Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Dear Haydn,

        James here.  :o)  Haydn may or may not be replying to emails.

> Hello.  I just had some questions regarding the Piso Theory. First of all,
> what historical evidence do you have that validates the Piso theory?

        Jewish historical records, just as the many links on the site show.

> How do
> you explain the Jewish Historian Josephus' writings that refer to the person
> of Jesus being a real and literal person.

        The historical record supports the existence of some of the towns
mentioned in the bible, but that should not be surprising. If we wrote a book
today which said that there was a country called the united states, and it had
50 states, and GW Bush was the president in the year 2003, and that he walked
on water and made dead people rise from their graves, well, some of that would
be true, and some of it would not be true. Would the fact that we were right
about the U.S. and Bush being president make the other claims true too?  No,
they wouldn't.  Just because the bible mentions towns and kings that were in
existence 2000 years ago, that does not make the whole book true. Towns and
kings were "current events" when the biblical texts were written. That proves
nothing.  As far as the new testament, no first century historian confirms the
existence of jesus. That's right.  None of the contemporary jewish or roman
historians, living during the time in which jesus said to have lived, wrote one
word about him.  Modern biblical scholars agree that the new testament
scriptures were written 35 to 90 years after the alleged events, regardless who
wrote them (Piso or not).  http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm

> He also writes that many
> followers of Christ and previously unbelieving Jews were claiming that
> Christ had arisen.  Also, if in fact the new testament was created by the
> Romans, why is the Bible such an anti-Roman book?

        The bible is slightly anti-roman because to be a good thought virus, it
HAS to be.  Jesus had to be the enemy of the romans, however instead of
teaching to kill and overthrow the romans, he taught the opposite, that you
should give unto caesar, be docile, submissive, subservient, and above all,
POOR!  If you own wealth, give it away.  Rich men will not get into heaven. 
You are supposed to serve your masters well, as taught in the bible, giving
luxury to your masters NOW, then you will get _your_ reward after death!  See
how that works?  You can ONLY get into heaven if you are poor and suffer here
on earth.  Now the truth is, you only get one life, this one, and the romans
created a way to trick the slaves OUT of theirs!  Christianity is a rather
simple thought virus (meme) by today's standards, the USA government uses much
more complex thought viruses today, so do large corporations for marketing
purposes (simply because on 75% of the people they WORK).

> These are just a few of
> the questions I have regarding this Piso Theory.  Mainly, however, I just
> want to see what, if any, historical evidence supports the Piso Theory.

        There doesn't need to be any, regardless who wrote the bible, it is a
thought virus to make slaves more compliant, just as islam was created to make
soldiers more bold and willing to die for their masters!  Religion caused
otherwise healthy muslim men to fly planes into buildings on 9-11, which surely
killed them, in the name of allah, for the benefit of their leaders.  See how
that works?  See how POWERFUL the thought virus (meme) is?  These otherwise
healthy muslim men DIED thinking they were going to receive 72 virgins in
heaven for all eternity, the act of flying a plane into a building and dying is
a small price to pay for such a handsome reward.  Now the fact that the reward
is false is what makes the religion a meme (thought virus) and is the reason
why I work to DESTROY thought viruses like a doctor combats disease.

> In
> a relatively recent Time magazine, describing the finding of what could
> possibly be James' Ossuary, that "Almost no educated person denies the
> existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth."  My question is, how would you
> respond to that claim and what does this say regarding the Piso Theory?

        I never saw the magazine, but here in the USA the government is going
to enact the "faith based initiative" whereby belief in jesus is compulsory, and
we will all be taxed even more to pay for this compulsory religion.  The masters
(the USA government) want compliant and passive slaves.  They believe (and are
probably correct) that forced christianity will cut down on crime and make
people more willing to give up their rights and freedoms, yielding more and
more power over to the power-hungry in office who crave such things.

> Jonathan
> "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
> salvation of everyone who believes."-Romans 1:16

        God is santa clause for adults.

James

Apostles,

In many of your statements, you mention that Jesus Christ was created from
previous religions such as the Sumerians and some other one that started with an
M, I think.  Anyway, I want some more information on that.  Can you give me any
book titles, article references, etc. that I can go look at for myself?  After all
anyone can claim anything as you have, but without any references to back it up
the statement is pretty much worthless.


Jonathan 
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation
of everyone who believes."-Romans 1:16

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Apostles,
> 
> In many of your statements, you mention that Jesus Christ was created from
> previous religions such as the Sumerians and some other one that started
> with an M, I think.

        Mithraism.  Mithra was the 400 year prior persian human sun god.

> Anyway, I want some more information on that.  Can you
> give me any book titles, article references, etc. that I can go look at for
> myself?  After all anyone can claim anything as you have, but without any
> references to back it up the statement is pretty much worthless.

        You really should simply read the website, just as you should also read
the bible.  If one actually _reads_ the bible, and thinks about what they just
read, the natural order is to be antichrist.  The bible is self-defeating.

        Now, to point you to the spots on my website where I've already
answered your questions above, I refer you to the following URLs.

http://www.antichrist.net/motherload2.html
Use your keyword search (built into your browser) to find "Mithraism".

http://www.antichrist.net/motherload3.html
Use your keyword search (built into your browser) to find "Mithra".

http://www.antichrist.net/nietzsche.html
Use your keyword search (built into your browser) to find "Mithra".

Even Friedrich Nietzsche, back in 1895 saw the truth, and reported it. 
"Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean
cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of
Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul
showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to
the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala
religion into the mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only
into the mouth--he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras
could understand. . . This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact
that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its
value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that the notion of a
"beyond" is the death of life."

http://www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/mithras.htm

James

I was wondering exactly what IQ Test you took, because I want to take it just to
see how I compare.


------------------------------------------------------
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> I was wondering exactly what IQ Test you took, because I want to take it
> just to see how I compare.

        I have taken the Stanford-Binet, the Cattell, and various other tests,
all have placed me in the genius category.  The lowest score I have received
was with a test sold at a supermarket checkout impulse counter.  The test was
possibly flawed, and gave me an age adjusted score of 172.  I completed the
test 20 minutes ahead of the allotted time, and this factor was not taken into
account for the final score (thus my assumption of the flaw).  My official (and
recognized) Stanford-Binet score is 188, and my Cattell score is 232.  The
other Apostles have equally impressive IQ scores, talk to Frederick.

        For reference, the smartest man in the USA (Chris Langan) scored 195 on
the Stanford-Binet.  The greatest chess player that ever lived (Bobby Fischer)
scored 180 on the Stanford-Binet.  I'm in between those two men.

James

Where do I go to take these tests?


---------------------------------------------------------
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

I wanted to tell you that you really have built up quite a case supporting the way
you believe.  I have read everything on your website, spare certain portions of
each of your Motherload sections (those things can take a very long time to
read).  I have also searched through many of the related links that you have
throughout your website.  I've read the konformist website, and the mithras one. 
I also read one by some Acharys (?) person, and the arguments against christianity
there.  I have also gone through some of those websites' links to other websites. 
In fact, I have two separate folders in my 'Favorites' section, one for
pro-Christian material and one for Anti-Christian material.  I have to say there
are many valid arguments out there.  All of my life, my pastors and my church and
Christian speakers that I have heard have encouraged me to challenge what I
believe and test it against what others have claimed.  I think it is essential for
people to know why they believe what they do.  I feel that many if not most
Christians do not know how to explain why they believe the way they do.  As a
result, many of them encounter a great deal of frustration.  One website that I
thought did not make a very strong case was one dealing with the memes or thought
viruses of Christianity.  I can see where the writer(s) could point to examples of
'Christian' misbehavior or other patterns of behavior enacted by 'Christians' that
would support their point.  However, on a broad scale, I did not agree with them. 
In fact, I wrote to them, just like I do you asking them questions to back up
their thought processes.  I have written to a couple of other authors, asking them
questions, but you are the only one that I have had respond to me thus far.  One
reason I refute the arguments made by the supporters of the 'thought virus'
articles is because in my own perso nal experience, I have rarely (if ever)
encountered someone that I felt matched their description.  However, with all of
the viewpoints and arguments out there, I can now see why the basic argument of
Christianity: Fact or Fiction has not yet been proven one way or the other to the
point where any particular individual could look at straight facts and have
undeniable evidence for either case.


-------------------------------------------------------
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Where do I go to take these tests?

        In your last message, you questioned my IQ score, which is published
several places on the website.  Here is where my IQ may be found.

http://www.antichrist.net/motherload2.html
http://www.antichrist.net/motherload3.html
http://www.antichrist.net/motherload4.html
http://www.antichrist.net/jamesw.html

        The fact that I had to give you this information rather than you
finding it on your own, suggests that you will not do very well on the test. 
The fact that you asked the question above, also suggests the same.

