| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2006 04:05:06 PM |
| Object: |
The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
As I've mentioned before I got the book, _The God Delusion_ by Dawkins
the other day and, as one might imagine, he doesn't have much good to say
about theology ;) One of his points is that many scientists
automatically and erroneously assume that if a question appears to be
"outside of realm of science" that therefore theology must have something
intelligible or relevant to say about it. But as Dawkins puts it, "if
science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think
that religion can? ...The fact that it has nothing else to contribute to
human wisdom is no reason to hand religion a free license".
Anyway, if anything, he understates the case. The problem is that
theology can ultimately only offer one answer to any question and that
answer is, "It's a holy mystery and therefore we cannot know". They
pretend to offer other intermediate conclusions, but ultimately, since
their premise is that god made everything and that his ways
are unfathomable, all their answers reduce to "God knows, but nobody else
ever will."
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 05:22:22 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know. Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot. He is comparing ideas to viruses. It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 08:30:47 PM |
|
|
<jim_hallerud@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
Issac Newton. Isn't he the guy who spent much of life trying to find
irrefutable proof for the existence of 'God' and couldn't find any; the guy
who 'proved' that alchemy was a 'no go' by spending countless, fruitless
hours trying to prove the opposite? *That* 'Newton'?
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Darn tootin' there are. But they are reducing in number all the time, aren't
they? And guess what else? 'God' seems to be absent from the 'big picture'.
And with good reason: He wasn't in the 'picture' to begin with. (He's an
imaginary creature, you know.)
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know.
And *that*, I assume, 'proves' that there's a 'God' hiding out there
somewhere in the universe, right?
Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
Well enlighten us. Explain how 'God' works. And be prepared to provide
*proof* for any assertion or statement of *fact* you care to provide. We'll
be waiting with bated breath
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot.
Really? An 'idiot'? What would you call a person who believes in a 'God' who
had no 'beginning', yet, nevertheless, endowed himself with supernatural
powers, supernatural intelligence and imagination, *and* the materials with
which to create the universe; is divided into *three* individual and
independent 'entities' but are all 'one' -- without the slightest proof for
any it -- Richard Dawkins' feeble-minded younger brother?
He is comparing ideas to viruses. It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Now what so strange about *that*? You believe in something even more absurd,
don't you?
Jimmy Boy
Well, 'Jimmy Boy' why don't you post exactly where we atheists can find this
'God' you theists claim exists? If it is so obvious that he does -- at least
to you -- that should be no problemo. Should it?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 09:15:51 PM |
|
|
In article <12ie0qi5o2peh51@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
<jim_hallerud@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
Issac Newton. Isn't he the guy who spent much of life trying to find
irrefutable proof for the existence of 'God' and couldn't find any; the guy
who 'proved' that alchemy was a 'no go' by spending countless, fruitless
hours trying to prove the opposite? *That* 'Newton'?
Yeah, the guy who's been dead for three centuries and had a rotten, anti-
social personality and who performed absolutely bonkers experiments,
including sticking a bodkin in his own eye to test the way the eye
focuses. That's the genius he's touting, despite the fact that it has
utterly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Darn tootin' there are. But they are reducing in number all the time, aren't
they?
Yes, to paraphrase Dawkins again, gap worshippers seek out every crack in
the pavement of knowledge as a place for their weeds of ignorance to
bloom. Like cockroaches, theists try to squeeze into any narrow crevasse
to lay their eggs of mindless dogma.
And guess what else? 'God' seems to be absent from the 'big picture'.
And with good reason: He wasn't in the 'picture' to begin with. (He's an
imaginary creature, you know.)
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know.
And *that*, I assume, 'proves' that there's a 'God' hiding out there
somewhere in the universe, right?
Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
Well enlighten us. Explain how 'God' works. And be prepared to provide
*proof* for any assertion or statement of *fact* you care to provide. We'll
be waiting with bated breath
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot.
Really? An 'idiot'? What would you call a person who believes in a 'God' who
had no 'beginning', yet, nevertheless, endowed himself with supernatural
powers, supernatural intelligence and imagination, *and* the materials with
which to create the universe; is divided into *three* individual and
independent 'entities' but are all 'one' -- without the slightest proof for
any it -- Richard Dawkins' feeble-minded younger brother?
He is comparing ideas to viruses. It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Now what so strange about *that*? You believe in something even more absurd,
don't you?
