Religions > Atheism > DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MOTHER NATURE" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 10:31:44 PM |
| Object: |
DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such. All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.
I set out by asking about the type of proof required to prove that God
is a reality. I was told by various members of the group that the onus
was on me to choose the proof. I asked whether the Wittgenstein
argument was acceptable, I was told by some members of the group that
arguments are not acceptable; only facts. Other members didn't know
about.
How can a person prove a thesis, without arguments? I personally don't
know. Accordingly, I dropped the issue to one side. I started to ask
members of the group to prove to me the existence of electrons without
arguments, they failed to prove anything. I moved to the implications
of assuming that there is no deity responsible for the creation and the
sustenance of the universe. I assumed logically that if you deny the
existence of a deity you automatically underline the falsehood of
religion. If further accepted as a natural corollary that if religion
were false then one is no longer is bound by its rules. Accordingly, I
asked the question about incest. My point was simple and straight
forward, religion prohibits incestuous relations. What would be the
position if we relegate religion to the side. I received various
answers some of them took the form "don't be stupid". I asked the
second question in this vein about the morality of the target society
that we are moving to after, hypothetically, rejecting a society based
on religion. I asked about drugs, pornography, sorcery, I was told that
drugs were generally alright much like aspirins one member explained.
Pornography was also considered acceptable between consenting adults.
From these answers I simply moved the next step. I reasoned that if we
accept these forms of behavior then we should not be surprised if one
day we have a Prime Minister, an Education Minister and a Police Chief
who exhibit theses behaviors. Most members of the group did not have
any objections to such possibilities if the persons indicated had the
right qualification together with little adjustments for propriety's
sake. From these responses I formulated the next question. As a father
who has children in school I wanted to know the implications of
changing the morality of society on my own children.
The members of the group indirectly said to me that you should not be
surprised if a Minister of Education was a porn star. That takes us one
step further. If it is alright for a Minister of Education to be a porn
star, it follows that teachers can be porn stars. From there on my
concern was about the level of trust that I can have in a teacher who
was a porn star. As I know that pornography has dabbled with teen sex
and even child sex I voiced my concern as to what can be expected from
people who were porn stars. I also inquired whether the ten
commandments have any merit and how to amend them to suite our
projected society which doesn't base itself on false and imaginary
concepts such as the concept of God.
In all the above I was not trying to insult anyone. As an academic, I
have learnt that you prove your thesis by logical argumentation. That
proof is a set of conditions that satisfy the mind rather than the
senses. The proof that 4+4=8 is a condition that satisfies the mind not
the eyes nor the ears.
consequently, all I learnt from the members of this group is that they
interested in eradicating religion, but they have no time for building
a better alternative for mankind. Indirectly, they are inviting mankind
to pull down our old house, but they are not prepared to design a
better one for us. The only message they are transmitting consciously
or unconsciously, is this:
If you deny God, treat people who believe in God as idiots, use foul
language to drive in your insults, you win the argument.
What is so great about denying God. What sort of IQ does a person need
to deny God. All my five senses can not experience God therefore God
doesn't exist. Any body who failed his primary school can make such a
declaration. Would that make him/her automatically, scientifically
minded.
However, if mankind manage to design a highly intelligent robot which,
by some stretch of the imagination, has the ability to reproduce
itself in some way similar to human reproduction. (In the sense that
the newly born robot has a clean hard disk, and has to learn some
functions, such as walking and communication, through experience).
My question is if we send a couple (male and female)of these robots to
Mars and ask them to establish a colony there to achieve a particular
purpose, would it be intelligent at all for any robot of the second,
third or any subsequent generations to make the above argument? i.e.
All my five senses can not experience Man therefore Man doesn't exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
08 Sep 2005 04:31:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1126214647.650304.270460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> writes:
Dear Cary
Does writing the genetic code for an apple require less intelligence
than the designing of an abacus, a calculator, a car etc.? How many
intelligent human beings can right a computer program which can draw a
colorful apple on a computer screen, let alone righting the genetic
code for one.?
The fact that we did not witness the programmer write down the source
code for the apple does not in any way argue against the intelligence
behind the design, if you follow my point. It is simply lack of
imagination. But the facts are exactly as I say.
I see what you're saying. But it just chases back the mystery one
level -- who wrote the code for God? Or did He just sort of happen,
and then the rest stems directly or indirectly from Him?
Have you ever heard any one claim that the whole universe is one single
large program unfolding over time? That this program is already in one
single book? (i.e. the source code responsible for implementing the
design of the universe in real time hardware).
Could it be an accident that a religious book written 1400 years ago
makes such a claim?
To be honest, I know of nothing in the Bible - nor any other pre-20th
century religious document with which I am familiar -- which expresses
it in anything like these terms. Not anything stronger than "God
has a purpose for things".
But if you know of such, I -- and a lot of others in science -- would
sure like to look at the source code for turbulence.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
08 Sep 2005 10:39:02 PM |
|
|
On 8 Sep 2005 14:24:07 -0700, "MOTHER NATURE"
<avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Cary
Does writing the genetic code for an apple require less intelligence
than the designing of an abacus, a calculator, a car etc.?
Doesn't require any "intelligence" to do it right at all. It does,
however, require intelligence to document through writing the genetic
code of the apple.
