| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "socode" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
But religious belief or lack of does not change the fact
that everyone sins.
My intepretation of sin is rebellion against God.
As you have now shown, your "religious belief" does "change
the fact" since it isn't a "fact", but your belief.
But - the word can and is used in the secular
world as an offense or a fault.
But not in the sense that you meant it.
socode
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 09:58:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net>, Message ID:
<rQqwb.514$f62.23864@news.uswest.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hes3sv46gpqr52mt5t8uad4305duqe8hct@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:38:03 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:arm2svcai5t759ee57hpfgk3ncfpelok79@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:51:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Moss <Noone@nowhere.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
Of course, then there are the mydraid of xtians that claim that
because 'THEY' believe, THEY are saved, and the claim that Jesus
died for THEIR sins.
Isn't pride one of the Christian sins?
--
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
Speak for yourself, god-boy.
I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.
And no one in alt.atheism gives a flying rancid burrito fart about your
poxy bronze age book of ancient fecal matter.
Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,
That is insane. But then you are an atheist.
No, moron. Any insanity is yours. 'Sin' is a construct of your
superstition. Such only applys to adherants of your superstition. The
concept is very simple. Try hard to grasp it.
because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.
Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.
And this particular little part of the thread starts out
(as you can see above) with what "xtians claim".
But religious belief or lack of does not change the fact
that everyone sins.
You certainly are a ***** poor ignorant liar for Jesus.
What part of 'sin is a christian concept' do you *not* understand?
Pride isn't one of your atheist sins?
Idiot.
My intepretation of sin is rebellion against God.
Which no one in alt.atheism cares about.
But - the word can and is used in the secular
world as an offense or a fault.
It can be, but you weren't utilizing it in that manner.
What I really asked you is how atheists regard
pride. I see your reply.
Pride is not always seen as a fault, it is
sometimes valued. But it can also make you fall
flat on your face and look like an idiot.
And you wear that look well.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 12:45:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
--
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
Speak for yourself, god-boy.
I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.
*****. You stupidly quoted your religious doctrine in the real
world outside your religion.
Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,
That is insane. But then you are an atheist.
No, it is a fact. "Sin" is merely something in your religion.
because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.
Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.
We know.
But it hasn't given you the remotest understanding of how the real
world outside Christianity works.
And this particular little part of the thread starts out
(as you can see above) with what "xtians claim".
One might have expected you to understand the difference between fact
and claim.
But religious belief or lack of does not change the fact
that everyone sins.
That is insane. But then you are a Christian.
Pride isn't one of your atheist sins?
Idiot.
My intepretation of sin is rebellion against God.
Demonstrate that there is anything to rebel against. Until you do that
it is no different than yoiur rebelliuon against Zeus.
But - the word can and is used in the secular
world as an offense or a fault.
Nope. At most it's tongue-in-cheek.
What I really asked you is how atheists regard
pride. I see your reply.
Like I said, you're an idiot.
Pride is not always seen as a fault, it is
sometimes valued. But it can also make you fall
flat on your face and look like an idiot.
Especially if you're a Christian whose pride won't let him see the
real world outside his religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 01:17:24 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d5u5svs62i7tf8hhnevmbci1vfnvq56ted@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
--
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
Speak for yourself, god-boy.
I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.
*****. You stupidly quoted your religious doctrine in the real
world outside your religion.
Oh boy. Talking to an atheist again.
I did not "stupidly quote", moron. It is well accepted
that Jesus claimed to die for everyone, not
just the "saved", as is implied in the part of the
thread that was snipped.
You couldn't find your butt with both hands tied
behind your back.
Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,
That is insane. But then you are an atheist.
No, it is a fact. "Sin" is merely something in your religion.
Sins are fairly well defined in the Bible, although
I have, below, admitted that sin is technically rebellion
against God, and not any particular act or behavior.
But that is what Christians believe. Sins however
are well defined, and translate to all people, Christians
and non-Christians alike.
Only the idiot atheists with chips on their shoulders
who can not be reasoned with do not accept this.
because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.
Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.
We know.
But it hasn't given you the remotest understanding of how the real
world outside Christianity works.
You really must have a swelled head the size of an baseball.
And this particular little part of the thread starts out
(as you can see above) with what "xtians claim".
One might have expected you to understand the difference between fact
and claim.
You just can't handle even simple concepts.
I have never intended to or implied that non-Christians
are bound to the same laws or beliefs that Christians are.