        An IQ test is a series of small puzzles, little paradoxes to solve, and
you must solve them quickly.  I'd suggest you forego taking an IQ test unless
it were trivial for you to find on your own where such tests are administered. 
There are several online IQ tests which you could have found on your own.

James

James, there is no reason to be rude.  For one, I never asked you what your IQ
score was.   You should not be so conceited as to think that I care.  Secondly, I
only asked you where I could take the test(s) out of pure laziness because I did
not feel like running a search at the time.


Jonathan 
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation
of everyone who believes."-Romans 1:16 

-------------------------------------------------------
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> I wanted to tell you that you really have built up quite a case supporting
> the way you believe.

        And yet there are christians who continually write, even with my mail
links "unlinked", asking me why I worship satan.  ;o)

> I have read everything on your website, spare certain
> portions of each of your Motherload sections (those things can take a very
> long time to read).

        That might explain why you didn't spot my IQ published within, however
the jamesw.html link (high in the stack) also contained your answer, and I'll
bet your read that one to the end.  :o)

> All of my life, my pastors and my church and Christian speakers
> that I have heard have encouraged me to challenge what I believe and test it
> against what others have claimed.

        Questioning is forbidden, blind acceptance is the rule.  Anyone who
questions religions will find them to all be equally worthless.  I can not tell
if you are atheist or some kind of theist, which is it?

> I think it is essential for people to
> know why they believe what they do.  I feel that many if not most Christians
> do not know how to explain why they believe the way they do.  As a result,
> many of them encounter a great deal of frustration.

        And some [Jeff] who should, don't.  Jeff appears to have no shame.

> One website that I
> thought did not make a very strong case was one dealing with the memes or
> thought viruses of Christianity.  I can see where the writer(s) could point
> to examples of 'Christian' misbehavior or other patterns of behavior enacted
> by 'Christians' that would support their point.  However, on a broad scale,
> I did not agree with them.  In fact, I wrote to them, just like I do you
> asking them questions to back up their thought processes.  I have written to
> a couple of other authors, asking them questions, but you are the only one
> that I have had respond to me thus far.  One reason I refute the arguments
> made by the supporters of the 'thought virus' articles is because in my own
> perso nal experience, I have rarely (if ever) encountered someone that I
> felt matched their description.

        Go to the middle east, hang out with a member of islam.  Or better yet,
find any ex-marine, the USA marine corps use intensive thought viruses to make
these healthy men with wives and children back home, risk their lives and even
die "for the corps".  Also research "indoctrination technique".

> However, with all of the viewpoints and
> arguments out there, I can now see why the basic argument of Christianity:
> Fact or Fiction has not yet been proven one way or the other to the point
> where any particular individual could look at straight facts and have
> undeniable evidence for either case.

        I have proven christ to be a lie, were you not paying attention?  Just
the fact that today there are three major gods, yahweh (jew), jesus (christian)
and allah (muslim) is proof enough of the fraud.  How could an almighty god
allow false gods?  Also, think about suicide bombers, think about the otherwise
healthy men who flew planes (they were on) into buildings, to DIE FOR ALLAH!

        Are you going to sit there and tell me you don't recognize a
malevolent thought virus when it is as clear as the nose on your face?  The
truth is Jonathan, you are a member of the 75% of all persons who have a need
to believe [anything] be it jesus, allah, or even thor!  You abandon logic and
reason, and wallow in self-deceit.  For the life of me, I can't figure out why!

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James, there is no reason to be rude.  For one, I never asked you what your
> IQ score was.   You should not be so conceited as to think that I care.
> Secondly, I only asked you where I could take the test(s) out of pure
> laziness because I did not feel like running a search at the time.

        You can't be an effective Scientist and be lazy.  Ergo, you should
wallow in self-deceit, pick a god and pray at it.  :o)  Am I being an ass?  You
bet I am!  Are you frustrated?  Sure you are.  Am I?  You're damn right I am! 
Why?  Because of theists who try to use logic to prove gods exist.  When I
suggest by example that they don't know _how_ to use logic, they get upset.

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James, there is no reason to be rude.  For one, I never asked you what your
> IQ score was.

        You are correct, my mistake.  However, the tests are also listed along
with the score, as it is required to state the test you took for each score
represented, since each test scores differently.  My apologies for the mistake.

James

> Go to the middle east, hang out with a member of islam. Or better yet, 
>find any ex-marine, the USA marine corps use intensive thought viruses to make 
>these healthy men with wives and children back home, risk their lives and even 
>die "for the corps". Also research "indoctrination technique". 

I will take you up on that and research indoctrination technique.  However, when
you mention that the Marine Corp. is subjected to a thought virus, then that means
just about every violent T.V. show or movie that we watch is injecting us with
thought viruses.  In fact, I did a research paper on media violence and read an
article that compared it to Marine training last year during my Freshman year of
college.  When you say that Marines die "for the corps", does that mean they are
giving the ultimate sacrifice for the advancement of a military function?  I think
they are willing to die for the same freedom that allows you and I to have this
discussion, not because some military unit will benefit from their sacrifice.

>> However, with all of the viewpoints and 
>> arguments out there, I can now see why the basic argument of Christianity: 
>> Fact or Fiction has not yet been proven one way or the other to the point 
>> where any particular individual could look at straight facts and have 
>> undeniable evidence for either case. 
> 
> I have proven christ to be a lie, were you not paying attention? Just 
>the fact that today there are three major gods, yahweh (jew), jesus (christian) 
>and allah (muslim) is proof enough of the fraud. How could an almighty god 
>allow false gods? Also, think about suicide bombers, think about the otherwise 
>healthy men who flew planes (they were on) into buildings, to DIE FOR ALLAH! 

James, you have not PROVEN this at all, for if you had I would surely declare
myself an atheist.  In your arguments you make claims and back that up with
references to websites among other things.  Therefore, in order to understand the
reasoning behind many of your claims, I must do research into the sources you have
listed.  In many of your articles, you state your conclusions, but not the
reasoning that led to them.  For example, state that Jesus was a creation based on
the Sumerian relgion and Mithraism among others, but you are borrowing other
people's conclusions.  I am not saying that you have not read their arguments and
agreed with them, only that you have not presented the argument to me, only the
conclusion.  Therefore, when I have gone and read their articles, I have found
that their arguments are not flawless.  They have holes.  Just like you say
Christian and monotheistic arguments have holes, which I agree that many of them
do.  All I'm saying is that you have told me the what, but not the why or how,
therefore you cannot say that you have "proven Christ to be a lie."  You have not
and most likely will not ever prove beyond reason your viewpoints, nor will I be
able to.  If you think about it, none of these arguments are new.  The only thing
we can do is prove that our arguments are reasonable, but not proven.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

antichrist,

First of all, I am interested in continuing the Piso theory discussion with you,
but I was wondering if you could send me the links to the site or sites you
mentioned that Jewish historical records validate the Piso theory.  This way I can
read the information for myself.  The purpose for this e-mail however, is to
discuss science.  Although I do not claim to be a scientist myself, at least in
the physical sciences, I still have an interest in the field.  (I am involved in
the Social Sciences, mainly economics, which I am currently studying in college.) 
Anyhow, I have recently spent an all-nighter reading information on a site that
was indirectly linked to yours, through infidel.com(?).  It was the site you had
listed when discussing Albert Einstein's disbelief in God.  Einstein did by the
way believe in a god that created everything we know, he just did not believe in a
personal god that would interfere or even care about the matters that we have. 
How I interpreted Einstein's quote, was that he believed in some sort of creator
because of the vast complexity of all that is around us.  In otherwords, he
believed in a "watchmaker god".  Anyway, just below this quote, was a link to what
seemed to be a pro-evolution website called Talk.origins.com.  