How many
intelligent human beings can right a computer program which can draw a
colorful apple on a computer screen, let alone righting the genetic
code for one.?
Some more than others. I right a lot of things that other humans have
done wrong the first time.
The fact that we did not witness the programmer write down the source
code for the apple does not in any way argue against the intelligence
behind the design, if you follow my point.
You had a point?
It is simply lack of
imagination.
Ahh, now I get it, you imagined someone writing the source code for
the apple.
But the facts are exactly as I say.
But, you just said you imagined it. How can imagination be fact?
Have you ever heard any one claim that the whole universe is one single
large program unfolding over time?
Nope
That this program is already in one
single book?
Nope
(i.e. the source code responsible for implementing the
design of the universe in real time hardware).
Who designed the hardware? And then who designed the designer of the
hardware?
Could it be an accident that a religious book written 1400 years ago
makes such a claim?
Actually it makes perfect sense that 1400 years ago people seeking for
explanations of the world around them would create explanations for
that which they could not explain. Heck, you can go back a lot
farther than 1400 years to find explanations for the same things by
those people. Even some of those way, way, way, back peoples, before
written history created thingies like gods to explain what they could
not find suitable answers for.
Regards
Your inability to present a valid argument?
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLYMINDED? |
02 Sep 2005 12:24:27 AM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
I am not arguing for the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Koran.
I am simply discussing the possibility of there being an intelligent
designer behind the intelligent design of the universe?
Something tells me that you already have your answer. Live with it, and
don't bother people who may not share your answer.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
31 Aug 2005 11:42:09 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "muldoon" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 01:12:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
Buy a vocabulary book. They come illustrated you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 01:27:36 AM |
|
|
"muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1125555126.078206.88870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark.K.Bilbo@gmail.com wrote:
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
Buy a vocabulary book. They come illustrated you know.
Not even a good insult, never mind its lack of any substance....
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
| User: "muldoon" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 02:30:17 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1125555126.078206.88870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark.K.Bilbo@gmail.com wrote:
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
Buy a vocabulary book. They come illustrated you know.
Not even a good insult, never mind its lack of any substance....
--
-Donald in Austin
It's not meant to be an insult. It's good advice.
You should also read more.
Notice how people communicate.
Also, you need to attend fewer sporting events.
And here's a secret no one tells you: When you write and speak with
excess profanity, it sends a message about your opinion of yourself -
and it's not a good one.
Work on improving self esteem.
And, also, notice that Vic only uses profanity rarely, and with a
specific reason. He uses profanity artfully.
You need to learn and listen.
Start today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 03:38:47 AM |
|
|
"muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1125559817.843472.122640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1125555126.078206.88870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark.K.Bilbo@gmail.com wrote:
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the
problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
Buy a vocabulary book. They come illustrated you know.
Not even a good insult, never mind its lack of any substance....
--
-Donald in Austin
It's not meant to be an insult. It's good advice.
No it wasn't, fuckwit. Quit lying.
You should also read more.
I read quite a bit, when time permits.
Please feel free to throw out the typical, juvenile remark about "picture
books." You've already used it once, and it is the mindset of you
simpletons.
Notice how people communicate.
I do notice....
Idiots, like you, prattle off the typical load of nonsense,
pseudo-intellectual analysis and uneducated hypotheses, slather them in a
crust of politeness, and then throw it out here as though it was fit for
human consumption. But no matter how thick you roll on the smarmy
pleasantries, it doesn't change the fact that it's still *****, wrapped
in *****.
Maybe you should heed your own advice, since you've yet to add anything of
merit to this "communication."
Also, you need to attend fewer sporting events.
More lies....
Sports are a waste of time, for the most part.
And here's a secret no one tells you: When you write and speak with
excess profanity, it sends a message about your opinion of yourself -
and it's not a good one.
Here's a clue for you, fucknozzle: when idiots like you prance your
ignorance around like you're proud of it, you will be spoken to in a manner
appropriate for your behavior.
What you're not grasping is that your opinion of me doesn't mean jack-*****.
You are just another unimpressive liar and moron in a long line of
unimpressive liars and morons.
Work on improving self esteem.
More of your insults that you refuse to acknowledge as the true problem of
this exchange?
My self esteem is just fine, ***** you very much. You, on the other hand, are
obviously projecting your shortcomings onto others. It is you, fuckwit, that
has a self esteem issue, since you are unable to post a single message with
legitimate questions, nor having a shred of integrity.
The funny part is that you know my words to be true, you just aren't man
enough to admit it. You know full well that everything you've posted is
either lies, unfounded assertions, ***** speculation or veiled insults.
*Your* pitiful self esteem, on the other hand, is the genesis of you
propensity for posting such tripe.
And, also, notice that Vic only uses profanity rarely, and with a
specific reason. He uses profanity artfully.
Well, ***** you, ya fucking *****.....
From a sniveling profanity-***** like you, that's a challenge. What's next
in your bag of intelligent discourse? A spelling flame?
You need to learn and listen.
As usual, you motherfuckers don't grasp the fact that *YOU* are the problem.
Leave your wannabe-subtle insults masquerading as "advice" out of the
exchange, and I'll determine if I give enough of a ***** to alter my
language.
