| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Greywolf" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2006 06:22:36 PM |
| Object: |
A Fact to Remember |
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Greywolf
.
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
20 Dec 2006 09:32:07 PM |
|
|
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
20 Dec 2006 10:42:35 PM |
|
|
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell a
young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl) this
*whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes he
*did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God' *truly*
exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
single human being on planet earth can *detect* -- each and every one of us
on our own -- he doesn't exist. It's that simple.
And do you know what? If you and I could somehow be transported back in time
to ancient Greece and visit with our counterparts; *your* counterpart would
be arguing all up and down the Peloponnesus that Zeus and the other Greek
gods truly exist. Don't you think?
And did some ancient Greek scale Mount Olympus and yell out, 'Hey 'peeps'!!
There ain't no freakin' gods up here!'? No. The ancients found new gods to
play with and moved on -- leaving Zeus and company in the 'used god' bin as
they did so.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 12:33:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell a
young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl) this
*whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes he
*did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God' *truly*
exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
single human being on planet earth can *detect* -- each and every one of us
on our own -- he doesn't exist. It's that simple.
And do you know what? If you and I could somehow be transported back in time
to ancient Greece and visit with our counterparts; *your* counterpart would
be arguing all up and down the Peloponnesus that Zeus and the other Greek
gods truly exist. Don't you think?
"earlobe" has not yet demonstrated this ability.
Not once.
And did some ancient Greek scale Mount Olympus and yell out, 'Hey 'peeps'!!
There ain't no freakin' gods up here!'? No. The ancients found new gods to
play with and moved on -- leaving Zeus and company in the 'used god' bin as
they did so.
Greywolf
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 08:08:00 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell a
young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl) this
*whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes he
*did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God' *truly*
exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 02:28:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell a
young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl) this
*whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes he
*did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God' *truly*
exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 08:01:13 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.'
made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world*
would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed
to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell
a young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl)
this *whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes
he *did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God'
*truly* exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
Whoa! I just was trying to relate infantile to behavior. The behavior
of the majority of theists I know ... the ones in my community .... are
not what I would classify as infantile. I see the ones who post here
frequently as being close-minded or uncurious or overbearing - but not
infantile. I don't see how the word applies; hence my question on
"infantile".
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
22 Dec 2006 12:40:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.'
made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world*
would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed
to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can tell
a young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or girl)
this *whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime in, 'Yes
he *did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life. Neither
could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God' that
believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God'
*truly* exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
Whoa! I just was trying to relate infantile to behavior. The behavior
of the majority of theists I know ... the ones in my community .... are
not what I would classify as infantile. I see the ones who post here
frequently as being close-minded or uncurious or overbearing - but not
infantile. I don't see how the word applies; hence my question on
"infantile".
I use the term "infantile", (much as I do most adjectives), in it's
literal sense.
The beliefs of most theists are of the character of those held solely
by infants.
E.g.: Magical deliveries of desired objects, walking on water, virgin
births, dispensation from bad deeds through the purchase of "favours",
the disproved efficacy of prayer, and so on.
I'm sure you can think of many more. The RCC devotees seem especially
prone to this kind of primitive thought process.
By any rational measure whatsoever, this thinking is MORE infantile
than the belief that Santa is real.
At least there is some physical evidence for a belief in Santa, or the
Easter Bunny.
No, I will not go back on my obversation that most theist behaviour
and thinking is infantile. That would fly in the face of documented
facts.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
22 Dec 2006 05:54:48 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.'
made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world*
would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed
to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for
'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can
tell a young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or
girl) this *whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime
in, 'Yes he *did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life.
Neither could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God'
that believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God'
*truly* exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
Whoa! I just was trying to relate infantile to behavior. The behavior
of the majority of theists I know ... the ones in my community .... are
not what I would classify as infantile. I see the ones who post here
frequently as being close-minded or uncurious or overbearing - but not
infantile. I don't see how the word applies; hence my question on
"infantile".
I use the term "infantile", (much as I do most adjectives), in it's
literal sense.
The beliefs of most theists are of the character of those held solely
by infants.
E.g.: Magical deliveries of desired objects, walking on water, virgin
births, dispensation from bad deeds through the purchase of "favours",
the disproved efficacy of prayer, and so on.
I'm sure you can think of many more. The RCC devotees seem especially
prone to this kind of primitive thought process.
