Collective thoughts! I need your help.

[EvolutionCalling]

This guy is starting to piss me off and my head hurts to bad right now to respond to this by myself.  So far he's claimed that I don't exist as an Atheist, and now that I was never really a Christian (which I was).  Please help me with some intelligent responses.  Thanks.

Okay Doc, I don’t think you’re argumentative or uneducated. The verse in the Bible about throwing pearls to swine is just a metaphor. There are lots of metaphors in the Bible. It is a book of stories that have been chosen by God to teach us particular lessons in and about life. Be open-minded enough to accept this as my informed opinion. If you don’t insult my intelligence, I’ll share my reasons for my faith. And if you demonstrate your reasoning, I’ll be respectful in my replies.

If anyone seriously thinks you’re a swine for your disbelief, then they need to take the log out of their own eye.

I’m glad to hear that you think for yourself. I do too. I doubt you were ever a Christian, though. It would be impossible for a person to truly know God, and then later truly deny He exists. Like Peter, you may deny that you know Him. But you can’t simply deny his existence. There are no grounds for such a denial.

The statement “God does not exist” can never be a valid absolute statement. What can be said is that to the best of your understanding, you cannot fathom how God can be real. That’s understandable. God is mysterious. The statement “God is real” can never be an invalid statement because existence exists, and non-existence does not exist independently.

Light can be measured because light exists. Darkness cannot be measured because darkness does not exist independently. There are only various degrees of light.

Heat can be measured. It exists. Cold cannot be measured because it does not exist independently. There are only various degrees of heat.

God exists because He can be realized independently. His existence can be quantified in the lives of people and in the natural environment. His non-existence cannot be determined by measurable standards, yet His existence can. We can make a plausible case for Gods existence based on tangible evidence. We might not be able to scientifically prove God’s existence absolutely, but we can prove evidence of His existence beyond reasonable doubt.

A lot of people can’t fully understand how fax transitions work, and I’m sure that somewhere on Earth people would deny the existence of fax machines. That’s understandable too.

But if I gave one of those people a fax machine and explained to them how it worked, they’d have the knowledge. If I showed them the manual and they still didn’t believe â€" they would have to have a reason for their disbelief. How can a person just refuse to believe page 16 of the fax machine manual without a reason? For belief or disbelief to be valid, there has to be reason.

If you don’t believe Genesis 1, you have got to have a reason for your disbelief in order for your skepticism to be valid. Without reason, the atheist’s denial of God is just an opinion - not a reasonable and valid conviction.

I might not ever be able to convince a hardened atheist of God’s existence, but my reasoning is airtight.

Something cannot be created from nothing.
Life cannot spontaneously occur by random chance.
A species cannot evolve into a different species.
Energy cannot be destroyed.
Life is far too complex to have evolved naturally.

These are inarguable facts, brotherman.

If we are going to discuss the evidence for God’s existence, let’s start at the beginning. Once we establish that the universe and life had to have been created â€" and could not have possibly evolved naturally by chance â€" we’ll see that everything else is just details.

Knowing God begins with the first line of scripture. In the beginning…

[rlrose328]

It really frosts my tail when believers pull out the "'God does not exist' can never be a valid absolute statement." argument.  Until something is proven to exist, occupy space, work in mysterious ways... it must be said to not exist.  Period.  No two ways about it.  

I know this is a tired phrasing, but honestly, I know that I have a purple goat fairy dancing on my desk right this second.  And I have a book written a long time ago by men who were inspired by him that said he'd be here.  Prove that I don't.  Oh, you can't see him... he only speaks to me and he's told me he's there for me whenever I need him.  He gives me support and I talk to him all the time.  You just have to have faith that he's there.

Sounds as ludicrous to me as the god story.

Unless there is proof of existence, said thing does not exist.  Period.

[curiosityandthecat]

Wow. He annoys me, too. I'll reply directly to him.

Something cannot be created from nothing.

Answer: Special relativity.
Also, what of the infinite regress this poses for the concept of God? What created God? What created what created God? What created what created what created God? What created... ad infinitum.