Until then, ***** you. We've listened to the insults from you two dipshits
for the better part of today. The only thing I've 'learned' is that neither
of you understand that you are the problem.
Your simpleton minds are unable to comprehend the concept that your lies and
insults, regardless of how cute you try to be, are more egregious than an
entire page of the word "*****."
Start today.
Go shove your head back up your Sky Pixie's *****, you blood-soaked, cultist
moron. You're unqualified to tell me how to shake my ***** after I *****.
Piece of advice for you: Maybe you should give that ol' "honesty" thing a
try.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
02 Sep 2005 03:12:04 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 00:30:17 -0700, "muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"muldoon" <brian9511@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1125555126.078206.88870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark.K.Bilbo@gmail.com wrote:
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<nothing worth reading>
A few observations.
"Denting god" is pretty funny. I guess somebody really did run over
your dogma with their karma.
There's no such thing as "foul language."
You should stop to consider that it's always possible that the problem
is, people don't like *you and none of what you're bitching about
actually has anything to do with atheism or gods or any such thing.
Mark
Buy a vocabulary book. They come illustrated you know.
Not even a good insult, never mind its lack of any substance....
--
-Donald in Austin
It's not meant to be an insult. It's good advice.
Of course it was meant as an insult.
snip of remaining example of pompous hypocrisy.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 09:20:04 AM |
|
|
muldoon wrote:
And here's a secret no one tells you: When you write and speak with
excess profanity, it sends a message about your opinion of yourself -
and it's not a good one.
Two words:
Bite me.
I speak and write English. As in Anglo-Saxon. If you want to be French,
that's your problem, not mine.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Well, that's what I'm talking
about...
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
31 Aug 2005 11:35:27 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
<snip>
How can a person prove a thesis, without arguments?
This is a joke, right? Where is the camera?
Why not suggest voting on it?
I mean, like I'm totally on your side, especially when it comes to
chemistry.
Physics and other labs I had no problems with but if I could vote to have my
thesis that there is no such color as pink I'd be happy.
I believe in the IPU but all those who agree that the solution is clear or
RED say aye. Pink is for unicorns, not chemistry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLYMINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 03:08:45 AM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that
MOTHER NATURE is incapable of constructing, typing, or coming up with an
argument.
Really buddy, give it a rest. Most atheists are kind, polite, rational
human beings, but they are not here for your amusement. When you behave
like they are, ***** and fans start to meet, thereby giving you further
fodder for more hate-filled wastes of time. It's almost like a circle
of life, except that you make people want to kill themselves to avoid
reading another mindless thread.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 10:24:49 AM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.
How much does it take to believe in a deity?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 01:35:05 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.
If your only exposure to atheism is a few exchanges on alt.atheism, a
newsgroup accustomed to daily bombardment from individuals who object
to atheism, generally in illogical and impolite ways, I can see why
you'd come to that conclusion.
There have been many thoughtful books written concerning Atheism. They
are probably a better source of information.
All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.
Not everyone uses bad manners, but you have to remember that many here
are answering the same questions they've answered hundreds of times
before, and meeting the same illogical and irrational attitudes they've
faced in the past. This tends to make people cranky, and less likely to
put the time and energy into giving a calm, well-reasoned, thoughtful
response... which is not to say that you can't get calm, well-reasoned,
thoughful responses.
As to your phrase "... assume without any proof that there is no God
...." one cannot prove that X does *not* exist. One can collect
evidence, and not a lack of evidence to support the assertion "X
exists", and that lack of evidence can be pursuasive.
In my case, I see no evidence that a Deity or Deities (humans have and
do worship and believe in thousands of different Deities) exist, nor do
I see a compelliing need to assert the existence or action of a Deity
or Deities in order to make sense of the world around me.
For me, it isn't a matter of proof, but rather a matter of evidence.
I set out by asking about the type of proof required to prove that God
is a reality.
Can you give an example of proof that couldn't be argued against as
being a matter of trickery or self-delusion? I'm honestly not trying to
be insulting here, but rather trying to illustrate that, no matter what
you offer as "proof", someone could always come up with an alternative
explanation.
That's why the concept of "proof" doesn't really help, but evidence
does.
I was told by various members of the group that the onus
was on me to choose the proof. I asked whether the Wittgenstein
argument was acceptable, I was told by some members of the group that
arguments are not acceptable; only facts. Other members didn't know
about.
I haven't heard of this "Wittgenstein argument", so I went looking, and
found this:
=============================================================================
(Source: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/sandin.htm)
Is it possible to establish the existence or nonexistence of a Divine
Being? A vast number of philosophers have tried to formulate proofs for
God's existence, ranging from Aristotle and his "unmoved mover" to St.