By any rational measure whatsoever, this thinking is MORE infantile
than the belief that Santa is real.
At least there is some physical evidence for a belief in Santa, or the
Easter Bunny.
No, I will not go back on my obversation that most theist behaviour
and thinking is infantile. That would fly in the face of documented
facts.
Ah, good explanation. I think I would have gone with the word
"childish". Personally, I see infantile as meaning more "like an
infant" .. concerned only with basic physical needs - food, warmth,
clean diaper, etc. - not much in cognitive thinking. Like the little
one I was holding last night ... who laughed when I swished my hair to
cover my face and then threw it back.
Childish - old enough to think but not as yet able to distinguish
between real and unreal. That, imho, fits the theists you described.
Just a small matter of personal connotations of words....
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
22 Dec 2006 06:46:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:54:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.b1267d6c0ea2befa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.'
made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world*
would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed
to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for
'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I can
tell a young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little boy (or
girl) this *whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult might even chime
in, 'Yes he *did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life.
Neither could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a 'God'
that believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the *slightest*
reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the only place 'God'
*truly* exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God' every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
Whoa! I just was trying to relate infantile to behavior. The behavior
of the majority of theists I know ... the ones in my community .... are
not what I would classify as infantile. I see the ones who post here
frequently as being close-minded or uncurious or overbearing - but not
infantile. I don't see how the word applies; hence my question on
"infantile".
I use the term "infantile", (much as I do most adjectives), in it's
literal sense.
The beliefs of most theists are of the character of those held solely
by infants.
E.g.: Magical deliveries of desired objects, walking on water, virgin
births, dispensation from bad deeds through the purchase of "favours",
the disproved efficacy of prayer, and so on.
I'm sure you can think of many more. The RCC devotees seem especially
prone to this kind of primitive thought process.
By any rational measure whatsoever, this thinking is MORE infantile
than the belief that Santa is real.
At least there is some physical evidence for a belief in Santa, or the
Easter Bunny.
No, I will not go back on my obversation that most theist behaviour
and thinking is infantile. That would fly in the face of documented
facts.
Ah, good explanation. I think I would have gone with the word
"childish". Personally, I see infantile as meaning more "like an
infant" .. concerned only with basic physical needs - food, warmth,
clean diaper, etc. - not much in cognitive thinking. Like the little
one I was holding last night ... who laughed when I swished my hair to
cover my face and then threw it back.
A good point, which deserves careful consideration.
If only I were able to devote the resources to have my hurriedly
dashed off blatherings vetted by a team of Oxford educated
sub-editors! ;)
Childish - old enough to think but not as yet able to distinguish
between real and unreal. That, imho, fits the theists you described.
Just a small matter of personal connotations of words....
It could well be that we are both right, and the behaviour to which I
refer is some combination of both infantile egoistic "wants" and
half-baked childish plans based mainly on "wishing it were true", and
the implicit trust in adult authority...
Is there a word for it? "Juvenile" perhaps?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
24 Dec 2006 07:44:48 AM |
|
|
After serious thinking Michael Gray wrote :
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:54:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.b1267d6c0ea2befa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:08:00 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.a9ac7d6c279b0177.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:42:35 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12ok4662l0tdt4f@corp.supernews.com>
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious
ways.' made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the
*world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and
an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she
claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also
add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for
'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is
doing and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings
understand that, proof enough that X is something?
Are you asking about something 'real' or something 'imaginary'? I
can tell a young child, 'Santa told me you've been a *good* little
boy (or girl) this *whole* last year!'' Another nearby adult
might even chime in, 'Yes he *did*!' Does that make 'Santa' real?
No one on earth could 'produce' a 'real' Santa to save their life.
Neither could a single person on the entire planet 'produce' a
'God' that believer --and unbeliever alike -- would, without the
*slightest* reservation, recognize as 'God'. That's because the
only place 'God' *truly* exists is in the land of imagination.
And if the theist, after so many centuries, cannot produce a 'God'
every
Not just centuries, but for the entire recorded history of the
planet!
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
"infantile'? :-?
You've gotta stop being so "touchy"!
I specifically restricted my comments to that class of theist who is
infantile.
I do not include you in that class.
If I had meant "all" theists, I would have said as much!
Whoa! I just was trying to relate infantile to behavior. The behavior
of the majority of theists I know ... the ones in my community .... are
not what I would classify as infantile. I see the ones who post here
frequently as being close-minded or uncurious or overbearing - but not
infantile. I don't see how the word applies; hence my question on
"infantile".
