| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"BTR1701" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2006 10:00:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 04:48:00 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 05:21:26 AM |
|
|
Douglas D. Anderson wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy
it, then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
oh yes he can!
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 05:26:00 AM |
|
|
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 03:15:54 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding. Assume rather, that
God created the substance ex nihilo and enabled a process whereby parents
may be the ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 06:03:58 PM |
|
|
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 07:30:57 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 10:40:46 AM |
|
|
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy
into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them
in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy
it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he
didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can
do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by inventing "God"
</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 03:42:20 AM |
|
|
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by inventing "God"
</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
right before he eats your liver.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 11:28:37 AM |
|
|
"Pumba" <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote in message
news:dra5h7$qs8$3@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by inventing
"God"
</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't
seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people
left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
right before he eats your liver.
Exactly. That's almost guaranteed ... but *not* before he stole my camera
and forcefully convinced me to teach him all the basic "sorcery" of "soul
snatching", thereby adding to their arsenal of thought control devices ...
Those in power (who may or may not be the shaman and his cohorts) always
play the religious "magic" card in any way they see fit until there is no
more leverage.
Watcher
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 10:55:33 PM |
|
|
Watcher wrote:
"Pumba" <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote in message
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by inventing
"God"
</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't
seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people
left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
right before he eats your liver.
Exactly. That's almost guaranteed ... but *not* before he stole my camera
he'll be flogging it on eBay before your corpse is cold.
and forcefully convinced me to teach him all the basic "sorcery" of "soul
snatching", thereby adding to their arsenal of thought control devices ...
Those in power (who may or may not be the shaman and his cohorts) always
play the religious "magic" card in any way they see fit until there is no
more leverage.
Watcher
uh huh. whatever.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 07:37:06 PM |
|
|
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy
into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them
in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy
it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he
didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can
do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by inventing "God"
</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
So you've managed to sidestep "the great leap of faith" and find a railing
right near the edge to hold on to... your digital camera doesn't hold a
candle to the sun next to the incomprehensibly wonderful machinery of the
solar system, which is just a speck of dust in a dust storm in a dust storm
of dust storms ad infinitum, judging by deep space pictures from the Hubble
Space Telescope of a dust storm of galaxies billions of light years away,
which have an intelligence we'll never know... he'd probably think you were
a sorcerer or magician and burn you at the stake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 12:15:31 AM |
|
|
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:6JVBf.144581$XC4.53015@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy
into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them
in the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to
destroy
it, then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he
didn't kill off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this,
I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God
didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works. As long
as people have kept records they have managed to explain things they
don't understand.
<sarcasm>Indeed. They have managed to explain EVERYTHING by
inventing "God"</sarcasm>.
I'm quite sure that a man living in a primitive tribe and who hadn't
seen a
digital camera (with an LCD) before--if there are still any such people
left
on this planet--would think that I had snatched his "soul" when I took a
snapshot of him and showed him his "soul" on the LCD; he might even be
inclined to any slight persuasion that I could be his Master/God.
Watcher
So you've managed to sidestep "the great leap of faith" and find a railing
right near the edge to hold on to... your digital camera doesn't hold a
candle to the sun next to the incomprehensibly wonderful machinery of the
solar system,
Not at all. The wonders of the macrocosm is just as beautiful and intriguing
as the wonders of the microcosm. Your so-called "great leap of faith"
presupposes some kind of "watchmaker" assumption, which has been rendered
illogical a long time ago [see two paragraphs below].
You seem to think the physics of the solar system is more beautiful than the
physics behind the technology of a digital camera? If you do, I urge you to
repeat your physics 101, 201, and 301. By the time you reach physics 401, if
you still haven't understood that it is the same laws of modern physics that
govern the solar system and that of the subatomic world (tremendous progress
has been made since the time of Einstein) and that of the digital camera
(especially the physics of CCDs), you will need to repeat physics101 of the
21st century again.
But then the believer would say, "Where do all these physics laws come
from?" Thanks to Russell, the stupidity of the "watchmaker" view (or
"intelligent design" view) of the universe--"If there is a watch, who and
where is the watchmaker?"--had been put to rest once-and-for-all almost
eighty years ago--that is, assuming that one still holds the sanctity of
logical thinking and logical reasoning dear. The "Watchmaker" view suffers
the same fate as the "First Cause" view ("everything must have a cause").