Life cannot spontaneously occur by random chance.

Answer: That's exactly how life does occur under the right circumstances, and it's been proven in a lab (over thirty years ago, no less).
[spoiler:1g52o357]“In my laboratory at Cornell University we work on, among other things, prebiological organic chemistry, making some of the music of life. We mix together and spark the gases of the primitive Earth: hydrogen, water, ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfideâ€"all present, incidentally, on the planet Jupiter today and throughout the Cosmos. The sparks correspond to lightning, also present on the ancient Earth and on modern Jupiter. The reaction vessel is initially transparent: the precursor gases are entirely invisible. But after ten minutes of sparking, we see a strange brown pigment slowly streaking the sides of the vessel. The interior gradually becomes opaque, covered with a thick brown tar. If we had used ultraviolet lightâ€"simulating the early Sunâ€"the results would have been more or less the same. The tar is an extremely rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the constituent parts of proteins and nucleic acids. The stuff of life, it turns out, can be very easily made.” (COSMOS, Carl Sagan, p. 38)[/spoiler:1g52o357]

A species cannot evolve into a different species.

Answer: That's how evolution works. Your timeline is too short. Take half the population of one turtle and place it on an isolated island. Wait ten thousand years, stirring occasionally. Result: Two different species of turtles. "Species" is just a word we've agreed to use in order to designate and separate animals which have distinctly similar traits. Should those traits diverge enough, a new species is designated.
Frogs have done it in 8,000 years.

Energy cannot be destroyed.

Answer: That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a supreme being... does it?

Life is far too complex to have evolved naturally.

Answer: Simply because you do not understand the workings of something does not necessitate the existence of something smarter than you.
Here's a short document by Carl Sagan discussing life and its definition, amongst other things: http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol3300/Sagan%20Definitions%20of%20life.pdf

Jebus. Ignorance really must be bliss.

As for his claim that "It would be impossible for a person to truly know God, and then later truly deny he exists" is an opinion, not a fact. Rebuttal: I had an imaginary friend. Now I don't. Next, please.

I agree with his statement that "God does not exist" can never be a valid absolute statement, but using that logic, neither can "God does exist." And as for his "existence exists, and non-existence does not exist independently"... I want some of whatever he's smoking. Incidentally, he's using that old email Old Atheist Professor vs Young Intelligent Christian (in this case, Einstein as a student) chestnut. Here's the email: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

I wouldn't bother arguing with this person. He sounds smug and seems to scoff at anything other than his point of view. Even his closing statement, that you should trust what Genesis says, is a cop-out.

Forget about him. Anyone who patronizingly pats you on the head and calls you Brotherman is one of two things: A cool Rasta father-figure, or an asshole.

[Jolly Sapper]

*I'm assuming your opponent is a male, no sexism intended.
** It took to long to type this and I timed out of the forums, so I may be talking about the same stuff as some of the other posters who got their thoughts in before mine.

Just for the record, the statement "God does not exist" IS a valid argument as far as its structure.  Scientifically it probably isn't something that can be directly proven but the statement is perfectly valid.  Tell him to go find some old "Intro to Logic" books, it might help with his ability to debate in the future.

I doubt you were ever a Christian, though.

An unprovable statement of personal opinion.

It would be impossible for a person to truly know God, and then later truly deny He exists.

Unless you really REALLY wanted to "believe" and then decided that there wasn't anything to believe in.

But you can’t simply deny his existence. There are no grounds for such a denial.

ANYBODY can simply deny "his" existence, you just say, "I deny the existence of <insert noun here>."  Its really easy to do, heck Christians do it every day, EVEN TO OTHER CHRISTIANS!! *rim shot* Just the fact that a person claims to be a monotheist (of any particular flavor) as opposed to a polytheist is a denial of other deities, and very simply done at that.

Light can be measured because light exists. Darkness cannot be measured because darkness does not exist independently. There are only various degrees of light.

This opens up an avenue of attack.  You can always say that his God was created by man, and use the same logic he did.  While I'm sure it can be proven that darkness is dependent on the absence of light, can it be proven that any God exists independently of human belief in that God?