Jimmy Boy
Well, 'Jimmy Boy' why don't you post exactly where we atheists can find this
'God' you theists claim exists? If it is so obvious that he does -- at least
to you -- that should be no problemo. Should it?
Greywolf
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 11:34:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
There are many Physicists who are not atheists.
It does not even matter. Science is not a religion.
I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
Well, I'm pretty sure they don't get asked that very often, as I'm
pretty sure scientific people are not asked very often about the
theological differences between the various christian sects.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Yup.
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know. Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
Yup. But what makes you think we should have all the answers at this
moment? Just go back 100 years in time and see where science was, and
compare it with today. Now, just imagine what science will look in
2106.
Olrik
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot. He is comparing ideas to viruses. It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 02:11:29 AM |
|
|
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
quibbler wrote:
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know. Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
To paraphrase Michael Shermer, there are only two kinds of things in the
universe. Those which we know and those which we don't know enough about
yet. About the latter, we don't know because we haven't investigated
them yet, or we haven't asked the right questions, or we lack the
technology at present to get the answers.
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer. Unless your a
believer in the god of the gaps (who is shrinking day by day), "I don't
know" does not mean "God did it."
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 05:33:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:11:29 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
quibbler wrote:
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know. Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
To paraphrase Michael Shermer, there are only two kinds of things in the
universe. Those which we know and those which we don't know enough about
yet. About the latter, we don't know because we haven't investigated
them yet, or we haven't asked the right questions, or we lack the
technology at present to get the answers.
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer. Unless your a
believer in the god of the gaps (who is shrinking day by day), "I don't
know" does not mean "God did it."
Such as, "Daddy where did god come from?"?
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
08 Oct 2006 12:23:55 AM |
|
|
In article <2e0fi2de96mt1f72rfggp0l44q6rg0og44@4ax.com>,
Les Hellawell <myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:11:29 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com wrote:
quibbler wrote:
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
If you weren't ignorant you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know. Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
To paraphrase Michael Shermer, there are only two kinds of things in the
universe. Those which we know and those which we don't know enough about
yet. About the latter, we don't know because we haven't investigated
them yet, or we haven't asked the right questions, or we lack the
technology at present to get the answers.
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer. Unless your a
believer in the god of the gaps (who is shrinking day by day), "I don't
know" does not mean "God did it."
Such as, "Daddy where did god come from?"?
Heh! The answer is usually "Uh, son, don't you have some homework to do?"
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 07:43:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Obvious, but irrelevant.
If you weren't ignorant
I'm not.
you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know.
Speak for yourself. Anyway, it's clear that you have carefully read any
of Dawkins works because he freely admits that science hasn't got all the
answers, but notes that religion has got even less answers.
Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
We know a lot more than Augustine, so it's a good thing that your
precious Newton and other scientists refused to follow that church
father's moronic advice.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot.
He's a damn sight smarter than you, apparently.
He is comparing ideas to viruses.
It's called a metaphor, moron. Get someone to look that up in the
dictionary for you.
It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Your continually compounding ignorance on this and other subjects is
noted, "Jimmy Boy" <smirk>.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 05:16:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:43:37 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
You remind me of an old radio gardeners question time. One well
known gardening experts frequent reply became a national
catchphrase. Aping a Cornish accent we would answer imponderables
with : "Oi think the arnser lies in the soil"
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 05:27:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:16:25 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:43:37 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
You remind me of an old radio gardeners question time. One well
known gardening experts frequent reply became a national
catchphrase. Aping a Cornish accent we would answer imponderables
with : "Oi think the arnser lies in the soil"
Ray Tosser!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 05:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:27:42 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:16:25 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:43:37 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
You remind me of an old radio gardeners question time. One well
known gardening experts frequent reply became a national
catchphrase. Aping a Cornish accent we would answer imponderables
with : "Oi think the arnser lies in the soil"
Ray Tosser!
Oi didn't know thaart. Thankee kindly saar.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 08:56:47 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Obvious, but irrelevant.
If you weren't ignorant
I'm not.
you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know.
Speak for yourself. Anyway, it's clear that you have carefully read any
of Dawkins works because he freely admits that science hasn't got all the
answers, but notes that religion has got even less answers.
Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
We know a lot more than Augustine, so it's a good thing that your
precious Newton and other scientists refused to follow that church
father's moronic advice.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Dawkins is an idiot.
