| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 04:39:35 PM |
| Object: |
hmmm's... |
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give, at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
==
"We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists,
but nature exposed to our methods of perception[ways of seeing]. The
theories determine what we can or cannot observe." -- Albert Einstein,
The Meaning of Relativity
=
"Skepticism and scientific conviction exist in modern man side by side
with old-fashioned prejudices, out-dated habits of thought and feeling,
obstinate mis-interpretations, and blind ignorance." -- Carl G. Jung,
Man and His Symbols
.
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
25 Jan 2005 06:34:29 PM |
|
|
Prove it to me.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give, at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any rational
person, but not wih science.
"We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists,
but nature exposed to our methods of perception[ways of seeing]. The
theories determine what we can or cannot observe." -- Albert Einstein,
The Meaning of Relativity
And that means? I know what Einstein meant. What the ***** do you mean?
"Skepticism and scientific conviction exist in modern man side by side
with old-fashioned prejudices, out-dated habits of thought and feeling,
obstinate mis-interpretations, and blind ignorance." -- Carl G. Jung,
Man and His Symbols
So he was talking a about Man. Who the hell specifically?
--
The argument that everything had a Creator because it's too complicated,
is
about as reasonable as saying that it couldn't have been created since
it's
too complicated.
It's about like saying that a super flea created a dog. Then
the good fleas go to a great dog in the sky, while the bad unbelieving
fleas
are scratched off into a super rug to be forever hungry. If you think dogs
weren't created by a Great Flea then you are an afleaist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
25 Jan 2005 06:34:31 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in
news:10vdls9sli5n0e8@corp.supernews.com:
Prove it to me.
Couldn't prove ***** stinks to you. You'd redefine "stink" to mean
"pleasing to the Lord".
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
25 Jan 2005 07:39:31 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:10vdls9sli5n0e8@corp.supernews.com...
Prove it to me.
DW Suiter
Son of God
Prove what it?
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give,
at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of
the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any rational
person, but not wih science.
"We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists,
but nature exposed to our methods of perception[ways of seeing]. The
theories determine what we can or cannot observe." -- Albert Einstein,
The Meaning of Relativity
And that means? I know what Einstein meant. What the ***** do you mean?
"Skepticism and scientific conviction exist in modern man side by side
with old-fashioned prejudices, out-dated habits of thought and
feeling,
obstinate mis-interpretations, and blind ignorance." -- Carl G. Jung,
Man and His Symbols
So he was talking a about Man. Who the hell specifically?
--
The argument that everything had a Creator because it's too complicated,
is
about as reasonable as saying that it couldn't have been created since
it's
too complicated.
It's about like saying that a super flea created a dog. Then
the good fleas go to a great dog in the sky, while the bad unbelieving
fleas
are scratched off into a super rug to be forever hungry. If you think
dogs
weren't created by a Great Flea then you are an afleaist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 08:12:31 AM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:10vdls9sli5n0e8@corp.supernews.com...
Prove it to me.
DW Suiter
Son of God
Prove what little top poster? You negated the rest of this post by your own
top posting.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
25 Jan 2005 06:33:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:34:29 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give, at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any rational
person, but not with science.
Prove it to me.
You're operating under the mistaken assumption that you're a rational
person.
DW Suiter
Son of God
QED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 06:50:20 AM |
|
|
Offer the proof or admit the statement was purely garbage.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:mq3ev0dsct4usdbnil1h7jop79q39dos8l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:34:29 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give,
at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of
the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any
rational
person, but not with science.
Prove it to me.
You're operating under the mistaken assumption that you're a rational
person.
DW Suiter
Son of God
QED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
27 Jan 2005 08:47:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:50:20 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Offer the proof or admit the statement was purely garbage.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that requires evidence.
Where's yours?
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 01:29:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:50:20 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
DW Suiter
Son of God
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:mq3ev0dsct4usdbnil1h7jop79q39dos8l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:34:29 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can give,
at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range of
the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any
rational
person, but not with science.