[Exercise 1 for the Logic101-challenged: Deduce a logical contradiction from
the "Watchmaker" assumption. Exercise 2: Prove that every logical
contradiction entails the absurdity that "everyone is God".]
which is just a speck of dust in a dust storm in a dust storm
of dust storms ad infinitum, judging by deep space pictures from the
Hubble
Space Telescope of a dust storm of galaxies billions of light years away,
which have an intelligence we'll never know... he'd probably think you
were
a sorcerer or magician and burn you at the stake.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably not if I'm smart enough to teach the most
powerful few such as the king, the chief or the shaman in that tribe how to
"steal souls" (via a digital camera). Then they themselves would start a
faith and priesthood to perpetuate the myth of the "soul snatching" and
sacred and secret ritual to perform "soul restoration". Of course that will
be so useful for those who want to tighten their grip of power in that
tribe. When view from a sufficiently ignorant level, a "god" is just someone
who can do the seemingly "impossible". As Arthur C. Clarke once said,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Science has no need for the "God" hypothesis, to paraphrase a saying
attributed to Pierre Laplace. Anthropomorphizing the Universe is what it was
when "God" was fashioned by men to try to explain everything without really
explaining anything at all. More than likely, it was fashioned by men who
wanted to consolidate their political power through the enforcement of
dogmatic thinking.
In 1813, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, said:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purpose." Ultimately, it is not about
brains. It is primarily fear of the unknown and despair arising from
tremendous personal loss that people feel the need to resort to any faith.
"I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion is
anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
emotional
grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack
religion,
because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it."
-- Bertrand Russell ["Why I am not a Christian"]
(http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
Stop pretending that you are thinking clearly or using logical
reasoning in any argument which implicitly assumes the existence of an
"omni-anything-goes" being. Abandon logical thinking once-and-for-all
immediately. There is no alternative if you value your faith dear.
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."
-- B. F. Skinner [Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical
Analysis, 1969]
Watcher
==
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the
homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
[Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787]
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo
[Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615]
==
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 11:04:17 AM |
|
|
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
Not at all. The wonders of the macrocosm is just as beautiful and intriguing
as the wonders of the microcosm. Your so-called "great leap of faith"
presupposes some kind of "watchmaker" assumption, which has been rendered
illogical a long time ago [see two paragraphs below].
You seem to think the physics of the solar system is more beautiful than the
physics behind the technology of a digital camera? If you do, I urge you to
repeat your physics 101, 201, and 301. By the time you reach physics 401, if
you still haven't understood that it is the same laws of modern physics that
govern the solar system and that of the subatomic world (tremendous progress
has been made since the time of Einstein) and that of the digital camera
(especially the physics of CCDs), you will need to repeat physics101 of the
21st century again.
But then the believer would say, "Where do all these physics laws come
from?" Thanks to Russell, the stupidity of the "watchmaker" view (or
"intelligent design" view) of the universe--"If there is a watch, who and
where is the watchmaker?"--had been put to rest once-and-for-all almost
eighty years ago--that is, assuming that one still holds the sanctity of
logical thinking and logical reasoning dear. The "Watchmaker" view suffers
the same fate as the "First Cause" view ("everything must have a cause").
[Exercise 1 for the Logic101-challenged: Deduce a logical contradiction from
the "Watchmaker" assumption. Exercise 2: Prove that every logical
contradiction entails the absurdity that "everyone is God".]
which is just a speck of dust in a dust storm in a dust storm
of dust storms ad infinitum, judging by deep space pictures from the
Hubble
Space Telescope of a dust storm of galaxies billions of light years away,
which have an intelligence we'll never know... he'd probably think you
were
a sorcerer or magician and burn you at the stake.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably not if I'm smart enough to teach the most
powerful few such as the king, the chief or the shaman in that tribe how to
"steal souls" (via a digital camera). Then they themselves would start a
faith and priesthood to perpetuate the myth of the "soul snatching" and
sacred and secret ritual to perform "soul restoration". Of course that will
be so useful for those who want to tighten their grip of power in that
tribe. When view from a sufficiently ignorant level, a "god" is just someone
who can do the seemingly "impossible". As Arthur C. Clarke once said,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Science has no need for the "God" hypothesis, to paraphrase a saying
attributed to Pierre Laplace. Anthropomorphizing the Universe is what it was
when "God" was fashioned by men to try to explain everything without really
explaining anything at all. More than likely, it was fashioned by men who
wanted to consolidate their political power through the enforcement of
dogmatic thinking.