One particular area of interest to me on this site, was an article by Douglas
Theobald, called "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution."  Although I did read the
entire article, there was one sentence that really stuck out to me.  In the first
sentence of the second paragraph, the writer said something like, macroevolution
can help explain the origins of life, (but not the ultimate origin of life).  In
fact all throughout the site, I found argument after argument in favor of
evolution, but from what I had seen, I could only find a couple in support of
abiogenesis.  As I read those particular articles, I was not very much impressed
or convinced by what the authors had to offer in support of abiogenesis.  This
brings me to the question I have for you, being the scientist in this discussion. 
How can life have first emerged randomly, considering the complexities of the
making of just one cell.  Now, just in case you decide to put this on your webs
ite, I am going to explain what I know of the formation of a cell, just for those
who do not know.  I am taking a guess that your reponse will have something to do
with the experiment performed by Stanley Miller, in which he shot a bolt of
electricity into a pool of ammonia, methane and hydrogen.  In doing so, Miller
found that amino acids were created.  However, Miller's experiment was, obviously,
very controlled.  In the experiment, Miller and Oparin, his co-experimenter,
deliberately left inert gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide out of the
experiment.  Now, being a scientist, you would know that these chemicals prevent
the three experimented chemicals from reacting.  In fact, many NASA scientists
claim that there was probably very little ammonia, methane and hydrogen on the
primitive Earth.  Instead, they claim that a primitive Earth would be composed of
mainly water, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, which are prob ably still close to the
three largest (in quantity) elements on the Earth still today.  So, aside from
this, let's see how a cell is assembled.  (The following is adapted from an
interview performed by Lee Strobel on Walter L. Bradley Ph.D. at Texas A&M
University.)

"To begin with, we define the difference between a living and non-living
organism.  A living organism must do three things: process energy, store
information and replicate.  Even if we assume that cells have evolved over time,
and were to develop a cell that only did the minimal functions to maintain life,
it would still be a complex creation.  So, we begin with amino acids (the stuff
Miller created in his experiment).  Amino acids come in 80 different types, but
only 20 of them are found in living organisms.  Therefore, the correct ones must
be isolated and linked together in the correct sequence in order to produce
protein molecules (still not living matter).  This does not seem like that big of
a deal, if you were putting the pieces together like a puzzle.  However, we are
basing things on random chance.  One problem: other molecules tend to react more
readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other.  So now you have
a problem of extraneous molecules.  Even in the Miller experiment, only two
percent of the material produced was composed of amino acids.  Another
complication:  There are an equal number of amino acids that are right and left
handed, and only left-handed ones work in living matter.  Now you have to get nly
these select ones to link together in the right sequence.  You also need the
correct kind of chemnical bonds, namely, peptide bonds, in the right places in
order for the protein to be able to fold in a specific three-dimensional way. 
Otherwise, as you know, it will not function.  So, let's say that one amino acid
did eventually form on its own, now you only need another 100+ more to form 1
protein.  If you get that far, it does not mean you have created life.  Now you
need 200 or more proteins with just the right functions to get a typical living
cell.  In living systems, the guidance that is needed to assemb le everything
comes from DNA.  Every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule. 
DNA works hand-in-glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of amino acids. 
So where does DNA come from?  Well, the making of DNA and RNA would be an even
greater problem than creating a protein.  They are much more complex, and there
are a host of practical problems.  For example, the synthesis of key building
blocks for DNA and RNA has never been successfully done except under highly
implausible conditions without any resemblance to those of the early Earth.  Even
if you accept the Big Bang theory, and account from the time that the Earth would
have formed, to the time that life appeared, there would have been 400 million
years, where the temperature would have been stable enough for life to develop. 
The other 4.6 billion years that big bang theorists claim to correlate with the
Earth's existence, would have been a time when the Earth was uninhabitable by
living organisms.  Even under the absolute perfect conditions, and given 1 billion
years of time to develop, statisticians say that there would only be a 1 in 10 to
the 60th power chance of life developing.  To put this in perspective,
mathematicians have a rule of thumb that anything with an odds lesser than 1 in 10
to the 50th power is considered to be mathematically impossible."

Now, I know that some scientists theorize that there were organisms more primitive
than the cell, that eventually evolved into a cell, such as a prokaryote or
eukaryote, but they simply do not have the evidence for it.  The fact of the
matter, is that like mentioned above a living organism has to be able to perform
three certain functions.  The danger of going to something much more primitive
than a cell is that whatever the more primitive being is, it must still perform
those functions.

So, casting all religion aside, I want to know how you would view this information
and how you would respond to it concerning the creation of life as we know it.  Do
you think that it is even minutely possible that something or someone could have
created this all?  I don't want you to consider any religion in this answer at
all.  Religion is irrelevant.  Do you think that the reason people flock to places
to have their 'spiritual needs' met is because there really is a spiritual side to
us all?  When I think about all this information, one thing that comes to mind is
Pascal's Wager, of which I'm sure you have heard.  Like you Apostles, I too am
searching for truth.  However, science cannot tell us the 'why' to our questions. 
You say that religion is a crutch, but what is religion really?  I view religion
as simply human beings trying to somehow satisfy an innate desire for spiritual
satisfaction.  Where does this spiritual desire come from?  Do you deny that it
exists?  I have heard it said that over 93% of the world's population believes in
some sort deity.  Quite a curious phenomenon, don't you think?


--------------------------------------------------------
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

Jonathan wrote:
> 
>  When you say that Marines die "for the
> corps", does that mean they are giving the ultimate sacrifice for the
> advancement of a military function?  I think they are willing to die for the
> same freedom that allows you and I to have this discussion, not because some
> military unit will benefit from their sacrifice.

        Before you write, be sure that you know what it is you're talking
about.  Go study "indoctrination technique", then, and only then, will you
understand.  Anyone who is familiar with Marine Corps indoctrination methods
(meme insertion, and behavior modification) such as our own Fourth Apostle
Frederick for example, can tell you I am correct in what I say.  Marines don't
die to protect your freedom, YOU ARE SH*T!  Anyone who is NOT a Marine IS SH*T!
Marines could give a DAMN about you, or about "little miss suzie rotten
crotch" back home.  They don't fight for freedom, they fight because they are
ASKED to fight by their commanding officers!  What they care about is their
brother Marines, AND THEIR BELOVED CORPS!  Oh, and to KILL KILL KILL!

        Indoctrination technique is the NUMBER ONE REASON why when a GI gets
home from the service, he can't stand his wife, he wants to always be with his
fellow GI's, and why women are worthless life support systems for their
pussies.  I am sure there are a number of women who understand what I just
said, all too well.  Men change after being through "indoctrination".

>> I have proven christ to be a lie, were you not paying attention?
> 
> James, you have not PROVEN this at all, for if you had I would surely
> declare myself an atheist.  In your arguments you make claims and back that
> up with references to websites among other things.  Therefore, in order to
> understand the reasoning behind many of your claims, I must do research into
> the sources you have listed.

        Get to it then, and if you are a member of the 25% skeptical and
logical minority, come back and declare yourself so, and I'll make a place for
you along with Gabriel, and the other reformed former christians.  :o)

> In many of your articles, you state your
> conclusions, but not the reasoning that led to them.  For example, state
> that Jesus was a creation based on the Sumerian relgion and Mithraism among
> others, but you are borrowing other people's conclusions.

        I studied mithraism, and came to my OWN conclusions.  I only give web
references to back up my conclusions (showing others agree with me).  From the
historical studies I've made, it appears that jesus never did exist in the
flesh, he was a mythical character, modeled after mithra, the persian light god.

> therefore you cannot say that you have "proven Christ to be a lie."  You
> have not and most likely will not ever prove beyond reason your viewpoints,
> nor will I be able to.

        9-11 proved allah is the true god, then our attack upon the taliban
thereafter proved the USA government is the true god, or the most RATIONAL
argument is that there is NO god, and be done with it.  Even without research,
you must agree there are far more proofs against god (babies born deformed, and
so on) than there are _for_ god.  If god did exist, and he was as he appears to
be, a sadistic bastard who causes an occasional child to be born malformed
because it gives him sadistic pleasures, I'd hunt him down and kill him myself!
Luckily, Science (not religion) explains why natural mutations sometimes occur.

> If you think about it, none of these arguments are
> new.  The only thing we can do is prove that our arguments are reasonable,
> but not proven.

        It has always been trivial to disprove god(s).  I don't know why people
make it so difficult.  Ok, do your research and report back to me.

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> antichrist,
> 
> First of all, I am interested in continuing the Piso theory discussion with
> you, but I was wondering if you could send me the links to the site or sites
> you mentioned that Jewish historical records validate the Piso theory.  This
> way I can read the information for myself.

        I am not your man bitch, you may data mine them out of my website on
your own.  Do your OWN research, please!  I owe you nothing, and could care
less if you waste your life believing lies.  I present my facts and you can
weigh them and decide on your own, or research further, but it is not my job to
silver platter hand you your research materials, data mine them on your own.

> The purpose for this e-mail
> however, is to discuss science.  Although I do not claim to be a scientist
> myself, at least in the physical sciences, I still have an interest in the
> field.  (I am involved in the Social Sciences, mainly economics, which I am
> currently studying in college.)

