| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Desertphile" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2005 03:01:15 PM |
| Object: |
An Atheist Manifesto |
Some might find this interesting.
------------------
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
An Atheist Manifesto
A Dig led by Sam Harris
Editor's Note: At a time when fundamentalist religion has an
unparalleled influence in the highest government levels in the United
States, and religion-based terror dominates the world stage, Sam Harris
argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a
menace as religion itself. Harris, a philosophy graduate of Stanford
who has studied eastern and western religions, won the 2004 PEN Award
for nonfiction for The End of Faith, which powerfully examines and
explodes the absurdities of organized religion. Truthdig asked Harris
to write a charter document for his thesis that belief in God, and
appeasement of religious extremists of all faiths by moderates, has
been and continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a
sustained assault on reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will
rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not
occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or
days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical
laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same
statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very
moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them
and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they
believe this?
No.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a
philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal
to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the
obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be
observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It
carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is,
moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a
non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words
for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise,
atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more
than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of
religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the
260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt
the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his
existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless
destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.
Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of
us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount
Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public
office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such
a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country
conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a
medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and
terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.
We live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally
destroyed by change. Parents lose their children and children their
parents. Husbands and wives are separated in an instant, never to meet
again. Friends part company in haste, without knowing that it will be
for the last time. This life, when surveyed with a broad glance,
presents little more than a vast spectacle of loss. Most people in this
world, however, imagine that there is a cure for this. If we live
rightly-not necessarily ethically, but within the framework of
certain ancient beliefs and stereotyped behaviors-we will get
everything we want after we die. When our bodies finally fail us, we
just shed our corporeal ballast and travel to a land where we are
reunited with everyone we loved while alive. Of course, overly rational
people and other rabble will be kept out of this happy place, and those
who suspended their disbelief while alive will be free to enjoy
themselves for all eternity.
We live in a world of unimaginable surprises--from the fusion energy
that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of
this lights dancing for eons upon the Earth--and yet Paradise conforms
to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean
cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn't know better, one
would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had
created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.
Consider the destruction that Hurricane Katrina leveled on New Orleans.
More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their
earthly possessions, and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to
say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment
Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate
God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city?
Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the
rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned
there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who
had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to
admit the obvious: These poor people died talking to an imaginary
friend.
Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm of biblical
proportions would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the
ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the
light of science. Advance warning of Katrina's path was wrested from
mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God
told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content
to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn't have known that
a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first
gusts of wind on their faces. Nevertheless, a poll conducted by The
Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina's survivors claim that the
event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As Hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand
Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can
be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the
Koran: Their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his
existence; their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly
murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would
be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More
likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God's
grace.
Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of
the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is
for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving
God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he
refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying
fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how
precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of
human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness
for no good reason at all.
One wonders just how vast and gratuitous a catastrophe would have to be
to shake the world's faith. The Holocaust did not do it. Neither did
the genocide in Rwanda, even with machete-wielding priests among the
perpetrators. Five hundred million people died of smallpox in the 20th
Century, many of them infants. God's ways are, indeed, inscrutable.
It seems that any fact, no matter how infelicitous, can be rendered
compatible with religious faith. In matters of faith, we have kicked
ourselves loose of the Earth.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not
responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the
claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other
way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is
the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it
solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most
egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either
impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following
pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality.
But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the
faithful use to establish God's goodness in the first place. And any
God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay
marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as
inscrutable as all that. If he exists, the God of Abraham is not merely
unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most
reasonable and least odious: The biblical God is a fiction. As Richard
Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and
Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no
different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to
take the profundity of the world's suffering at face value. It is
terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly
terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That
so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion--to
religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious
diversions of scarce resources--is what makes atheism a moral and
intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the
atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in
touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy
life of his neighbors.
The Nature of Belief
According to several recent polls, 22% of Americans are certain that
Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years. Another 22%
believe that he will probably do so. This is likely the same 44% who go
to church once a week or more, who believe that God literally promised
the land of Israel to the Jews and who want to stop teaching our
children about the biological fact of evolution. As President Bush is
well aware, believers of this sort constitute the most cohesive and
motivated segment of the American electorate. Consequently, their views
and prejudices now influence almost every decision of national
importance. Political liberals seem to have drawn the wrong lesson from
these developments and are now thumbing Scripture, wondering how best
to ingratiate themselves to the legions of men and women in our country
who vote largely on the basis of religious dogma. More than 50% of
Americans have a "negative" or "highly negative" view of people
who do not believe in God; 70% think it important for presidential
candidates to be "strongly religious." Unreason is now ascendant in
the United States--in our schools, in our courts and in each branch of
the federal government. Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution; 68%
believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the
head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the
entire world.