That does not diminish what pride, avarice, greed are.
But religious belief or lack of does not change the fact
that everyone sins.
That is insane. But then you are a Christian.
I really think you have a form of insanity.
Pride isn't one of your atheist sins?
Idiot.
My intepretation of sin is rebellion against God.
Demonstrate that there is anything to rebel against. Until you do that
it is no different than yoiur rebelliuon against Zeus.
As I said, you can't be reasoned with, and are
unable to see reason. I did not say that non-Christians
are rebelling against God when they commit what
Christians call "sins". I said above that was
*my* interpretation of sin as a Christian.
It does not have to be yours. You still sin.
But - the word can and is used in the secular
world as an offense or a fault.
Nope. At most it's tongue-in-cheek.
Nope and at most? Bah.
It's frequently tongue in cheek in Christians churches also.
What I really asked you is how atheists regard
pride. I see your reply.
Like I said, you're an idiot.
Yep. Revert to pure ad hominem.
Pride is not always seen as a fault, it is
sometimes valued. But it can also make you fall
flat on your face and look like an idiot.
Especially if you're a Christian whose pride won't let him see the
real world outside his religion.
I haven't gone to church in years, moron.
I'm not a "fundy".
You are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR2" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 01:31:27 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:LnDwb.1269$f62.89069@news.uswest.net...
... sin is technically rebellion against God ...
There is no such thing to rebel against. Theists simply suffer from
delusional disorder (believing that ones imaginings are real).
http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 01:55:07 AM |
|
|
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message news:0BDwb.226035$275.860985@attbi_s53...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:LnDwb.1269$f62.89069@news.uswest.net...
... sin is technically rebellion against God ...
There is no such thing to rebel against.
It is an empty claim.
Theists simply suffer from
delusional disorder (believing that ones imaginings are real).
http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
Christians believe that sin is rebellion against God.
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 02:26:27 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:jXDwb.1274$f62.91819@news.uswest.net...
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message
news:0BDwb.226035$275.860985@attbi_s53...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:LnDwb.1269$f62.89069@news.uswest.net...
... sin is technically rebellion against God ...
There is no such thing to rebel against.
It is an empty claim.
That's right, 'God' is an empty claim with no basis in fact.
Theists simply suffer from
delusional disorder (believing that ones imaginings are real).
http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
Christians believe that sin is rebellion against God.
Belief (subjective conviction) establishes nothing. You need objective
evidence.
There is no such thing to rebel against.
Theists simply suffer from delusional disorder (believing that ones
imaginings are real). http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 06:04:51 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message news:0BDwb.226035$275.860985@attbi_s53...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:LnDwb.1269$f62.89069@news.uswest.net...
... sin is technically rebellion against God ...
There is no such thing to rebel against.
It is an empty claim.
Actually, it seems quite reasonable. Unless the theist can provide
evidence for the god against whom we're supposed to be rebelling, it is
reasonable to assume that there's nothing to rebel against.
Of course, Newbie knows all about empty claims. He makes one below:
Theists simply suffer from
delusional disorder (believing that ones imaginings are real).
http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
Christians believe that sin is rebellion against God.
Yes, that is what christians are *supposed* to believe. However, when
they, themselves, commit a sign or an act of rebellion, they fall all
over themselves trying to justify it. Consider that Newbie once told us
that he is one christian who will not turn the other cheek. This is in
direct defiance of the edict of Jesus himself, who said, "if a man
strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other, also." Newbie finds
this direction to be inconvenient, so he not only fails to obey it, he
*refuses* to obey it.
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
I am not aware of any definition of "delusional" that includes this
provision. I'd ask if Newbie would actually support this, but I know he
will not do so. That's because he makes this all up as he goes along.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 02:21:13 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 07:13:18 AM |
|
|
Charles & Mambo wrote:
Glenn wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
If you believe that, you are delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 12:58:17 PM |
|
|
"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:AzIwb.136838$ri.19414404@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Charles & Mambo wrote:
Glenn wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
If you believe that, you are delusional.
"The gods" are nothing more than the delusional disorder (impaired contact
with reality, belief that one's imaginings are real) of theists, who are
certifiably psychotic. http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
The buck stops there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 01:57:48 AM |
|
|
Bob Moss wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
If you believe that, you are delusional.
Wait... what? I'm lost... uhm, yo momma?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR3" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 02:10:34 AM |
|
|
"Charles & Mambo" <Duckman@get.lost> wrote in message
news:3FC45D94.3040108@get.lost...