God exists because He can be realized independently. His existence can be quantified in the lives of people and in the natural environment. His non-existence cannot be determined by measurable standards, yet His existence can. We can make a plausible case for Gods existence based on tangible evidence. We might not be able to scientifically prove God’s existence absolutely, but we can prove evidence of His existence beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote}
First of all, two words: Prove it.
Second, he contradicts himself.

We can make a plausible case for Gods existence based on tangible evidence. We might not be able to scientifically prove God’s existence absolutely

If there is tangible evidence (assuming everything "tangible" is also credible) then it should be possible to scientifically prove Gods' existence.  Its the lack of tangible evidence either for or against the existence in ANY supernatural entity that allows for theists to use a loophole in the scientific method to keep trying to argue that since something cannot be disproven scientifically it MUST exist, just like unicorns and pixies.

A lot of people can’t fully understand how fax transitions work, and I’m sure that somewhere on Earth people would deny the existence of fax machines. That’s understandable too.

The problem with this line of reasoning, in relation to the overall topic of debate, is that a fax machine is something PHYSICAL.  IT can be seen, felt, and manipulated REGARDLESS of whether or not somebody believes it exists or not.  
Example: I can tell you that I have a 100 dollar bill in my pocket, you cannot see the 100 dollar bill.  You have the choice of whether or not to believe in the WORDS that I say.  BUT, if my pockets were to be pulled inside out then you would have a method by which to test your belief in my words.  There is no such method for proving/disproving of a supernatural entity.  I cannot flip the pockets of a theist inside out and expect to EVER find his God fall out.  

If you don’t believe Genesis 1, you have got to have a reason for your disbelief in order for your skepticism to be valid.

Well, if the bible if full of metaphors, then there is NO reason for anybody to believe that the text of Genesis 1 is in fact literally true.  It could all just be a metaphor, a made up story, or a story made up of cribbed parts of other stories.

Without reason, the atheist’s denial of God is just an opinion - not a reasonable and valid conviction.

Once again, he hides inside the loop hole in the scientific method.  Your opponent now should have gone into exactly WHY an atheist's denial of FAITH in any God is both without reason or validity.  This could be countered logically by asking if the theist's denial of other Gods is just an unreasonable, invalid opinion.  (You're not going to get anywhere, but the argument is logical.)

I might not ever be able to convince a hardened atheist of God’s existence, but my reasoning is airtight.

About as airtight as a the victim of a stomach full of 00 buckshot at point blank range.  If it defends his position the logical structure of the argument is seen as valid, if the argument uses the same structure but opposes his position then its labelled as invalid/unreasonable.  It comes of as hypocritical and just a little bit ignorant.

Something cannot be created from nothing.

Pursing this line of logic, if you haven't already, might be a nice pointy stick in the eye of your opponent's logic.  If something cannot be created from nothing then what created his God?  Did this God evolve or was it created by another intelligent designer?  If it was created then why not worship that designer, who musta been WAY more bad assed than his God.

Life cannot spontaneously occur by random chance.

This is in direct contradiction to the this argument about proving that his, "God does not exit."  The structure of the statements, "God does not exist" and "Life cannot spontaneously occur by random chance." are logically equivalent.  It is up to your opponent to resolve this conflict in accepting as valid, "Life cannot occur by chance" and yet rejecting "God does not exist."    

A species cannot evolve into a different species.

This has the same logical structure as "God does not exist" and should be treated the same way as I mentioned above.  Your opponent now has to prove this.  
Heck, if you find that you look different from your great^10 grandparents why would it not be possible that due to changes in the environment your great^10 grandchildren might not be so radically different that they could be considered a different species?

Energy cannot be destroyed.

I believe this might be irrelevant, though you could play some games with this.  Namely, energy is just matter that is moving REALLY REALLY fast.  Slow the energy down and it changed into matter, fire a brick outta my patent pending "E=mC^2 cannon" and it turns into energy.  SO it is a universal possibility that something can change between two incredibly different states that bear little physical resemblance to one another.  If it can happen with energy/matter why not inert material to human beings (over the course of a large amount of time with lots of steps in between)?  