Prove it to me.
You're operating under the mistaken assumption that you're a rational
person.
DW Suiter
Son of God
QED.
Offer the proof or admit the statement was purely garbage.
I didn't make the statement. And you still don't appear to be a
rational person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 05:38:44 PM |
|
|
I appear to be what I am.
DW Suiter
Son of God
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:oc6gv0t5icr5rtrrfgn33c1nroq94ivv6i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:50:20 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
DW Suiter
Son of God
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:mq3ev0dsct4usdbnil1h7jop79q39dos8l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:34:29 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6FAJd.5823$r27.1609@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be
and
there'll *never* be such a thing. Period. All that science can
give,
at
any given point in time, is the best model consistent with the
information available at that time. Said information consisting,
invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of a finite range
of
the
physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient to uniquely
pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
Since when did science try to prove that? I can prove it to any
rational
person, but not with science.
Prove it to me.
You're operating under the mistaken assumption that you're a rational
person.
DW Suiter
Son of God
QED.
Offer the proof or admit the statement was purely garbage.
I didn't make the statement. And you still don't appear to be a
rational person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 06:26:48 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:10vg6velso2eo6c@corp.supernews.com...
I appear to be what I am.
DW Suiter
Son of God
Yes you do, a top posting *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
26 Jan 2005 05:35:43 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message
news:10vg6velso2eo6c@corp.supernews.com...
I appear to be what I am.
Yes, a lunatic.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
27 Jan 2005 12:05:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:38:44 -0600, "DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net>
wrote:
I appear to be what I am.
A top-posting moron?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Hmmm'S... |
26 Jan 2005 01:10:29 PM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
"There is *no* such thing as a scientific theory guaranteed to be
absolutely true, with no possibility of error. There *can't* be and
there'll *never* be such a thing.
Then your proposing an empirical belief which is realatively true if and
only if it coheres with a system of other beliefs, which together form a
comprehensive account of reality, which in science is similar to how "fact"
can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional assent," and depends upon the evidential and conceptual
("context") of reasoning or an inductive argument from evidence to
hypothesis which is inductively cogent if and only if the hypothesis is that
hypothesis which, of all the competing hypothesis, has the greatest
probability of being true on the basis of the evidence, consequently leading
one to believe that whether it is reasonable to accept a hypothesis as true,
if the statements of evidence are true, is determined by whether that
hypothesis is the most probable, on the evidence, of all those with which it
competes, BUT at the same time saying that such empirical beliefs are
justifiable?
Period. All that science can give, at any given point in time, is the
best model consistent with the information available at that time. Said
information consisting, invevitably, of a finite set of data collected of
a finite range of the physical parameter space, it can never be sufficient
to uniquely pinpoint a single model to the exclusion of others."
===
Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
==
"We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists, but
nature exposed to our methods of perception[ways of seeing]. The theories
determine what we can or cannot observe." -- Albert Einstein, The Meaning
of Relativity
=
"Skepticism and scientific conviction exist in modern man side by side
with old-fashioned prejudices, out-dated habits of thought and feeling,
obstinate mis-interpretations, and blind ignorance." -- Carl G. Jung, Man
and His Symbols
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
25 Jan 2005 08:10:42 PM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
| ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith
I am nothing."
Man: "But, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isnīt it? It could not have
evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments,
you donīt. QED."
God: "Oh dear, I hadnīt thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of
logic.
Some more of God's Greatest Mistakes. So much for "intelligent design".
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
27 Jan 2005 03:04:32 PM |
|
|
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
| ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith
I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, -you- are nothing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
28 Jan 2005 02:15:33 PM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
<snip>
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without
faith, -you- are nothing."
That is an oxymoron.
If god said 'I refuse to prove I exist', then how on earth would you know
*he* said it!!!!!
God: "I refuse to prove I exist"
Man: "Who said that?"
God [another man]: "D'oh!"
