text:
John Riley wrote:
[snip]
What totals? Manure and/or slurry are also reycled to tillage ground (as I said
above). Also (and I've said that a couple times now), as far as nitrogen is
concerned organic farming also utilizes green manure crops, including
nitrogen-fixing legumes.

Your temperate climate is obviously warmer and drier than our European temperate
climate. The winter climate here is far too wet and cold to leave stock
outdoors. The grass doesn't grow in the winter, so there's no point having the
animals outside. Also, it doesn't do the grass any favours as the turf gets
destroyed by poaching (treading).

You know full well that the name didn't stop me from looking at the site and
reading the article and even quoting it here for the benefit of all those
following our little debate. I just couldn't help noticing the name. You
yourself show your bias in discrediting scientific research just because the
researchers dared to add some unconventional approaches ("discredited by
association" in your words). If you do that you might as well discredit a number
of agriculture departments in major German universities, because a lot of them
now look at these unconventional methods of assessing food quality. That's what
science does. Testing hypotheses, in this case the hypotheses that these methods
can be used to assess food quality in a novel way.

How does a forest grow? Have you ever seen foresters applying manure after
harvesting the trees? Think about it.

Yes, and there are very sophistiated methods to calculate those inputs and
outputs. Soil and vegetation replenish many nutrients, including nitrogen.
Manure/slurry and trace elements, where needed, replenish what soil and
vegetation can't. (see above) In conventional farming this is achieved or added
to by using chemical fertilizers (artificial fertilizers, whatever you want to
call them).

I thought I had done some pretty clear arithmetics above myself. I think our
different mental pictures of farming systems have a lot to with our respective
locations. I know little about farming in Australia, you know little about
farming in Europe, particularly northern Europe. And I'm quite sure the
differences are considerable.

Not that I'm aware of. Now you are mixing Findhorn (Scotland) with the other
99.99% of the global organic movement.
Manure and slurry also contain considerable amounts of P and K. And I've
stressed before that basic slag, and also potassic slag are permitted under
(European) organic rules, where soils are found to be deficient. A major problem
we have with Irish water quality has been linked, i.a. to the overapplication of
soluble phosphorous in farming.

Come on, now you are loosing it.

That's your value judgement, not mine. See:
Challenges for Agriculture: Facts and Figures  "Agriculture, Environment, Rural
Development"
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/en/som_en/report.htm

You get livestock products AND wheat AND swedes AND oats EVERY year as the farm
is parceled.
You obviously do not know much about farming if I have to explain that. The
farmer who's crop rotation I choose as an example is well into the second half
of his second decade and he's doing well, thank you very much.

I'm going to rest my case, again. I hope someone got something out of this
debate of ours.

Regards,
Ute Bohnsack (in Ireland)


author: David Kendra

subject: Re: Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

text:
"ant" <[email]> wrote in message
news:YOmr6.17804$[email]...
from
to
there
required
from
the
little
cites
this

And I replied.  Now tell us what are the scientifically proven disadvantages
are reduced benefits by using GE technology?

dk
put
it,


author: gcouger

text:
"ant" <[email]> wrote in message
news:YOmr6.17804$[email]...
:
: "Torsten Brinch" <[email]> wrote in message
: news:[email]...
: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:43:33 +0000, George Baxter
: > <[email]> wrote:
: >
: > >Torsten Brinch wrote:
: > >>
: > >
: > >>
: > >> >What about the production of organic manure? That generally comes
from
: > >> >animals. Animals are essentially an inefficient way of producing
: manure
: > >> >as they need to graze in large amounts of land. If they are
penned, to
: > >> >make manure collection easy that is not organic. Then of course
there
: is
: > >> >the collection and distribution of manure.
: >
: > >> I don't understand what you are saying here.
: >
: > >To get enough manure for agriculture, you must collect it. How do you
: > >collect the manure?
: >
: > >The cows and pigs as I recall produce as and when they need to, not
in
: > >some special lavatory or receptacle. So it will be dropped all over
the
: > >fields. So it needs to be collected pretty rapidly otherwise wind and
: > >rain and insects will remove it.
: >
: > I am stunned. Have you never been on a farm?
: >
: > >The alternative is to keep them in pens and make it easy for collect.
: > >But doing that is not organic.
: >
: > >> >I know last year it made news the claim that organic farming could
: > >> >produce higher yields. But when investigated, it was discovered
that
: > >> >five times the normal amount of manure was needed to achieve this.
: >
: > >> Reference, please.
: >
: > >With pleasure. Go to www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk , and look in the
: > >Archives for Sept/Oct. and search for Monbiot
: >
: > >By the way, I misread the small typeface, it is three times the
required
: > >amount, not five times as I stated. Even three times is excessive.
: >
: > George, what struck me as weird was the figure 'five times the
: > normal'. OK, so you got carried way, but '3 times the normal'  is
: > still pretty striking. However, I can now see what has gone  wrong.
: > You  have simply  been misinformed by an article  from the Guardian,
: > the one you  refer me to.
: >
: > This article is talking about 35 tons of manure per hectare
: > and that can really not be characterized as   excessive  for
: > a field experiment which is now at a 7 tonnes wheat/hectare yield
: > level.  You must also remember, this manure  treatment is being
: > held up against artificial fertilizer  with at a rate of  144 kg
: > N/hectare. 35 tons manure would seem to me to be
: > just about right, in order to give a comparable amount of N.
: >
: > >> >If you take an area of land, you might in a normal year match the
: > >> >organic and conventional yields. But in the long term, when you
: consider
: > >> >the fallow years, and the other years where the crops grown to
: > >> >regenerate the soil and are not for consumptionm, then the yeilds
from
: > >> >organic would be significantly lower.
: >
: > >> I don't understand what you are saying here.
: >
: > >I think you do but you are being obtuse. Consider the yield of an
area
: > >of land  over a ten year period. Conventional farming will produce X
in
: > >a year. So in 10 years it produces 10X.
: >
: > OK, so that is your image of a conventional field. Continous wheat.
: > That is just like my neighbour does on most of his land, to produce
: > feed for his  pigs, you know.
: >
: > >If the farm is organic, we shall assume it produces X in the growing
: > >years, but there must be fallow years, say 3 per decade. Then
: > >intervening years, other crops of lesser human nutritional value are
: > >grown so the yield might be 0.5X. So in 10 years you get 4X + 3 x
0.5X
: > >giving a total yield of 5.5X. So about half of the conventional farm.
: >
: > I am beginning to understand at least some of your reasoning.
: > But what goes on in this organic field in what you call 'fallow
: > years'? And what goes on in the field in  the 2 remaining years of
: > your calculation?
: >
: >
: > Best regards
: >
: > Torsten Brinch
:
:
: i note that george has ducked for cover again, after making untenable
and
: irrational statements that at best are misleading he has decided to drop
the
: thread, perhaps seeing me replying here where he should have will goad
him
: into posting. been saveing some of these more pertinant posts for an
: upcoming "george makes missleading statements" thread i am planning of
: posting, as george got so antsy and started all those new threads with
my
: name in the subject line its time to return the "favour" with a nice
little
: compilation of missleading and some may find deceptive statements he has
: made in the past month or so. there have been a few very notable ones
that
: really stand out, and when taken together they paint a picture of
someone
: not willing to learn with a clear ideologically driven agenda. one could
: almost say that he is obsessive, espeically his use of the same tired
old
: sources to support his case, i have posted a thread asking for links,
cites
: and so on to the peer reviewed and published data supporting the many
: assertions made for the safety, and benefit of transgenic foods made in
this
: aond other newsgroups, web pages the press and so on.
:
: it should be the perfect thread for the proponents of the technology to
put
: their case and provide their data and supporting evidence. i have cross
: posted it rather widely so that none of the "important"<IMO> people miss
it,
: i would hate to have anyone miss the post.
:
: we shall see what it turns up this time.
:
What is the water content of the manure and what treatment and storage has
it had before spreading? These treatments can provide a great product or a
very low quality dust. You need more that ponds of manure to mean any
thing.