Life is far too complex to have evolved naturally.

This is a statement that may be worded differently but is should still be logically equivalent to the statement that "God does not exist" that your opponent said was impossible to prove true.
If:
Life is far too complex to have evolved naturally. (simplifying the sentence) = Life cannot evolve naturally.
Which leads to:
Life cannot evolve naturally. (which has the same logical structure as)--> God does not exist. (which your opponent refuses to believe is a valid argument.)

If we are going to discuss the evidence for God’s existence, let’s start at the beginning. Once we establish that the universe and life had to have been created â€" and could not have possibly evolved naturally by chance â€" we’ll see that everything else is just details.

Unfortunately the only place he has to use as a source is the text of the religion of the God he believes in.  Hardly enough in the way of "evidence" to be worthwhile.

Your opponent also mentions that the bible is a metaphor.  I'm assuming that you have already been told by your opponent that he/she doesn't take the texts from the bible as literal, correct?  If so, then ask if it would be equally worth while to hold the metaphors in Aesop's Fables in the same regards as those found in the bible.

---this got a lot longer than I thought it was going to be.  Oh well.. I need to go pick pears.  Hope this helps.

[curiosityandthecat]

I need to go pick pears.  Hope this helps.

...can't say I've ever heard that one before.  

[Jolly Sapper]

*let me derail the thread for a second*

hehe.. it wasn't a joke.  The wifey and I brought in about 10 five gallon buckets of pears we picked from the one, overloaded, pear tree out in the front yard.  

* I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread*

[McQ]

Oh, man! No wonder your head hurts! That guy is a perfect example of why I pretty much just stopped arguing with fundies. He essentially will converse with you and be wide open to your viewpoint if you believe as he does from the start! How amazingly moronic.  

I would go with curiosityandthecat's advice and just not bother with him. Really. But if you want to keep on going with him, be prepared for a long series of disappointing correspondences. It's just a huge headache even to decide where to start with him.

[EvolutionCalling]

Thanks guys!  This was my response.  This guy also found this thread and got his feeling hurt by the "harsh" responses on here.  He also decided to pull this quote,

I would love to cruicify one of those huge inflatable gorillas that car dealers use to promote sales. I'd take the lose of my security deposit for it.

from another HAF thread and toss it into the argument because I stated (with truth in that forum) that I wasn't belittling anybody because of their beliefs.   Fundies attempting to smear my points by twisting context I suppose.  So, if you are reading this some more, fuck off  

Okay Doc, I don’t think you’re argumentative or uneducated. The verse in the Bible about throwing pearls to swine is just a metaphor. There are lots of metaphors in the Bible. It is a book of stories that have been chosen by God to teach us particular lessons in and about life. Be open-minded enough to accept this as my informed opinion. If you don’t insult my intelligence, I’ll share my reasons for my faith. And if you demonstrate your reasoning, I’ll be respectful in my replies.

If anyone seriously thinks you’re a swine for your disbelief, then they need to take the log out of their own eye.

According to the Apostle Paul, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." Great, now, 'God-breathed' is not God
written. Those that wrote the various books of the bible are clearly humans that , for whatever reason, feel they were inspired by God. Any person can claim they felt inspired by anything and anything written by humans is open to interpretation and subject to editing. Thus, the Bible is NOT proof of the existence of a God. By your own admission, it's a book of stories. It's a book of stories, written and compiled, by man. I'm sure there are some historical accuracies scattered throughout the text, but that is not uncommon in modern fiction writings.

As for the swine comment, metaphor or not, it was used in such a context that it was meant to be insulting, in my opinion. Whenever these conversations kick off, it's never long before a person to the Christian side begins dropping these type of quotes, then claim they are innocently quoting the scripture.


Quote:
I’m glad to hear that you think for yourself. I do too. I doubt you were ever a Christian, though. It would be impossible for a person to truly know God, and then later truly deny He exists. Like Peter, you may deny that you know Him. But you can’t simply deny his existence. There are no grounds for such a denial.