In 1813, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, said:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always
avail themselves for their own purpose." Ultimately, it is not about
brains. It is primarily fear of the unknown and despair arising from
tremendous personal loss that people feel the need to resort to any faith.
"I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion is
anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
emotional
grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack
religion,
because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it."
-- Bertrand Russell ["Why I am not a Christian"]
(http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
Stop pretending that you are thinking clearly or using logical
reasoning in any argument which implicitly assumes the existence of an
"omni-anything-goes" being. Abandon logical thinking once-and-for-all
immediately. There is no alternative if you value your faith dear.
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."
-- B. F. Skinner [Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical
Analysis, 1969]
Watcher
==
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the
homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
[Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787]
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo
[Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615]
==
"God is dead" - BR
"BR is dead" - God
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 01:14:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:04:17 +0200, Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za>
wrote:
In 1813, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, said:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government.
I wonder what "priest-ridden" means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 09:14:11 PM |
|
|
In <43d8c7ac.630243@news.telusplanet.net>, (David
Johnston) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:04:17 +0200, Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
In 1813, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt,
said:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government.
I wonder what "priest-ridden" means.
Ask an altar boy...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 08:15:49 PM |
|
|
Pumba wrote:
Watcher wrote:
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
Not at all. The wonders of the macrocosm is just as beautiful and
intriguing
as the wonders of the microcosm. Your so-called "great leap of faith"
presupposes some kind of "watchmaker" assumption, which has been rendered
illogical a long time ago [see two paragraphs below].
You seem to think the physics of the solar system is more beautiful
than the
physics behind the technology of a digital camera? If you do, I urge
you to
repeat your physics 101, 201, and 301. By the time you reach physics
401, if
you still haven't understood that it is the same laws of modern
physics that
govern the solar system and that of the subatomic world (tremendous
progress
has been made since the time of Einstein) and that of the digital camera
(especially the physics of CCDs), you will need to repeat physics101
of the
21st century again.
But then the believer would say, "Where do all these physics laws come
from?" Thanks to Russell, the stupidity of the "watchmaker" view (or
"intelligent design" view) of the universe--"If there is a watch, who and
where is the watchmaker?"--had been put to rest once-and-for-all almost
eighty years ago--that is, assuming that one still holds the sanctity of
logical thinking and logical reasoning dear. The "Watchmaker" view
suffers
the same fate as the "First Cause" view ("everything must have a cause").
[Exercise 1 for the Logic101-challenged: Deduce a logical
contradiction from
the "Watchmaker" assumption. Exercise 2: Prove that every logical
contradiction entails the absurdity that "everyone is God".]
which is just a speck of dust in a dust storm in a dust storm
of dust storms ad infinitum, judging by deep space pictures from the
Hubble
Space Telescope of a dust storm of galaxies billions of light years
away,
which have an intelligence we'll never know... he'd probably think you
were
a sorcerer or magician and burn you at the stake.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably not if I'm smart enough to teach the most
powerful few such as the king, the chief or the shaman in that tribe
how to
"steal souls" (via a digital camera). Then they themselves would start a
faith and priesthood to perpetuate the myth of the "soul snatching" and
sacred and secret ritual to perform "soul restoration". Of course that
will
be so useful for those who want to tighten their grip of power in that
tribe. When view from a sufficiently ignorant level, a "god" is just
someone
who can do the seemingly "impossible". As Arthur C. Clarke once said,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
Science has no need for the "God" hypothesis, to paraphrase a saying
attributed to Pierre Laplace. Anthropomorphizing the Universe is what
it was
when "God" was fashioned by men to try to explain everything without
really
explaining anything at all. More than likely, it was fashioned by men who
wanted to consolidate their political power through the enforcement of
dogmatic thinking.
In 1813, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, said:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will
always
avail themselves for their own purpose." Ultimately, it is not about
brains. It is primarily fear of the unknown and despair arising from
tremendous personal loss that people feel the need to resort to any
faith.
"I do not think that the real reason why people accept
religion is
anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on
emotional
grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to
attack
religion,
because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it."
