| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2006 08:18:34 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism origin |
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
Peter
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
25 Jul 2006 02:57:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
That would match his apparent educational sophistication level.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
29 Jul 2006 04:36:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:11 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rsllc2li09qpak5glc335g6f0171kd6228@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
*Thinks?*
Damn! There I go again!
Over-interpreting it's very basic instinctual and pre-programmed
reactions to be in the realm of actual cognition.
Sorry.
I must not be hanging around with Christians often enough:-
sometimes I slip back into the mode of automatically assuming that
everyone is reasonable, independent, intelligent, rational and honest.
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
That would match his apparent educational sophistication level.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
02 Aug 2006 10:07:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:06:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:11 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rsllc2li09qpak5glc335g6f0171kd6228@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
*Thinks?*
Damn! There I go again!
Over-interpreting it's very basic instinctual and pre-programmed
reactions to be in the realm of actual cognition.
Sorry.
I must not be hanging around with Christians often enough:-
sometimes I slip back into the mode of automatically assuming that
everyone is reasonable, independent, intelligent, rational and honest.
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
And they'd serve you Fosters.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
03 Aug 2006 04:01:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:07:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <g2q2d2dqt7gms16ldr65mhoira5pp6jhhv@4ax.com>
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:06:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:11 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rsllc2li09qpak5glc335g6f0171kd6228@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
*Thinks?*
Damn! There I go again!
Over-interpreting it's very basic instinctual and pre-programmed
reactions to be in the realm of actual cognition.
Sorry.
I must not be hanging around with Christians often enough:-
sometimes I slip back into the mode of automatically assuming that
everyone is reasonable, independent, intelligent, rational and honest.
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
And they'd serve you Fosters.
Arrgghh!!!
Anything but that!
(Well, four things are worse than that.)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
07 Aug 2006 06:57:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:31:23 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:07:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <g2q2d2dqt7gms16ldr65mhoira5pp6jhhv@4ax.com>
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:06:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:11 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rsllc2li09qpak5glc335g6f0171kd6228@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
*Thinks?*
Damn! There I go again!
Over-interpreting it's very basic instinctual and pre-programmed
reactions to be in the realm of actual cognition.
Sorry.
I must not be hanging around with Christians often enough:-
sometimes I slip back into the mode of automatically assuming that
everyone is reasonable, independent, intelligent, rational and honest.
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
And they'd serve you Fosters.
Arrgghh!!!
Anything but that!
(Well, four things are worse than that.)
Howard, Bush, Blair, and First Nation?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
07 Aug 2006 10:14:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:57:24 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7qkfd2pck4s9tdcjqrq4s1128ptm1i98vd@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:31:23 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:07:15 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <g2q2d2dqt7gms16ldr65mhoira5pp6jhhv@4ax.com>
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:06:04 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:11 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <rsllc2li09qpak5glc335g6f0171kd6228@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:16:29 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.25.03.16.29.524600@exit.com>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:04:06 -0700, Poakfield wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Poakfield@msn.com wrote:
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Yes. There were eggs millions of years, hundreds of millions of years,
before there were chickens.
And who laid those eggs? I thought chickens did.
Nope. As far as the pre-chicken egg, it was something quite _like_ a
chicken, but it wasn't a chicken.
As far as what Neil was talking about, most creatures lay eggs. Certainly
reptiles do, and they pre-date avians; dinosaurs did as well, and avians
are an offshoot of them. There were eggs long, long before there was
anything even remotely like a chicken.
Even humans lay eggs.
They hatch out inside the womb, that's all.
I bet Mr. Oakfield still thinks that they are delivered via stork.
*Thinks?*
Damn! There I go again!
Over-interpreting it's very basic instinctual and pre-programmed
reactions to be in the realm of actual cognition.
Sorry.
I must not be hanging around with Christians often enough:-
sometimes I slip back into the mode of automatically assuming that
everyone is reasonable, independent, intelligent, rational and honest.
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
And they'd serve you Fosters.
Arrgghh!!!
Anything but that!
(Well, four things are worse than that.)
Howard, Bush, Blair, and First Nation?
So near...
"One Nation", and Pauline Hanson.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
09 Aug 2006 07:44:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:44:54 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:57:24 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7qkfd2pck4s9tdcjqrq4s1128ptm1i98vd@4ax.com>
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:31:23 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
I would be floundering should I ever find myself in Washington,
Maryland.
Or Hollywood, CA, for that matter.
Or Madison Avenue.
Or Jerusalem.
Or...