I'm glad you know so much about my life. First you claim I don't exist as an Atheist, and now you claim I wasn't a Christian. It's very, very simple. I used to believe in God, I was baptized, I worshiped, and I witnessed. I was a Christian. Now, as I got older and matured, I began to think for myself more and more. It became very apparent to me that God wasn't real. I don't deny I know God. I deny God, or any other supernatural being, is real. I once knew Santa and the Easter Bunny were real too. Then I outgrew that supposed knowledge. God is no different too me. It's all stories.

Quote:
The statement “God does not exist” can never be a valid absolute statement. What can be said is that to the best of your understanding, you cannot fathom how God can be real. That’s understandable. God is mysterious. The statement “God is real” can never be an invalid statement because existence exists, and non-existence does not exist independently.

Despite the last sentence in this paragraph, I can just as easily say the statement "God does exist" can never a valid absolute statement either. You cannot, without a doubt, prove God exists. Your statement about existence and non-existence is irrelevant and, honestly, sounds like gibberish.


Quote:
Light can be measured because light exists. Darkness cannot be measured because darkness does not exist independently. There are only various degrees of light.

Heat can be measured. It exists. Cold cannot be measured because it does not exist independently. There are only various degrees of heat.

I'm sorry, but all of this is grasping. Nothing above is relevant to the existence or non-existence of God. I can easily say Heat can not be measured; heat does not exist independently. Cold is the absence of heat and heat is the absence of cold. Both of the above points are pointless.

Quote:
God exists because He can be realized independently. His existence can be quantified in the lives of people and in the natural environment. His non-existence cannot be determined by measurable standards, yet His existence can. We can make a plausible case for Gods existence based on tangible evidence. We might not be able to scientifically prove God’s existence absolutely, but we can prove evidence of His existence beyond reasonable doubt.

If a person has no concept of God, ever, then he isn't going to independently realize there is a God. Many people only now have a concept of God because of the work of Christian missionaries. I've said it before: If there was an all-powerful, all-knowing God, that wanted me to unquestioningly believe in him, I just would. What proof can you offer of God's existence beyond reasonable doubt?

Quote:
A lot of people can’t fully understand how fax transitions work, and I’m sure that somewhere on Earth people would deny the existence of fax machines. That’s understandable too.

But if I gave one of those people a fax machine and explained to them how it worked, they’d have the knowledge. If I showed them the manual and they still didn’t believe â€" they would have to have a reason for their disbelief. How can a person just refuse to believe page 16 of the fax machine manual without a reason? For belief or disbelief to be valid, there has to be reason.

Again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the existence or non-existence of God. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it doesn't apply here. Because you show me fictional book and tell me there is Supreme Being doesn't make it true. Page 16 of the fax machine manual provides relevant technical information about the operation of the machine. It doesn't tell me that the fax machine can part seas or raise the dead.

Quote:
If you don’t believe Genesis 1, you have got to have a reason for your disbelief in order for your skepticism to be valid. Without reason, the atheist’s denial of God is just an opinion - not a reasonable and valid conviction.

I might not ever be able to convince a hardened atheist of God’s existence, but my reasoning is airtight.

Why am I simply expected to believe that "God created the heavens and the Earth?" I don't have to believe it because an old book says it, especially when the same old book goes on to tell me some old guy built a boat and then stocked it with two of every animal on Earth. That just sounds ridiculous to me. There is a lot of ridiculous claims and stories in the Bible, why should I believe any of it?

Quote:
Something cannot be created from nothing.
Life cannot spontaneously occur by random chance.
A species cannot evolve into a different species.
Energy cannot be destroyed.
Life is far too complex to have evolved naturally.

These are inarguable facts, brotherman.

If we are going to discuss the evidence for God’s existence, let’s start at the beginning. Once we establish that the universe and life had to have been created â€" and could not have possibly evolved naturally by chance â€" we’ll see that everything else is just details.