-- Bertrand Russell ["Why I am not a Christian"]
(http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html)
Stop pretending that you are thinking clearly or using logical
reasoning in any argument which implicitly assumes the existence of an
"omni-anything-goes" being. Abandon logical thinking once-and-for-all
immediately. There is no alternative if you value your faith dear.
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."
-- B. F. Skinner [Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical
Analysis, 1969]
Watcher
==
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the
homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
[Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787]
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --
Galileo
[Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615]
==
"God is dead" - BR
"BR is dead" - God
LOL That's twice this year Richard, you must be going for some sort of record.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
24 Jan 2006 08:10:21 PM |
|
|
In article <lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do
it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then have to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works.
And understanding it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 04:53:58 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do
it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then have to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works.
And understanding it.
You only understand the explanation. If you understood the actual process you'd be
able to duplicate it. Here's a project for you for starters- go make some benzine
starting with electrons and protons. To make things easy for a beginner I'll let
you plug into an outlet until you can figure out how to make your own electrons
and protons. It's one thing to draw pictures of trees with available materials
and an entirely different thing to make trees. You understand how to make pictures
of reproduction, i.e. ---you know how to describe observed phenomena--- you don't
understand it, only someone else's explanation, which not only is subject to
endless revisions, it /will/ be endlessly revised, and by fifty years from now it
will be "proved" that explanation was wrong and your grandchildren will be
required to buy new textbooks with the "real" explanations of things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 05:32:07 AM |
|
|
In article <aNIBf.142953$XC4.48540@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <ABnBf.102566$XJ5.36362@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8qfBf.111925$ME5.85403@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Jim Phillips wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy
into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy
it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he
didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can
do
it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as
nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then have to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works.
And understanding it.
You only understand the explanation. If you understood the actual process
you'd be able to duplicate it.
Says who? Astronomers understand the process of star formation. Doesn't
mean they can cook one up in the lab.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 02:50:48 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then have to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works.
And understanding it.
You only understand the explanation. If you understood the actual process
you'd be able to duplicate it.
Says who? Astronomers understand the process of star formation.
They have acquired some knowledge about how stars form.
But they are nowhere having a complete picture.
Doesn't mean they can cook one up in the lab.
Well that's the difference then between engineering and pure science.
The problem is well defined:
Enable most men and most women to come together in copulation and produce a
child which inherits characteristics from both of them.
You actually have to implement this, not talk about it.
You have to design the whole thing and get it working. And it has to work
from day one, or your species becomes extinct.
Not only do you have to get the process of reproduction to work, you also
have to engineer the pleasure stimulus, and the whole libido thing, and the
smells which men and women find exciting and interesting.
And there's more. much more.
And it ALL has to work.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 02:35:21 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <lxABf.103442$XJ5.6246@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then have to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
No, they're capable of /explaining/ how the process works.
And understanding it.
We have at best a very shallow understanding of even the most basic processes.
We still do not know what causes gravity, for example.
And what really are negative and positive charges? And why should they
attract each other?
It's safe to say that we still know exceedingly little of how things really
work.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 12:21:36 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <eOwBf.102609$XJ5.7499@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
If god wanted to "advertise", he'd write his name in the sky.
Killing babies isn't advertising--it's killing.
You're making the very common mistake of context juggling- you buy into
God killing babies like it were fact, but not that He created them in
the first place.
He didn't. Their parents did.
If merely creating something gives one the ultimate right to destroy it,
then parents killing their children would be no crime.
Your also juggling the context. If God didn't create them then he didn't
kill
off the first born of Egypt either. Try to grasp this, I know you can do it
if you just use your head for once. You can't scoff at Gandalf as nonsense
and believe Frodo is real.
I don't believe any of it is real, chief. It's called an assumption
arguendo. Go look it up.
I don't need to look it up thanks, the expression is obvious. God didn't
"create" in the sense you're talking, which is also obvious. Parents
"create" their kids the way dogs "create" their puppies, i.e., the
totally ignorant participants in a process over which they have no
control and of which they have no understanding.
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
fascinating that you think this is relevant.
you are beginning to convince me that you do in fact lack intelligence and
insight.
it does not matter, to the argument.