Anselm's ontological proof. The conclusion for many of these proofs is
"therefore, God necessarily exists." If these proofs are valid, as some
clearly are, why is it that the question over God's existence is one
with no definitive answer? Conversely atheists have also attempted to
disprove God's existence, or in the very least demonstrate why the
proofs by the theists are faulty. Citing such logical problems as the
problem of evil, atheists, like Albert Camus, have used these as
grounds to show the logical contradiction God's existence entails.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his Lectures on Religious Belief offers a
solution to this problem. Through the notion of his language-game
analysis, Wittgenstein challenges the assertion that proofs or evidence
have anything to do with religious belief. In this picture of language,
Wittgenstein is striving to maintain meaning in many areas of life. He
rejects the notion that science is able to answer all the questions of
the world. He concedes that science is very helpful in explaining how
the world operates, but maintains that it cannot give answers to why
there is a world at all. Wittgenstein aims to place science and
religion into separate spheres. The role of religion is important
because it gives humankind an avenue from which essential existential
and religious questions can be addressed. The goal of the religious
language-game is not to determine how the world operates, but rather to
help solve the "riddles of life."(Wittgenstein, PI)
Ultimately Wittgenstein concludes that proof, evidence, and reasons
have nothing to do with the formulation of religious belief. Religious
belief is not rational nor irrational, but something separate and
distinct from the concept of rationality. Rationality plays a role in
the language-game of science, not religion. One cannot justify one's
religious views from the standpoint of science, just as it would be
absurd to assert the theories of quantum mechanics from a religious
point of view. For Wittgenstein, science and religion are independent
and necessary to life, and because the goal of each activity is
different they cannot judge the merit of one another.
===============================================================================
It sounds like Wittgenstein was arguing that no proof was possible.
Did you have something else in mind?
How can a person prove a thesis, without arguments? I personally don't
know. Accordingly, I dropped the issue to one side. I started to ask
members of the group to prove to me the existence of electrons without
arguments, they failed to prove anything.
I can cite plenty of experiments whose outcomes are consistent with the
existence of entities we call electrons. I've designed electronic
circuits using theory that assumes electrons exist, and have certain
properties, and, lo and behold, the circuit worked.
I'd say that was pretty pursuasive evidence, wouldn't you?
I moved to the implications
of assuming that there is no deity responsible for the creation and the
sustenance of the universe. I assumed logically that if you deny the
existence of a deity you automatically underline the falsehood of
religion.
I don't have a belief in a Deity or Deities, but do see value in
spirituality and religion (depending on what spirituality and which
religions we're talking about).
If further accepted as a natural corollary that if religion
were false then one is no longer is bound by its rules.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a good rule no
matter what it's source is attributed to. I have a moral code that I
live by, but which isn't based on the purported will of a Divinity.
Accordingly, I asked the question about incest. My point was simple and straight
forward, religion prohibits incestuous relations. What would be the
position if we relegate religion to the side. I received various
answers some of them took the form "don't be stupid".
There does seem to be strong evidence of a biological basis for the
incest taboo.
That said, if two close relatives want to be intimate, and they're both
*consenting adults*, why should I care? I am concerned about the
increased risk of genetic defects, but that would be true if we were
talking about two unrelated adults who were somehow genetically
incompatible.
I asked the
second question in this vein about the morality of the target society
that we are moving to after, hypothetically, rejecting a society based
on religion. I asked about drugs, pornography, sorcery, I was told that
drugs were generally alright much like aspirins one member explained.
Pornography was also considered acceptable between consenting adults.
I don't have a problem with *responsible* drug use, and have no problem
with pornography produced by uncoerced adults under reasonable working
conditions.
I have no more problem with "sorcery" than I do with people wishing on
stars.
From these answers I simply moved the next step. I reasoned that if we
accept these forms of behavior then we should not be surprised if one
day we have a Prime Minister, an Education Minister and a Police Chief
who exhibit theses behaviors.
I'd be surprised if no Prime Minister, Education Minister, or Police
Chief in the history of Prime Ministers, Education Ministers, and
Police Chiefs had never engaged in drug use, or even incest or
"sorcery" (whatever that means).
Most members of the group did not have
any objections to such possibilities if the persons indicated had the
right qualification together with little adjustments for propriety's
sake. From these responses I formulated the next question. As a father
who has children in school I wanted to know the implications of
changing the morality of society on my own children.
Morality is not a fixed, universal constant. There are all sorts of
things which are legal, but which I consider to be *personally*
immoral. Likewise, I've no doubt that there are things which you
consider to be quite moral which I disagree with.
What is considered moral today is not the same as what was considered
moral in the past, and is unlikely to be the same as what is considered
moral in the future.
The members of the group indirectly said to me that you should not be
surprised if a Minister of Education was a porn star. That takes us one
step further. If it is alright for a Minister of Education to be a porn
star, it follows that teachers can be porn stars. From there on my
concern was about the level of trust that I can have in a teacher who
was a porn star.
You make a lot of unsupported assumptions here...
Look: everyone wants their kids to get a good education, and everyone
has their own idea of what moral or cultural values should accompany
that education. You seem to be trying to imply that a rejection of the
values you adhere to will somehow take us on a path to having porn
stars as school teachers.
Let's say your child's teacher *was* a porn star in their past. Isn't
the real question what kind of teacher are they right now?
As I know that pornography has dabbled with teen sex
and even child sex I voiced my concern as to what can be expected from
people who were porn stars.
I'd expect you to expect the same things that you'd expect of any
teacher.
I also inquired whether the ten
commandments have any merit and how to amend them to suite our
projected society which doesn't base itself on false and imaginary
concepts such as the concept of God.
Most societies have rules about theft, murder, lying, etc., because
rules like those tend to support successful societies. Rules like these
predate the Bible, and exist in non-Christian cultures.