Bob Moss wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
If you believe that, you are delusional.
Wait... what? I'm lost... uhm, yo momma?
The fact that Mr. Moss ignores is that delusional disorder is a psychosis
characterized by an impaired contact with reality, as in a belief that one's
imaginings (like theists' imaginary invisible sky pixie for example) are
real. http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 06:40:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:21:13 +0000 (UTC), Charles & Mambo
<Duckman@get.lost>, Message ID: <3FC31185.1020307@get.lost> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Glenn wrote:
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
For you to characterize as delusional those who characterize those who
believe in God as delusional defines you as delusional.
(wince)
My head hurts.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 06:39:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:55:07 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net>, Message ID:
<jXDwb.1274$f62.91819@news.uswest.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com> wrote in message news:0BDwb.226035$275.860985@attbi_s53...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:LnDwb.1269$f62.89069@news.uswest.net...
... sin is technically rebellion against God ...
There is no such thing to rebel against.
It is an empty claim.
Yes, "God" is an empty claim. See? We agree on something.
Theists simply suffer from
delusional disorder (believing that ones imaginings are real).
http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html
Christians believe that sin is rebellion against God.
A coherant definition for the g-o-d letter string is?
Objective supporting evidence for your claim is?
For you to characterize those who believe in God
as delusional defines you as delusional.
*****, you're rock stupid. Don't you ever get dizzy spinning in all
those circles?
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
25 Nov 2003 06:21:38 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d5u5svs62i7tf8hhnevmbci1vfnvq56ted@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
Speak for yourself, god-boy.
I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.
*****. You stupidly quoted your religious doctrine in the real
world outside your religion.
Oh boy. Talking to an atheist again.
Newbie doesn't like it when others make generalized statements about
christians and creationists, but he is quick to make general statements
like this about atheists. Oh, I know, I know, he can come up with some
claim about using the article "an," but let's note also the use of the
word "again."
I did not "stupidly quote", moron. It is well accepted
that Jesus claimed to die for everyone, not
just the "saved", as is implied in the part of the
thread that was snipped.
Which, of course, *is* the "religious doctrine" of the christians.
Consequently, whether stupid or not, Newbie did quote the doctrine or,
at least, summarized it; and he did so in a venue that is composed of a
number of people (probably including Newbie, since he only believes the
Bible when it's convenient for him to do so) who do not accept this
doctrine.
You couldn't find your butt with both hands tied
behind your back.
Which is, of course, a very christian statement, right?
Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,
That is insane. But then you are an atheist.
No, it is a fact. "Sin" is merely something in your religion.
Sins are fairly well defined in the Bible, although
I have, below, admitted that sin is technically rebellion
against God, and not any particular act or behavior.
So when Newbie tells us that he's not going to turn the other cheek, is
that rebellion?
But that is what Christians believe. Sins however
are well defined, and translate to all people, Christians
and non-Christians alike.
No, what one group considers a "sin" might not be considered so by
another group.
Only the idiot atheists with chips on their shoulders
who can not be reasoned with do not accept this.
Actually, lots of people who don't have chips on their shoulders (unlike
Newbie, who is actually tranferring this attitude onto others) do not
accept this.
because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.
Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.
We know.
But it hasn't given you the remotest understanding of how the real
world outside Christianity works.
You really must have a swelled head the size of an baseball.
As we can see yet again, Newbie is, in fact, *not* a christian.
[Snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 07:05:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:21:38 +0000 (UTC), David Horn
<askifyoureallywannaknow@cox.net>, Message ID:
<2RHwb.1403$US3.470@okepread03> wrote in alt.atheism;
Glenn wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d5u5svs62i7tf8hhnevmbci1vfnvq56ted@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.
Speak for yourself, god-boy.
I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.
*****. You stupidly quoted your religious doctrine in the real
world outside your religion.
Oh boy. Talking to an atheist again.
Newbie doesn't like it when others make generalized statements about
christians and creationists, but he is quick to make general statements
like this about atheists. Oh, I know, I know, he can come up with some
claim about using the article "an," but let's note also the use of the
word "again."
I did not "stupidly quote", moron. It is well accepted
that Jesus claimed to die for everyone, not
just the "saved", as is implied in the part of the
thread that was snipped.
Which, of course, *is* the "religious doctrine" of the christians.