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered. we simply have sex and accept
pot luck.
that's not creation.
creation is producing something from scratch and controlling the product at
every stage, e.g. writing an article, painting a picture, making a piece of
furniture.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence
that's rot. there is plenty of evidence.
the question about God's existence is about how one chooses to interpret
that evidence.
that
any such god exists and even if one assumes a creator, there's still a
huge leap from "creator exists" to "Christianity is true".
if a Creator exists, that is God.
Proving the existence of god is only half your battle. You then half to
prove that the god is your particular flavor and not one of the 30,000
others on the planet.
we have no battle (with proving God). we don't have to prove anything.
all that we have to do is control all the unbelievers into having respect
for God's laws.
so far, that seems to be working mostly in our favour except for some
setbacks, such as abortion.
a process over which they have no
control and are incapable of understanding.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
most people do not. me included. i'm not a biologist.
point is, though, no one has to.
i can have a child with a woman by merely engaging in intercourse with her.
i don't need to know more than that.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
25 Jan 2006 06:12:58 PM |
|
|
In article <dr8fiu$gqu$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered.
Actually, we do. The ability to choose the gender, hair color, eye
color, etc. of one's baby is right around the corner. The technology
exists now.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence
that's rot. there is plenty of evidence.
Nope.
all that we have to do is control all the unbelievers into having respect
for God's laws.
Good luck with that, skippy.
As it stands, the only power you have is the power to type angrily at me
while I laugh at you.
so far, that seems to be working mostly in our favour except for some
setbacks, such as abortion.
Not hardly. Why don't we go over "god's laws" one by one and see how
well you're doing?
(1) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.
Strike one. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to
worship other gods than the one in which you believe.
(2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, nor serve them.
Strike two. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to make
graven images or photographs and/or to worship them.
(3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Strike three. You have absolutely no ability to punish people for saying
your god's name in vain.
(4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the
LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work
Strike four. You have absolutely no ability to force people to go to
church or keep the sabbath (or any other day of the week) holy or to
refrain from work on that day.
(5) Honour thy father and thy mother.
Strike five. You have absolutely no ability to force people to honor
their parents.
(6) Thou shalt not kill.
You finally got one. It's illegal to kill other people-- although not
for any religious reason so you really only score a partial victory here.
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Strike six. Although laws criminalizing adultery do still exist on the
books, recent Supreme Court rulings have effectively nullified them and
voided any possible prosecution under those statutes.
(8) Thou shalt not steal.
Another partial victory. Stealing is illegal but again, not because god
says so.
(9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Strike seven. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to lie
about each other.
(10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his
ox, nor his *****, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Strike eight. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to envy
and desire what others have.
So out of god's top ten laws, you've only managed to see two of them
enforced under penalty of law. Hardly what I'd call a winning record.
I don't know what rock you've been living under but people are quite
capable of understanding how the process works.
most people do not. me included. i'm not a biologist.
So what? Just because you're stupid doesn't mean everyone is.
i can have a child with a woman by merely engaging in intercourse with her.
Truly one of the most frightening things I've heard this year.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 10:18:18 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <dr8fiu$gqu$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered.
Actually, we do. The ability to choose the gender, hair color, eye
color, etc. of one's baby is right around the corner. The technology
exists now.
that's unnatural and it must not be permitted.
if you mess with something you don't understand you are more likely to break it.
nature is finely balanced. genetically "enhancing" things is not progress!
leave it all the ***** alone! before you hurt EVERYTHING!
a big NO NO NO NO NO NO to GM crops, GM babies, GM EVERYTHING!!!
I do not want to live in a GM X world.
Assume rather, that God created the substance ex nihilo
No, that's just your superstitious belief. There's zero evidence
that's rot. there is plenty of evidence.
Nope.
See, you're lying again.
All the stuff you touch is evidence. All of it.
all that we have to do is control all the unbelievers into having respect
for God's laws.
Good luck with that, skippy.
As it stands, the only power you have is the power to type angrily at me
while I laugh at you.
I don't need to have power over you. That's someone else's job.
so far, that seems to be working mostly in our favour except for some
setbacks, such as abortion.
Not hardly. Why don't we go over "god's laws" one by one and see how
well you're doing?
(6) Thou shalt not kill.
You finally got one. It's illegal to kill other people-- although not
for any religious reason so you really only score a partial victory here.
(8) Thou shalt not steal.
Another partial victory. Stealing is illegal but again, not because god
says so.