I use the term "infantile", (much as I do most adjectives), in it's
literal sense.
The beliefs of most theists are of the character of those held solely
by infants.
E.g.: Magical deliveries of desired objects, walking on water, virgin
births, dispensation from bad deeds through the purchase of "favours",
the disproved efficacy of prayer, and so on.
I'm sure you can think of many more. The RCC devotees seem especially
prone to this kind of primitive thought process.
By any rational measure whatsoever, this thinking is MORE infantile
than the belief that Santa is real.
At least there is some physical evidence for a belief in Santa, or the
Easter Bunny.
No, I will not go back on my obversation that most theist behaviour
and thinking is infantile. That would fly in the face of documented
facts.
Ah, good explanation. I think I would have gone with the word "childish".
Personally, I see infantile as meaning more "like an infant" .. concerned
only with basic physical needs - food, warmth, clean diaper, etc. - not
much in cognitive thinking. Like the little one I was holding last night
... who laughed when I swished my hair to cover my face and then threw it
back.
A good point, which deserves careful consideration.
If only I were able to devote the resources to have my hurriedly
dashed off blatherings vetted by a team of Oxford educated
sub-editors! ;)
*grin* As my inclination, training, and profession dealt with words
and their usages and connotations, I am a bit more sensitive to them
than average I suppose. An online thesaurus is at the top of my
"favorites".
Childish - old enough to think but not as yet able to distinguish between
real and unreal. That, imho, fits the theists you described.
Just a small matter of personal connotations of words....
It could well be that we are both right, and the behaviour to which I
refer is some combination of both infantile egoistic "wants" and
half-baked childish plans based mainly on "wishing it were true", and
the implicit trust in adult authority...
Is there a word for it? "Juvenile" perhaps?
I was thinking naive - meaning #1 B and #2
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous:
2. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical
judgment:
3.
a. Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.
b. Not having previously taken or received a particular drug
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
Also "jejune"
jejune - displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent
insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems";
jejune - lacking interest or significance
Juvenile would work also....
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
you naive theists
you jejune theists
you juvenile theists
I like jejune .... again, personal preference.
Or go for a double:
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
naive and jejune
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
25 Dec 2006 01:50:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.c1947d6c55b0bdd1.64065@worldnet.att.net>
After serious thinking Michael Gray wrote :
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:54:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.b1267d6c0ea2befa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
:
:
Ah, good explanation. I think I would have gone with the word "childish".
Personally, I see infantile as meaning more "like an infant" .. concerned
only with basic physical needs - food, warmth, clean diaper, etc. - not
much in cognitive thinking. Like the little one I was holding last night
... who laughed when I swished my hair to cover my face and then threw it
back.
A good point, which deserves careful consideration.
If only I were able to devote the resources to have my hurriedly
dashed off blatherings vetted by a team of Oxford educated
sub-editors! ;)
*grin* As my inclination, training, and profession dealt with words
and their usages and connotations, I am a bit more sensitive to them
than average I suppose. An online thesaurus is at the top of my
"favorites".
The ghost of my old Grammar School English Master would not allow such
an electronic travesty!
My (1950) copy of Roget's is falling apart, but it is my friend, on
the rare occasion that I need it.
Childish - old enough to think but not as yet able to distinguish between
real and unreal. That, imho, fits the theists you described.
Just a small matter of personal connotations of words....
It could well be that we are both right, and the behaviour to which I
refer is some combination of both infantile egoistic "wants" and
half-baked childish plans based mainly on "wishing it were true", and
the implicit trust in adult authority...
Is there a word for it? "Juvenile" perhaps?
I was thinking naive - meaning #1 B and #2
And implies "under-educated".
Good; I like it.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous:
2. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical
judgment:
3.
a. Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.
b. Not having previously taken or received a particular drug
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
Also "jejune"
No. Just no.
Too much Evelyn Waugh has rendered that word too tightly shackled to
"comfortable boredom" for me to ever realise it's other nuances.
It reminds me of the mood of an Eastern potentate waving away excess
peeled grapes...
jejune - displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent
insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems";
jejune - lacking interest or significance
Juvenile would work also....
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
you naive theists
you jejune theists
you juvenile theists
I like jejune .... again, personal preference.