Although it is easy enough for smart people to criticize religious
fundamentalism, something called "religious moderation" still
enjoys immense prestige in our society, even in the ivory tower. This
is ironic, as fundamentalists tend to make a more principled use of
their brains than "moderates" do. While fundamentalists justify
their religious beliefs with extraordinarily poor evidence and
arguments, they at least they make an attempt at rational
justification. Moderates, on the other hand, generally do nothing more
than cite the good consequences of religious belief. Rather than say
that they believe in God because certain biblical prophecies have come
true, moderates will say that they believe in God because this belief
"gives their lives meaning." When a tsunami killed a few hundred
thousand people on the day after Christmas, fundamentalists readily
interpreted this cataclysm as evidence of God's wrath. As it turns
out, God was sending humanity another oblique message about the evils
of abortion, idolatry and homosexuality. While morally obscene, this
interpretation of events is actually reasonable, given certain
(ludicrous) assumptions. Moderates, on the other hand, refuse to draw
any conclusions whatsoever about God from his works. God remains a
perfect mystery, a mere source of consolation that is compatible with
the most desolating evil. In the face of disasters like the Asian
tsunami, liberal piety is apt to produce the most unctuous and
stupefying nonsense imaginable. And yet, men and women of goodwill
naturally prefer such vacuities to the odious moralizing and
prophesizing of true believers. Between catastrophes, it is surely a
virtue of liberal theology that it emphasizes mercy over wrath. It is
worth noting, however, that it is human mercy on display--not
God's--when the bloated bodies of the dead are pulled from the sea.
On days when thousands of children are simultaneously torn from their
mothers' arms and casually drowned, liberal theology must stand
revealed for what it is--the sheerest of mortal pretenses. Even the
theology of wrath has more intellectual merit. If God exists, his will
is not inscrutable. The only thing inscrutable in these terrible events
is that so many neurologically healthy men and women can believe the
unbelievable and think this the height of moral wisdom.
It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a
rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief
makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning.
The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for
some other consoling proposition: Imagine, for instance, that a man
wants to believe that there is a diamond buried somewhere in his yard
that is the size of a refrigerator. No doubt it would feel uncommonly
good to believe this. Just imagine what would happen if he then
followed the example of religious moderates and maintained this belief
along pragmatic lines: When asked why he thinks that there is a diamond
in his yard that is thousands of times larger than any yet discovered,
he says things like, "This belief gives my life meaning," or "My
family and I enjoy digging for it on Sundays," or "I wouldn't
want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond buried in my
backyard that is the size of a refrigerator." Clearly these responses
are inadequate. But they are worse than that. They are the responses of
a madman or an idiot.
Here we can see why Pascal's wager, Kierkegaard's leap of faith and
other epistemological Ponzi schemes won't do. To believe that God
exists is to believe that one stands in some relation to his existence
such that his existence is itself the reason for one's belief. There
must be some causal connection, or an appearance thereof, between the
fact in question and a person's acceptance of it. In this way, we can
see that religious beliefs, to be beliefs about the way the world is,
must be as evidentiary in spirit as any other. For all their sins
against reason, religious fundamentalists understand this;
moderates--almost by definition--do not.
The incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature
of human cognition and public discourse for centuries. Either a person
has good reasons for what he strongly believes or he does not. People
of all creeds naturally recognize the primacy of reasons and resort to
reasoning and evidence wherever they possibly can. When rational
inquiry supports the creed it is always championed; when it poses a
threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Only when the
evidence for a religious doctrine is thin or nonexistent, or there is
compelling evidence against it, do its adherents invoke "faith."
Otherwise, they simply cite the reasons for their beliefs (e.g. "the
New Testament confirms Old Testament prophecy," "I saw the face of
Jesus in a window," "We prayed, and our daughter's cancer went
into remission"). Such reasons are generally inadequate, but they are
better than no reasons at all. Faith is nothing more than the license
religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail.
In a world that has been shattered by mutually incompatible religious
beliefs, in a nation that is growing increasingly beholden to Iron Age
conceptions of God, the end of history and the immortality of the soul,
this lazy partitioning of our discourse into matters of reason and
matters of faith is now unconscionable.