author: John Riley

text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 23:20:40 GMT, [email] (Torsten
Brinch) wrote:

That's one of the problems of this reactionary mob - they want a
different "form of agriculture". What about working with the present
system, improving techniques, changing practices when new, better ones
are proven ?

Yes, it can, but not usually. You can also make a Rolls Royce from
bits and pieces from all the world's scrap yards, but there are better
ways.

Regards      John Riley      West Oz


text:
"Torsten Brinch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:15:24 -0600, "gcouger"
: <[email]> wrote:
:
: >Date:  Mar 06 2001 20:18:59 EST
: >From:  Roger Morton <[email]>
: >Subject:  Alternative Ag Research, yields and profits
:
: >Critics of biotechnology call for more research into alternative forms
of
: >agriculture. Critics of biotechnology claim that organic forms of
: >production can yield as high as conventional agriculture. Is this
true?<snip>
:
: Dunno. What is the man asking?
:
It looks like the comparison of yields I have been looking for. I am
trying to see if the university has the . American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture and find where the paper by Eswaran, Beinroth, et al. 1999
comes from. They seem to be rather prolific and have a lot of extentions
publications as well as assoication publications in 1999.

I am particualy intersted in the paper by Eswaran, Beinroth, et al. and
how they caclulate the number of people in the quote below. In particular
what they class as low, medium and high input.

Then calculates how many people the lands can support based on low input,
medium input and high input farming.

The answer if we use lands only in Class I to Class VI under low input -
6.2 billion people, medium input 8.7 billion, high-input 19.8 billion

Gordon


text:
"Ian St. John" <[email]> wrote in message
news:98duaa$1hdb$[email]...
:
: "John Riley" <[email]> wrote in message
: news:[email]...
: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:46:11 -0500, Boulder Belt Organics
: > <[email]> wrote:
: >
: > >John Riley wrote:
: > >>
: > >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:39:02 -0500, Boulder Belt Organics
: > >> <[email]> wrote:
: > >>
: > >> >Of course one cannot test for taste as taste is very
subjective-what
: is
: > >> >ambrosia to one could be tasteless to another.
: > >>
: > >> So why do organic folks claim that organic food tastes better?
:
: I once worked a day on a farm.
:
: After some hard work, I noticed that the food ( payment ) was expecially
: tasty...
:
: I concluded that appetite is a factor in the 'taste test'.
:
: Later, I was invited over for a meal, without working. I noticed that
the
: meal was especially tasty..
:
: I concluded that the 'freshness' of the cream, and eggs was an even
bigger
: factor than appetite. Or maybe she was an especially good cook?
:
: I suspect that the comparison of organic ( grow your own, therefore
fresh )
: vs 'store bought' processed, packaged, picked unripe and artificially
: 'ripened', weeks on the road, etc. is real, but not entirely due to the
: 'organic' nature.
:
: OTOH, try 'vine ripened' tomatoes vs hothouse. Fast growth does not
allow
: time for mineral extraction and buildup of flavor. Slower growth does
make a
: difference, both in taste and economics.


text:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:58:34 +0000, Ute Bohnsack <[email]>
wrote:

Well the manure came from the grazing land and you are putting it on
the tillage land. Where do you get the extra manure for the grazing
land then?

I have no objection to looking at them, it's using them is suspect.

You used them before by quoting their results.