Or go for a double:
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
naive and jejune
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
25 Dec 2006 11:53:56 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.c1947d6c55b0bdd1.64065@worldnet.att.net>
After serious thinking Michael Gray wrote :
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:54:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.b1267d6c0ea2befa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:01:13 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ac757d6cf0d434fa.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Ah, good explanation. I think I would have gone with the word
"childish". Personally, I see infantile as meaning more "like an
infant" .. concerned only with basic physical needs - food, warmth,
clean diaper, etc. - not much in cognitive thinking. Like the little
one I was holding last night ... who laughed when I swished my hair to
cover my face and then threw it back.
A good point, which deserves careful consideration.
If only I were able to devote the resources to have my hurriedly
dashed off blatherings vetted by a team of Oxford educated
sub-editors! ;)
*grin* As my inclination, training, and profession dealt with words and
their usages and connotations, I am a bit more sensitive to them than
average I suppose. An online thesaurus is at the top of my "favorites".
The ghost of my old Grammar School English Master would not allow such
an electronic travesty!
My (1950) copy of Roget's is falling apart, but it is my friend, on
the rare occasion that I need it.
My copy is at work - with no internet access, of course. t is my third
copy - students "borrowed" the previous two.
Childish - old enough to think but not as yet able to distinguish
between real and unreal. That, imho, fits the theists you described.
Just a small matter of personal connotations of words....
It could well be that we are both right, and the behaviour to which I
refer is some combination of both infantile egoistic "wants" and
half-baked childish plans based mainly on "wishing it were true", and
the implicit trust in adult authority...
Is there a word for it? "Juvenile" perhaps?
I was thinking naive - meaning #1 B and #2
And implies "under-educated".
Good; I like it.
Good.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous:
2. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical
judgment:
3.
a. Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.
b. Not having previously taken or received a particular drug
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
Also "jejune"
No. Just no.
Too much Evelyn Waugh has rendered that word too tightly shackled to
"comfortable boredom" for me to ever realise it's other nuances.
It reminds me of the mood of an Eastern potentate waving away excess
peeled grapes...
Lol - what an image!
jejune - displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent
insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems";
jejune - lacking interest or significance
Juvenile would work also....
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
you naive theists
you jejune theists
you juvenile theists
I like jejune .... again, personal preference.
Or go for a double:
(A *bit* of a clue there, you infantile theists...)
naive and jejune
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
25 Dec 2006 04:24:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
:
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
26 Dec 2006 07:40:17 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
lol His would create a tunnel... not a rut.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
26 Dec 2006 04:13:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:40:17 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d1907d6c26a44268.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
lol His would create a tunnel... not a rut.
Quite.
It makes my eyes water just to think of it.
Mmm... I could do with some ice-water.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
27 Dec 2006 07:32:48 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:40:17 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d1907d6c26a44268.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
lol His would create a tunnel... not a rut.
Quite.
It makes my eyes water just to think of it.
Mmm... I could do with some ice-water.
Got it fresh off the icicles! More snow in the forecast! The more the
better for the water table.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
27 Dec 2006 05:47:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:32:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d9887d6ca09ebbdd.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:40:17 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d1907d6c26a44268.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
lol His would create a tunnel... not a rut.
Quite.
It makes my eyes water just to think of it.
Mmm... I could do with some ice-water.
Got it fresh off the icicles! More snow in the forecast! The more the
better for the water table.
It was a most unusal Xmas day here.
Overcast, windy, cold and spots of rain!
It is usually 110+ and a drier than a Nun's nasty.
(Or should that be as dry as a dead dingo's donger?)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
28 Dec 2006 06:41:37 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray explained :
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:32:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d9887d6ca09ebbdd.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:40:17 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.d1907d6c26a44268.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray submitted this idea :
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:53:56 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <mn.ca8d7d6cb5bbdc85.64065@worldnet.att.net>
Michael Gray wrote after much deliberation:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:44:48 -0700, Pangur Ban
"naive" it is!
(In rotation)
Rotation prevents a rut.
Thus Stoney's sig!
lol His would create a tunnel... not a rut.
Quite.
It makes my eyes water just to think of it.
Mmm... I could do with some ice-water.
Got it fresh off the icicles! More snow in the forecast! The more the
better for the water table.
It was a most unusal Xmas day here.
Overcast, windy, cold and spots of rain!
It is usually 110+ and a drier than a Nun's nasty.