In all the above I was not trying to insult anyone. As an academic, I
have learnt that you prove your thesis by logical argumentation. That
proof is a set of conditions that satisfy the mind rather than the
senses. The proof that 4+4=8 is a condition that satisfies the mind not
the eyes nor the ears.
The concept of "proof" is limited to formal systems with clearly stated
axioms and a well-defined set of operators over those axioms. Thus, we
have the concept of "proof" in logical and mathematical systems.
People use the word "proof" in common speech to mean "convincing
evidence." In our legal system, we have the phrase "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
You can't prove that the light shining outside your window is the Sun.
You can look at the evidence, but someone could argue that you were
seeing some sort of trickery, or that you were imagining it all, or all
sorts of unlikely, but possible explanations.
consequently, all I learnt from the members of this group is that they
interested in eradicating religion, but they have no time for building
a better alternative for mankind.
To be honest, you seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions based
on very limited evidence, and you seem to be very selective as to which
questions you're asking, and which observations you're making.
Indirectly, they are inviting mankind
to pull down our old house, but they are not prepared to design a
better one for us. The only message they are transmitting consciously
or unconsciously, is this:
If you deny God, treat people who believe in God as idiots, use foul
language to drive in your insults, you win the argument.
I deal in evidence, logic, reason. I don't have a belief in a Deity or
Deities, but I also have a moral code, and firm ideas as to what is and
is not moral.
What is so great about denying God. What sort of IQ does a person need
to deny God. All my five senses can not experience God therefore God
doesn't exist. Any body who failed his primary school can make such a
declaration. Would that make him/her automatically, scientifically
minded.
The evidence of my senses and reason are consistent with a reality
which does not contain a Deity or Deities. This is not to say that I
assert "Deities don't exist", though that is certainly a reasonable
provisional conclusion based on the evidence, and lack of thereof. I
don't believe that leprechauns or the Easter Bunny exist.
However, if mankind manage to design a highly intelligent robot which,
by some stretch of the imagination, has the ability to reproduce
itself in some way similar to human reproduction. (In the sense that
the newly born robot has a clean hard disk, and has to learn some
functions, such as walking and communication, through experience).
My question is if we send a couple (male and female)of these robots to
Mars and ask them to establish a colony there to achieve a particular
purpose, would it be intelligent at all for any robot of the second,
third or any subsequent generations to make the above argument? i.e.
All my five senses can not experience Man therefore Man doesn't exist.
These robots would look at a world which showed no evidence of their
having existed before a particular point in time, and which had no
entities which were in any way similar to them, and no phenomena which
could have produced them, either.
Unlike these AIs, we humans live in a world which does have evidence of
our having evolved from other lifeforms, stretching back about three
billion years. Indeed, it was this very evidence that led to the
development of evolutionary theory. The evidence came first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MOTHER NATURE" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 03:24:25 PM |
|
|
Dear Michael Altarriba
Having already posted my answers to most if not all the rest of your
points, I beg to disagree with your last point.
Unlike these AIs, we humans live in a world which does have evidence of
our having evolved from other lifeforms, stretching back about three
billion years. Indeed, it was this very evidence that led to the
development of evolutionary theory.
//*************The evidence came first************************/
I am sure you will agree that atheism existed long before any evidence
was ever presented for evolution. My question is, however, how does
evolution argue against a designer? If you give me all the information
about evolution, I can create a computer program that can simulate
evolution from A to Z , why is that so hard for a much more
intelligent designer?
Regards
Mother Nature
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 04:06:20 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
Dear Michael Altarriba
Having already posted my answers to most if not all the rest of your
points, I beg to disagree with your last point.
I read through the rest of your posts, and it didn't seem to me as if
you'd addressed many, let alone all of my points. Could you briefly
summarize your answers, or direct me to the relevant posts?
Unlike these AIs, we humans live in a world which does have evidence of
our having evolved from other lifeforms, stretching back about three
billion years. Indeed, it was this very evidence that led to the
development of evolutionary theory.
//*************The evidence came first************************/
I am sure you will agree that atheism existed long before any evidence
was ever presented for evolution.
Probably, but I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
My question is, however, how does
evolution argue against a designer?
It doesn't. Evolutionary theory gives a plausible explanation of how
life changes over time. It just so happens that this explanation
doesn't include some Intelligence acting on life to make it come out
the way it did.
As for how the first living matter arose (a different field of study
from evolutionary theory), there are some hypotheses as to how this may
have happened, but it's early days yet for abiogenesis research.
If you're interested, here's a good article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
If you give me all the information
about evolution, I can create a computer program that can simulate
evolution from A to Z , why is that so hard for a much more
intelligent designer?
Well, I don't know what you mean by "all the information about
evolution", exactly, but, even if you knew the exact position and
velocity of every particle in the universe five billion years ago, *you
still could not predict how the evolution of life would turn out*. One
of the outcomes of research in the field of chaotic systems is that
there are some systems whose future behavior can't be predicted with
certainty, even in principle, even if you start out with perfect
knowledge.
In any case, it isn't that some "Intelligent Designer" couldn't have
had a hand / tentacle / pseudopod in how life changed over time, it's
that the evidence we have is consistent with there being no Designer.
You can always claim that the Designer just happened to want to make
the biosphere look as if it weren't designed for it's own inscrutable
reasons, but the simpler position is simply to assume that there is no
Designer.