Consequently, whether stupid or not, Newbie did quote the doctrine or,
at least, summarized it; and he did so in a venue that is composed of a
number of people (probably including Newbie, since he only believes the
Bible when it's convenient for him to do so) who do not accept this
doctrine.
You couldn't find your butt with both hands tied
behind your back.
Which is, of course, a very christian statement, right?
Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,
That is insane. But then you are an atheist.
No, it is a fact. "Sin" is merely something in your religion.
Sins are fairly well defined in the Bible, although
I have, below, admitted that sin is technically rebellion
against God, and not any particular act or behavior.
So when Newbie tells us that he's not going to turn the other cheek, is
that rebellion?
But that is what Christians believe. Sins however
are well defined, and translate to all people, Christians
and non-Christians alike.
No, what one group considers a "sin" might not be considered so by
another group.
Only the idiot atheists with chips on their shoulders
who can not be reasoned with do not accept this.
Actually, lots of people who don't have chips on their shoulders (unlike
Newbie, who is actually tranferring this attitude onto others) do not
accept this.
because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.
Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.
We know.
But it hasn't given you the remotest understanding of how the real
world outside Christianity works.
You really must have a swelled head the size of an baseball.
As we can see yet again, Newbie is, in fact, *not* a christian.
Of course he is. Great ignorance, hefty Pride, and constant hypocracy
and bearing false witness is part of the territiory. "It's for a
'greater good(tm)," you realize.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:54:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<8ustrvotvoif81sotjrr00ecu0e5rqj8kv@Pern.rk>...
No one deserves infinite punishment for a finite act.
Most finite acts have finite consequences, but people don't go to Hell
for those kinds of acts.
Tell that to the bible.
People who go to Hell are being punished for
rejecting God; that is a finite with infinite consequences.
So there's no free will? Your religion doesn't have much in common
with Christianity, does it?
Then why did your god "allow" (actually force) Jesus to pay for the
sins of all mankind?
Jesus was God, so Jesus wasn't "forced" by God to do anything. Rather
God volunteered to "die" for us. Exactly the kind of act the quote
was demanding.
Why would he have to die to allow himself to forgive us? He has no
free will?
As for the next logical question --- why are people still threatened
with Hell --- it is because salvation is a gift freely given, but you
have to want to accept it. If you reject it, then you must face the
consequences of your decision.
"Free" means with absolutely no consequences either way, so it's not
free. You can claim that it's free but has consequences, but that
doesn't make it free.
Oops.
Oops is right. Next time know what you are talking about before you
criticize it.
There goes another irony meter.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
26 Nov 2003 06:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:54:08 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<8oq5svcust1rfssar4mqkog7r9u7tj87a6@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<8ustrvotvoif81sotjrr00ecu0e5rqj8kv@Pern.rk>...
No one deserves infinite punishment for a finite act.
Most finite acts have finite consequences, but people don't go to Hell
for those kinds of acts.
Tell that to the bible.
People who go to Hell are being punished for
rejecting God; that is a finite with infinite consequences.
So there's no free will? Your religion doesn't have much in common
with Christianity, does it?
Then why did your god "allow" (actually force) Jesus to pay for the
sins of all mankind?
Jesus was God, so Jesus wasn't "forced" by God to do anything. Rather
God volunteered to "die" for us. Exactly the kind of act the quote
was demanding.
Why would he have to die to allow himself to forgive us? He has no
free will?
As for the next logical question --- why are people still threatened
with Hell --- it is because salvation is a gift freely given, but you
have to want to accept it. If you reject it, then you must face the
consequences of your decision.
"Free" means with absolutely no consequences either way, so it's not
free. You can claim that it's free but has consequences, but that
doesn't make it free.
Oops.
Oops is right. Next time know what you are talking about before you
criticize it.
There goes another irony meter.
I've got fifty trainloads of them coming in on a daily basis and still
keep running short.....
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:54:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:05:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<8ustrvotvoif81sotjrr00ecu0e5rqj8kv@Pern.rk>...
No one deserves infinite punishment for a finite act.
I should also mention that I don't necessarily believe Hell is a place
of punishment.
As I said, your religion bears very little resemblance to
Christianity.
There are some people who, for whatever reason, simply do not want to
have anything to do with God. Such people not only reject Him in this
life, but will also reject Him in the next. So God will grant them
their wish and send them to a place where they will forever be
separate from Him. That place will be Hell. Whatever punishment
those people will experience there will be of their own devising, as
they come to realize the folly of their decision.
