how exactly do you KNOW there is a god?

Mike: Remember intuition and metaphysics are not valid support for anything.

Mike: No one has ever proven that there is a god and I seriously doubt you are the exception.

Mike: How do you define the word god?

"Just as color cannot be perceived by ears, nor sound by eyes; in like manner, the Eternal Supreme Spirit is not perceptible to the senses. He can only be seen by a pure soul through the purity of heart, acquisition of knowledge and the practice of yoga. Just as one cannot reap the advantages of knowledge without acquiring it, likewise the Supreme Spirit cannot be seen without the practice of yoga and gaining the highest knowledge." The Light of Truth.

Hello Bane - Sunday 6-Aug-2000
Bane: First of all there are difficulties in conducting such an experiment.

Bane: Did you not understand what I said or were you trying to make a pun?

Bane: This is part of what would best be described as a propagandization.

Bane: We are talking about something that took nature millions of years to do.

Bane: Scientists have a very good understanding of our origins.

Bane: We just don’t know how to begin the process.

Bane: It took millions of year to do!

Bane: And 'god' means different things to different people.

Bane: Let us say I define god as 'The things that I don't understand about how the universe came to be at all and the way it is given its existence - which I find awesome'.

Bane: That is a definition of god I could live with quite comfortably.

Bane: I still call myself an atheist though. Because God as the word is generally understood seems to involve some sort of invention which takes an active role in the universe cares about individual living things and makes sure that somehow they continue to live when the dynamic structure that is life dissolves into chaos.

Bane: You are contradicting yourself. You require the Atheist to provide tangible proof but you are not held up the same standards.

Bane: But I think my brain figures that its the same situation with leprechauns. I can't prove that they do not exist but that doesn't mean that I should believe that they do just because I can't disprove their existence.

Bane: And you believe even though you or anyone can not prove the existence of your god.

Hello Bud -Friday 28-Jul-2000
Bud: To prove anything exists is easy

Bud: all you need to do is state 1 truth about the subject you want to show exists.

Bud: Something that cannot be done for God.

Hello Bud - Friday 4-Aug-2000
Bud: Since truth is systematic that is it relies on one system or another to show any truths valid then what may be said valid is only so inside one system or another and not independant of it.

Bud: Beyond being unable as yet to state a single truth about God no theist here yet stated an absolute truth either. Go ahead... don't be shy!

Hello Bud -Friday 4-Aug-2000
Bud: God cannot exist as defined by Vijai Singh because they require at least these 2 statements to his God.

Bud: If he can, he not immortal.If he can't, he is not omnipotent.

Bud: So can god commit suicide?

Bud: The only theory that is even remotely related to this discussion is exactly the theory of evolution.

Bud: Also I would again direct you to not only reread the indicated response but the entire line of discussion.

Bud: I am getting tired of telling you this but if you return to the post that your comment was in response to and look at the paragraph in its entirety you would find the answer to the question.

Bud: Also I don’t know why you would make such a claim but I have asserted nothing in the matter.

Bud: Perhaps you didn’t understand when someone asks what you are basing your claims on the response is in the form of an explanation.

Bud: You have not explained anything but simply made another unsupported assertion (e.g. you would need to substantiate that this<BR>communication is inborn).

Bud: Also it is obvious that you have no knowledge about the subject which you are making claims about in that the communications of the octopus are not vocal and the elephants and cetaceans have dialects among subgroups not to mention that the young of these species do not initially produce these consistent sounds.

Bud: As I have stated repeatedly the answer is not currently known although there are various hypothetical models which are being tested to attempt to answer this question.

Hello Ashley - Thursday 3-Aug-2000
Ashley: Vj, I would like to know why religious people Christians in particular Catholics also in particular get so damn bitchy with you when you state that you are Atheist?

Ashley: Is it not their right to believe what they would like to believe without enforcing it on others?

Ashley: I mean what is wrong with them trying to get people and above all CHILDREN to join their religions?

Doc: It does not come very naturally to them.

Doc: My son knows very little about the Muslim faith and nothing at all about the Hindu religion simply because he is not exposed to them.

Doc: Has he been 'brainwashed' into non-belief in Allah or the Hindu gods? I don't think so.

Doc: You still seem to confuse atheism with some sort of belief system.

Doc: It is not. It is the ABSENCE of belief.

Doc: You don't have to teach your children about gods or even the absence of gods (or fairies etc) to promote atheism.

Doc: It will follow naturally if the child is simply NOT exposed to these concepts.

Doc: God Allah, Thor, wood and nymphs are not self-evident.

Doc: These concepts must be taught to children and since the concepts go against common sense they must be constantly reenforced.

Doc: Lack of belief needs no such re-enforcment.

Hello Susan -Thursday 7-Sep-2000
Sue: What language are you speaking of?