(9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Strike seven. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to lie
about each other.
lying in certain circumstances is illegal.
ever heard of slander, perjury and fraud?
you're none too bright.
(10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his
ox, nor his *****, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Strike eight. You have absolutely no ability to force people not to envy
and desire what others have.
if you consider that a victory, you are insane. well i already know that you
are insane.
So out of god's top ten laws, you've only managed to see two of them
enforced under penalty of law. Hardly what I'd call a winning record.
there's other stuff. like laws controlling the mad scientists. Genetics,
embryos.
Do you know that some clinics hold funerals for the embryos that are
destroyed? That's because they have more respect for human life than you do.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 06:27:37 PM |
|
|
In article <drasnk$q39$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <dr8fiu$gqu$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered.
Actually, we do. The ability to choose the gender, hair color, eye
color, etc. of one's baby is right around the corner. The technology
exists now.
that's unnatural and it must not be permitted.
LOL! So we've unceremoniously jumped from "humans have no control" to
"humans must be denied control".
As for things being "unnatural", you typing on that computer of yours is
hardly a natural thing. Should we prohibit you from doing it?
Up till now I wasn't sure how I felt about the issue of "designer
babies" but now that I see it gives you religious nutballs the shakes,
I've made up my mind: I'm all for it. Anything that cheeses you guys off
can't be all bad.
if you mess with something you don't understand you are more likely to break
it.
nature is finely balanced. genetically "enhancing" things is not progress!
Shows how stupid you are. The process of choosing the gender and other
characteristics of one's child isn't enhancing anything.
leave it all the ***** alone! before you hurt EVERYTHING!
a big NO NO NO NO NO NO to GM crops, GM babies, GM EVERYTHING!!!
I do not want to live in a GM X world.
Then kill yourself and we'll all be happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pumba" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
26 Jan 2006 11:02:23 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <drasnk$q39$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
So now it's your contention that people have no understanding how the
procreation process works?
Hmmm... I guess all those geneticists and biologists and whatnot must
just be hallucinating.
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered.
Actually, we do. The ability to choose the gender, hair color, eye
color, etc. of one's baby is right around the corner. The technology
exists now.
that's unnatural and it must not be permitted.
LOL! So we've unceremoniously jumped from "humans have no control" to
"humans must be denied control".
most definitely!
i'm not going to vote to allow mad scientists to be let loose in the lab to
play God with human lives.
i'm pretty certain that George Bush will not permit such a thing either.
As for things being "unnatural", you typing on that computer of yours is
hardly a natural thing. Should we prohibit you from doing it?
if you can't tell the difference, i feel sorry for you. you seem to have
this problem with a lot of things.
Up till now I wasn't sure how I felt about the issue of "designer
babies" but now that I see it gives you religious nutballs the shakes,
I've made up my mind: I'm all for it. Anything that cheeses you guys off
can't be all bad.
well then you might also wish to join the nazi party.
if you mess with something you don't understand you are more likely to break
it.
nature is finely balanced. genetically "enhancing" things is not progress!
Shows how stupid you are. The process of choosing the gender and other
characteristics of one's child isn't enhancing anything.
it is disturbing things. it could lead to serious problems in some societies
which prize one gender over another.
it's not a useful technology for us to have right now. we don't have enough
responsibility to use it wisely.
--
Pumba, the warthog, from the Lion King
The lion sleeps tonight mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/957lp
You have been officially PUMBA-ed~!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: OT? Book of Daniel |
27 Jan 2006 05:45:20 AM |
|
|
In article <drc9g8$im9$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <drasnk$q39$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
Pumba <pumba@muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
fact remains, that humans did not design the process, nor do we have any
control over what kind of baby is delivered.
Actually, we do. The ability to choose the gender, hair color, eye
color, etc. of one's baby is right around the corner. The technology
exists now.
that's unnatural and it must not be permitted.
LOL! So we've unceremoniously jumped from "humans have no control" to
"humans must be denied control".
most definitely!
So you've just refuted your own earlier claim. I don't even have to
argue with you. You're doing a fine job of arguing with yourself.
i'm not going to vote to allow mad scientists to be let loose in the lab to
play God with human lives.
"Mad scientists loose in labs" is what gave you that computer of yours
and what keeps you from getting polio and smallpox.
i'm pretty certain that George Bush will not permit such a thing either.
Well, you were " | | | | | | | | | | |