Regards
Mother Nature
I have a question for you: earlier, you made a reference to "drugs,
pornography, sorcery". What is your definition of the word "sorcery"?
Given that you mentioned it in the same breath as drugs and
pornography, I concluded that you thought sorcery was a bad thing.
Could you elaborate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MOTHER NATURE" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 04:29:34 PM |
|
|
Dear Michael Altarriba
have a question for you: earlier, you made a reference to "drugs,
pornography, sorcery". What is your definition of the word "sorcery"?
Given that you mentioned it in the same breath as drugs and
pornography, I concluded that you thought sorcery was a bad thing.
Could you elaborate?
I was talking about magic in general. Obviously scientifically minded
people deny it in the same breath as they deny God. But I have read a
book entitled
The Elixir and the Stone unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of the Occult,
by Michael Baigent and Ritchard Leigh suggesting an interesting
connection between science and magic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 07:20:04 PM |
|
|
"MOTHER NATURE" <avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126301374.800442.284610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dear Michael Altarriba
have a question for you: earlier, you made a reference to "drugs,
pornography, sorcery". What is your definition of the word "sorcery"?
Given that you mentioned it in the same breath as drugs and
pornography, I concluded that you thought sorcery was a bad thing.
Could you elaborate?
I was talking about magic in general. Obviously scientifically minded
people deny it in the same breath as they deny God. But I have read a
book entitled
The Elixir and the Stone unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of the Occult,
by Michael Baigent and Ritchard Leigh suggesting an interesting
connection between science and magic.
Oh my. Do you actually believe this ***** is real? Hon, I've been studying
the occult for years and I know it's *****.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 04:51:31 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
Dear Michael Altarriba
I have a question for you: earlier, you made a reference to "drugs,
pornography, sorcery". What is your definition of the word "sorcery"?
Given that you mentioned it in the same breath as drugs and
pornography, I concluded that you thought sorcery was a bad thing.
Could you elaborate?
I was talking about magic in general. Obviously scientifically minded
people deny it in the same breath as they deny God. But I have read a
book entitled
The Elixir and the Stone unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of the Occult,
by Michael Baigent and Ritchard Leigh suggesting an interesting
connection between science and magic.
Please give your definition of the word "magic." That word means many
different things to different people, and I'd like to understand what
it means to you.
I'm also hoping you'll address othe rest of my post. You seemed to have
cut out everything but this last bit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MOTHER NATURE" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 06:16:02 PM |
|
|
Dear Michael Altarriba
I am not an expert on magic. However, the religious faith that I
subscribe to says that practicing magic is one of the deadly sins.
However, let me relate to you what Michael Baigent et al's bookcover
says:
"With startling insight, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, acclaimed
authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, turn back the pages of
our intellectual history to uncover the magic and alchemy that have
always been part of our lives - a part which they believe is even more
important in this modern scientific age. The unifying thread, they
reveal, is Hermeticism, a body of esoteric teaching which flourished in
Alexandria two thousand years ago and was never entirely destroyed. The
Elixir and the Stone traces this fascinating tradition - a parallel to
today's holistic thought - from Egyptian times, through the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance to the present.
With it at last comes a true context for those shadowy alchemists and
magicians who have haunted our thoughts for centuries. With it, too,
comes an 'alternative' way of looking at the world - and the
possibility of a figure other than Christ who defines our civilization.
'An intellectual and very enjoyable read for anyone interested in the
occult or history of human development' Spirit
Regards
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
09 Sep 2005 06:29:15 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
Dear Michael Altarriba
I am not an expert on magic.
I'm just asking for what that word, as you use it, means *to you.*
As I said, that word means many different things to many different
people.
However, the religious faith that I
subscribe to says that practicing magic is one of the deadly sins.
The evidence of my senses and my reason suggests that most, if not all
of what is called "magic" is either misdirection and illusion meant to
entertain, misdirection and illusion meant for some other purpose, or a
metaphorical way of describing the ways in which one can change one's
relationship with reality, and would perhaps be more accurately
described as philosophy or spirituality.
However, as an Atheist, "sin" isn't a very useful concept, much less
its conception within one particular sect of the many sects of one
particular religion, let alone the similar concepts scattered across
all the religions of the world.
FWIW, my personal definition of "sin" is "hurting other people
unnecessarily."
However, let me relate to you what Michael Baigent et al's bookcover
says:
"With startling insight, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, acclaimed
authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, turn back the pages of
our intellectual history to uncover the magic and alchemy that have
always been part of our lives - a part which they believe is even more
important in this modern scientific age. The unifying thread, they
reveal, is Hermeticism, a body of esoteric teaching which flourished in
Alexandria two thousand years ago and was never entirely destroyed. The
Elixir and the Stone traces this fascinating tradition - a parallel to
today's holistic thought - from Egyptian times, through the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance to the present.
With it at last comes a true context for those shadowy alchemists and
magicians who have haunted our thoughts for centuries. With it, too,
comes an 'alternative' way of looking at the world - and the
possibility of a figure other than Christ who defines our civilization.
'An intellectual and very enjoyable read for anyone interested in the
occult or history of human development' Spirit
Regards
I went to the Amazon.com site, and googled the book's entry, including
the above description. That really doesn't tell me what the book is
about (it's to vague), or what you think of the subject.