Sue: Sounds, tone of voice mixed with body expressions and jestures make up a line of communication between people.

Sue: True it develops over time. I am interested in communication between personal interactions. One has a thought and tries to express that thought by putting the thought into words.

Hello Susan -Sunday 10-Sep-2000
Sue: My question is can a person who believe in God and a person who does not believe there is one co-exist together with their beliefs of differences?

Bane: It develops over time.

Bane: We add on and the vocabulary builds on from there.

Bane: Early humans would make little words for things and then it would build up from there.

Bane: In fact language is still being added onto even today.

Bane: This again shows your ignorance of science and evolution.

Hello Bane - Thursday 17-Aug-2000
Bane: language CAN develop

Bane: as can be seen in studies of some primate cultures.

Bane: They do not have complex communications but they do have intentional representative sounds.

Bane: Primitive language has also been observed in elephants, dolphins, whales and octopus.

Paul: But how can you demonstrate that the universe was created by a deity? A deity is one of the current hypotheses, but it is not the ONLY hypothesis. Until you can eliminate the others, then you haven't demonstrated the supernatural.

1. "Nothing in this world can be produced without the proper applications." Mimansa.
2. “Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.” Vaisheshika.
3. “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.”Niyaya.
4. “Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga.
5. “Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms." Sankhaya.
6. "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta.

Paul: They are all assertions.

Paul: In fact, atheists would regard “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.” as a demonstration AGAINST the supernatural.

Paul: So would Johnson and the other IDers, since they only propose the supernatural where they think there isn't a material cause.

“Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga and "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta
Paul: They are alternative statements of Paley.

Paul: However, cumulative (natural) selection is an algorithm to "make" without an intelligent maker. The ultimate data is that humans use natural selection to make artifacts without human intervention and which the humans cannot then understand.

Paul: I think we are hung up here a bit on expectations. You are expecting me to deny the possibility of deity. I am not. Instead, I am taking your hypothesis of a deity "creating the universe" seriously. What I object to is your implication that deity is absolutely without doubt the correct one. What we have here is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses, with deity being in the competition. What needs to happen is for all alternative hypotheses to be refuted and deity to remain the only one standing. When that happens then you can be more confident (but not absolutely sure) that deity created the universe.

Paul: I also object to your "the correct knowledge of science". As we will see below, you have a long way to go before you have a "correct knowledge of science".

Paul: Science uses the hypothetico-deductive means of reasoning. By this method a hypothesis is proposed, then deductions are made concerning the consequences if the hypothesis is accurate. These consequences include empirical tests that can be made. Then the empirical tests are made to either support, or refute, the hypothesis. In science, tests are the ONLY result that determines the existence of the invisible.

Paul: Now, let's move to your example of oxygen. We hypothesize an element of atomic number 8 with atomic weight 16. From its place in the Periodic Table we deduce its chemical properties. One of these is combustion. We can combust carbon in a closed chamber and measure the change in gasses in the chamber as a result of the combustion. Or we can deduce that water (MW 18) will dissociate in an electric current to hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen will form at the positive electrode. When bubbles form there, we have our first support. But we can collect the gas and measure the molecular weight and find a MW of 32 -- 2 oxygen atoms per molecule.

Paul: Look above. The statements were billed as tests for the supernatural. They aren't. Instead they are hypotheses in their own right that need to be tested before acceptance. And some of them are wrong.

Paul: Look at your language again. You said "material CAUSES". Atheists believe that material causes are the ONLY causes. The quote affirms that material causes are necessary. As to the matter, now we are back to those alternative hypotheses for the source of the big bang.

Paul: Nope. He wrote Natural Theology in 1803. What this shows is that the idea of the necessity of an "intelligence" to get design has been around a long time. But Yoga, Vedanta, and Paley were all wrong. You can get design by the algorithm of natural selection without an intelligence.

Paul: Incorrect. This is a straw-man misconception of natural selection. The idea of "improvement and progression" is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea proposed by Victorian Englishmen who thought that the pinnacle of evolution was a Victorian Englishman. Natural selection is not about "progression" but about getting design to fit the parameters of a given environment.

Paul: This is another spot where you fail to demonstrate "correct view of science". This refers to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT). I am surprised to see you using such an oft-refuted argument. A cursory reading of any physical chemistry text would show you the error. The following post will be a discussion of SLOT.

Paul: But for the time being, let's try out the hypothetico-deductive method, shall we? According to your statement, ALL systems (immutable law) can not "progress". Instead, you have to "degress". That means become simpler, doesn't it? Well, so we can deduce that ALL systems must get simpler, not more complex. Let's test that deduction.