Faith and the Good Society
People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of
the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that
the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to
varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their
public pronouncements were little more than litanies of
delusion--delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march
of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects,
religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The
anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a
direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious
Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and
attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the
faithful. While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a
predominately secular way, the religious demonization of the Jews of
Europe continued. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in
its newspapers as late as 1914.)
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what
happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the
contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking
critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a
rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the
blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist
exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every
religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded
history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an
impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished
it. Any account of a "god gene" that causes the majority of
Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of
religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First
World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism
throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that
religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland,
Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the
Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least
religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human
Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by
measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income,
educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant
mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of
human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the
same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in
its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary
theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide,
abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same
comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and
Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious
superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially
plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the
comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European
norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve
questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction;
societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable
the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief.
Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that
atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil
society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does
nothing to ensure a society's health.
Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in
terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link
between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by
other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between
top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1;
France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the
population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475
to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through
the eye of a needle.
Religion as a Source of Violence
One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century
is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal
concerns--about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of
human suffering--in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing
stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord
religious faith. Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our
world into separate moral communities--Christians, Muslims, Jews,
Hindus, etc.--and these divisions have become a continuous source of
human conflict. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence
today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in
Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus
Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian
Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir
(Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and
animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea
(Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus
Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and
Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians
versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and
Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these places
religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in
the last 10 years.
In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the
obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing
degree. Religion inspires violence in at least two senses: (1) People
often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of
the universe wants them to do it (the inevitable psychopathic corollary
being that the act will ensure them an eternity of happiness after
death). Examples of this sort of behavior are practically innumerable,
jihadist suicide bombing being the most prominent. (2) Larger numbers
of people are inclined toward religious conflict simply because their
religion constitutes the core of their moral identities. One of the
enduring pathologies of human culture is the tendency to raise children
to fear and demonize other human beings on the basis of religion. Many
religious conflicts that seem driven by terrestrial concerns,
therefore, are religious in origin. (Just ask the Irish.)
These facts notwithstanding, religious moderates tend to imagine that
human conflict is always reducible to a lack of education, to poverty
or to political grievances. This is one of the many delusions of
liberal piety. To dispel it, we need only reflect on the fact that the
Sept. 11 hijackers were college educated and middle class and had no
discernable history of political oppression. They did, however, spend
an inordinate amount of time at their local mosque talking about the
depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in
Paradise. How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit
the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that
jihadist violence is not a matter of education, poverty or politics?
The truth, astonishingly enough, is this: A person can be so well
educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he
will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human
mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our
intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion.
Only the atheist has observed what should now be obvious to every
thinking human being: If we want to uproot the causes of religious
violence we must uproot the false certainties of religion.
Why is religion such a potent source of human violence?
o) Our religions are intrinsically incompatible with one another.
Either Jesus rose from the dead and will be returning to Earth like a
superhero or not; either the Koran is the infallible word of God or it
isn't. Every religion makes explicit claims about the way the world
is, and the sheer profusion of these incompatible claims creates an
enduring basis for conflict.
o) There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully
articulate their differences from one another, or cast these
differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion
is the one endeavor in which us-them thinking achieves a transcendent
significance. If a person really believes that calling God by the right
name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal
suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and
unbelievers rather badly. It may even be reasonable to kill them. If a
person thinks there is something that another person can say to his
children that could put their souls in jeopardy for all eternity, then
the heretic next door is actually far more dangerous than the child
molester. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably
higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism or politics.
o) Religious faith is a conversation-stopper. Religion is only area of
our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the
demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And
yet these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will
die for, and--all too often--what they will kill for. This is a
problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple
choice between conversation and violence. Only a fundamental
willingness to be reasonable--to have our beliefs about the world
revised by new evidence and new arguments--can guarantee that we will
keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily
divisive and dehumanizing. While there is no guarantee that rational
people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by
their dogmas.
It seems profoundly unlikely that we will heal the divisions in our
world simply by multiplying the opportunities for interfaith dialogue.
The endgame for civilization cannot be mutual tolerance of patent
irrationality. While all parties to liberal religious discourse have
agreed to tread lightly over those points where their worldviews would
otherwise collide, these very points remain perpetual sources of
conflict for their coreligionists. Political correctness, therefore,
does not offer an enduring basis for human cooperation. If religious
war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and
cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed
with the dogma of faith.