I'm still hoping you'll address the rest of my original post. There's a
lot more there than my small question concerning what you believe is
"sorcery."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
10 Sep 2005 09:56:06 AM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
If your only exposure to atheism is a few exchanges on alt.atheism, a
newsgroup accustomed to daily bombardment from individuals who object
to atheism, generally in illogical and impolite ways, I can see why
you'd come to that conclusion.
There have been many thoughtful books written concerning Atheism.
But will we need more printers? The way I read the "issue" was that
we'd have to get access (and that isn't going to happen anytime soon
They
are probably a better source of information.
All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.
Not everyone uses bad manners, but you have to remember that many here
are answering the same questions they've answered hundreds of times
before, and meeting the same illogical and irrational attitudes they've
faced in the past.
What about these posts, same thing with printing?
This tends to make people cranky, and less likely to
put the time and energy into giving a calm, well-reasoned, thoughtful
response... which is not to say that you can't get calm, well-reasoned,
thoughful responses.
And I'm still thinking about the tea drinking.
mk5000
"The Young Machines is definitely a purging of sorts. I think the
record was a way for me to confront some of the darkest sides of my
personality. So in the end, I would think that the hope outweighs
everything else--her space holiday
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
31 Aug 2005 10:44:24 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.
Well, you'd certainly be the expert on things which do not require
intelligence.
By the way, what the ***** exactly is wrong with you anyway?
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLYMINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 04:57:07 PM |
|
|
MOTHER NATURE wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such. All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.
Actually, you are the one treating us like idiots. What circle of Hell
do hypocrites inhabit again?
But I digress. There is no need to prove a negative; a disclaim. Only
a postitive -- a claim -- needs proof.
This rant here shows your perceived egotism and perceived superiority
over atheists.
I set out by asking about the type of proof required to prove that God
is a reality. I was told by various members of the group that the onus
was on me to choose the proof. I asked whether the Wittgenstein
argument was acceptable, I was told by some members of the group that
arguments are not acceptable; only facts. Other members didn't know
about.
You must have missed mine. The red welts spelling "I exist" on the
bellies of every human being on the planet, appearing simultaneously?
Remember that one?
How can a person prove a thesis, without arguments?
Indeed. How can you?
I personally don't
know. Accordingly, I dropped the issue to one side. I started to ask
members of the group to prove to me the existence of electrons without
arguments, they failed to prove anything.
Lightning. Static electricity.
I moved to the implications
of assuming that there is no deity responsible for the creation and the
sustenance of the universe. I assumed logically that if you deny the
existence of a deity you automatically underline the falsehood of
religion. If further accepted as a natural corollary that if religion
were false then one is no longer is bound by its rules.
That's not a natural corollary. There are rules, provided by nature,
such as "survival instincts."
I always go back to the story of Ug and Grunt.
Grunt slept with Ug's girlfriend. Ug says, "Ug real mad. Ug want kill
Grunt. But, Grunt make spear. Spear tool to get meat. Meat feed Ug.
Ug kill Grunt, Ug not get food, Ug die. Ug still mad, but Ug not kill
Grunt."
See? Birth of morality.
Accordingly, I
asked the question about incest. My point was simple and straight
forward, religion prohibits incestuous relations. What would be the
position if we relegate religion to the side. I received various
answers some of them took the form "don't be stupid".
Because, if you knew the first thing about nature, incestual sexual
relations cause the expansion of "homozygotes," which can lead to birth
defects.
Also, the Bible contains many references to incestual relationships. In
Gen 20:12, Abraham tells King Abimelech that Sarah "really is my sister,
the daughter of my father though not my mother; and she becaem my wife."
In Gen 11:29, "The name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter
of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah."
In Gen 19:36, "Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father."
Genesis 38 tells the tale of Judah, who impregnates Tamar, his
daughter-in-law.
Exodus 6:20 tells of Moses' father, who married his aunt. "Amram
married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses."
And there are more. Therefore, "relegat[ing] religion to the side" is
disingenuous since the Bible apparently condones incest. It is not as
if atheism creates incest.
I asked the
second question in this vein about the morality of the target society
that we are moving to after, hypothetically, rejecting a society based
on religion. I asked about drugs, pornography, sorcery, I was told that
drugs were generally alright much like aspirins one member explained.
Pornography was also considered acceptable between consenting adults.
From these answers I simply moved the next step.
Why did you not speak about the rejection of sorcery?
I reasoned that if we
accept these forms of behavior then we should not be surprised if one
day we have a Prime Minister, an Education Minister and a Police Chief
who exhibit theses behaviors. Most members of the group did not have
any objections to such possibilities if the persons indicated had the
right qualification together with little adjustments for propriety's
sake. From these responses I formulated the next question. As a father
who has children in school I wanted to know the implications of
changing the morality of society on my own children.
The members of the group indirectly said to me that you should not be
surprised if a Minister of Education was a porn star. That takes us one
step further. If it is alright for a Minister of Education to be a porn
star, it follows that teachers can be porn stars. From there on my
concern was about the level of trust that I can have in a teacher who
was a porn star.
Why should you be concerned about the level of trust?