I'll stop this list right now, as I could be here for years.
And they'd serve you Fosters.
Arrgghh!!!
Anything but that!
(Well, four things are worse than that.)
Howard, Bush, Blair, and First Nation?
So near...
"One Nation", and Pauline Hanson.
Ta.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 02:37:42 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jul 2006 05:57:16 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Enkidu wrote:
wrote in
news:1153522788.393215.270410@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot
understand, opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we
cannot possibly reject, like the existence of infinite space,
infinite time, and infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond
our grasp. These facts provide us with a justification to
accept concepts we do not understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort?
If so, could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
On what basis do you determine that they are real?
Nobody has shown they are not. It is clear they do not have a
beginning nor can they have an end. In the case of numbers, no matter
how large a number is, you can always add one more. I am sure
mathematicians have a proof.
Yeah, we do. We can also prove that between any two rational numbers is
an infinite set of rational numbers. We can show that there are the same
number of rational numbers as integers, though this is counter-intuitive.
We can show that there are more irrational numbers that rational numbers,
even though each is an infinite set of numbers. We understand infinite
sets quite well. So when are you going to drop this line of illogic? It
leads nowhere, no matter how many times you repeat it.
(B.S. in Applied Mathematics and Physics, SDSU, 1983. Just because you
refuse to understand does not mean we are hobbled as well.)
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Do you know which was first, the chicken or the egg?
Chicken. You're definately chicken.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
22 Jul 2006 10:39:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
On what basis do you determine that they are real?
Nobody has shown they are not. It is clear they do not have a beginning
nor can they have an end. In the case of numbers, no matter how large a
number is, you can always add one more. I am sure mathematicians have a
proof.
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
.
|
|
|
| User: "teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
22 Jul 2006 10:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
--
Teresita
http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
23 Jul 2006 10:23:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
24 Jul 2006 03:57:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <pan.2006.07.24.03.23.13.657646@exit.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Parallel Cray FORTRAN is a natural God's language.
Everything else is for mere mortals.
Except for C++, which is for wankers and wimps.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 02:39:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 08:14:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:39:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <38hfc21fegmbo37qp38m7r4girlbitq9fs@4ax.com>
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
Are you trying for the Worst Pun of the Century competiion?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
29 Jul 2006 04:38:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:58 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <stllc2l7pr12gmvaircpmm7t8elikbc4ld@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:44:37 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:39:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <38hfc21fegmbo37qp38m7r4girlbitq9fs@4ax.com>
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
Are you trying for the Worst Pun of the Century competiion?
C++ it's a Basic Cobol......
Yep, you are!
Why not try and work Python into it? Or C#?
Or Z80 Assembly?
Or a funny computer-oriented joke? ;)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
02 Aug 2006 10:07:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:08:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:58 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <stllc2l7pr12gmvaircpmm7t8elikbc4ld@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:44:37 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:39:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <38hfc21fegmbo37qp38m7r4girlbitq9fs@4ax.com>
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
Are you trying for the Worst Pun of the Century competiion?
C++ it's a Basic Cobol......
Yep, you are!
Why not try and work Python into it? Or C#?
Or Z80 Assembly?
Or a funny computer-oriented joke? ;)
De-bugged Maniac.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
03 Aug 2006 04:37:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:07:53 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <u3q2d25b83m1tqgmjm5plm9v4g6l4p1d49@4ax.com>
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:08:00 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:36:58 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <stllc2l7pr12gmvaircpmm7t8elikbc4ld@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:44:37 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:39:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <38hfc21fegmbo37qp38m7r4girlbitq9fs@4ax.com>
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:23:13 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
Are you trying for the Worst Pun of the Century competiion?
C++ it's a Basic Cobol......
Yep, you are!
Why not try and work Python into it? Or C#?
Or Z80 Assembly?
Or a funny computer-oriented joke? ;)
De-bugged Maniac.
That's *Doctor* Maniac to you, bud.
(And yes, I got the Los Alamos reference.)
Cue Weird Al: Albuquerque!
http://web.newsguy.com/MichaelGray/Music/Albuquerque.mp3
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
07 Aug 2006 06:59:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:07:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:07:53 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <u3q2d25b83m1tqgmjm5plm9v4g6l4p1d49@4ax.com>
[]
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:57:43 -0700, teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
So the universe was written in FORTRAN? (I suppose it could explain a
lot, though.)
Fortranly knot.
Are you trying for the Worst Pun of the Century competiion?
C++ it's a Basic Cobol......