Paul: You started out as a single cell -- a fertilized ovum. Today you are a complex organism composed of billions of cells in specialized tissues. "Progress" is a judgement call, but would you say you are "improved" over that single cell? You can talk, walk, manipulate objects. You are certainly more complex. And complexity is usually associated, by creationists, with "progress". So, according to your formulation of "immutable law", you as an adult cannot exist. But you do exist. So, by deductive logic, the original statement has to be false.

SC: In other words, never.

SC: Oh, please. People have been searching for thousands of years and not one has ever come up with anything real.

SC: People believe only because they choose to. It's called religious faith.

In reply to Stephen Charchuk on November 01, 1999
Vj ~ How would you, like them, know when, where and how to look for anything real?
SC: Easy, produce god.

Vj ~ It is an excellent idea to be agnostic especially when there are doubts, but must you remain there?
SC: Show me something real and truly unrefutible and we'll talk.

Vj ~ It is called lack of reasoning (static intellect) and if even though reasoning, you as an example, is the first step, it isn't enough without the correct knowledge which must be in harmony with science and in conformity with natural laws.
SC: Do I have to explain what the difference between science and religion is again and why they can never be the same?

SC: If you want religion to be harmonized with science then it stops being religion and vice versa.

Vj ~ It would have been easy if a few Greek philosophers could have produced a spherical earth too, it would have saved their lives from the fools who couldn't be convinced by subjective knowledge.
SC: In other words, you can't.

SC: It is very easy to prove that the Earth is a globe.

Vj ~ If I could, what would be the need to discuss it? If you weren't a fool, you would know that it is the unreal and the refutable that necessitate discussions, arguments or debates.
SC: Meaningless babble.

Vj ~ That depends on what religion in particular you would want to explain. Since you know nothing of mine, or even haven't attempted to refute it, there isn't much you can explain about your science either.
SC: All religions are basically the same, yours is no different. You still have no idea what science is.

Vj ~ Any theory, in religion or science that breaches the immutable laws of nature is false.
SC: Religion doesn't have theories, to them everything claimed to be from their god, or gods, is absolute truth.

Vj ~ That is religion and science as far as you know and not necessary all that should be known.
SC: Ridiculous.

Vj ~ Not really, but it is easier to prove you an idiot, then I don't have to be burden with the task of enlightening a fool.
SC: Which means that you have nothing and have to resort to ad homs.

Vj ~ So why only at the time of Columbus, or 500 years ago, that most people knew the earth was round and not before? Are you saying that these philosophers were at a disavantage in intelligence as oppose to you?
SC: No, not in intelligence, but in ignorance.

SC: Man has learned much in the last 10,000 years,

SC: but the one thing which we haven't learned is the actual existence of god.

SC: Most now know more of the world and the universe around us than our ancestors could ever dream of.

Vj ~ So why did you ask for something real and unrefutable?
SC: Becausee I know that you can't provide it, unless you die and come back.

Vj ~ An admittance of your ignorance?
SC: No, that you don't know anything about the real world

Vj ~ How would you know of my idea of science, if basically you haven't investigated my religion?
SC: Science is science. Religion it is not.

Vj ~ It still does not speak of your scienfic theories.
SC: Irrelevant.

Whatever makes sense to the wise, naturally, is always ridiculous for an idiot.
SC: If ignorance is bliss then you must be very happy.

Fred: Now his board is dead and he's gone trolling for more.

Fred: Getused to hearing his version of what natural laws are and the typical avoidance of explaining his claims.

Fred: Have you finished high school yet Vijai?

Reply to Freud on October 30, 1999
Fred: I figure we'll see the same old things.

Fred: His lack of understanding of evolution and science.

Fred: His lack of understanding of Atheism.

Fred: His lack of understanding of physics and biology.

Feud: It goes on and on. But I can't expect that much from Vijai since he believes the earth is flat.

Fred: Really, really pathetic

Reply to Freud on October 31, 1999
Feud: You have the same position that you had months ago.

Feud: You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Fred: All is left is for you to start resorting to insults.

Fred: Empirical scientific study is my source of knowledge.

Fred: It is much better than an ancient book of fables and wishful thinking.

Fred: Since my position can be verified by science, while yours is rejected by science I have to conclude that my position is and always has been correct.

Fred: Your failure to present anything supporting your argument other than vague assertations and insults shows that your position is weak and wrong.

Fred: That's why there is no debate. Until you can prevent something that disproves the established paradigm you might as well not waste anyone's time.

Vj ~ You maybe right, but how would you know without investigating it. Unless you alike the other fools who draw conclusions through belief.
Fred: So all you have to do is verify such notions as gods and that the earth is flat. But all you rely on is blind faith so you are just like the fools you condemn.

Vj ~ Your position can only be verified by examination of all possible knowledge available, even the one that contradicts your science. But since you know nothing of mine, then you are an idiot to conclude yours to be correct.
Fred: It has been verified, that's why it is empirical science. If something is found to contradict previous knowledge then the new knowledge is tested for accuracy. Then it is accepted until disproven.