As I know that pornography has dabbled with teen sex
and even child sex I voiced my concern as to what can be expected from
people who were porn stars.
Priests have also "dabbled with teen sex." Should you be concerned
about the level of trust that you can have with folks like that in a church?
I also inquired whether the ten
commandments have any merit and how to amend them to suite our
projected society which doesn't base itself on false and imaginary
concepts such as the concept of God.
In all the above I was not trying to insult anyone.
Except it does insult. You conflate incest, pornography, and other
"immoral" behaviors with atheism. This suggests that atheists are
immoral. This is, quite frankly, insulting.
As an academic, I
have learnt that you prove your thesis by logical argumentation. That
proof is a set of conditions that satisfy the mind rather than the
senses. The proof that 4+4=8 is a condition that satisfies the mind not
the eyes nor the ears.
Except it can satisfy the eyes. If you have four pencils on a table and
you put four more pencils on the table, you now have 8 pencils on the table.
consequently, all I learnt from the members of this group is that they
interested in eradicating religion,
We are not interested in eradicating religion. This is another falsehood.
but they have no time for building
a better alternative for mankind. Indirectly, they are inviting mankind
to pull down our old house, but they are not prepared to design a
better one for us.
Actually, we are not inviting anyone to pull down anything.
The only message they are transmitting consciously
or unconsciously, is this:
If you deny God, treat people who believe in God as idiots, use foul
language to drive in your insults, you win the argument.
Actually, no. What we see from you is, if you can conflate immoral
behavior with atheism, you win the argument, as if atheist cannot be moral.
What is so great about denying God. What sort of IQ does a person need
to deny God. All my five senses can not experience God therefore God
doesn't exist. Any body who failed his primary school can make such a
declaration. Would that make him/her automatically, scientifically
minded.
Yes, but unable to understand what he was seeing.
However, if mankind manage to design a highly intelligent robot which,
by some stretch of the imagination, has the ability to reproduce
itself in some way similar to human reproduction. (In the sense that
the newly born robot has a clean hard disk, and has to learn some
functions, such as walking and communication, through experience).
My question is if we send a couple (male and female)of these robots to
Mars and ask them to establish a colony there to achieve a particular
purpose, would it be intelligent at all for any robot of the second,
third or any subsequent generations to make the above argument?
As there would be evidence of the mankind on Earth, and the robots could
build a telescope to see the Earth and mankind on earth, then they'd
have evidence of the designer.
However, we have done the same as the robots that you suggested and
found absolutely zero evidence of any kind of designer... anywhere.
i.e.
All my five senses can not experience Man therefore Man doesn't exist.
Why can you not experience Man? You have all the equipment such as
telescopes, radiometric data collecting, and what not.
So, please show ANY evidence that you have of a designer, or please
accept the facts that we already have, such as evolution.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 04:30:51 PM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2005 20:31:44 -0700, "MOTHER NATURE"
<avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.
From the few posts of yours I've read, you might want to recall the
saying about people who live in glass houses.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
01 Sep 2005 12:24:03 PM |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2005 20:31:44 -0700, "MOTHER NATURE"
<avatar1.shyke@gmail.com> wrote:
From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.
If that were true, you'd be an atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
31 Aug 2005 10:45:45 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet MOTHER NATURE
(avatar1.shyke@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<nothing of value>
Denting god? Can the god be dented? What is the god made of? I know he
is no match for iron chariots, but what does it take to dent your god?
What a silly git.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLYMINDED? |
02 Sep 2005 10:45:51 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet MOTHER NATURE
(avatar1.shyke@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<nothing of value>
Denting god? Can the god be dented? What is the god made of? I know he
is no match for iron chariots, but what does it take to dent your god?
If somebody dents your old god you don't get much for it. If you have a new
god you should really get god insurance, so that if your new god gets
dented, you can take it to the god body shop and have the dent smoothed out
and repainted. God insurance covers most dents, except those caused by an
act of god.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED? |
02 Sep 2005 06:59:40 PM |
|
|
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet MOTHER NATURE
(avatar1.shyke@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<nothing of value>
Denting god? Can the god be dented? What is the god made of? I
know he is no match for iron chariots, but what does it take to dent
your god?
If somebody dents your old god you don't get much for it. If you have
a new god you should really get god insurance, so that if your new
god gets dented, you can take it to the god body shop and have the
dent smoothed out and repainted. God insurance covers most dents,
except those caused by an act of god.
Glenn Arnold
Wise advice but it says "DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE"
So does this mean chicken, turkey, or duck talk?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: DOES DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE MAKE YOU SCIENTIFICALLYMINDED? |
02 Sep 2005 08:35:48 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Glenn Arnold wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet MOTHER NATURE
(avatar1.shyke@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<nothing of value>
Denting god? Can the god be dented? What is the god made of? I
know he is no match for iron chariots, but what does it take to dent
your god?
If somebody dents your old god you don't get much for it. If you have
a new god you should really get god insurance, so that if your new
god gets dented, you can take it to the god body shop and have the
dent smoothed out and repainted. God insurance covers most dents,
except those caused by an act of god.
Glenn Arnold
Wise advice but it says "DENTING GOD AND USING FOUL LANGUAGE"
So does this mean chicken, turkey, or duck talk?
I guess if you goose god he gets all bent out of shape.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