When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith;
when we have no reasons, or bad ones, we have lost our connection to
the world and to one another. Atheism is nothing more than a commitment
to the most basic standard of intellectual honesty: One's convictions
should be proportional to one's evidence. Pretending to be certain
when one isn't--indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions
for which no evidence is even conceivable--is both an intellectual and
a moral failing. Only the atheist has realized this. The atheist is
simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to
make them his own.
Dig last updated on Dec. 7, 2005
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 12:03:37 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many
holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
If you have ever read much of Elron Hubbard's crap,
you will know, there ain't no science in scientology.
Most Scientologists are science ignorant. Hubbard
most certainly was one of the profoundly science-ignorant
men around.
Plan 9 from Scientology.
---------------------------------------
THE ANATOMY OF CAUSE (16th ACC) - PART 06 OF 31
OBNOSIS
A lecture given on 9 January 1957
....
When you're real good at controlling people, when you're a very
hot auditor, some day you will see somebody start to step off a
curb, and you will step back up on the curb, leaving them on the
curb. Got it? You don't say "Well, now I think they should step
back on the cur -- I'm going to concentrate. We will do this by
telepathy." See?
That's why all these experiments of Mr. Rhine... We've never
given him a degree; he's Mr. Rhine still. You know, there are no
degrees in psychology; it's never become an established subject.
There are in Scientology.
Mr. Rhine is trying to figure out what something is without
looking, which is one of the more fascinating actions I ever saw
anybody undertake. In fact, it is the one completely aberrated
game in the universe. How do you find out about something without
looking? In other words, "How do I keep from confronting it?"
Well, let's not confront the future; let's guess what the next
series of cards will be. Let's not be in this guy's head that is
looking at the cards; let's consult his privacy, and let's look
at the back of the cards and concentrate on what's on the face of
the cards. Well, I'm assuring you that if you concentrate on the
backs of cards, you don't see the faces of cards. So much for
telepathy.
Telepathy is as valid as "somebody peeks." That is really the
total that you have to know about telepathy. You should just
abandon the subject as an interesting subject which, sometime
when you feel you're too sane, you should get into.
I've utterly ruined a telepathic series. I did this out in
California -- ruined a telepathic series of fifty-two cards.
Called them off in sequence. Somebody was calling them off and
they were looking at them, you know? "Yeah, that's right, put it
down, put that number down." And I was calling them off: ace of
spades, deuce of diamonds, and so forth -- fifty-two cards in
sequence, just to show them what my telepathic average was, see,
and laughing like hell all the time.
I was looking at the cards; I was standing right here looking at
the cards, you know? Body was sitting over there facing the
person.
You see the complete idiocy of sort of straining your brains
around, you know? Now, let's see, I'm sitting here and the cards
are facing in that direction. How do I read a book upside down
held the wrong-way-to? Well, you can get, I suppose, into a total
knowingness that knows what all the books in the world say, but
I'm afraid that you would read all the books at once. Your
selectivity gets poor without locations. You would know, but you
wouldn't know what you knew.
If you're going to do mystic stunts, do mystic stunts.
I get somebody, anytime, to concentrate on a set of cards. I used
to have a wonderful lot of fun as a mystic. I haven't done this
for years.
Had an FBI man down here one time ready to blow his brains out,
just down the street. I used to live down the street here, '49.
FBI man was at this party, and there was a lot of embassy people,
and so forth, at the party -- very nice party and everybody was
very pleasant, and so on. And I decided I'd tell some fortunes.
Things were going rather dull in one quarter of the party, so I
went out and I got a big bath towel wrapped around my head and
sat down cross-legged with a pack of ordinary cards and began to
tell people's fortunes, which is rather easy -- standard gypsy
fortune-telling.
If you can get people to concentrate on cards, and then give them
leading questions and statements, you restimulate their
facsimiles and they become visible to you. You see? That's all
there is to it. You look at their facsimile and you see where
they've been, you know? And you say, "Now, 1933..."
I at one time just did this; I didn't have any articulate
understanding of it at all. I knew it was easy and that other
people didn't know it was easy. That was about all I knew about
it.
"1933. Let's see, 1933. You um..." The somatic strip, of course,
throws the 1933 facsimiles out in front of their face, and you
take a look at them and tell them. That's about all there is to
it, see?
And oddly enough, you can read their concept of their future
better, usually, than they can. So you start talking about the
future and their concept of the future, and some automaticity
will furnish you a set of pictures. Nothing to this.