Knowing God begins with the first line of scripture. In the beginning…

These are the staples of the creationist's argument. Never mind the overwhelming evidence of evolution. You choose to omit everything else as "just details" when those details are just as important to this debate. These are the same points I've heard dozens of times, over and over from creationists. It's nothing new and full of holes

[/b]

[EvolutionCalling]

Opponent:

Wow Doc, I don't know what to say. Maybe we shouldn't discuss this anymore. I wasn't trying to piss you off, patronize you, attack you, or in any way or annoy you. Those were some pretty harsh responses on that other forum.

Me:

Well Zom, ya are. Telling me I don't exist as an Atheist and then that I was never a Christian? Most of what you've typed seems pretty patronizing to me. Feel free to twist context around too. The Mother Goose comment was a response to the obsessive quoting of scripture by Christians, quoting Mother Goose sounds just as ridiculous. I'm not sure how the other quote (taken from an atheist forum) is anymore belittling than Christians erecting huge, pointless crosses everywhere celebrating one of the most vial forms of execution ever practiced. Show me in THIS post, where I have been disrespectful or belittling to you. Stop grasping.

Moderator:

YOU were the one that said you could have a civial discussion and would welcome that.

THIS THREAD has played out and is closed due to some members being to sensitive and taking things personal.

And then she locked the thread.  So am I getting blamed for this?  Not really sure where I was being sensitive.  Oh well.  Fuck the Mod, I'll probably be banned soon anyway.

[curiosityandthecat]

THIS THREAD has played out and is closed due to some members being to sensitive and taking things personal.

And then she locked the thread.  So am I getting blamed for this?  Not really sure where I was being sensitive.  Oh well.  Fuck the Mod, I'll probably be banned soon anyway.

You weren't. That mod stepped in where it wasn't needed. Were either you or the other person involved asking for moderation or crying foul? Doesn't look like it. Many a decent conversation and debate have started out this way.

Incidentally, the statements on this forum are inadmissible in the forum you're on. You didn't write them nor did you ask for them.

Some people should be culled.

[EvolutionCalling]

Heh.  I've been banned there twice before and did nothing wrong.  Simply stated my beliefs and debated with other posters.  The admin over there seems really fundamentalist. I've never been rude or disrespectful to anyone, they just can't stand anybody questioning their God-Monster.  The previous threads that I was banned as a result of were removed too.  Christianity silencing opposition.  At this point, I couldn't care any less what happens there.  Assholes.

[EvolutionCalling]

Ha!  Wow, glad they just proved my fundie thoughts right.  After the thread was locked, another Mod posted this:

I have said a blessing and threw Holly Water on this thread in hope the Lord will forgive us!!

Jackass.  When did Christianity start using Holly Water?

[curiosityandthecat]

Ha!  Wow, glad they just proved my fundie thoughts right.  After the thread was locked, another Mod posted this:

I have said a blessing and threw Holly Water on this thread in hope the Lord will forgive us!!

Jackass.  When did Christianity start using Holly Water?