(Or should that be as dry as a dead dingo's donger?)
Never having had any experience with either, you are asking the wrong
person! >:|
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 09:44:16 AM |
|
|
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
It's proof that X is somebody's madeup *****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 10:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:44:16 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
It's proof that X is somebody's madeup *****.
That's right. 'Q' is the real deal!.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 02:29:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:12:10 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <sgclo2t8d7m88u5bf53bf66s2anl9viffq@4ax.com>
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:44:16 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
It's proof that X is somebody's madeup *****.
That's right. 'Q' is the real deal!.
Splitter!
Follow the holy "Y"!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
22 Dec 2006 06:18:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:12:10 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <sgclo2t8d7m88u5bf53bf66s2anl9viffq@4ax.com>
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:44:16 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
It's proof that X is somebody's madeup *****.
That's right. 'Q' is the real deal!.
Splitter!
Follow the holy "Y"!
I'm a bit busy for following, these days. Would a respectful tip of the
hat suffice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
22 Dec 2006 06:40:10 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2006 04:18:09 -0800, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1166789889.450147.3340@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:12:10 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <sgclo2t8d7m88u5bf53bf66s2anl9viffq@4ax.com>
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:44:16 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>
wrote:
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166671927.576517.45900@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he
or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to
be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God'
are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their
decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
It's proof that X is somebody's madeup *****.
That's right. 'Q' is the real deal!.
Splitter!
Follow the holy "Y"!
I'm a bit busy for following, these days. Would a respectful tip of the
hat suffice?
Don't tell me that tou "gave at the office"!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
20 Dec 2006 10:22:43 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet ernobe (ernobe@yahoo.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.'
made that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world*
would he or she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute,
invisible, and an embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why
could not that individual follow up that claim with some proof what
he or she claimed to be true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add
that every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak
for 'God' are lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make
that their decidedly *pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is
doing and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings
understand that, proof enough that X is something?
No. It just means that one group of people however large or small,
mutually accept a certain trait of X. I would wonder where that
information came from, since X cannot be reached to ask personally.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 08:05:04 AM |
|
|
ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
What it means is that X is unpredictable. You never know what X is
gonna do next. That's pretty much the definition of randomness, and
to worship randomness is ridiculous, since randomness doesn't imply
any kind of intelligence at all.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 10:09:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:05:04 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
What it means is that X is unpredictable. You never know what X is
gonna do next. That's pretty much the definition of randomness, and
to worship randomness is ridiculous, since randomness doesn't imply
any kind of intelligence at all.
But on the other hand X always seems to bring the Sun up and down on a very
strict schedule. Truly mysterious. :-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
21 Dec 2006 09:03:45 AM |
|
|
Piggyback..........
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:05:04 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Dec 20, 6:22 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
The first theist to utter the words, 'God works in mysterious ways.' made
that puppy up from whole cloth. Otherwise where in the *world* would he or
she get such 'intimate' information from? A mute, invisible, and an
embarrassingly undetectable 'God'? Really? Then why could not that
individual follow up that claim with some proof what he or she claimed to be
true, was in fact, 'true'?
And while I still have the 'floor', so to speak. I'd like to also add that
every person that posts in alt.atheism and *pretends* to speak for 'God' are
lying out their god-damn deceiving butt-holes. And make that their decidedly
*pompous* butt-holes to boot.
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
No. All it is, is somebody presuming that X is something.
What it means is that X is unpredictable. You never know what X is
gonna do next. That's pretty much the definition of randomness, and
to worship randomness is ridiculous, since randomness doesn't imply
any kind of intelligence at all.
Assuming X for the sake of argument, that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ernobe" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fact to Remember |
23 Dec 2006 07:41:13 PM |
|
|
On Dec 21, 9:03 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
Look at it this way, Greywolf: if someone says that X works in
mysterious ways, that X does this or that, wouldn't all that X is doing
and the fact that living, breathing, fellow human beings understand
that, proof enough that X is something?
No. All it is, is somebody presuming that X is something.
What it means is that X is unpredictable. You never know what X is
gonna do next. That's pretty much the definition of randomness, and
to worship randomness is ridiculous, since randomness doesn't imply
any kind of intelligence at all.
Assuming X for the sake of argument, that is.
The argument is over as soon as one realizes that X can be anybody,
anyone one of us, that is, and that someone who by his very presence
puts all arguments to rest has more than an imaginary existence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