Then atheists have nothing to fear, since we don;t fall into the class
of those who don't want anything to do with your god. Any more than
you "don't want to have anything to do with" Zeus.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
24 Nov 2003 11:54:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:46:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<8ustrvotvoif81sotjrr00ecu0e5rqj8kv@Pern.rk>...
No one deserves infinite punishment for a finite act.
Are you against the death penalty? Is that not punishing someone
infinitly for a finite act?
No. In fact, most of the time it's pretty humane. (The dead don't
suffer.)
Besides, the only people on whom the death penalty is imposed have
already shown that THEY don't consider it wrong.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
16 Nov 2003 11:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you? If that were possible, the
right would be alienable. If it can be taken away, or denied, it's
not unalienable. Unless you redefine "unalienable".
Yes it does make sense. And it also includes a reference to
the definition of unalienable, which up to this point has not
been addressed. Fancy that.
Glad I was able to help.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 11:22:45 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oslgrvstmljcrn2gks338k19e2horari3c@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
Not assertions, knucklehead. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
because holding the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs,
that all persons are born equal, and that they are endowed with certain
unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of the perfect pair of socks.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you?
He takes it from you by murdering you. You have heard of murder, eh?
If that were possible, the
right would be alienable.
Get real. It is always possible for some sociopath to murder somebody,
knucklehead. That doesn't change the above. We still have the RIGHT to live
unmollested even if some nutcase violates our rights.
If it can be taken away, or denied, it's
not unalienable. Unless you redefine "unalienable".
Then you don't understand what we are discussing here -- unalienable rights.
In law, 'alienate' refers to transfer of property or a right to the
ownership of another. Whe someone murders you he has illegitimately
alienated your right to life which cannot be taken from you except through
due process of law.
Get it now?
Yes it does make sense. And it also includes a reference to
the definition of unalienable, which up to this point has not
been addressed. Fancy that.
Glad I was able to help.
You won't be of any help at all until you stop thinking like a kid with a
mind full of mush and start thinking like a lawyer. 8^)
peace out
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 01:50:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:22:45 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oslgrvstmljcrn2gks338k19e2horari3c@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
Not assertions, knucklehead. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
because holding the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs,
that all persons are born equal, and that they are endowed with certain
unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of the perfect pair of socks.
Sorry, they're still just your assertions.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you?
He takes it from you by murdering you. You have heard of murder, eh?
If that happens, then your right to life is not unalienable.
If that were possible, the
right would be alienable.
Get real. It is always possible for some sociopath to murder somebody,
knucklehead. That doesn't change the above. We still have the RIGHT to live
unmollested even if some nutcase violates our rights.
Actually,it contradicts what you said above. If some sociopath
murders somebody, that person did not have an unalienable right to
live unmolested.
If it can be taken away, or denied, it's
not unalienable. Unless you redefine "unalienable".
Then you don't understand what we are discussing here -- unalienable rights.
In law, 'alienate' refers to transfer of property or a right to the
ownership of another. Whe someone murders you he has illegitimately
alienated your right to life which cannot be taken from you except through
due process of law.
Get it now?
Nope. You are claiming that murder can only be performed through due
process of law, which doesn't seem to make sense.
Yes it does make sense. And it also includes a reference to
the definition of unalienable, which up to this point has not
been addressed. Fancy that.
Glad I was able to help.
You won't be of any help at all until you stop thinking like a kid with a
mind full of mush and start thinking like a lawyer. 8^)
I suggest you stop thinking like a loon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 06:00:59 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:va9irv0ftmcadbj09t3dqoneh7hm56j9vo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:22:45 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oslgrvstmljcrn2gks338k19e2horari3c@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
Not assertions, knucklehead. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
because holding the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs,
that all persons are born equal, and that they are endowed with certain
unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of the perfect pair of socks.
Sorry, they're still just your assertions.
Unrefuted ones. Survival instinct can not be separated from individuals.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you?
He takes it from you by murdering you. You have heard of murder, eh?
If that happens, then your right to life is not unalienable.
Life is not "unalienable". So?
If that were possible, the
right would be alienable.
Get real. It is always possible for some sociopath to murder somebody,
knucklehead. That doesn't change the above. We still have the RIGHT to live
unmollested even if some nutcase violates our rights.
Actually,it contradicts what you said above. If some sociopath
murders somebody, that person did not have an unalienable right to
live unmolested.