Yep, you are!
Why not try and work Python into it? Or C#?
Or Z80 Assembly?
Or a funny computer-oriented joke? ;)
De-bugged Maniac.
That's *Doctor* Maniac to you, bud.
(And yes, I got the Los Alamos reference.)
Lost Almost.....
Cue Weird Al: Albuquerque!
http://web.newsguy.com/MichaelGray/Music/Albuquerque.mp3
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
22 Jul 2006 11:48:59 PM |
|
|
teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
No, more like an uninitialized array. Empty and causes all kinds of
compiler errors.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 a=45, m=23, f=20
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
22 Jul 2006 11:55:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:48:59 -0700, Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
No, more like an uninitialized array. Empty and causes all kinds of
compiler errors.
Ah, that explains what happened when they did the batch job to create a
canon.
--
Teresita
http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 02:39:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:55:15 -0700, teresita
<teresita@localhost.localdomain> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:48:59 -0700, Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
teresita wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:39:34 -0700, Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
Are you saying that God is real in the same sense that numbers are
real?
Unless declared integer.
No, more like an uninitialized array. Empty and causes all kinds of
compiler errors.
Ah, that explains what happened when they did the batch job to create a
canon.
OUCH! Ten lashes with a cooked noodle for that one.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 02:36:44 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2006 15:59:48 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
On what basis do you determine that they are real?
Nobody has shown they are not.
Great! Where's the 50,000 USD you borrowed from me four months ago and
assured me it would be paid back no later than June 6, 2006? It's now
towards the end of July and you have not paid the funds back as you
stated you would.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
21 Jul 2006 08:07:56 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 21 Jul 2006 15:59:48 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Nobody has shown they are not. It is clear they do not have a beginning
nor can they have an end. In the case of numbers, no matter how large a
number is, you can always add one more. I am sure mathematicians have a
proof.
Actually neither space nor time are limitless. The universe has an
edge and a behinning, and if you can follow the math, so does time.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
21 Jul 2006 09:54:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Then what does this have to do with atheism?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 02:33:01 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2006 07:38:18 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Liar. You Christians are so often so damn transparently dishonest it's
breathtaking.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
26 Jul 2006 08:16:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:33:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bpgfc2tcci74auaqgtu4t1io5drvs3b2oo@4ax.com>
On 21 Jul 2006 07:38:18 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Liar. You Christians are so often so damn transparently dishonest it's
breathtaking.
It is unfortunate that the wrong breath is being purloined.
If all Christians were deprived of oxygen for 15 minutes, the world
would be a much better place, and they would discover that their gods
do not exist.
Two educational experiences for the price of one!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
29 Jul 2006 04:40:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:38:58 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t1mlc2d94qvoih2q7ueme249fuerj10lfo@4ax.com>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:46:27 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:33:01 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <bpgfc2tcci74auaqgtu4t1io5drvs3b2oo@4ax.com>
On 21 Jul 2006 07:38:18 -0700, wrote in alt.atheism
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Liar. You Christians are so often so damn transparently dishonest it's
breathtaking.
It is unfortunate that the wrong breath is being purloined.
If all Christians were deprived of oxygen for 15 minutes, the world
would be a much better place, and they would discover that their gods
do not exist.
Two educational experiences for the price of one!
Don't forget those who want Sharia Law.
How could ever forget the darlings?
They are on my Christmas card list!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
21 Jul 2006 07:38:21 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2006 07:38:18 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1153492698.044004.283240@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Peter
They are real because we have incontravertible proof of their effects.
What has this got to do wqith atheism?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
24 Jul 2006 10:09:25 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 21 Jul 2006 07:38:18 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1153492698.044004.283240@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Chris Johnson wrote:
wrote:
It seems that some people, faced with a concept they cannot understand,
opt to reject it. But there are some facts that we cannot possibly
reject, like the existence of infinite space, infinite time, and
infinite numbers, which are clearly beyond our grasp. These facts
provide us with a justification to accept concepts we do not
understand.
I suppose you're arguing for the belief in deities of some sort? If so,
could you grace us with a definition of these creatures?
I am just saying there are things we cannot understand, but that we
cannot reject, because they are real.
Peter
They are real because we have incontravertible proof of their effects.
What has this got to do wqith atheism?
Nothing, except that some people reject the idea of god, just because
they do not understand it.
Peter
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism origin |
24 Jul 2006 03:30:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Nothing, except that some people reject the idea of god, just because
they do not understand it.
Should one accept ideas that one does not understand?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