So, my question is, where did this manure come from? Why wasn't it
recycled where it was grazed?

Not sophisticated at all IMHO. Measure what you put in, measure what
you take out and measure what's left. Adjust to suit. Easy Peasy!

I reckon everyone has to replace their potassium, phosphorus and a few
other nutrients with chemical fertilisers (artificial fertilisers).
If you don't, you go backwards (or perhaps you can "steal" someone
else's organic matter)

But the principles that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and
you get what you pay for still hold.

But if these come from your own land, you are only recycling them, not
replacing your exports.

Well these are synthetic chemicals produced in an unsustainable
factory. Not that I mind, but let's be intellectually honest about it.

Or perhaps unsuitable formulations of phosphatic ferts, like in a few
particular areas in Australia. We fixed it by the fert company
changing its manufacturing procedure.

Sorry, didn't you say above that you get "wheat for sale, swedes for
fodder, and oats for fodder"?

Do you wish to rephrase your slur below?

And is the potassium and phosphorus bank account in his soil better
than when he started? Or is it going down? If it is rising, where is
it coming from?

Regards      John Riley      West Oz


text:
"Ute Bohnsack" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
:
:
: John Riley wrote:
: [snip]
: > >I'm not sure about most other parts of the world, but in much of
Europe
: > >livestock is on pasture in the summer and housed in the winter. This
is the
: > >period to collect manure, either as farmyard manure (mixed with
bedding) or in
: > >the form of slurry, which is recycled to grazing/hay/silage ground or
to tillage
: > >ground.
: >
: > So where is all this manure coming from to grow all your sellin'
: > crops?  The totals just don't add up IMO.
: What totals? Manure and/or slurry are also reycled to tillage ground (as
I said
: above). Also (and I've said that a couple times now), as far as nitrogen
is
: concerned organic farming also utilizes green manure crops, including
: nitrogen-fixing legumes.
: >
: > >Only permanent housing is banned. It is normal practice here (and I
presume in
: > >any temperate region) to house stock during the winter - see above.
: >
: > Ain't they pragmatic, now?  :)
: > Housing stock is not normal in temperate Oz, AFAIK.
:
: Your temperate climate is obviously warmer and drier than our European
temperate
: climate. The winter climate here is far too wet and cold to leave stock
: outdoors. The grass doesn't grow in the winter, so there's no point
having the
: animals outside. Also, it doesn't do the grass any favours as the turf
gets
: destroyed by poaching (treading).
: >
: > >> > >I know last year it made news the claim that organic farming
could
: > >> > >produce higher yields. But when investigated, it was discovered
that
: > >> > >five times the normal amount of manure was needed to achieve
this.
: > >> >
: > >> > Reference, please.
: > >> >
: > >> With pleasure. Go to www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk , and look in the
: > >> Archives for Sept/Oct. and search for Monbiot
: > >
: > >Oops. Doesn't the URL say it all?
: >
: > If you are prejudiced and can't tell the biased from the unbiased.
:
: You know full well that the name didn't stop me from looking at the site
and
: reading the article and even quoting it here for the benefit of all
those
: following our little debate. I just couldn't help noticing the name. You
: yourself show your bias in discrediting scientific research just because
the
: researchers dared to add some unconventional approaches ("discredited by
: association" in your words). If you do that you might as well discredit
a number
: of agriculture departments in major German universities, because a lot
of them
: now look at these unconventional methods of assessing food quality.
That's what
: science does. Testing hypotheses, in this case the hypotheses that these
methods
: can be used to assess food quality in a novel way.
: >
: > >> By the way, I misread the small typeface, it is three times the
required
: > >> amount, not five times as I stated. Even three times is excessive.
: > >
: > >The authors do not say "three times the required amount". Such a
statement is
: > >meaningless.
: > >They say
: > >"An annual application of 35 tonnes per hectare of animal manure
: > >is required to match the yields of wheat (about 7 tonnes per
: > >hectare) achieved by annual applications of 144kg per hectare of
: > > "artificial" inorganic nitrogen. This rate of manure application is
: > >about three times what would be considered sensible for
: > >practical agriculture and is unachievable on any scale. To
: > >produce this much animal manure requires 5.5 cattle for every
: > >hectare of wheat cultivated (hardly a practical prospect either
: > >here or in the developing world)."
: > >
: > >What do the authors mean when they speak of animal manure? Is this
farmyard
: > >manure or slurry?
: > >One dairy cow produces c. 85 kg N per year. So we are talking 1.7
dairy cows,
: > >not 5.5 to get 144 kgN, or 2.2 suckler cows. However, there are
losses during
: > >storage. To produce 35 tonnes of farmyard manure (containing 157 kg
N) takes on
: > >average 2 cows per year, not 5.5. All these figures are based on
Dept. of
: > >Agriculture (Ireland) figures. Two cows per hectare is a very normal
stocking
: > >rate on any reasonable land. Farmyard manure applications are
generally made at
: > >20 tonnes/hectare, but much depends on crop type, previous crop etc.
and
: > >applications can be as high as 60 tonnes per hectare for certain root
crops.
: > >Also the comparison cited above neglects the fact that organic
tillage farmers do
: > >not solely rely on animal manures for their nitrogen but also make
use of green
: > >manures, and particularly of legumes for nitrogen fixation.
: >
: > I still don't follow where all this disposable animal manure is
: > supposed to come from.
: > AFAIK, a beast eats X nutrients from the land, produces Y nutrients in
: > the saleable exported produce, and shits Z nutrients wherever.
:
: How does a forest grow? Have you ever seen foresters applying manure
after
: harvesting the trees? Think about it.