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 06:41:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:va9irv0ftmcadbj09t3dqoneh7hm56j9vo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:22:45 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oslgrvstmljcrn2gks338k19e2horari3c@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> posted in alt.atheism:
If there is no unalienable right to life then there is nothing to
deny.
*I* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct).
*You* have an unalienable right to life (survival instinct)
*All* have an unalienable right to life individually (survival instinct)
All humans share an unalienable right individually,
therefore all humans have an unalienable right to life.
1) These are all your assertions.
Not assertions, knucklehead. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
because holding the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs,
that all persons are born equal, and that they are endowed with certain
unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of the perfect pair of socks.
Sorry, they're still just your assertions.
Unrefuted ones.
Goodness me, what a dolt you are.
Intelligent people look at whether or not assertions are supported.
Survival instinct can not be separated from individuals.
True, But, of course, survival instinct and an "unalienable right to
life" are not the same thing., except perhaps to one such as you.
2) If you have an unalienable right to life (whether individually or
in a group), how can one "deny" it to you?
He takes it from you by murdering you. You have heard of murder, eh?
If that happens, then your right to life is not unalienable.
Life is not "unalienable". So?
Try to read for comprehension.
If that were possible, the
right would be alienable.
Get real. It is always possible for some sociopath to murder somebody,
knucklehead. That doesn't change the above. We still have the RIGHT to live
unmollested even if some nutcase violates our rights.
Actually,it contradicts what you said above. If some sociopath
murders somebody, that person did not have an unalienable right to
live unmolested.
You add a qualifier to "live". What kind of reasoning is this?
Just parroting what he said. Try reading for comprehension.
If you legally own something, and it is stolen from you, does that
mean that you did not legally own it?
Nope, As usual, your question is irrelevant. We are not talking
about legal ownership.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 07:08:07 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ubqirvc1q5d6bvat3699t8b146e15mf1ln@4ax.com...
Intelligent people look at whether or not assertions are supported.
We intelligent people all know for sure that we hold these truths to be
self-evident (because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs): that all persons are created equal, and all persons come into the
world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or
whatever else makes one happy, within reason.
Too bad you aren't intelligent like us. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:05:37 AM |
|
|
In article <uieub.226570$HS4.1970991@attbi_s01>,
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ubqirvc1q5d6bvat3699t8b146e15mf1ln@4ax.com...
Intelligent people look at whether or not assertions are supported.
We intelligent people all know for sure that we hold these truths to be
self-evident (because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs): that all persons are created equal, and all persons come into the
world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or
whatever else makes one happy, within reason.
Too bad you aren't intelligent like us. 8^)
Us, Bob? Are you Legion?
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:48:29 AM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-726081.01060918112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <uieub.226570$HS4.1970991@attbi_s01>,
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ubqirvc1q5d6bvat3699t8b146e15mf1ln@4ax.com...
Intelligent people look at whether or not assertions are supported.
We intelligent people all know for sure that we hold these truths to be
self-evident (because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs): that all persons are created equal, and all persons come into
the
world endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are
the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, or
whatever else makes one happy, within reason.
Too bad you aren't intelligent like us. 8^)
Us, Bob? Are you Legion?
Can you find any reasonable grounds for taking exception to what was said
about these truths we hold to be self-evident, or are you just going to
continue to rely on the fallacy of argument _ad hominem_?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
19 Nov 2003 12:10:25 PM |
|
|
Slim <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Erica <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Slim <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
Jon Fleming <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
Intelligent people look at whether or not assertions are supported.
We intelligent people all know for sure that we hold these truths to be
self-evident (because the opposite would be an absurd barbaric state
of affairs):
Many ancient people didn't find such a truth to be self evident. They
were quite happy to bow down to some King or Lord, and pledge
allegiance to it, much like Christians do to their pretended Lord in
Christ.
that all persons are created equal, and all persons come into
the world endowed with certain unalienable rights,
The Christians who thought holding human slaves was okay were
just fake Christians, no doubt.
and that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
the perfect pair of socks, or whatever else makes one happy, within
reason.
Within reason so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
Too bad you aren't intelligent like us. 8^)
Us, Bob? Are you Legion?
Can you find any reasonable grounds for taking exception to what was
said about these truths we hold to be self-evident, or are you just going to
continue to rely on the fallacy of argument _ad hominem_?
They seem pretty self-evident to me, but there are still those people
who wish to serve some LORD or pretended saviour King instead of
sticking up for basic human rights instead.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