Marvin
###########################################
You wake up in the morning, get something for the pot
Wonder why the sun makes the rocks feel hot
Draw on the walls, eat, get laid
Back in the good old days
- Roger Waters
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 07:01:57 AM |
|
|
"Marvin" <marvinadams42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DNGdnfIDM8j7AGfcRVnyjA@pipex.net...
|
| "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| > Richard Dell wrote:
| >> "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >>
|
| <snip>
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without
| > faith, -you- are nothing."
|
| That is an oxymoron.
But according to david, God is above logic.
| If god said 'I refuse to prove I exist', then how on earth would you know
| *he* said it!!!!!
|
| God: "I refuse to prove I exist"
| Man: "Who said that?"
| God [another man]: "D'oh!"
Hilarious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 05:51:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:01:57 -0000, "Richard Dell"
<rfdell@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
But according to david, God is above logic.
Then, since he can't make a 4-sided triangle, he can't exist.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
28 Jan 2005 02:31:03 AM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without
faith
| > I am nothing."
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
28 Jan 2005 02:59:17 PM |
|
|
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without
faith
| > I am nothing."
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 06:59:45 AM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41FAA7A5.3040103@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| > | Richard Dell wrote:
| > | > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| > | >
| > | > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
| > | > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| > | >
| > | > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without
| > faith
| > | > I am nothing."
| > |
| > | God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| > | without faith, -you- are nothing."
| >
| > Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
|
| Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
| sack of skin and bones.
That is what we are - organic machines. Extraordinary, amazing, complex,
wonderful, but machines none the less. WITH God, the "animation" just gets
snarled up with mental detritus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 09:33:25 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <41FAA7A5.3040103@ak.net>, david lumbered into the
room and mumbled:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
| > news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
| > | science ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| > without
faith
| > I am nothing."
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated sack
of skin and bones.
And there is one of the fundamental evils of your religion.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
28 Jan 2005 08:47:06 PM |
|
|
david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41FAA7A5.3040103@ak.net...
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without
faith
| > I am nothing."
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
Um, WITH belief, faith, and trust in God you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
28 Jan 2005 03:16:54 PM |
|
|
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how can
science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 03:20:16 AM |
|
|
Sam wrote:
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how
can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, you are nothing.
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
How about an animated sack of skin and bones that wants to be more than
a machine living out ITs programmed existence as a wage slave?
Don't you want to be free to grow to be free of your programmed life of
canned reality that you live/exist in at your own expense/cost/risk?
If so, abolish the power of money.
Talk about it. Anything less is programmed slavery to your monied
masters programming YOU to fill THEIR needs at YOUR expense.
Learn to share for free for the good of all our relations.
Its that simple.
Are you too stupid to understand simple? If so, ask why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
30 Jan 2005 12:23:34 PM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41FB5550.4010803@ak.net...
Sam wrote:
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how
can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, you are nothing.
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
How about an animated sack of skin and bones that wants to be more than
a machine living out ITs programmed existence as a wage slave?
And how exactly does believing in an imaginary sky pixie contributes to this
aim ?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 08:40:34 AM |
|
|
david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in news:41FB5550.4010803@ak.net:
Sam wrote:
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how
can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith,
| > and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, you are nothing.
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
How about an animated sack of skin and bones that wants to be more
than a machine living out ITs programmed existence as a wage slave?
I happen to be a very intelligent machine, self programmed and self
employed.
Don't you want to be free to grow to be free of your programmed life
of canned reality that you live/exist in at your own
expense/cost/risk?
What I *want* has nothing to do with what actually *is*.
If so, abolish the power of money.
Irrelevant.
Talk about it. Anything less is programmed slavery to your monied
masters programming YOU to fill THEIR needs at YOUR expense.
Non sequitur.
Learn to share for free for the good of all our relations.
Babble.
Its that simple.
Are you too stupid to understand simple? If so, ask why.
False dichotomies and poor analogies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
29 Jan 2005 08:54:56 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in news:41FB5550.4010803@ak.net:
Sam wrote:
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how
can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith,
| > and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, you are nothing.