: >
: > If you return the manure to the land that it came from, you still have
: > to replace the nutrients from the lost produce. If you export the
: > manure too, you have to replace the whole X nutrients that the beast
: > consumed.
:
: Yes, and there are very sophistiated methods to calculate those inputs
and
: outputs. Soil and vegetation replenish many nutrients, including
nitrogen.
: Manure/slurry and trace elements, where needed, replenish what soil and
: vegetation can't. (see above) In conventional farming this is achieved
or added
: to by using chemical fertilizers (artificial fertilizers, whatever you
want to
: call them).
: >
: > I would have thgought that returning the manure to the land that bore
: > it was the most efficient thing to do, but what would I know, I'm not
: > a farmer - I just do arithmetic  :)
:
: I thought I had done some pretty clear arithmetics above myself. I think
our
: different mental pictures of farming systems have a lot to with our
respective
: locations. I know little about farming in Australia, you know little
about
: farming in Europe, particularly northern Europe. And I'm quite sure the
: differences are considerable.
: >
: > >> > >If you take an area of land, you might in a normal year match
the
: > >> > >organic and conventional yields. But in the long term, when you
consider
: > >> > >the fallow years, and the other years where the crops grown to
: > >> > >regenerate the soil and are not for consumptionm, then the
yeilds from
: > >> > >organic would be significantly lower.
: > >> >
: > >> > I don't understand what you are saying here.
: > >>
: > >> I think you do but you are being obtuse. Consider the yield of an
area
: > >> of land  over a ten year period. Conventional farming will produce
X in
: > >> a year. So in 10 years it produces 10X.
: > >>
: > >> If the farm is organic, we shall assume it produces X in the
growing
: > >> years, but there must be fallow years, say 3 per decade. Then
: > >> intervening years, other crops of lesser human nutritional value
are
: > >> grown so the yield might be 0.5X. So in 10 years you get 4X + 3 x
0.5X
: > >> giving a total yield of 5.5X. So about half of the conventional
farm.
: > >> In essense, in the long term, organic crops such as wheat cannot
match
: > >> the yields of conventional.
: > >>
: > >You are forgetting that organic farming normally produces its own
'inputs'
: >
: > From where does it produce the phosphorus and potassium that is
: > exported in the produce? Do you have benificent fairies like some
: > other organic folks?
:
: Not that I'm aware of. Now you are mixing Findhorn (Scotland) with the
other
: 99.99% of the global organic movement.
: Manure and slurry also contain considerable amounts of P and K. And I've
: stressed before that basic slag, and also potassic slag are permitted
under
: (European) organic rules, where soils are found to be deficient. A major
problem
: we have with Irish water quality has been linked, i.a. to the
overapplication of
: soluble phosphorous in farming.
: >
: > >i.e.
: > >organic fertilisers in the form of animal manure, green manure from
: > >nitrogen-fixing legumes etc. Chemical fertilizers have to be bought
in (and
: > >pesticides). They are being produced at substantial environmental
cost
: > >elsewhere. So the environmental costs of conventional farming are
being
: > >externalized.
: >
: > Yeah! Bring on the fairies and we can do it all "in-house"!  :)
:
: Come on, now you are loosing it.
: >
: > >Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge your statement is
: > >correct. As a rule of thumb organic yields tend to be about 20% lower
than
: > >conventional ones. However, here in Europe that is seen as a
blessing, not a
: > >problem since we are producing way too much food, and harming the
environment in
: > >the process.
: >
: > So "organic" is good for the politics, if for nothing else?
:
: That's your value judgement, not mine. See:
: Challenges for Agriculture: Facts and Figures  "Agriculture,
Environment, Rural
: Development"
: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/en/som_en/report.htm
:
: >
: > >Back to your calculation. I have yet to see an organic farm that
fallows land
: > >for the purposes of regeneration. That's medieval pratice, not
20th/21st century
: > >organics. A good example for crop rotation is:
: > >Yr 1 Grass
: > >Yr 2 Grass
: > >Yr 3 Grass
: > >Yr 4 Grass
: > >Yr 5 Grass
: > >Yr 6 spring wheat
: > >Yr 7 swedes
: > >Yr 8 spring oats
: > >... start over
: > >So the farm produces livestock on grass, wheat for sale, swedes for
fodder, and
: > >oats for fodder every year. Manure from winter housed animals is
spread on
: > >tillage fields, swede tops and stubble with undersown herbal ley is
also grazed
: > >by sheep, and tillage crops are undersown with legumes for extra
nitrogen.
: >
: > So in ten years you get grazing animal produce and one crop of wheat
: > for sale, with NO input of potassium or phosphorus. What happens the
: > second and third decades, unless of course you happen to be very lucky
: > and have had a predecessor on the land who built up huge banks of
: > these macronutrients (with some particularly benificent fairies :)
:
: You get livestock products AND wheat AND swedes AND oats EVERY year as
the farm
: is parceled.
: You obviously do not know much about farming if I have to explain that.
The
: farmer who's crop rotation I choose as an example is well into the
second half
: of his second decade and he's doing well, thank you very much.
:
: I'm going to rest my case, again. I hope someone got something out of
this
: debate of ours.
:
When I farmed I was in the habit of getting wheat and cattle from the same
plot every year at the rate of 300 to 500 pounds of beef and 35 bushels of
wheat per acre using NPK fertilizer and rotating with cotton and alfalfa.
With alfalfa being the biggest cash crop of bunch in making hay for
dairies. Cotton production is 300 to 500 pounds per acre and alfalfa
production is 5 to 15 tons per acre or 5 tons of hay and 2 to 5 bushels of
seed per acre. This is on 29 inches of rain per year.

The farm has been in this rotations for 50 years and is in better shape
than when it started.

What kind of yield per acre yield does the organic farm get.