Vj ~ It is only vague because of your failure to investigate further, which leaves yours vague, without you even knowing it. Maybe if you look harder, you will probably notice that the insults are for your own good.
Fred: Yours are vague because you failed to show why they are true. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. If you can't support your claims then all you give is vague assertions. So just give the proof. Since you won't or can't then we can only assume that you are wrong.

Vj ~ Your established “paradigm” is a breach to natural laws since man is the product of his own reproductive element which is steady, and not one time event from a lower creature. If you have no knowledge of these laws, I can understand why you wouldn't want to debate.
Fred: The established paradigm fits within natural laws. Your natural laws are vague and unsupported and contradict science. Since you probably don't even know what the paradigms are or how they are reached just shows your ignorance. So I suppose you'll keep on ranting without providing any substance for your claims. Just shows how much blind faith you have.

SC: Some people just never change.

SC: Without change, or growth, there is only death..

SC: And to do that one must die. You first and than come back and tell us all about it.

Vj ~ I only wonder why the 'winners' would do the abandoning?
SC: Abandon what?

SC: What has that got to do with religious belief?

SC: Again, what does that have to do with belief?

SC: By what means or source do you determine your ideas to be true?

SC: Speculation, and wishful thinking only.

SC: What fear? I have insvestigated and come to the realization that no one knows for sure.

Vj ~ Why the fear of investigating?
SC: I don't. I'm an agnostic. I wait and see with an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.

SC: They have finally found their answer.

SC: Being dead they finally have their answer either way.

SC: The only way to know for sure is to die.

SC: I hope it is not too difficult a question.

SC: Don't worry, you couldn't scare Shaggy and Scoobie-Do.

SC: It means that as an opponant you're harmless.

SC: I've been to your site and it is nothing new.

SC: Oh, I see, you have nothing and that is why you're turning to the personal attacks.

I have been conditioned - as you probably have - from a very early age that sex with a family member is wrong.

There is no evidence for such a thing as the god as conceived of by all human religions that I am aware of.

Again, it is the whole conditioning thing. If you are programmed to have a specific response to a certain situation, it is very hard to break that conditioning.

And there would be censuring for the action. My relationships with everyone I know would be adversely affected by such an action.

I am sorry that you need a myth story to act like a civilized human being but this only shows that you have much less of a basis for your morality than I do.

I have investigated Yours, Vijai and it is the same nonsense that we find in all other religions

conclusions without evidence.

Show me the evidence that makes you say that there is a god and then we will have something totally unique in your myth.

Um... if that were the case then I guess that that would make sense. Since that didn't happen, I would say that you continue to grasp at straws.

There is a way to get around your relations, you don't have to tell them. How about that?
Really? You must live in a world full of deceit. I feel badly for you. I think that my mother would know and it would change the dynamic of that relationship and I am very happy with that relationship now.

Such morality is a practice because of an inner conviction (of both parties) that it is a sinful action, and not mainly because of censuring from relations.
No... I know for a fact that there is nothing that I consider a "sinful action". This is nothing more than a simpleton definition on an action which you consider immoral.

I feel badly for the people in your life in that the only reason that you do not kill them all and rape them is your fear of your maker.

Reply to Cygnus on 01-28-2000
Then show me where it says the earth is flat, the dead can back to life or the Universe is created out of nothing?
What in the world are you rambling about? Are you speaking in some sort of religious code only understood by half-wits?

And what evidence do you have that God (a Maker) does not exist?
The foolish ask for proof of a negative. The educated and learned know that such a thing is an impossibility.

Since you are making the positive claim that there is a god, please give us some proof.

"Nothing in this world can be produced without the proper applications." Mimansa.
How profound! Didn't they name an orange-juice/champagne drink after that guy? We will pick no wine before its time.
“Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.” Vaisheshika.
Wow... how deep! "It actually takes time to do something." Was this guy in the drug-den of Goa when he thought of this?
“Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.”Niyaya.
So... other than time, I need stuff to make stuff. Heavy.
“Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga.
I loved him in Empire Strikes Back. SO.... in addition to stuff and time to make stuff... I also need to know how to make it. Interesting.
“Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms." Sankhaya.
So... we'll need a mixing bowl of some kind..
. "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta.
So... I actually need to get involved to make... stuff. You're a really deep thinker, Vijai. I am sorry that you cannot see past your own unrivalled ego to see that you have nothing of any value to say.

Vijai, go take a design course... or maybe a class in what colors go with other colors. Then change that hideous piece of dump that you call a website into something that is not so offensive to the eye

In reply to Tracy on 01-28-2000
Not again! NOT AGAIN!! Vijai, please don't come back to these boards and start doing this again. Peace, Tracy