        You are probably aware that any study that has the word Science in it's
name is not really a true Science.  Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Mathematics,
are all Sciences.  Social Sciences are not true Scientific studies because they
tend to deal with interpretations, and feelings, where there are NO wrong
answers, whereas true Science is exacting, precise, and highly ACCURATE.

> How I interpreted Einstein's quote, was that he believed in some sort
> of creator because of the vast complexity of all that is around us.  In
> otherwords, he believed in a "watchmaker god".

        Or perhaps he was atheist and didn't want to make waves.  Perhaps he
couldn't comprehend the universe, too bad for him, because I'm quite happy to
accept it was not called into being by some big dude with a white beard.  The
greatest argument against creationism is WHO CREATED THE CREATOR?

        With one question, "Who created the creator?" I have disproved gods,
acceptable to anyone reading these words who is capable of logical thought. 
Logic suggests the ONLY possible answer is we were NOT created, we just ARE!

> I am taking a guess that your reponse will have
> something to do with the experiment performed by Stanley Miller, in which he
> shot a bolt of electricity into a pool of ammonia, methane and hydrogen.  In
> doing so, Miller found that amino acids were created.  However, Miller's
> experiment was, obviously, very controlled.  In the experiment, Miller and
> Oparin, his co-experimenter, deliberately left inert gases such as nitrogen
> and carbon dioxide out of the experiment.

        Here's why it doesn't make sense to you.  You don't know chemistry,
ergo, you don't know what ammonia is.  We didn't have nitrogen in our
atmosphere, we had ammonia (NH3).  Some unknown ocean living lifeform ATE that
ammonia and combined the H with C and released free N.  The HC (hydrocarbon)
molecules in these plants or animals (nobody knows for sure) sank with their
dead bodies to the ocean floor, where they were sedimented over, pushed up to
become land mass, and today we suck them out of the layers and call it oil.

        Why don't they exist anymore?  They ran out of ammonia to eat!  When
did they live?  Millions of years before dinosaurs, that's for sure.  Were they
alive?  Perhaps not, perhaps they were just pseudo-living chemolifeforms.

> Now, being a scientist, you would
> know that these chemicals prevent the three experimented chemicals from
> reacting.

        As I stated, when these chemolifeforms (whatever they were) formed,
there was NO NITROGEN OR CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere.  Our atmosphere
mirrored the OTHER planets, containing methane and ammonia.  That should not
surprise you, because we are the ONLY blue planet, processes happened here to
break down and recombine the ammonia gas, freeing the nitrogen.  Now, we
evolved to live in this gas, don't think it's a miracle or anything that we can
live breathing this gas.  As the gases change, WE TOO will change to adapt.

> In fact, many NASA scientists claim that there was probably very
> little ammonia, methane and hydrogen on the primitive Earth.

        I'm a former NASA Scientist, and I assure you no such bunk is taught. 
Look at all the other planets, we were just like them, the closer planets had
bio/chemo/thermal processes to make them different, but in the beginning, we
were all the same, rocks with methane, ammonia envelopes.  When you go to an
apple tree, you pick... apples.  You don't pick 6 apples and one orange!

> Instead, they
> claim that a primitive Earth would be composed of mainly water, nitrogen and
> carbon dioxide, which are prob ably still close to the three largest (in
> quantity) elements on the Earth still today.

        What is in a comet.  When a comet smashed into the earth, ejecting the
moon, we got our atmosphere and our water.  KABOOM!  Simple answers, simple
problems, only bringing GOD into the equation confounds and confuses the mind.

> Even under the absolute perfect
> conditions, and given 1 billion years of time to develop, statisticians say
> that there would only be a 1 in 10 to the 60th power chance of life
> developing.  To put this in perspective, mathematicians have a rule of thumb
> that anything with an odds lesser than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is
> considered to be mathematically impossible."

        Winning the lottery is mathematically impossible, yet people do it all
the time.  Oh sure, it's rare, even MORE rare than amino acids self-assembling
into a lifeform, yet it does happen, and so did life!  Ask those same
mathematicians what the odds are of winning the lottery.  :o)

> Now, I know that some scientists theorize that there were organisms more
> primitive than the cell, that eventually evolved into a cell,

        I would be one of them.  I believe the oil-making bugs were not alive,
but pseudo-living chemophilic "things" of some kind.  :o)

> So, casting all religion aside, I want to know how you would view this
> information and how you would respond to it concerning the creation of life
> as we know it.  Do you think that it is even minutely possible that
> something or someone could have created this all?

        And who created the creator?  That question just blew you out of the
water with the force of a 50 megaton fusion bomb!  Are you going to answer an
infinite number of creators created the creators who created the creator? Don't!

> I don't want you to
> consider any religion in this answer at all.  Religion is irrelevant.

        You said creator (see above) and that is unscientific, and illogical,
thus YOU put religion in the equation.  I work to take religion OUT.

> Do
> you think that the reason people flock to places to have their 'spiritual
> needs' met is because there really is a spiritual side to us all?

        We only have a Scientific side, it's just that some people can't handle
REAL science, their minds are too weak, so they use a pseudo-science, which can
be religion, or spritualism, or even paranormal studies.  We are NOT all
created equal, some of us are smart, and others are quite stupid.  If there's
one thing this website has shown, stupid people gravitate towards the belief in
gods, while intelligent people gravitate towards atheism and Science.

> When I
> think about all this information, one thing that comes to mind is Pascal's
> Wager, of which I'm sure you have heard.

        I've mentioned it, explained it, and shown the fallacy of it many times
on this website.  Blase Pascal was a smart man, but not a brilliant man.  I am
as noted by my peers, a brilliant man.  I do not trick easily into a wager.  :o)

> Like you Apostles, I too am
> searching for truth.

        You found it, Antichrist dot net IS the truth!

> However, science cannot tell us the 'why' to our
> questions.

        There is no "why" we just ARE!  You are asking "Why is a potato"?  It's
an illogical question.  Neither you nor I asked to be born, we just were, now
let's just make the best of it, ok?  :o)  Simple answer, not a complicated one.

> You say that religion is a crutch, but what is religion really?

        A disease, a mind disease, a festering malignancy upon mankind.

> I view religion as simply human beings trying to somehow satisfy an innate
> desire for spiritual satisfaction.

        Science does a better job.  Go on, give it a try!  If you fail, you can
always fall back to pseudo-science (mysticism, paranormal, religion).

> Where does this spiritual desire come
> from?

        Parenting.  It's a rom function of our brains (ROM = read only memory).
Where does kissing come from?  It's a throw back of the instinct to suck tit as
a baby.  Where does religion come from?  It's a throw back like kissing, to our
need to be nurtured.  If we were like the deer, born and able to run in mere
minutes, we wouldn't be religious people.  Religion is a curse, but it is also
a blessing, because in some of us, that need turns to Science and study!

        The computer you are reading this on right now is a product of Science,
not a product of god(s).  We invented this computer because we are RELIGIOUS
people.  Deer did not invent computers, they are not religious.  Get it?

> Do you deny that it exists?

        Yes, it just depends how you channel it.  I myself am a VERY religious
person, but due to my intelligence, my religion is Science!

> I have heard it said that over 93% of
> the world's population believes in some sort deity.

        50% of the people believe somewhat, 25% believe devoutly, and 25% do
not believe.  That's the same ratio of people who are subject to memetics (as
listed in the governments own indoctrination manuals).

> Quite a curious
> phenomenon, don't you think?

        Not really, now you understand it too.  :o)  As for me, I always have.

James

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!  You're going to get me in trouble with my 
girlfriend!  Actually, James, I went into the Marines for just such lofty 
ideals as this man describes.  You are right about having much trouble 
relating to others who have not be indoctrinated afterwards, and the point 
is to create that 'part of a special club' mentality.  In combat, if you do 
not regard the survival of yourself and fellow marines as most important, 
you are likely to fail and lose battles, and you have to put aside your 
reasons for doing what you are doing at the moment in order to succeed at 
it.  Although I am not a seasoned combat veteren, I am told the training I 
underwent does well to simulate the mental environment of combat.  Winning 
successive battles is strategically what wins the wars, so we couldn't have 
effective fighting units if they were always worrying about matters back 
home.  You have to focus.  I loved the Marines.

Greetings James

I read the last few messages on the mailing list and found it amusing to say the 
least.That John [removed]
is almost as bad as the infamous Jeff, but some people just can't be reasoned 
with to make the right choice concerning their lives. For instance I almost made 
the right one to late, but at least I am still young enougth
to change my entire life and start over. This guy also seems to get very vivid 
psychotic episodes that seem
real to him. He also never even bothered to read past the first page or he has 
already made up his mind before reading some of the material that we are a bunch 
of satanists.