Gordon


author: Torsten Brinch

text:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:37:30 -0600, "gcouger"
<[email]> wrote:

Roger Morton did not include a full reference to the article you
are interested in, but this must be it:

"Global land resources and population-supporting capacity"
Eswaran, H; Beinroth, F; Reich, P
 American Journal of Alternative Agriculture  vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
129-136, 1999
Abstract: " Anticipated advances in biotechnology and sustainable land
management, in combination with the availability of high-quality
lands, suggest a level of food production that will sustain twice the
current global population. However, lack of political will,
insufficient investments in modern agriculture, and a general apathy
to the tenets of sustainable land management threaten food security in
Third World countries, and in some, contribute to poverty and famine.


author: Ute Bohnsack

text:
gcouger wrote:
[snip]

I can't tell you off-hand, will have to go and ask him.

Ute


author: Yuma

subject: Re: Only scum hiding behind "God's Debris" would defame a loyal American like McCain!

text:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:06:45 -0700, God's Debris <[email]>
mumbled:

Drop fucking DEAD!


author: Curly Surmudgeon

text:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:58:55 +0000, Yuma wrote:

If it is your intention to be mean and vile then you failed.  Dropping
dead during a fuck is one of the more pleasant ways to die.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osama didn't win, Bush lost.  Strike that,  Osama didn't win, _we_ lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


text:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:02:25 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<[email]> mumbled:

Filleting you alive and dipping you in rock salt would suffice.


text:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:50:57 +0000, Yuma wrote:

Do your neighbors know aobut your issues?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osama didn't win, Bush lost.  Strike that,  Osama didn't win, _we_ lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


author: fasgnadh

subject: Re: Atheist Clothing - The Wolves therein

text:
[email] wrote:

  http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html

  Prove it!  Most atheists hold this illogical UNPROVABLE belief
  but frequently pretend otherwise.

  Atheists, when presented with the horrors of historical
  atheism (70,000,000 dead in the USSR, Maoist China, Pol Pots genocide,
  North Korea) consistently argue "Atheism is nothing but a belief
  their is no God".  This is their roll-up-and-become-a-small-target
  RUSE, as this post, and the vast majority of atheist pronouncements,
  reveal their anti-theism and dogmatic beliefs.

That's what I just did to the logically unprovable atheist
belief, that "There is no God", dogmatically ASSERTED without any
evidence whatsoever!    B^]

# http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html
#
# Prove it!  Most atheists hold this irrational, UNPROVABLE belief
# but frequently pretend otherwise.

As an agnostic, I see their dogma is even less rational than
theist belief, because it is INCAPABLE of proof!  B^D

They CANNOT prove the non-existence of God, yet they
assert it!     B^D

That is LESS rational than the theist belief that there is a God,
based on circumstantial and inconclusive evidence!

And if anyone doubts that atheists are more irrational than theists,
they only have to observe history, where the facts show that the
atheist regimes have all been totalitarian tyrannies, whereas
majority religious societies are the norm among progressive,
technologically advanced nations, because they have proven
efficacious at all times and in all places during the evolution
of humans and their civilisations.

Boring Adolescent Atheists Wanking Away

  Firmly in the militant atheist tradition of profound anti-theist
  hatred and bigotry.

  http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

  # From: Steve Knight <[email]>


subject:
Unmet Challenge to Cowardly Dishonest Atheists # 9  PROVE YOUR UNFOUNDED
 BELIEF!     was      Re: Atheist Clothing - The Wolves therein

text:
fasgnadh wrote:

Unmet Challenge to Cowardly, Dishonest Atheist Hypocrites # 9:

   "PROVE IT"

Challenge Date:  20/12/2008

Those atheists who have already snipped and RAN AWAY, failing utterly
to provide ANY PROOF whatsoever for their MERE BELIEF include, in order
of importance in the atheist pecking order (inverse IQ);

Virgil           [email]
SkyLies          [email]
panama fraud     [email]
aLron.Roberts    [email]
Blob Young       [email]
Bukakke          [email]

Elapsed Time RUNNING AWAY by all atheists in USENET: 9 days

Time remaining before declaration of the defeat of militant
Atheism on this matter of their IRRATIONAL, UNPROVEN BELIEFS:

  open to negotiation. How long do atheists think it will
  take their entire global population to meet in a phone booth
  and come up with an answer?      B^]


author: Virgil

subject: Re: Unmet Challenge to Cowardly Dishonest Fasgnadh  PROVE YOUR UNFOUNDED SUPERSTITION!

text:
In article <Ihc_m.65325$[email]>,
 fasgnadh <[email]> wrote:

On the contrary, being a-theist does not require any beliefs at all, but
merely lack of certain beliefs.

Whereas ALL theists without exception hold illogical UNPROVABLE beliefs
though they may frequently pretend otherwise.
 Unmet Challenge to Cowardly, Dishonest theist Hypocrites like Fasgnadh

   "PROVE IT"

Some of the non-theists whom Fasgnadh regularly slanders are

They have at least as long as theists to provide for proof.
And no anti-theist needs to do anything at all until some theist
somewhere can find some proof, an event most noticeable by its present
non-occurence.

A good deal less time that it will take theists to come up with anything
like proof that there is ANY sort of god, much less the particular sort
of god that any particular theist claims.
 Since Fasgnadh claims that all atheists are guilty of crimes that some
atheists have committed, then fairness requires that all theists are
equally guilty of all crimes that any theist has committed,

That gets rid of all gods very nicely.

Actually, MOST atheists are merely non-theist, merely LACKing belief in
any of your superstitions. Only a small minority of them are
ANTI-theist, having a contrary belief of their own.

