Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:52:24 -0500, Beowulf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:03:34 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>ejaculated:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:33:28 -0500, Beowulf
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:39:41 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>ejaculated:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:14:42 -0500, Beowulf
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:06:08 -0700, Uncle Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>ejaculated:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:08:14 -0700, "Chas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Beowulf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>>>>>>>.....Why not just trot out your evidence and shut me up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've always wondered what 'evidence' would be acceptable.
>>>>>>>In the abstract, considering what evidence is available, the preponderance
>>>>>>>seems on the side of theism. There is certainly anecdotal evidence,
>>>>>>>historical recollection of events by witnesses, otherwise unexplained
>>>>>>>phenomena that would suggest 'intent'.
>>>>>>>Mathematics seems an inappropriate model; as does 'physics'- various logical
>>>>>>>models may, or may not, be appropriately applied.
>>>>>>>What sort of model do you propose for settling the question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As an atheist his summary goal is to deny, what model that he proposes
>>>>>>would not be loaded in favor of such?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm still interested in knowing how you've come to believe you can
>>>>>read minds because your technique is off.
>>>>
>>>>I never claimed omniscience, merely an ability to recognize familiar
>>>>patterns and relate them to the tactics at hand.
>>>
>>>Well, then your ability needs honing, because you've totally
>>>misunderstood me.  Hardly surprising.
>>
>>Oh I rather doubt I misread you.
>
>I know whether you misunderstood me or not.

Do you now?

> I don't really care what
>you believe about whether "you misread me" or not. 

Your call of course...

> I know that your
>world-view has no room for me in it, which means it is incomplete and
>not worth my time.

I think it's the atheist's world that exists to deny the divine, if
anyone has a surfeit of "room" it's your philosophy, not mine.

>>>>>In fact, my goal is to find out if there are theists who have evidence
>>>>>to offer as a justification for their belief.  More or less, as I've
>>>>>stated in these Usenet posts.
>>>>
>>>>You're far too disingenuous in your personal inquisitions for me to
>>>>buy that.
>>>
>>>Uh, huh.  What's disingenuous is your unwillingness to back up your
>>>claim about there being evidence for a Creator with any sort of
>>>detail.
>>
>>The details are all around and through you - open your eyes!
>
>I have opened my eyes and I don't see what you claim is there.  How do
>I know you're not the one that's delusional?

The specific instances in my own life, those in the lives of others I
trust, the ineffable hand of an architect that runs through all of
life, ours and that around us.

>>>>>The haughty arrogance you display in assuming that you know better
>>>>>than I what my own thoughts and goals are says much more about your
>>>>>insecurity in your own belief system than anything about me.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all, as an atheist (self-admitted), you share some core traits
>>>>with all atheists.
>>>
>>>I suppose I also share core traits with all a-Santa-ists, too.  And
>>>all a-EasterBunny-ists, as well.

Fairy tales and the divine are not comparable.


>  Do you really understand what
>atheism is?  It's simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.  

"2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
is no deity "

-Merriam Webster

>You're
>>>probably an atheist yourself, wrt certain dieties.  So, I suppose you
>>>and I probably shore those core traits.
>>
>>Try again...
>>
>>"Main Entry: athe·ist 
>>Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1571
>>: one who denies the existence of God"
>>
>>- Merriam Webster.
>
>Do you really want to play the dictionary game?
>How about:
>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=atheist
>
>Better yet, why not just take *my* word for what *I* mean when *I*
>call *myself* an atheist?  I suppose you know better what I believe or
>don't believe than I do?

I think your words paint a far different picture of you.

>>>>>  Why does
>>>>>my mere existence threaten you, Samuel?
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't, in fact it's utterly inconsequential to me really.
>>>
>>>Then, why do you keep harping on it?  You made a claim, which I'm
>>>interested in seeing support for.  And yet, you seem to dodge the
>>>question by none too clever attacks.  What gives?
>>
>>I made no claim about your existence, other than it matters not to me.
>
>Your unwillingness to accept what I know is telling as true points to
>some sort of inability to accept that I am what I am.

Be whatever you wish, but do not presume that in the same breath you
will be free from critique as you seek to deny the knowing of others.

>>>>Note I'm not the one seeking to personally demonize your individual
>>>>brand of beliefs ( though as a core value I find atheism worthless).
>>>
>>>>I'm merely noting and reacting to your strident attempts to diminish
>>>>the paths by which others of varying degrees of religious and
>>>>metaphysical faith access the divine.
>>>
>>>I'd like you to quote back to me my own words where at any point in
>>>this thread I have made a strident attempt to diminish your attempt to
>>>"access the divine"?
>>
>>This whole thread is evidence of that.
>
>Similar to how "man,nature,everything" is evidence for your Creator.

Mostly, yes.

>Would you care to be more specific, by pointing out an explicit
>statement that I made which had as its goal to diminish your religious
>path?

I have not specified a religious path - red herring.

> Or are you saying the simple act of questioning your bald
>assertion is the strident attempt itself?

I'm saying that atheists can not tolerate those who access and
understand the divine, it gnaws at them and causes them to demand
proof after prof - none of which will ever be accepted, none of which
could ever be accepted. It's a belief structure based on non-belief, a
pure negative, denial squared.

>>>  You claimed there is abundant evidence for a
>>>Creator and I am curious to know in more detail than "nature, man,
>>>everything" what that evidence is.
>>
>>How could anything be more detailed than that?
>
>Here's a definition of detailed for you, from dictionary.com:
>tr.v. de·tailed, de·tail·ing, de·tails (d-tl)
>1. To report or relate minutely or in particulars. 
>2. To name or state explicitly: detailed the charges against the
>defendant. 
>3. To provide with artistic or decorative detail: detailed the quilt
>with colorful appliqué. 
>4. To select and dispatch for a particular duty. 
>
>Definitions 1 and 2 are what I mean by detailed.
>
>>How could it not be more obvious than the patterning of fibonacci,
>>prayer, the inability of man to replicate his surroundings and
>>sentience.
>
>None of this even makes sense as an answer to the question...without
>detail.  

The detail is in the design and the surety that we, as a species, had
not one thing to do with it.

>You're welcome to come back to alt.atheism when you're
>interested in offering something beyond vague assertions masquerading
>as fact.
 
You're welcome to at least own up to the fact that your only goal is
to deny the existence of the divine and that in this pursuit you are
predisposed not to accept any shred of evidence of such.

Fess up.