On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:34:06 -0600, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net>
wrote:

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:540b079b-0410-4e02-879f-07bed3777fd0@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 4:52 pm, Richard Anacker <1...@taunus-biker.de> wrote:

adman , 01.28.2008:

You inability to back up your claims with facts as i have is noted.

You wouldn't recognize any proof if someone would stick it up your
arse, moron.

We are well knowledgable enouig to know the truth, especially when
it's supported by all the evidence to be found.

You have no idea at all about physics and wait for
someone to give you a beginners class in this newsgroup.

Physics is science given to us by God.

Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical "God" before rudely and
stupidly presuming its existence outside your religion?

The big bang is physics at
it's finest and fully supports the creator God.

Liar.

Finally, a voice of reason

What a fucking moron.

Killiam , 01.29.2008:

Physics is science given to us by God. The big bang is physics at
it's finest and fully supports the creator God.

Duke? I it you?

greets
richie

X'Posted to:
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment
and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein

In article
<8786da39-6258-4abf-ad85-b28dcb51359f@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:

On Jan 28, 5:26=A0pm, Richard Anacker <1...@taunus-biker.de> wrote:

duke , 01.29.2008:

The big bang is physics at
it's finest and fully supports the creator God.

The BB is a scientific theory. You have realy no clue what this means,
havn't you?

I know it says that an infinitely small point of mass of infinite
density appeared from whence there was nothing previously. That's
creation at it's finest. And that takes a creator. We call the
creator God.

I suggest you read "The First Three Minutes" if you want to learn
something.

Duke recommends a book on the Big Bang as evidence for creation --
not realizing that Steven Weinberg, author of "The First Three Minutes",
is one of this country's most visible and active atheists.

Somehow Duke, who knows little, finds the Big Bang to be compelling
evidence for creation -- while the Nobel Prize-winning Doctor Weinberg,
one of the foremost authorities on the subject, does not.

-- cary


If there is a God that has special plans for humans, then He has taken
very great pains to hide His concern for us. To me it would seem
impolite if not impious to bother such a God with our prayers.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Dreams of a Final Theory/


Religious people have grappled for millennia with the theodicy, the
problem posed by the existence of suffering in a world that is supposed
to be ruled by a good God. They have found ingenious solutions in terms
of various supposed divine plans. I will not try to argue with these
solutions, much less to add one of my own. Remembrance of the Holocaust
leaves me unsympathetic to attempts to justify the ways of God to man.
If there is a God that has special plans for humans, then He has taken
very great pains to hide His concern for us. To me it would seem
impolite if not impious to bother such a God with our prayers.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Dreams of a Final Theory/

Premature as the question may be, it is hardly possible not to wonder
whether we will find any answer to our deepest questions, any signs of
the workings of an interested God, in a final theory. I think that we
will not.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Dreams of a Final Theory/

It's a consequence of the experience of science. As you learn more and
more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more
without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest
in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about
religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of
the great things about science -- that it has made it possible for
people not to be religious.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, quoted in Natalie Angier
<quote-a1.htm#ANGIERNATALIE>, "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," /New
York Times Magazine,/ January 14, 2001

I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and
ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas,
will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can
contribute ... it may be the most important contribution that we can make.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Freethought Today
<http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/weinberg.html>,/ April, 2000

This is one of the great social functions of science -- to free people
from superstition.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Freethought Today
<http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/weinberg.html>,/ April, 2000

Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in
order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring
religion.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /Freethought Today
<http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/weinberg.html>,/ April, 2000

[C]reationists [and] other religious enthusiasts [are], in many parts of
the world ..., the most dangerous adversaries of science.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, ?Sokal?s Hoax
<http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html>,? /The New York
Review of Books/ (Volume XLIII, No. 13, pp 11-15, August 8, 1996);
(origially, ?Sokal did not satirize creationists or other religious
enthusiasts who in many parts of the world are the most dangerous
adversaries of science, ...?)

Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But
for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, in a dialog on religion with other scientists,
1999, quoted from "The Constitution Guarantees Freedom From Religion" an
open letter to US Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joseph Lieberman,
issued by the Freedom From Religion Foundation on August 28, 2000

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would
have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- *Ste**ven Weinberg*, /Freethought Today
<http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/weinberg.html>,/ April, 2000

I enjoy being at a meeting that doesn't start with an invocation!
-- *Steven Weinberg*, at a lecture to the Freedom From Religion
Foundation, /Freethought Today
<http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april2000/weinberg.html>,/ April, 2000

The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems
pointless.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, his "much-quoted aphorism" according to /The New
York Times,/ "Physicist Ponders God, Truth and 'a Final Theory'" by
James Glanz, January 25, 2000

The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of
religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it
all very regrettable, to say the least.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, /The New York Times,/ "Physicist Ponders God,
Truth and 'a Final Theory'" by James Glanz, January 25, 2000

Though aware that there is nothing in the universe that suggests any
purpose for humanity, one way that we can find a purpose is to study the
universe by the methods of science, without consoling ourselves with
fairy tales about its future, or about our own.
-- *Steven Weinberg*, in an article in the New York Review of Books,
quoted in Dennis Overbye, "The Universe Might Last Forever, Astronomers
Say, but Life Might Not" (January 1, 2002), /The New York Times/

It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide
an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside,
how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will
for tumors?
I don't need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that
the universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of
benevolence that might have shown the hand of a designer. But in fact
the perception that God cannot be benevolent is very old. Plays by
Aeschylus and Euripides make a quite explicit statement that the gods
are selfish and cruel, though they expect better behavior from humans.
God in the Old Testament tells us to bash the heads of infidels and
demands of us that we be willing to sacrifice our children's lives at
His orders, and the God of traditional Christianity and Islam damns us
for eternity if we do not worship him in the right manner. Is this a
nice way to behave? I know, I know, we are not supposed to judge God
according to human standards, but you see the problem here: If we are
not yet convinced of His existence, and are looking for signs of His
benevolence, then what other standards can we use?
-- *Steven Weinberg*, "A Designer Universe?
<http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm>" ??


All quotes from:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm


-- cary