http://www.dutchie.org/Tracy/trees/celtic_tree_holly.html

Here's the funny part:
[spoiler:30n2sovf]HOLLY LORE

    * 8th Moon of the Celtic Year - (July 8 - Aug 4)
    * Latin name: English Holly (also called Scarlet Oak) - ilex aquilfolium; American holly - ilex opaca. The Holly is an evergreen tree.
    * Celtic name: Tinne (pronounced: chihn' uh
    * Folk or Common names: Holly, Scarlet Oak, Kerm-Oak, Holy Tree. Holly actually means "holy".
    * Parts Used: Leaf, berry, wood.
    * Herbal usage: The leaf of the Holly can be dried and used as teas for fevers, bladder problems and bronchitis. The juice of the fresh leaf is helpful in jaundice treatment. Holly can be used homeopathically as a substitute for quinine. Note: Holly berries are poisonous!
    * Magical History & Associations: The Holly, a masculine herb, is associated with the element of fire, and is an herb of Saturn and Mars. The bird associated with this month is the starling, the color is green-gray, the gemstone is yellow caingorm, and the day of the week association is Tuesday. Holly is the first moon of the dark half of the year, and the Holly is sacred to both the Winter and Summer Solstices. Summer Solstice is the time when in mythology, the Oak King is slain by his twin, or tanist, the Holly King, who rules until the Winter Solstice, when he in turn is slain by his tanist, the Oak King. Tanist is related to the tannin found in an Oak tree; Oak and Holly are two sides of the same coin, the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next. The Holly is also sacred to the deities of Lugh, Habondia, Tina Etruscan and Tannus. There are special spirits that dwell within Holly trees: the Holly Man lives in the tree that bears prickly Holly, and the Holly Woman dwells within that which give forth smooth and variegated leaves. Holly is also associated with unicorns, since the unicorn is one of the Celtic symbols for this tree - the other symbol is the Flaming Spear.
    * Magickal usage: The month of Holly is a good time to do magick designed to help bring about a successful harvest. The Holly has applications in magick done for protection, prophesy, healing, magick for animals, sex magick, invulnerability, watchfulness, good luck, death, rebirth, Holiness, consecration, material gain, physical revenge, beauty and travel. Holly also has the ability to enhance other forms of magic. As a symbol of firmness and masculine energy, Hollywood was used by the ancients in the construction of spear shafts, which were thought to then have magickal powers. Uses of Holly in protective magick includes hanging a sprig of Holly in the home all year to insure protection and good luck. Holly is also an excellent charm to wear for protection. 'Holly Water' can be made by soaking Holly overnight in spring water under a full moon. This water can then be sprinkled over infants to keep them happy and safe. Holly Water can also be used to sprinkle around the house for psychic cleansing and protection. Holly leaves can be cast around outside to repel unwanted spirits or animals and a Holly bush can be planted close to houses to protect against lightning. Ensure that the Holly has a place in your garden because its presence wards off unfriendly spirits. Do not burn Holly branches unless they are well and truly dead, for this is unlucky. Holly, intertwined with ivy, is traditionally made into crowns for the bride and groom at weddings/handfastings. Holly and Ivy also make excellent decorations for altars. Holy is also a traditional decoration for Yuletide as in sung in the traditional Yuletide song:

      "Deck the halls with boughs of Holly, fa la la la la, la la la la."
      If you gather nine Holly leaves in complete silence on a Friday after midnight, wrap them up in a white cloth, use nine knots to bind the cloth, and then place them under your pillow, your dreams will come true. When harvesting the leaves from the Holly, remember to ask the tree if it will allow you to take the parts and be sure to leave the tree an offering of thanks when you are done. Holly favors red and yellow stones as gifts.[/spoiler:30n2sovf]

Some people, you know?

[jcm]

The problem with this line of reasoning, in relation to the overall topic of debate, is that a fax machine is something PHYSICAL. IT can be seen, felt, and manipulated REGARDLESS of whether or not somebody believes it exists or not.
Example: I can tell you that I have a 100 dollar bill in my pocket, you cannot see the 100 dollar bill. You have the choice of whether or not to believe in the WORDS that I say. BUT, if my pockets were to be pulled inside out then you would have a method by which to test your belief in my words. There is no such method for proving/disproving of a supernatural entity. I cannot flip the pockets of a theist inside out and expect to EVER find his God fall out.

good point but i think it is more like an infinity bill. while a 7 dollar bill could be created in theory, an infinity bill can not. it doesn’t matter if you have a 100 dollar bill in your pocket or not because i’ve seen a 100 dollar bill for myself. as for a 7 dollar bill which doesn’t exist, but could, an infinity bill doesn’t jive with reality. not all ideas can exist, just because you thought of them.

[Jolly Sapper]

... not all ideas can exist, just because you thought of them.

Reminds me of something a political science professor wrote on a paper of mine a few years back.  I mentioned something about trying to respect other peoples ideas/opinions even if it was sometimes really hard, he wrote on my paper something along the lines of "not everybody's ideas or opinions are inherently worthy of respect."