And that rejection of susperstition is a part of what panics foolish
theists like, FASGNADH, THE WITCH HUNTING PARANOID.

That implies, falsely, that any one of the many mutually contradictory
theist superstitions is actually capable of proof.

But the only difference between atheists and theists is that the
atheists reject one more superstition thatn theists do.

Which of those theist superstitious creed  can YOU prove, fasgnadh, you
witch hunting paranoid,?

Theist worshippers of any particular god cannot prove the non-existence
of all other gods, yet they assert it. And they CANNOT prove the
existence of any God, yet they assert it!

SO that all theists have TWO unprovable assertions, where as even the
most extreme of atheists have at most one.

How can anything be LESS rational than the mutually contradictory claims
of dozens and dozens of theist religions that their particular god
exists but none of the competing gods exist?

THEIST SUPERSTITION is on the wane as more and more nations get good
governments capable of protecting them from the evils of such organized
superstition.


author: IAAH

subject:
Re: Unmet Challenge to Cowardly Dishonest Atheists # 9  PROVE YOUR
 UNFOUNDED BELIEF!     was      Re: Atheist Clothing - The Wolves therein

text:
On 12/28/09 8:44 PM, * fasgnadh wrote:

That's untrue (but it's NOT untrue that you lie
about such things). Most atheists hold no belief
in any god, period, or are happy to know that no
evidence showing that any god exists has ever been
produced and so there's no rational reason to
believe in any god.

Ah, yet another demand for an impossible proof AND
a vacuous demonstration of ignorance about atheism.

So, nothing new at all for fannynads, really.


subject:
Atheist admits they have no proof for their belief   was  Re: Unmet
 Challenge to Cowardly Dishonest Atheists # 9  PROVE YOUR UNFOUNDED BELIEF!
     was      Re: Atheist Clothing - The Wolves therein

text:
IAAH tries to slander me, then admits i'm right:

Bullshit, atheists linked to a site selling atheist
clothing, emblazoned with atheist beliefs,
including that item , and atheists drool over them
and preen and puff themselves and NOT ONE OF YOU
distances yourselves from the atheist messages being
presented.. until I challenge one of them and suddenly
you are denying it represents atheist beliefs and trying to
tell me YOUR lone voice determines atheist truth and the
rest of the atheist world, flocking to buy it, are Not True
ATHEISTS!

It's the No True Scotsman fallacy from atheists.. AGAIN!!!

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion/msg/f2dad4783c9d6a57?hl=en

How can a QUESTION be a LIE, you atheist LIAR!?!!   B^D

All I did was post ATHEIST beliefs from an ATHEIST SITE,
which ATHEISTS had given the ATHEIST NG a link to, and
then asked you all for PROOF of the ATHEIST views expressed!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH

If asking you atheist fuckwits a QUESTION is going to be
described as a lie then you clearly think you are back in
the good ol' atheist USSR, where you fuckers called people
who asked you questions LIARS and enemies of the atheist
state and the SHOT THEM!!!    8^o

Bad luck, the atheist world of totalitarian shitholes where
you could IMPOSE the forced indoctrination in atheism has
COLLAPSED and you are now in free, open, DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
RELIGIOUS societies where we have the RIGHT to question!!!

And you have the right to be UTTERLY UNABLE TO ANSWER!!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!

And so I challenged ANY atheist to prove that atheist belief,
a number have already tried and failed:

No one claimed they did, fuckwit. Do try and concentrate!

Learn to read before you make a fool of yourself in public again!

The atheist belief in question is;

  http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html

  PROVE THAT ASSERTION!!

  OTHERWISE IT IS AN UNPROVEN ATHEIST BELIEF!!

I don't understand your problem, atheists are ALWAYS
DEMANDING PROOF, especially for the spiritual BELIEFS
of other people..  are you saying you are complete
fucking HYPOCRITES!?????

Like atheist demands for material proof of a
spiritual entity, idea or BELIEF???

Anyway, you admit you have no proof for your atheist belief,
and that there can be no proof for such a belief!!!   B^]

Game, ..Set,  ...Match!   I win!

true, I'm always kicking atheist butt!
That's because you all stuff your heads up it:

And many more of the lying hypocrites will try that on.

As soon as you find some of them them espousing atheist beliefs
and CHALLENGE them for proof, THEY cut and run away and their
cronies sneak out and give us the "No True Atheist Scotsman
would say that" FALLACY!!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAH

It's hilarious once you have watched them do it a few times
and can PREDICT IT.. as I just did!    B^]

   "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
    ï¿½ they believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton:


subject: Re: Atheists find each god as unbelievable as any other god

text:
In article <dig_m.65395$[email]>,
 fasgnadh <[email]> wrote:

But even the most militant atheists only declare the non-existence of
one more god that any theist declares nonexistent, and MOST atheists
don't declare any gods impossible, only unbeleivable.

Since Fasgnadh's thesis is clearly irrelevant, accusing many atheists of
being evil for claiming less than theists all do, the rest of his
inanities need not be read.

"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there  is no God. I equally
cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god  may exist; so
may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But  no one
of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside
the  region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason
to  consider any of them."

     -Bertrand Russell


subject: Re: Fannynads runs.

text:
On 12/29/09 1:18 AM, * fasgnadh wrote:

Nope, sorry. I don't have to "distance" myself
from what others say. Your obsession with a shirt
is pathetic.

Now, if you can't actually show that the word
"atheist" means anything but "without religion",
or that your claim about what most atheists
believe is true, or support your untrue claims
about atheism, then you're done.

[supreme irrelevancies snipped, let's get
fannynads back on track, insofar as that's possible]

Look up the difference between no belief and
active disbelief, douchnozzle.
You lose again.