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
| without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an animated
sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
How about an animated sack of skin and bones that wants to be more
than a machine living out ITs programmed existence as a wage slave?
I happen to be a very intelligent machine, self programmed and self
employed.
Don't forget that you are a slave to your monied programming...
Don't you want to be free to grow to be free of your programmed life
of canned reality that you live/exist in at your own
expense/cost/risk?
What I *want* has nothing to do with what actually *is*.
Are you serious? Why exist if you cannot freely pursue your interests
outside your programming? Are you not able to think outside your
programming?
If so, abolish the power of money.
Irrelevant.
How can abolishing the power of money be irrelevant when clearly, the
power of money is what limits and defines your growth?
Talk about it. Anything less is programmed slavery to your monied
masters programming YOU to fill THEIR needs at YOUR expense.
Non sequitur.
Claiming the truth to be illogical only confirms your programmed ill-logic.
Learn to share for free for the good of all our relations.
Babble.
Are you a capitalist bio-bot?
Its that simple.
Are you too stupid to understand simple? If so, ask why.
False dichotomies and poor analogies.
Why do you defend/protect/serve your monied programmers that limit your
growth at your expense?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
30 Jan 2005 07:06:36 AM |
|
|
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message news:41FC4C80.7010308@ak.net...
| Don't forget that you are a slave to your monied programming...
???
Man may not live by bread alone, but he sure as hell cannot live without it. Do
you live without money? Could you? Or would you go around like a sadhu,
expecting all the "money slaves" to see to all your physical needs?
| How can abolishing the power of money be irrelevant when clearly, the
| power of money is what limits and defines your growth?
How would you abolish the power of money, then david? There was a country in
1975 that abolished money. It was called Democratic Khampuchea. Ever heard of
Pol Pot?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: hmmm's... |
30 Jan 2005 09:28:19 AM |
|
|
david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in news:41FC4C80.7010308@ak.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
david <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in news:41FB5550.4010803@ak.net:
Sam wrote:
david wrote:
Richard Dell wrote:
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F95760.6080200@ak.net...
| Richard Dell wrote:
| > "david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F6CAA7.20409@ak.net...
| >
| > | Since *no* theory is *ever* really "proven" in science...how
can science
| > | ever hope to prove that God does not exist with science?
| >
| > God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith,
| > and
without faith
| > I am nothing."
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
without faith, you are nothing.
|
| God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith,
| and without faith, -you- are nothing."
Yet here I am. I refute it thus - Dr Johnson.
Without belief, faith, trust in God, you are nothing but an
animated sack of skin and bones.
what else should we be?
How about an animated sack of skin and bones that wants to be more
than a machine living out ITs programmed existence as a wage slave?
I happen to be a very intelligent machine, self programmed and self
employed.
Don't forget that you are a slave to your monied programming...
I'm not a slave. I get paid for the work that I do.
Don't you want to be free to grow to be free of your programmed life
of canned reality that you live/exist in at your own
expense/cost/risk?
What I *want* has nothing to do with what actually *is*.
Are you serious? Why exist if you cannot freely pursue your interests
outside your programming? Are you not able to think outside your
programming?
What makes you think you're any different?
If so, abolish the power of money.
Irrelevant.
How can abolishing the power of money be irrelevant when clearly, the
power of money is what limits and defines your growth?
Money doesn't limit me, it empowers me.
Talk about it. Anything less is programmed slavery to your monied
masters programming YOU to fill THEIR needs at YOUR expense.
Non sequitur.
Claiming the truth to be illogical only confirms your programmed
ill-logic.
I don't have any masters. I have customers.
Learn to share for free for the good of all our relations.
Babble.
Are you a capitalist bio-bot?
No. I'm a human being.
Its that simple.
Are you too stupid to understand simple? If so, ask why.
False dichotomies and poor analogies.
Why do you defend/protect/serve your monied programmers that limit
your growth at your expense?
I don't know who these "monied programmers" are anyway.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