> Also get rid of this internet website and replace it with a message that can
> be written, by a PENTECOSTAL preacher !!!

    HA HA HA HA HA fat chance of that ever happening 

> ROMANS 10: 9 - 13 -  If you confess with your mouth that JESUS is LORD and
> believe in your heart that GOD has raised HIM from the dead, you shall be
> saved. For "whosoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved."

    Quoting from an 2000 year old tabloid in typical christian form, does he 
think that we are foolish enougth
    to do that for even an second?

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> I was wondering exactly what IQ Test you took, because I want to take it
> just to see how I compare.
> Secondly, I only asked you where I could take the test(s) out of pure
> laziness because I did not feel like running a search at the time.
   
   Is this guy for real? Even before I mailed you for the first time I 
completely read through your website to
   avoid asking silly questions where there is an answer  provided in the 
website content. It took me  two 
   nights to read everything including the motherloads so why couln't the lazy 
bum do it? Personaly I am
   not lazy and must stay busy (I am still hyperactive I guess but have gained 
an two hour concentration
   span through force of will and by working on my laser and other hobies). I 
also read at 1500 words a
   minute with full comprehension so I don't have a problem to search for 
something in a large .TXT or
   word file for instance so that may give me an advantage over old Jonathan.

>I am not your man bitch, you may data mine them out of my website on
>your own.  Do your OWN research, please!  I owe you nothing, and could care
>less if you waste your life believing lies.  I present my facts and you can
>weigh them and decide on your own, or research further, but it is not my job to
>silver platter hand you your research materials, data mine them on your own.

     Yes, tell the lazy bum to do his own research as it is the only way you 
will truly learn something 
     and perhaps even discover some just as important data bits in the proccess 
even though it may 
     take some time to find what you are looking for. 

>With one question, "Who created the creator?" I have disproved gods,     
>acceptable to anyone reading these words who is capable of logical thought. 
>Logic suggests the ONLY possible answer is we were NOT created, we just ARE!
    
    I would't have thought of an more appropriate question to pose to all those 
bible bashers, I wonder 
    how they will answer this question if it was posed to them.

> In fact, many NASA scientists claim that there was probably very
> little ammonia, methane and hydrogen on the primitive Earth. 

    This guy just made this up while grasping at straws.

> Even under the absolute perfect
> conditions, and given 1 billion years of time to develop, statisticians say
> that there would only be a 1 in 10 to the 60th power chance of life
> developing.  To put this in perspective, mathematicians have a rule of thumb
> that anything with an odds lesser than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is
> considered to be mathematically impossible."

Where did they come up with this? I personally give life a higher chance than 
that to develop, just look at us
we are alive aren't we? This guy should give life better odds to develop. If a 
planet has the same type of sun 
and is the same distance from it's sun as earth, with enougth of the correct 
chemicals then life_will_ develop
in time. Life can take many forms and who is to say that we even have most of 
the puzzle pieces and know how  they fit together? There is still a long road 
with lot's of discoveries ahead of us before we can say for certian how life 
works in detail, only then can we speculate and take learned guesses on how life 
would have
begun and the chances of it occuring elsewhere

>it is not too late for you.  Read the "Death throws of Jeff" section and see
>how Gabriel (from South Africa) threw off the shackles of christianity and is a
>free thinking atheist and Scientist now!  This could be YOU TOO!  :o)
> I'll make a place for you along with Gabriel, and the other reformed former 
christians.  :o)

I am quite flattered that you mention me so much to the other people on the list 
and to those theists who
dare to challenge you.

Goodbye and have a safe day

Gabriel

Frederick wrote:
> 
> I love this line.  We should make a shirt.  Antichrist.net---capable of
> curing memetic infections in as little as one dose.  hahaha
> 
> Frederick
> At 03:24 AM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>>  Religion is a disease, and must be treated as one.  I've invented a
>>treatment, you use a heavy dose of antichrist to rid oneself of the 
infection.

        Let's brain storm in this direction.  How about this for a shirt...

Antiseptic, when you have an infection.
Antibiotic, when you have a disease.
Antichrist, when you are infected with the disease known as CHRISTIANITY!

:o)

Christianity, an infection of the thought processes, is generally treated with
an antichrist.  Some of the more powerful antichrists are James, Haydn, Timothy
and Frederick, each of which works differently, but achieve similar results. 

:o)

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Why did you  not respond to the BULK of my argument?  You did not even
> recopy it into your response.  WHY?

        It was not necessary to copy it over.  Don't worry tho, your message,
uncut, is included on the website prior to my response.  Nobody will receive
fractured information when they read the page.  :o)

> You eliminated at least 80% of my
> argument from your returned e-mail.  I want to know how you explain the
> generation of a cell based upon the facts that you and I know concerning the
> complexities of its formation.  I must say I am very disappointed.

        You're disappointed because you are intelligent enough to realize that I
am correct, that the overwhelming evidence suggests that I am correct, and you
are about to lose your tenacious grasp upon your much needed belief system. 
And as for the exact mechanism of formation, all I can say is "we don't yet
know for sure".  100 years ago, doctors didn't wash their hands between
patients, because they would only get dirty again.  We ARE growing in our body
of knowledge, but just remember, we are not _yet_ gods, but merely aspiring to
be, one day, and VERY SOON!  :o)  Disease was caused by demons 200 years ago,
and by tiny microorganisms today.  See how Science is superior to myth?

James

I said:
>> Even under the absolute perfect conditions, and given 1 billion years of time
to develop, statisticians say that there would only be a 1 in 10 to the 60th power
chance of life developing. To put this in perspective, mathematicians have a rule
of thumb that anything with an odds lesser than 1 in 10 to the 50th power
is considered to be mathematically impossible." 

James said:
> Winning the lottery is mathematically impossible, yet people do it all 
>the time. Oh sure, it's rare, even MORE rare than amino acids self-assembling 
>into a lifeform, yet it does happen, and so did life! Ask those same 
>mathematicians what the odds are of winning the lottery. :o) 

James, I went to every major state lottery site on the web, and I found that your
above claim is absolutely FALSE.  Here is a list of the odds for winning the grand
prize in the biggest games for some of the largest states.
  
Illinois Lottery:  Big Game (now called Mega Millions)
1 in 76,275,360
  
Missouri Lottery: Powerball
1 in 120,526,770
  
Florida Lottery: Lotto Jackpot
1 in 22,957,480
  
California Lottery: SuperLotto Plus
1 in 41,416,353
  
New York Lottery: Mega Millions
1 in 135,145,920
  
Pennsylvania Lottery: Super 6
1 in 39,959,158
  
Now, I said earlier that statisticians claimed that the possibilities of cell
formation were 1 in 10 to the 60th power, which is mathematically impossible.  You
said that winning the lottery was mathematically impossible.  I defined
mathematically impossible as being something with lesser odds than 1 in 10 to the
50th power.  But not to worry James, if I take the scenario to your best
advantage, and use the odds for the New York lottery, we find that you were only
off by 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999864854080.  Therefore,
you are this much more likely to win the New York State Lottery than is the
possibility that amino acids formed a life form on its own.  So why did you say
that "winning the lottery was even more rare than amino acids self-assembling into
a life form."

-------------------------------------------------------
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> I said:
>>> Even under the absolute perfect conditions, and given 1 billion years of
> time to develop, statisticians say that there would only be a 1 in 10 to the
> 60th power chance of life developing.

        [...]

> Now, I said earlier that statisticians claimed that the possibilities of
> cell formation were 1 in 10 to the 60th power, which is mathematically
> impossible.  You said that winning the lottery was mathematically
> impossible.  I defined mathematically impossible as being something with
> lesser odds than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.  But not to worry James, if I
> take the scenario to your best advantage, and use the odds for the New York
> lottery, we find that you were only off by
> 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999864854080.  Therefore, you
> are this much more likely to win the New York State Lottery than is the
> possibility that amino acids formed a life form on its own.  So why did you
> say that "winning the lottery was even more rare than amino acids
> self-assembling into a life form."

        The key to your argument is in your number, 1*1060 which if correct,
will make the rest of your statement correct.  However, if this number were
incorrect, artificially inflated by the creationists to make _their_ point,
indeed your whole theory is now in jeopardy.