Your claim that atheism is an unequivocal position
that "There is no god" is a lie, and so your
entire set of "arguments" based on that lie is
discarded forthwith.

Why? It's not mine, and it's not the majority
atheist belief. It's a shirt. It's not a Masonic
statement of belief, it's not a mission statement.

Read my sig, you twat.

No, it's a shirt. You're damaging your calm,
fannynads.

How is that impossible to provide? Or are you not
aware that asking for proof of a negative makes
the asker (that's you) an idiot?

You're lying about what my belief is, and it's
true that nobody's produced any material evidence
that supports the proposition that any god exists.

Since the burden of proof in that case is on the
believer, proof is unsupplied.

No, you lose, because you had to lie about atheism
and my beliefs the whole way through. You didn't
manage to actually counter any one thing that I
posted previously.

And the rest was cut because it's the usual shit
from fannynads.


subject: Re: Fannynads disappears when called out on his lies.

text:
On 12/29/09 2:02 PM, * IAAH wrote:

Since you've had more than enough time to respond,
and have in fact posted in other threads, we'll
just leave you as done like dinner, then.


author: Mark Ferguson

subject: Re: Who likes Bush ?

text:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:47:44 -0800, [email] wrote:

Damn, you confused Feelshimself with facts.  He will label you gay now
and rant.

Why yes, yes he does know he lies and forges crap.  He also knows he
is stupid as well and that his ex-wide is now happily married-- to
somebody else of course.


author: Dr Feelgood

subject: Re: Who likes Bush ?

text:
"Mark Fergusliar" [email] wrote in message
news:[email]...

My only ex-Wife was burried over 40 years ago. I was unaware you had dug up her
body and married it you sick fuckinmg lying spammer


author: The Fool

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
Peter wrote:

More specifically, here's what I wrote:
What it says -- what any text says -- is subject to interpretation.
Clearly most Christians would consider this to be god created
everything but god.  You can play the little snot nosed smart ass kid
and say "but it says everything!" but people would just laugh you off
and tell you to go play in your room.  All texts are subject to
interpretation.

If you visited a woodsman and his wife who is great with crafts, proud
of their home, and he said, "you know, we made everything in this
room," you would wipe the snot from your nose, snort, and say in a
whiney voice, "You're lying, you didn't make yourselves or me, you
idiots," and then storm out.

Face it, this discussion is WAY over your head.


author: Gandalf Grey

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"The Fool" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I'm addressing this, at least in passing, in another post I'm preparing.
David Ray Griffin addresses this particular strategy of the anti-theists in
"God, Power, & Evil" when he notes that part of the problem of the 'problem
of evil' is caused by the fact that the anti-theists have a 'theoretical
need' for a vulnerable opponent.  One way to obtain a vulnerable opponent is
to encourage traditional medieval theology on the one hand, while knocking
it down as a logical absurdity of the other.

One anti-theist, Dewey Hoitenga, takes this to an absurd extreme by facing
down every objection from theologians that they 'don't agree with the
traditional view of omnipotence' with the dismissive comment "but you must
believe it!  Augustine said it!"

This is obviously a ridiculous and prima facie absurdity.  One could just as
well insist that science must be wrong because, after all, most of the
scientific giants of the time insisted on the truth of the phlogiston theory
of combustion or the 'universal ether.'

The insistence of the anti-theists that theologians 'must' believe in some
particular definition of omnipotence or some particular translation of a
text in the bible is a sophistic trick that's hardly worthy of a response.
In any valid debate, the opposition doesn't get to tell you what your
assertions are.  Yet, this is precisely what one often sees from the
anti-theist camp, whose entire argument is often "we'll TELL you what you
believe and why its wrong."


author: Lizz Holmans

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:52:10 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
<[email]> wrote:

The main trouble with the anti-theists is that their knowledge of
theology seems to have stopped at about the 8th grade.

Throwing a little non-orthodox Christianity at them and they *really*
lose their rag. Then the name-calling starts.

Lizz 'but you're not there' Holmans


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"Lizz Holmans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yeah.  I guess we could call that "The Barwell Effect"


author: wbarwell

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
Lizz Holmans wrote:

Non-orthodox theism doesn't work any better.


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That's an interesting point, Barwell.  If we assume that it's true [and I
believe that much of it doesn't work any better] why is it that you seem
incapable of dealing with non-orthodox theology?

Your MO on the groups is to treat non-orthodox western theology the same way
as Antony Flew.  You discard it as unimportant, throw-away, discardable, not
worth mentioning.  If it hadn't been for your bad grammar, I would have
thought you actually were Flew posting under a nym.

The point is, that if non-orthodox theology is so unimportant, then why
can't you come up with a point by point critique of the main trends in open
theism, process theology, feminist theology and so on?

To date, the only thing you've been up to is the same bogus agenda of Flew
and his friends, hysterically insisting that medieval scholasticism is the
only real christian faith because it's the only theology you can poke holes
in.

And that's interesting.


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
Gandalf Grey wrote:

I do that rather well.

You do not and don't have brains enough to see, you have been beat like a
gong.

If god gave us a god like free will and god like good nature that does no
evil, we could have a world with no evil.
This sinks the usual theologies.

It sinks your bastard process versions too just as bad.
Process stupidity religion states god does not compels by
force but impels by persuasion.
That god supposedly still is responsible for creation and us
and our nature.  Since it creates us with a nature, it could
create us with a nature that impels us to do only moral good.
This does not require omnipotence, omnibenevolence nor
omnscience.

Now process stupidity has to answer, who created what,
where and how? Where do we get our nature from?
Evolution?  Something else?  But whu does all seem
to be the same as a world without any god at all?

Is theer a god?  Where is the evidence yiu tow have for any such things?