He's a damn sight smarter than you, apparently.
He is comparing ideas to viruses.
It's called a metaphor, moron. Get someone to look that up in the
dictionary for you.
It is like
comparing cows to playing chess.
Your continually compounding ignorance on this and other subjects is
noted, "Jimmy Boy" <smirk>.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 09:20:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
06 Oct 2006 10:31:31 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 12:50:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 12:59:00 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
No, they are dumping product for "free". That's a good thing, which of
course means that you are probably against it (at least you were just a
couple of hours ago in the "maximum wage" thread?).
Those type of websites are somewhat like communism, they try to make
you think that the product is free, but it isn't (the currency is
something other than dollars).
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 08:59:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1160200740.635143.8170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
No, they are dumping product for "free".
No, actually they are not dumping it, because dumping often connotes a
predatory intention of harming a competitor, whereas, in the case of much
shareware and freeware, it's often given away because it is not worth
substantially more than the low price at which it is offered. There are,
of course, other reasons for shareware, including the stealh installation
of ad, nag and spyware onto others systems, but that's a different story.
That's a good thing,
No, actually dumping isn't a good thing, though freeware can be. I know
you can't wrap your brain around this, but I am not opposed to capitalism
or the market. I'm just not a fringe fanatic like yourself who believes
that anything other that a blank check to business is equivalent to
collectivization. But the fact that you like free software means that
you unwittingly are not nearly as much of a capitalist as you like to
claim. Free software breaks the consumer and profit paradigm at many
points. It is far more akin to putting the capital of former monopolists
into the hands of the workers, so you apparently make a good comrade
after all.
which of
course means that you are probably against it (at least you were just a
couple of hours ago in the "maximum wage" thread?).
I didn't say I was against free software. I just explained to you that
it had qualities that were a threat to traditional capitalist and profit
paradigms. I think free software can be a great thing, if others can
afford to produce it.
Those type of websites are somewhat like communism, they try to make
you think that the product is free, but it isn't (the currency is
something other than dollars).
Now you're beginning to catch on...pretty soon you might even realize
that I wasn't ever advocating communism in the first place. What a
revolting development.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
07 Oct 2006 09:20:35 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160200740.635143.8170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
No, they are dumping product for "free".
No, actually they are not dumping it, because dumping often connotes a
predatory intention of harming a competitor, whereas, in the case of much
shareware and freeware, it's often given away because it is not worth
substantially more than the low price at which it is offered.
You like to contradict yourself, don't you commie boy?
According to you, they give it away at less than what it costs them
voluntarily, yet that is not "dumping"? You are full of it.
Before you use the standard commie technique of changing sides on the
issue and claim that I was holding the wrong opinion, I am going to
spell it out for you: I am all in favor of "dumping".
There are,
of course, other reasons for shareware, including the stealh installation
of ad, nag and spyware onto others systems, but that's a different story.
That's why I wrote that it's "free", not free. See the difference Dr.
Quibbler? I know you can, but you pretend not to when it suits your
purpose. Typical deceitful commie.
That's a good thing,
No, actually dumping isn't a good thing, though freeware can be. I know
you can't wrap your brain around this, but I am not opposed to capitalism
or the market. I'm just not a fringe fanatic like yourself who believes
that anything other that a blank check to business is equivalent to
collectivization. But the fact that you like free software means that
you unwittingly are not nearly as much of a capitalist as you like to
claim.
Really? I haven't forced anyone to give anything for free at the point
of a gun, like you guys do.
As mentioned above, apparently you understand that it's not really free
(they are trading in another intermediary currency instead of cash),
but like the dishonest commie that you are, pretend otherwise when you
are trying to "make a point". Typical commie tactic.
Free software breaks the consumer and profit paradigm at many
points. It is far more akin to putting the capital of former monopolists
into the hands of the workers, so you apparently make a good comrade
after all.
Again, "free", not free.
which of
course means that you are probably against it (at least you were just a
couple of hours ago in the "maximum wage" thread?).
I didn't say I was against free software. I just explained to you that
it had qualities that were a threat to traditional capitalist and profit
paradigms. I think free software can be a great thing, if others can
afford to produce it.
No, it's not "a threat to traditional capitalist and profit paradigms",
as explained above, the currency is something other than cash. I
suspect you understand that, somewhat, but pretend otherwise, like the
deceitful commie comrade that you are.