        Now instead of arguing myself, I'll let others fortify my point:
"How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the
primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been
only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds
against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are
irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to
happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows
why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

        "ludicrously huge numbers".  That's the key to your argument.  Take
away that ridiculously large number, replace it with a smaller number, and you
greatly increase your odds.  Current abiogenesis ideas center around RNA being
the first replicator molecule, _not_ protein.  The fact that the bases needed
for making nucleic acids are formed fairly easily lends support to this idea. 
In order to make a nucleotide a base has to combine with a sugar.  To make RNA
that sugar should be ribose, and to make DNA that sugar should be deoxyribose.
Attached to the sugar should be a phosphate group.  If these three things are
present then the molecule is called a nucleotide.  If it lacks the phosphate
group on the sugar, then it is called a nucleoside.  Recent experiments have
shown that nucleosides can be made and that the reaction between nucleosides
and phosphate, which is a readily available inorganic, can occur to form
nucleotides.  This can also occur under prebiotic conditions.  Problems have
occurred in trying to synthesize ribose in sufficient quantities or purity to
be used in synthesis of nucleosides, but experiments by Albert Eschenmoser in
Switzerland have shown that it can be done by substituting different chemical
intermediates.  Some work has shown that it is possible for RNA to replicate
itself.  Oligonucleotides were mixed in a solution of free nucleotides with no
synthesizing enzymes.  The free nucleotides arranged themselves into
complementary oligonucleotides!  However, getting these to then replicate again
has so far been difficult.  We are at the CUSP of this discovery.  :o)

        Now your next argument should be about generating a modern day protein
by chance.  Ok, let's talk first about a much simpler one, say the 32 amino
acid peptide that can reproduce itself without help from any other proteins or
cellular machinery that was reported by Severin et al in the journal Nature in
1997 (Nature. 1997. 389: 706 - 9).  :o)  Now the chances are increased again.
The number of random trials needed to come up with the correct sequence for
this protein is 2032 and therefore the chances of getting the correct sequence
is 1 in 2032.  This is still an extremely small probability. However, it does
not (as many people believe) mean that it will take 2032 trials before the
correct sequence is arrived at.  All it means is that, on average, this is the
number of trials it will take.  The correct sequence _could_ be arrived at on
the first trial, just as a first time lottery player, could also win!

        Now to further counter your ridiculously large odds, I will continue. 
I agree that the idea of `in the prebiotic world' there were 32 amino acid
molecules floating around, and they had to arrange themselves time and time
again into different sequences until they got it right, is ridiculous.  The
point is that the above calculations give the average probability of getting
the right sequence for one trial, and the implication is that each trial is
done sequentially.  What would happen to that probability if two trials were
done at the same time?  ;o)  What would happen to that probability if 2032
trials were done at the same time?  ;o)  The probability of arriving at the
correct sequence becomes 1 and that _is_ a, definite!  Even if we are slightly
more conservative and say the number of trials going on all at once is only one
billion (109 trials), then it _still_ seriously increases the likelihood of the
correct sequence forming!

        The problem with this you might argue, is that it requires a huge
number of amino acid molecules to be present in order to do a billion trials at
once.  This is true.  However, you can calculate for yourself that in one
kilogram of the amino acid arginine for example, there are 2.85*1024 arginine
molecules.  This number will basically be similar for all the other amino
acids.  Therefore, if the equivalent of a pickup truck full of each amino acid
was dumped into a moderate size lake, we could expect the 32 amino acid protein
to form in less than a hundred years, taking into account research showing that
a 55 amino acid chain can form spontaneously in just a few weeks (Ferris et al.
Nature, 381: 59 - 61. 1996).  Given this rate and taking into account the
dilution factor of a prebiotic ocean, Musgrave calculates that a molecule like
cytochrome c could have formed in a little over a million years!  :o)

        Abiogenesis theory may or may not be true, however my explanations
above dash your claims (astronomical odds) to the rocks!  The thing you must
keep in mind is that the true probability of proteins forming rests on their
biological and chemical properties, _not_ just simply on random chance.  Now I
just wasted an hour and a half out of my busy day composing this, I hope I've
put your need to believe in a creator to rest.  Again I leave you with this
thought.  If we were created, who created the creator, and thus, the creator's
creator (ad infinitum)?  Until you can explain that, I rest my case.

James

> Now your next argument should be about generating a modern day protein 
>by chance. Ok, let's talk first about a much simpler one, say the 32 amino 
>acid peptide that can reproduce itself without help from any other proteins or 
>cellular machinery that was reported by Severin et al in the journal Nature in 
>1997 (Nature. 1997. 389: 706 - 9). :o) Now the chances are increased again. 
>The number of random trials needed to come up with the correct sequence for 
>this protein is 2032 and therefore the chances of getting the correct sequence 
>is 1 in 2032. This is still an extremely small probability. 

Okay, quick question.  How did you get a 1:2032 chance with 2032 random sequences
needed?  In order to find the ratio for this number, wouldn't you have to multiply
the probability of each random action happening by the probability of every other
random action happening?  So your equation would be p1 * p2 * p3 *....*pn. 
Therefore, if the chance of each random possibility was 50%, you would multiply .5
* .5 = .25 *.5 = .125 * .5 = .0625 etc. until you multiplied all 2032
probabilities.  I tried using my TI 83 calculator to figure this out by taking
.5^2032 and all the thing gave me for an answer was 0.  But to use an example
of how we would convert this into a ratio, if our answer was .00000000001% chance
of this happening, we would say that there was a 1 in 100000000000000 chance of
this happening.  Now obviously, with 2032 random possibilities the odds of this
actually occurring is far less than the number listed above.  Now, I know this
does not 'prove' my point, but it does say that the odds are not nearly as
definite as 1 in 2032. 

> The problem with this you might argue, is that it requires a huge 
>number of amino acid molecules to be present in order to do a billion trials at 
>once. This is true. However, you can calculate for yourself that in one 
>kilogram of the amino acid arginine for example, there are 2.85 x 1024 arginine 
>molecules. This number will basically be similar for all the other amino 
>acids. Therefore, if the equivalent of a pickup truck full of each amino acid 
>was dumped into a moderate size lake, we could expect the 32 amino acid protein 
>to form in less than a hundred years, taking into account research showing that 
>a 55 amino acid chain can form spontaneously in just a few weeks (Ferris et al. 
>Nature, 381: 59 - 61. 1996). 

If you dumped a pickup truck full of amino acids into a lake, wouldn't that
severely decrease the probability of each and every probability happening, because
in a lake, there are many chemicals and reactions that largely prevent amino acids
from forming together, such as N, CO2, etc.?   

>Again I leave you with this 
>thought. If we were created, who created the creator, and thus, the creator's 
>creator (ad infinitum)? Until you can explain that, I rest my case. 

Why do suggest that there HAS to be a creator for the creator?  If the creator
could create another creator, why wouldn' t he just create someone who would be
more like himself?  Actually, a better question is, why WOULD he create another
someone like himself.  If there was a creator to the creator of us, then where did
he (or she for that matter) go?  Did he/she die?  I think that your concept of
what God would be is wrong.  That is why I think you cannot understand theism. 
For instance, when you mentioned God in an earlier e-mail, you said something to
the extent of, "I cannot believe in some old man with a long white beard in the
sky."  Well good for you, I don't believe in an old man in the sky either, nor
does the Bible say that is so.  I just read an article about peoples; common
perception of God.  There is a verse that was quoted from the Bible that says
straight out that God is Spirit.  When I locate that article again, I'll give you
the exact location of the verse.  Therefore, would a God be subjected to the rules
that he created himself?  Absolutely not!  Therefore, would I assert that God
could make an illogical being, such as a circular square?  No, I would not.  I do
not think that a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. would or could make a
logical fallacy.  Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie, for then He could no longer
be God.  Why can God not lie? It is because he is all good.  So why can God not
create logical fallacy?  Because he is all knowing.  So, why does God need a
creator?  The Bible says that God has neither beginning nor end.  To us, this
seems unfathomable, because we live in a world where everything has its beginning,
and everything has its end.  The fact of the matter is, God is non-corporeal.  The
reason that God has no beginning nor end, is becau se He (according to the Bible)
lives outside of time.  That is why there is no beginning or end, because there is
no time to say when there was a beginning and when there was an end.  If God
created time, then why must he abide by it?