I can and have show you we only have assertion, claims
and teh old claims can't stand up to simple logical
examination of these claims.  The entire classes of omni-everything gods
collapses like a house of cars and so do most other classes of gods.

Do you have a class of gods for me that does not?

Do you have any hard evidence for this class of
gods or specific gods?
If not all you tow have is assertions.
What aswertions?

What are the most basic, elementary, lowest level claims
all other described claims for this god or class of gods
can you list?

Is this god personal? Does he have intelligence, will?
What powers or abilities doe s he have?  How do you know?

Omni-everything gods claim revelation as their basis, the
OT, NT, Quran et al.

What do you two claim as the basic source of information about whatever
class of gods you claim exist?

You have not mentioned anything worth examining.

See my list of questions above.
What EVIDENCE do you have for anything, a not assertions,
evidence.

I have seen that process theology claims god is indeed good
and is a very powerful being.

Why then did he not create us with a god like free will and
a god like good nature inclined towards moral good so as
to eliminate moral evil?
One does not have to be omnipotent or omnibenevlent to do
that so the dodges that only an omni-everything god can do
that do not apply.

Epicurus's problem of evil like wise did not mention all
powerfuil or all good god and it styil worlks too.
How many times did I point that out to you?
I am not arguing Augustin's omnipotent god as you
claimed repeatedly, I am arguing Epicurus's minimal god
that is not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent.  Its still damaging.
merely good and merely powerful is all we need to show
that god at best does not involve itself in man's affairs, at
worst, can't exist.

You have not once addressed this isn a serious, thoughtful manner.
I rather think that Gandy cannot, he is incapable of much thought at all.

Lizz can take a crack at if she thinks she is up to it.

Hitler, genocide and 50  million dead suggests god is at best, almost
powerless or doesn't care a bit or both.
He sits there apparently in heaven with his thumb jammed up his ass.

He is so like nothing at all, that this is a problem to explain.

What sort of class of gods is that god in?
Its hard for me to disprove that class of gods, the gods that are exactly
like nothing. It sort of does all the work for me by being exactly
equivalent to nothing at all.

In my list of kinds of gods, I don't have that one but now realize I
must add it.  It seems to be the most important class of god for those who
realize omni-everything creator gods can't withstand scrutiny.

Gandy won't even admit I am right to that point.

Name me the class of gods these gods are in.
List me the basic, lowest level, axiomatic assertions made for this class of
gods. Show me evidence for this class of gods.

Open theism is process theology lite, feminist theology criticizes the old
theology for its built in assumptions that are essentially anti-feminist.
Same old omni-everything creationist god.

I have criticisized and debunked process theology.
God can give us a good nature incapable of moral evil.
god himself is still claimed to be all good in process theology,
dogmatically, as an initial metaphysical assertion.
God created this world and seemingly us, though process
theology is totally foggy on exact mechanism.
I don't see anything concrete here at all.  Its blather.
Evangelicals and conservative christians seem to critique it on these
points, it abandons bible and theological basic claims.
But says nothing about these things much.

You don't offer anything except bullshit, inability to reason,
a nasty dosposition and utter lack of logical ability.

Why is the process god different from absolutley nothing.
How did we get created?  Magic god action ala genesis or
evolution?


author: Peter

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"Gandalf Grey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4488f021$0$18497$[email]...
a
you

Your "non-orthodox theology" is simply the logical fallacy of ad hoc
hypothesis.

"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one's theory." --  http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

When are you going to start?

I see.  So the way you deal with non-orthodox theoloies is to hurl insults
at anyone who brings up their existence.

Very convincing, Barwell.

It doesn't.  But please go on with your delusion.

Really?  How?

Actually, that's not even the beginning of a shorthand version of process
philosophy, of which process theology is only a small part.

You've yet to deal with prehension, actualities, process reality, Quine's
semantics, interactive relatedness, self-development, panentheism,
innovation, functional typology, productive energy, fluidity, thematic
natural relationships, spatiotemporal location, causal antecedence and
consequence.

Wrong.  You see, you don't have clue one about process theology.

Telling question.  YOU were the one who was to have a universal answer to
that question, Barwell.  Do I have to print your claim of that yet again?
Since you were the one who made the positive claim, YOU are the one with the
burden of proof.  Not me.

So stop your oozing jello routine and either cough up your supposed proof or
get the hell out of Dodge.


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"Peter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Wow!  Another logical fallacy you don't understand.

There's seemingly no end to your ignorance.


author: John Jarndyce

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
"Gandalf Grey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4489a85e$0$18493$[email]...
in
of
your
what
*really*
I
seem

Creating an ad hoc hypothesis is definitely logical fallacy, moron. Study
up:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhoc.htm


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
In talk.atheism John Jarndyce <[email]> wrote:

Read the very first line from that page, moron, where it says "Strictly
speaking, an ad hoc fallacy shouldn't really be considered a fallacy because
it occurs when a faulty explanation is given for some event rather than as
faulty reasoning in an argument."

What part of "shouldn't really be considered a fallacy" do you not
understand?


subject: Re: God, logic, and God's attributes

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:e6h3ch$bhf7$[email]

Are you saying that trying to evade the issue by creating an ad hoc
hypothesis is not logical fallacy?  Think again. "An ad hoc hypothesis is
one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory." --
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html That is definitely logical fallacy, a form of
trying to evade the issue.

Example:

T: "Almighty God created everything visible and invisible."

A: "Then God created himself?"

T: "No, Almighty God created everything except himself."

See? That last hypothesis is the logical fallacy of trying to evade the
issue by creating an ad hoc hypothesis. "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created
to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory." --
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html That is definitely logical fallacy, a form of
trying to evade the issue.