This FBI man wanted his fortune told. So I waxed up my mustaches
and readjusted the bath towel, said, "I see you working on a
case." A very intelligent remark to an FBI man. Said, "A case
which is very, very confidential." "Case number 132678." I said,
"The man you want isn't there." I said, "That's all. Next."
This guy goes off, and he starts figuring this out. And you could
see this, you know; trying to clear this up. How did I know the
number of a confidential case? Because it was the right number.
Naturally it was the right number; he had the case card right in
front of his face in a facsimile, and all you did was read the
numbers in the upper left-hand corner. All right.
Now, that's all very well, but to show you how people then become
completely non sequitur in the face of the obvious. See, this is
an obvious manifestation; he's never noticed that he does this;
he doesn't feel that it's possible; he thinks everything he does
is private, simply because he is educated to believe that he is a
private individual who is very private and nobody must ever
inquire in upon except the FBI.
So, next action on his part was to get me -- after I had finished
the last fortune and everybody was having a good time finishing
off the champagne -- and he got ahold of me at the shoulder and
he said, "How'd you do that?"
I said, "How'd I do what?"
He said, "Well, that's a confidential case." He said, "How did
you do that?"
I pulled a perfectly ordinary deck of playing cards out of my
pocket, with perfectly plain backs, and I said, "You see, these
are readers. These are readers. These cards have marked backs,
you see?"
And he said, "Ho-ho-ho-ho! Ho-hee-ha, I get it!"
--------------
Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard
AC-2
2nd lecture at the "Ability Congress" held in Washington, DC
THE CLEAR DEFINED
A lecture given on 29 December 1957
All right. Now, that has to do with the material universe.
Ordinarily, this is covered by the sciences of physics and
chemistry. They're not covering them so well these days,
but they're doing all right.
I got a frantic wire the other day from a scientific congress
that was occurring in, I think, Boston, no, pardon me, Boston,
[accented] and they wanted to know if I had any proof I
could offer that thought created matter. They'd suddenly
stumbled onto some mathematical proof of this one way or
the other, and they wanted to know if I had any proof of
this at all, and I sent 'em back a wire telling 'em that,
yes, we'd had somebody mock up large mock-ups and stuff 'em
into his body and increase his weight thirty pounds in a
few weeks and then, by getting the reverse flow, to reduce
his weight back again. We've actually made that experiment.
That's quite an experiment to make, by the way, because it
takes a devilish lot of auditing and the fellow has to be
awfully good at solid facsimiles and mock-ups and things of
that character before you can perform the series.
But we have done it, taking thought alone, without
increasing somebody's diet, and increasing his weight and
decreasing it. So, I sent 'em this data and I got back a
highly enthusiastic wire saying that my data, as sent to
them, had been of great assistance, so I hope they were all
edified. That's all I've heard about it.
----------
PRECISION KNOWLEDGE: NECESSITY TO KNOW TERMINOLOGY AND LAW
A lecture given on 12 November 1952
They did this weird trick with the atom bomb. My very good
friends rushed in and invented an atom bomb. That was great! They
let three billion dollars be appropriated to the construction of
an atom bomb. And I said to Bob Cornard, "What was the
appropriation for the force screen?"
"Oh," he says, "you're talking Buck Rogers stuff now." He says,
"You've always been talking to me about Buck Rogers stuff."
"What about the force screen? Where was the money appropriated
for the force screen at the same time it was appropriated for the
atom bomb?"
"Oh," he said, "never heard of such a thing."
I said, "Well, you've let loose upon the world an unlimited
weapon against which there is no defense." That's how important
the force screen was. You just don't do things like that and
still maintain any kind of stability or advance or progress in a
society. You don't make an unlimited weapon, against which
there's no defense, and then use it. Because the result will be
destruction on every hand.
And at this moment we don't like to think about it; it isn't
quite nice, it isn't polite, it isn't anything we do. We like to
preserve a rather quiet, detached attitude toward this whole
thing.
But there isn't a capital of a nation on the face of the earth
today which has anything like security. There isn't a government
on the face of the earth today, if it came right down to that,
that could enforce its sovereignty, because sovereignty, by
international law, is dependent upon the government's ability to
defend its own borders and its people. And its right to exist
depends upon its ability to defend, against aggressors, its lands
and people. And that's a national government.
And when you have an unlimited missile weapon loose in the world,
which asks of no borders, which no army can stop, you'll get a
decentralization and an enturbulence of central governments --
even before it's used against them. They try to centralize. They
recognize this. They try to pull everything in quick, try to make
everything hard and tough, and stand up to it and hold on,
because they know they're on their way. And nobody appropriated
three billion dollars for the force screen. And so they
unstabilized all of society.