------------------------------------------------------
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

James,

Let's say that you find yourself stranded forever on a deserted island with one
other individual. This other person is frail and of no practical use for your
mutual survival. He is a loud mouth, an instigator, and he eats a lot. He even
steals some of your food and the food supply is scarce. He's totally defenseless
and a nuisance. Give a logical reason for not killing him. 1


Jonathan
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation
of everyone who believes."-Romans 1:16

1 The above is borrowed from www.ex-atheist.com

-------------------------------------------------------
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> Let's say that you find yourself stranded forever on a deserted island with
> one other individual. This other person is frail and of no practical use for
> your mutual survival. He is a loud mouth, an instigator, and he eats a lot.
> He even steals some of your food and the food supply is scarce. He's totally
> defenseless and a nuisance. Give a logical reason for not killing him. 1
> 
> Jonathan
> "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
> salvation of everyone who believes."-Romans 1:16
> 
> 1 The above is borrowed from www.ex-atheist.com

        Since the vote would be split, I would forego voting, and kill the
subject as humanly as possible.  His meat would not be wasted.

        Now I know what you were planning with this, you were going to say
"See, I told you atheists were without morals".  I have morals, and I have a
high tolerance, but not an infinite tolerance.  Societies are made up of
cohesive individuals who work for the common good.  Mankind walked on the moon,
but it was a massive effort to get a few of us up there.  Anyone who works
against the common good is an enemy of the collective (trying not to sound
communistic, or BORG)!  ;o)  Now the christian would say "love thy neighbor"
and sacrifice the strong for the benefit of the weak, in the end both, shall
perish.  Again i stress, christianity as a destructive meme could END humanity!

        As I feast from his carcass, I will remember a passage...
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Psalms

James - christ incarnate; FEAR ME!

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> In recent days, my respect for your intelligence has evaporated like a
> puddle of water in the noon day sun.

        That's perfectly fair, because I've determined you to be educated, but
ignorant.  You also have a strong need to believe in just about anything.  Were
you born in a muslim country, you would be touting the virtues of allah, rather
than the [majority god in the USA], jesus.  Do you not see how this fact alone
disproves your god and every other god?  Your greatest handicap, that one thing
that stops you from being like me, is your STRONG NEED TO BELIEVE.

> Despite your vain attempts at masking
> it with intelligence, your foolishness pervades into the depths, heights,
> lengths and widths of each and every place your presence is found.  High
> IQs, and brains to boot do not constitute a repellant for foolishness.

        To reiterate what was said, for the sake of those who are not on the
mailing list, I'll paste what I wrote here:

>JAMES 
> and is the reason why I work to DESTROY thought viruses like a doctor combats
> disease. 
> 
>ASAJ: 
>This kid should spend more time working to improve his critical thinking
>skills. There's a lot more evidence for God than there is for 'thought
>viruses'. 

        True comedy at it's finest!  If this guy can prove there is a god,
using evidence which would be admissible in court, I'd sure love to see it
because everyone else out there is living on "blind faith".

But wait, now to make you piss your pants..

>JAMES: 
> God is santa clause for adults. 
> 
>ASAJ 
>Then perhaps it's time for James to grow up and start believing.

        What?!?  Grow up and start believing?  This is an intelligent retort?

>I've argued with some very intelligent atheists; however, this kid isn't
>among them. If you are going to have doubts, please find a smarter atheist to
>give them to you, har har. The Piso theory isn't well received among secular
>scholars. This kid reminds me of someone who would write for the Enquirer. I
>haven't resorted to sarcasm since I left the errancy list until now. This is
>really pathetic stuff. 

        Man, he isn't even embarrassed by his own words.  He has met his match,
my IQ is not the highest in the world, but I'm 8 points higher than the
greatest chess player who ever lived.  I don't have his email address, jonathan
failed to include it, lest I abase him myself.  Jonathan is included in this
forward, he can send it on to the proper fellow if he chooses.

        Here's the whole letter as I received it from jonathan (which may be
an alias for james w).  Oh and since it's obvious I know the bible better than
christians do, here are the passages which confirm my statement.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew&chapno
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Mark

[the whole letter was long, and contained the same diatribe seen throughout
antichrist dot net as submitted repeatedly by christians.  The lengthy,
unscholarly, and repetitious diatribe has been cut for brevity.]

> James, you cling to dead arguments like one would cling to the hand of their
> dead mother.  The logic of your arguments could blatantly be proven as
> fallacious, yet your premises and conclusion remain unchanged.

        My offer to you was simple.  Prove there is a god using proof which
would be admissible in a court of law, and I will not only physically visit you
and kiss your ass, but donate antichrist.net to any religious outfit you deem
worthy for whatever purposes they so choose.  How's that for an offer?  Note
that this must be COURT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, which discounts hearsay evidence,
namely any printed words contained within your bible.

> As for your
> 'who created the creator' argument, why don't you read the works of Thomas
> Aquinas.  You are promoting an argument that has had an answer for hundreds
> of years.  I noticed that your only responses to ASAJ were a scoff and
> silence.  Could you not refute the points that were made?

        I didn't need to, because I already have, and when I submitted your
letter to the mailing list, everyone on the list (save for yourself apparently)
was already aware of the arguments as I've presented them on the site, usually
several times!  Use the search engine on the main index page and search the
site for yourself, and find answers which I've already given to others.  The
person whom you forwarded to me has a lower intelligence than even yourself,
his only notoriety is he claims to be a FORMER atheist.  Everyone is a former
atheist, if you go back far enough, we are ALL born "a-theist" (without
religion) or at the very least "a-gnostic" (without knowledge).

> I would wager
> that you could not.

        I'll take that bet.  ;o)  A fool and his money are soon parted.

> The fact is  that you are a fool, James, and to state
> anything less could be construed as dishonesty.

        The only person clinging onto his beliefs like the hand of his dead
mother would be YOU and everyone reading this message can clearly see that.

> I also thought that I might
> mention, that you were wrong about the point of the deserted island morality
> question.  However, to say that the murder of your island companion is
> justified, and even more outrageous, moral, for the fact that you 'would not
> waste any of the meat' is repulsive at best.

        I thought you would be amused.  Science is not about morality, it does
not sacrifice the strong for the benefit of the weak.  Were this MY world to
control, there would be no such thing as birth defects in one generation,
because I'd sterilize all breeding age people who carry birth defects.  We CAN
eliminate "god's mistakes" in ONE GENERATION, but only if we have the courage
to do what I just described.  The same would be true of those who carry the
recently discovered "criminality gene".

> James, you need to grow a
> little bit taller because my point sailed straight over your head.

        It did not, and now it is up to the readers of antichrist dot net to
decide for themselves if you or if I am correct.  :o)

> However,
> your most foolish statement by far was that you have to be poor to get into
> heaven.  Even more humorus, is that you quoted Biblical verses in support of
> your theory, claiming that you knew more about the Bible than Christians.

        I do, and I did.  The links are listed above.  Enjoy.

> In fact, a verse YOU quoted, (Mark 10:24) says "...how hard is it for those
> who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.  The Bible, if you have not
> noticed, has a general theme.

        Oh, so now we use political spin doctoring to remake the meaning.  I
suppose since it works so well for politicians, it will work equally for you.

> ; Part of that theme can be summarized in
> this verse "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
> all your soul and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:5).  Therefore, the
> reason that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle,
> than for a rich man to enter into heaven is because their dependence is
> in riches and not in God.

        Sorry, the bible did not qualify that statement, it clearly states "a
rich man" not "a rich man who idolizes his wealth".  You need to learn more
about critical thinking and understand the bible is RIFE with contradictions.

        Use the search engine on the site to search the word "contradictions". 
If you were `blindly unaware' you may be shocked by what you find.

> It follows along with the second of the ten
> commandments, "You shall not make for yourself an idol" (Exodus 20:4).

        That is important, because when one discovers he can be his own god, it
does away with ones need to be controlled by biblical memes.  Old testament
goals was to force mankind into a conformist morality, and the new testament
goals was to make compliant slaves out of the memetically infected peoples.

> An idol is anything in which you place more importance than God.  Rich men
> will very often place more importance on money than on God.  Jesus knew that
> with riches, often came a mentality to the extent of 'money can solve all
> problems, I have vast amounts of wealth, therefore I can solve all
> problems.'  It is false because of the first premise, that money can solve
> all problems.

        Money has shown to both cause all, and cure all problems.  The
christian beggar on late night TV tells us that 20,000 children die each day
from disease and starvation.  Money certainly would cure THAT problem, however
feeding the children would (after their 12-13th year) produce even more
problems as they start producing more offspring to feed.  Thus the cure
perpetuates the problem.  Ebenezer Scrooge made this point as well.

> According to the Bible, we all have a sin problem, and
> NOTHING can solve it EXCEPT dependency upon Christ for salvation.  The Bible
> even teaches that good works will not get you into heaven.

        Actually, it says both.  Good works is the only way, as well as good
works mean nothing.  See the instructions above to search "contradictions". 
You've fallen for my trap, you are snared in my web, the spider draws near.