-----
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Schwarz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 01:12:52 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many
holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since Dec.
26, midnight.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and the
SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies that the
board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Barbara Schwarz
--
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(About Dave Touretzky)
Other interesting websites:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
http://www.alarmgermany.org/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.MindFreedom.ORG/
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.freespeechstore.com
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/amoj/00index.cfm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 01:56:28 PM |
|
|
In <1135710772.652539.326150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes
that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist who was even for a
short time, President of Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since Dec. 26,
midnight.
That's not a Google group. That's a Usenet group.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and the
SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies that the
board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Um, actually, Google sometimes is slow in picking up and processing the
feed...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
28 Dec 2005 09:27:30 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2005 11:12:52 -0800, "Barbara Schwarz"
<barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many
holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since Dec.
26, midnight.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and the
SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies that the
board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Whew! Talk about LOONEY TUNES!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
28 Dec 2005 10:06:22 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 11:12:52 -0800, "Barbara Schwarz"
<barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of
the world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so
many holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since
Dec. 26, midnight.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and
the SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies
that the board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Whew! Talk about LOONEY TUNES!
Heh! You have no idea... SEGNPMSS is everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
29 Dec 2005 09:19:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:06:22 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 11:12:52 -0800, "Barbara Schwarz"
<barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of
the world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so
many holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since
Dec. 26, midnight.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and
the SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies
that the board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Whew! Talk about LOONEY TUNES!
Heh! You have no idea... SEGNPMSS is everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
I didn't get that far in the list of insanity the other day. I had
erroneously figured her to be in her 50's or 60's.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
04 Jan 2006 06:17:05 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in news:ahv7r1p772550dmkn9fg89v1ncqf2p222a@
4ax.com:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:06:22 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 11:12:52 -0800, "Barbara Schwarz"
<barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of
the world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so
many holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
No. Schwarzy was a long time German Scientologist
who was even for a short time, President of
Scientology, Germany.
The Google message board alt.religion.scientology is frozen since
Dec. 26, midnight.
Last postings were from hate mongers William Barwell, Simkatu and
the SEGNPMSS . My guess they posted AGAIN so much hatred and lies
that the board froze. Or Homeland Security moved in.
Whew! Talk about LOONEY TUNES!
Heh! You have no idea... SEGNPMSS is everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
I didn't get that far in the list of insanity the other day. I had
erroneously figured her to be in her 50's or 60's.
Wow, what a squirrel she is!
Yanno, it takes quite a bit to out-weird our pet fundies. I'd have to put
her Georgann Factor at about 10 Georganns.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Keep THOR in THURSDAY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
04 Jan 2006 11:04:50 PM |
|
|
Doc Smartass wrote:
Heh! You have no idea... SEGNPMSS is everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
I didn't get that far in the list of insanity the other day. I had
erroneously figured her to be in her 50's or 60's.
Wow, what a squirrel she is!
Yanno, it takes quite a bit to out-weird our pet fundies. I'd have to
put her Georgann Factor at about 10 Georganns.
How far did you make it into her 92 part
entire life history series?
And as far as FOIA abuse, no other kook comes close.
All to PROVE that she was the daughter of Elron Hubbard, stolen
away by SNGMPSS Nazis at the tender age of four.
--
Happy Hogmanay!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
05 Jan 2006 04:11:32 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in news:11rpa87apa4hc47
@corp.supernews.com:
Doc Smartass wrote:
Heh! You have no idea... SEGNPMSS is everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
I didn't get that far in the list of insanity the other day. I had
erroneously figured her to be in her 50's or 60's.
Wow, what a squirrel she is!
Yanno, it takes quite a bit to out-weird our pet fundies. I'd have to
put her Georgann Factor at about 10 Georganns.
How far did you make it into her 92 part
entire life history series?
I pretty much stayed on the one Wikipedia page. That was plenty.
And as far as FOIA abuse, no other kook comes close.
All to PROVE that she was the daughter of Elron Hubbard, stolen
away by SNGMPSS Nazis at the tender age of four.
Heh.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Keep THOR in THURSDAY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "I am being defamed here" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 07:41:03 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
Barbara Schwarz
--
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(About Dave Touretzky)
Other interesting websites:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
http://www.alarmgermany.org/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.MindFreedom.ORG/
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.freespeechstore.com
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/amoj/00index.cfm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 11:05:55 AM |
|
|
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> writes:
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Then you reject all of the modern medicines that have been
tested first on apes because they're our nearest biological relative.
Excellent! Your life will be nasty, brutish, and short; and while I may
feel sorrow and sympathy, I can do nothing for you until you start to
accept the medicines evolutionary theory has made possible.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 10:28:38 AM |
|
|
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> writes:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
Sorry, kiddo, but there is nothing more to you than meat and
electricity, and there's no reason to suppose otherwise. And come the
Singularity, those of us convinced of the legitimacy of meat and
electricity will still be here... :-)
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 09:00:41 PM |
|
|
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in
news:1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many
holes that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense.
Then you've either been educated beyond your understanding, or you didn't
actually study so much as look at the pictures. Try something deeper that
Kent Hovind's "Dinosaurs and Men, Together" coloring book next time.
I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Denial of a fact does not alter the fact.
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
*smirk* You're a piece of work, girlie. Go do your nails or bake a cake.
Leave the brain work to folks who actually think.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Keep THOR in THURSDAY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 09:03:40 AM |
|
|
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
snip
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense.
So what? That doesn't mean it's not valid.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
30 Dec 2005 12:08:10 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:41d3bvF1ctn4cU1@individual.net...
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
snip
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense.
So what? That doesn't mean it's not valid.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
We can say the same about our religion, you so assiduously debunk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
28 Dec 2005 09:26:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:03:40 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
snip
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense.
So what? That doesn't mean it's not valid.
When someone has less than a room temperature IQ it's quite natural
they won't understand something.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 11:41:41 PM |
|
|
I am being defamed here wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Individuals don't evolve from anything. Populations do.
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
Barbara Schwarz
--
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(About Dave Touretzky)
Other interesting websites:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
http://www.alarmgermany.org/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.MindFreedom.ORG/
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.freespeechstore.com
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/amoj/00index.cfm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 10:40:12 PM |
|
|
In <1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "I am being
defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes
that it can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion that
it does not make sense.
Meaning you didn't understand it.
I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I most
definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Humans *are apes. What are you talking about?
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of meat
and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be aware
what's going on with yourself.
And this has to do with the origin of species on earth how?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
28 Dec 2005 01:15:46 AM |
|
|
In article <1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"I am being defamed here" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense.
Then you obviously are not educated enough to understand it. Go back to
school.
I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 07:59:15 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2005 17:41:03 -0800, "I am being defamed here"
<StilllovingMarty@myway.com> in news message
<1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Mark, I guess you were told! She came to the conclusion that
evolution doesn't make sense and that settles that. Dear LintŪ, how
are you ever going to recover from such scathing commentary?
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
Barbara, don't stick you fingers in there.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Noone can break my faith, if the bible said
that the sky was greenish pink, then i would look up
and see greenish pink. - anonymous Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Rooker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
26 Dec 2005 09:12:47 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:me71r1hu890feqc04jjs37qo5p920c3qv8@4ax.com...
On 26 Dec 2005 17:41:03 -0800, "I am being defamed here"
<StilllovingMarty@myway.com> in news message
<1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that
it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Mark, I guess you were told! She came to the conclusion that
evolution doesn't make sense and that settles that. Dear LintŪ, how
are you ever going to recover from such scathing commentary?
OK, which of the hundreds of theories of evolution are you talking about.
Darwins? Lamarkin? Puntuated Equalibrium? or one of a host of others.
No, they do not make sense, they contradict each other, and all fail
miserably in explaining the World around us, except to those who need it to
escape God.
However, in order to find out that you are more than just a bunch of
meat and nerves, you don't have to study science. You just have to be
aware what's going on with yourself.
Barbara, don't stick you fingers in there.
Except that Barbara is right, there is far more to this universe than your
limited philosophy.
God Bless
Carl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 11:06:16 AM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> writes:
OK, which of the hundreds of theories of evolution are you talking about.
Darwins? Lamarkin? Puntuated Equalibrium? or one of a host of others.
Darwin's three basic ideas: descent with modification, natural
selection, and common origins. All of these have been, so far,
observed, and no contradictory evidence has been presented refuting
them. "Punctuated equilibrium" is a theory about how natural selection
occurs, but it is a theory attempting to explain facts and observations,
not some airy-fairy fantasy about an incompetent tinkerer stirring his
finger in the biological evidence.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 09:08:55 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> writes:
OK, which of the hundreds of theories of evolution are you talking
about.
Darwins? Lamarkin? Puntuated Equalibrium? or one of a host of
others.