> Therefore,
> depending on the fact that you are a 'good person' to make your way through
> heaven's gates is of no benefit to you or anyone else.  Why do you think
> that in Matt. 7:22 Jesus says that many will one day say "Lord Lord, have we
> not prophesied in your name, cast out demons... (etc. etc.) (7:23)...and I
> (Jesus) will declare unto them depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I
> never knew you."  Why else would Paul continuously assert that works did not
> lead to salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) but rather were EVIDENCE of salvation.

        As I suffer through your incessant bible quotes, I ask why?  Why don't
you just use the court admissible evidence you and the other christians
supposedly have to prove me wrong?  Why must you use the inadmissible hearsay
evidence OVER AND OVER AD NAUSEUM?  Just END this if you will.  I'd love to
donate antichrist dot net away to a church ONCE they've proven god exists!

> You
> wonder why some Christians will claim that people who cuss you out online
> are not "REAL" Christians?  It is because they do not show the evidences of
> salvation through their actions.

        These are just more paradoxes, the ones cursing (Jeff for example)
think they are champions of their god (like moses who murdered in the name of
god) and are going to get special preference in heaven.  That's just it, they
BE-LIE-VE they are going to receive something in return for their actions.

> Does this mean that true Christians do no
> wrong?  Certainly Not!!  ; Does it make wrong doing okay for Christians?

        A mass murderer who accepts jesus on his death bed, you guessed it,
ascends into heaven.  ;o)  What a sucky religion I must say!  Sins are only
forgiven when the victims EAT THE HEART Of the transgressor.

> Without a doubt the answer is NO!

        I (and our government) disagree.  See the paragraph above, and note the
current war that is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.

> So now, shall you accuse me of being a
> hypocrite for degrading your name by calling you a fool?

        No, because I call you a fool for believing in falsehoods.  Muslims
call you a fool for not believing in allah/mohammed.  Jews call you a fool for
not believing in yahweh, and following the false messiah jesus.  See my point?

> I assure you my
> words are not inconsistent with my beliefs.  All one must do is read Psalm
> 53:1 as my evidence, which states, "For the FOOL has said in his heart,
> "There is no God," they are corrupt, and have committed abominable
> injustice; There is no one who does good."  James, on repeated accounts you
> have declared that there is no God.  Therefore, in full accordance with my,
> Christian beliefs, you are a fool.

        There IS no god, there never was one.  Speaking of failing to retort,
why did you not respond to my scientific proof that life could have evolved on
the prebiotic earth in as little as one million years?  You did nothing to
prove your astronomically high odds claim.  You must have tried, and gave up
because you knew that you could not.  Visit the website and read the "Piso,
true or false, christ is still a LIE!" section to refresh your memory.

> Jonathan
> 
> "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for
> salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16)
> 
> P.S.  James, for being as good at 'solving puzzles' as you say you are,
> could you not even logically deduce that by clicking on ASAJ's website
> (which was included in the e-mail), you could easily find a way to reach the
> 'send e-mail' page?  You are right, however, you would abase, or more
> appropriately, humiliate yourself if you were contact ASAJ.

        I did not visit the website, and I did not know that ASAJ was the
webmaster of that site, no reference was made as to who he was, thus how would
I know to write to the webmaster?  Your claims are, as most of your clams have
been, illogical.  You gave insufficient information.  I was also handicapped by
my severe disinterest in the response from ASAJ.  I venture to say, you are
more interesting and more intelligent than he.  I am puzzled by one thing tho,
are you the same person as james w (who stopped writing recently)?

        Now I will use my deductive skills to ascertain that answer.  Note that
if I am so "stupid" how is it I am able to do (what is shown below) yet you are
unable, or rather, unknowledgeable as to how to do the same?  I will use a
random sampling of three IP addresses for each sender (that should be enough).

From: James W
Ip: [172.168.42.123]
Ip: [172.157.13.171]
Ip: [172.166.49.211]
OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255

From: Jonathan
IP: [24.171.37.230]
IP: [24.171.37.230]
IP: [24.171.37.230]
OrgName: Charter Communications
City: St. Louis
NetRange: 24.171.32.0 - 24.171.47.255

        Nope, you may write like him, and think like him, but you don't appear
to BE him, unless you are and recently switched from an AOL dialup to cable
modem, in that case you may very well BE him, but this evidence is inconclusive.

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> I have made the decision that making straight A's throughout college is more
> important than focusing as much time on debating with you as I have.

        I also have much work to do, I don't have time to devote to this
myself, and was just about to start blowing you off, which I hate to do.

> Therefore, until the end of this school semester at least, I will be in
> touch very seldom if at all.  However, I have a proposition.  If you would
> make a specific list of each and every reason for your disbelief in God
> (i.e. who created the creator), and then send me a separate list for your
> disbelief in Christianity specifically (i.e. Mithraism, Piso theory, etc.) I
> will research them and report to you everything that I find.

        I have already done that on the website, you may read through the
various sections, especially the motherload sections to find them.

> I am also
> seeking to attain a book that lists and describes every single
> 'contradiction in the Bible'.  If you happen to know of one, or know where I
> can find one, I would appreciate it.

        American Atheist press produced a book listing all known
contradictions.  I used to have a copy, it was about 2cm thick!

> If you come up with a list for each,
> and then remember one that you forgot or discover a new one, then just
> send it (them) to me as well.  Thanks.

        I'm sure American Atheists Press has a complete list.
http://www.atheists.org/

> One last thing, I was also wondering if you could put together a case of
> evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law concerning thought
> virus', just like you asked me to concerning the existence of God.  I
> imagine that both thought virus' and God's existence are both equally
> impossible to "prove".  Afterall, no one has ever proven God's existence,
> beyond any shadow of a doubt, but on the same token, no one has disproven
> His existence beyond any doubt either.

        Actually, I can prove it, but it will be about as much proof as we have
for any mental illness.  For example, my friend David (The Antichrist) and why
we started this website (so he could act out his fantasies) is schizophrenic. 
What proof do we have that he is not _actually_ talking to god, satan, jesus,
and john lennon?  http://www.antichrist.net/david.html  I have another friend who
does the same thing, but her voices are those of angels, satan, and jesus only.
She is a diagnosed and treated schizophrenic, the voices ENDED when she started
taking anti-psychotic drugs.  http://www.gloral.com

        Here's the proof you seek, which is, as are most mental dysfunctions,
court admissible evidence to prove that memes are real, quantifiable, and
documented in Science.  They do exist (and can be treated).

As recently as May of this year, the new Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association
cites thought reform as a contributing factor to "Dissociative Disorder Not
Otherwise Specified" (a diagnosis frequently given to former cult members).
Thought reform (notes 1,2,3 below) and its synonyms brainwashing and coercive
persuasion (4.5) were also noted in DSM-III (1980) and is DSM-III revised
(1987), as well as in widely recognized medical texts (6.7).
http://www.factnet.org/Thought_Reform_Exists.htm

How does mind control work? A technical overview of mind control tactics.
http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm

MIND CONTROL AND RELIGION
http://www.factnet.org/rancho3.htm

        This should get you started, the rest you can find on your own.

James

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> I was just searching the web under Piso Theory and this is what I found.  I
> would suggest reading it only when you have enough time to complete the
> entire article along with its links.  This is the website, in case the links
> do not work properly.  http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
> Well, I have to start writing my Economics history paper.  Ciao.

        You know, the section on the site which you are published under is
titled, "Piso, true or false, christ is still a LIE!" and regardless whether
piso, some other romans, or a a bunch of schizophrenics wrote the new
testament, it is STILL A LIE!  Let's just say there really was an illegitimate
baby born, who grew up to become this person by the name of jesus.  Let's say
it was unintentional that all the attributes of the sun god mithra were applied
to this "jesus".  The fact he existed, and proclaimed himself to be the son of
god has absolutely NO IMPACT upon your life, nor MY life.  The _need_ for
religion and gods is over, LONG over.  When man set foot on the moon on July
20, 1969 it did mark `the end' that many people had prophesied back then, the
END of the human need to believe in the supernatural!  Perhaps you are too
young to remember the ferver in 1969, it was about as bad as it was in 1999
when everyone thought "the antichrist" was going to come to earth on Y2K.

        Perhaps Jonathan, you'd be serving yourself better by asking the
question "why do you believe" rather than "if you believe" or "what you
believe".  Perhaps if you look into the mechanism as to _why_ you believe in
mythos, you may better understand yourself, and the reason why religions exist.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on
evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." -- Carl Sagan

James