Darwin's three basic ideas: descent with modification,
natural
selection, and common origins. All of these have been, so far,
observed, and no contradictory evidence has been presented refuting
them. "Punctuated equilibrium" is a theory about how natural
selection occurs, but it is a theory attempting to explain facts and
observations, not some airy-fairy fantasy about an incompetent
tinkerer stirring his finger in the biological evidence.
Descent with modification and common origins preceded Darwin.
Darwins basic theories were natural selection and sexual
selection.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 01:30:16 AM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1135653171.848636@w9.dnx.net...
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:me71r1hu890feqc04jjs37qo5p920c3qv8@4ax.com...
On 26 Dec 2005 17:41:03 -0800, "I am being defamed here"
<StilllovingMarty@myway.com> in news message
<1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes that
it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Mark, I guess you were told! She came to the conclusion that
evolution doesn't make sense and that settles that. Dear LintŪ, how
are you ever going to recover from such scathing commentary?
OK, which of the hundreds of theories of evolution are you talking about.
Darwins? Lamarkin? Puntuated Equalibrium? or one of a host of others.
The same one that has been expanded upon since Darwin you flaming dimwit.
No, they do not make sense, they contradict each other, and all fail
miserably in explaining the World around us, except to those who need it
to
escape God.
OK, Carl, the next time you need medical attention, please don't rely on
"science", instead, refer to your tagline and "god bless".
Pray that your god will help you and leave us "scientists" alone. Worst case
scenario is that you will DIE, but why would you worry about death? You have
a beautiful new life ahead of you in "heaven" floating in the clouds!
Enjoy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
29 Dec 2005 05:41:17 PM |
|
|
"ManMadeGod" <spamhere@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:S36sf.44590$ih5.43550@dukeread11...
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1135653171.848636@w9.dnx.net...
No, they do not make sense, they contradict each other, and all fail
miserably in explaining the World around us, except to those who need it
to escape God.
OK, Carl, the next time you need medical attention, please don't rely on
"science", instead, refer to your tagline and "god bless".
Pray that your god will help you and leave us "scientists" alone. Worst
case scenario is that you will DIE, but why would you worry about death?
You have a beautiful new life ahead of you in "heaven" floating in the
clouds!
Enjoy!
"Floating in the clouds"? No wonder you are an atheist, those are
infantile religious images you are harbouring. Grow up already, willya?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 01:42:22 AM |
|
|
In <S36sf.44590$ih5.43550@dukeread11>, "ManMadeGod" <spamhere@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1135653171.848636@w9.dnx.net...
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:me71r1hu890feqc04jjs37qo5p920c3qv8@4ax.com...
On 26 Dec 2005 17:41:03 -0800, "I am being defamed here"
<StilllovingMarty@myway.com> in news message
<1135647663.666381.10740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1135636895.188984.222540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Barbara
Schwarz" <barbara.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote:
Atheists have no other alternative to explain the existance of the
world
through the evolution theory, and that theory has so many holes
that
it
can't be declared a science.
<blink>
Do you know *anything about science?
I studied articles about evolution theory and came to the conclusion
that it does not make sense. I don't know about you, Mark Bilo, but I
most definitely did not evolve from apes nor did my body.
Mark, I guess you were told! She came to the conclusion that evolution
doesn't make sense and that settles that. Dear LintŪ, how are you
ever going to recover from such scathing commentary?
OK, which of the hundreds of theories of evolution are you talking
about. Darwins? Lamarkin? Puntuated Equalibrium? or one of a host of
others.
The same one that has been expanded upon since Darwin you flaming dimwit.
No, they do not make sense, they contradict each other, and all fail
miserably in explaining the World around us, except to those who need it
to
escape God.
OK, Carl, the next time you need medical attention, please don't rely on
"science", instead, refer to your tagline and "god bless".
Pray that your god will help you and leave us "scientists" alone. Worst
case scenario is that you will DIE, but why would you worry about death?
You have a beautiful new life ahead of you in "heaven" floating in the
clouds!
Enjoy!
Those damn scientists! Always going around curing people of diseases! When
will they be stopped?!?!?!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Manifesto is crap. |
27 Dec 2005 09:05:04 AM |
|
|
"Carl Rooker" <rookerc@dnx.net> wrote in message
news:1135653171.848636@w9.dnx.net...
snip
No, they do not make sense, they contradict each other, and all fail
miserably in explaining the World around us, except to those who need it
to
escape God.
Escape god? Why would I have to escape from a make-believe character?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
| | | | |