Those type of websites are somewhat like communism, they try to make
you think that the product is free, but it isn't (the currency is
something other than dollars).
Now you're beginning to catch on...pretty soon you might even realize
that I wasn't ever advocating communism in the first place. What a
revolting development.
Now YOU are beginning to catch on.
Of course you are not advocating communism, you are a "Progressive"
now. The name has changed, but it's the same old *****. All you
commies have done is to CHANGE TACTICS, that's all. We both know that,
Dr. Quibbler.
You guys have realized that it's easier to do it in stages, chipping
away at freedom. You believe that most people are too stupid and
ignorant to realize what's going on while it's going on, and you are
right about that.
Dr. Quibbler is right about something! Hooray!
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
08 Oct 2006 02:34:40 AM |
|
|
In article <1160274035.497631.292060@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160200740.635143.8170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
No, they are dumping product for "free".
No, actually they are not dumping it, because dumping often connotes a
predatory intention of harming a competitor, whereas, in the case of much
shareware and freeware, it's often given away because it is not worth
substantially more than the low price at which it is offered.
You like to contradict yourself,
Nope, you're just to stupid to understand what is being said.
don't you commie boy?
You're the only communist around here, advocating for your "free"
software.
According to you, they give it away at less than what it costs them
voluntarily, yet that is not "dumping"?
And I explained to your stupid ***** that the defintion of dumping includes
the intent to predatorially damage a competitor. I then carefully
explained that, for the most part they couldn't really make than about
zero dollars on the software they were giving away, because that is about
what some of it is worth. So just because the software is crummy and of
low value does not mean that it is being "dumped".
You are full of it.
No, you just insist on not reading what was said and not knowing the
definition of your terms before you use them. You then jibber and
bluster, wasting everyone's time.
Before you use the standard commie technique of changing sides on the
issue
I'm sure that to a fool like yourself, it seems that your opponents are
"changing sides on the issue" when really, you just never understood your
own side or what your opponent was saying to begin with.
and claim that I was holding the wrong opinion,
It's really not about opinions.
I am going to
spell it out for you: I am all in favor of "dumping".
That's a remarkably stupid proposition to commit to, but I guess I'm not
surprised that you'd say that.
There are,
of course, other reasons for shareware, including the stealh installation
of ad, nag and spyware onto others systems, but that's a different story.
That's why I wrote that it's "free", not free.
Yeah, I picked up on that not so subtle comment on your part.
See the difference Dr.
Quibbler?
Way ahead of you, moron.
I know you can, but you pretend not to
What you need to know is that you are a time-wasting moron and that
people easily pick up on your not-so-subtle signals.
when it suits your
purpose. Typical deceitful commie.
Except that the only one doing any deceiving is you and it's to yourself.
While it's obvious that much shareware isn't really "free", it's also
obvious that it isn't really being "dumped", but I don't expect you to be
consistent.
That's a good thing,
No, actually dumping isn't a good thing, though freeware can be. I know
you can't wrap your brain around this, but I am not opposed to capitalism
or the market. I'm just not a fringe fanatic like yourself who believes
that anything other that a blank check to business is equivalent to
collectivization. But the fact that you like free software means that
you unwittingly are not nearly as much of a capitalist as you like to
claim.
Really? I haven't forced anyone to give anything for free at the point
of a gun, like you guys do.
It's not clear where you get your delusions about me, but if you haven't
forced anyone to do something at the point of a gun then it probably just
means that you don't understand the economic coercion that necessarily
takes place in the capitalist world. Gun boat diplomacy to advance
capitalist interests is a time-honored tradition amongst you so-called
free-marketeers.
As mentioned above, apparently you understand that it's not really free
(they are trading in another intermediary currency instead of cash),
but like the dishonest commie that you are, pretend otherwise when you
are trying to "make a point".
Is that like the way that you pretend that I am a "commie" even when I
tell you specifically that I favor capitalism and a market mechanism?
Typical commie tactic.
Yes, you use your commie tactics well, but simply change the names on the
doors before you do it.
Free software breaks the consumer and profit paradigm at many
points. It is far more akin to putting the capital of former monopolists
into the hands of the workers, so you apparently make a good comrade
after all.
Again, "free", not free.
Not always. But it's still too cheap to be profitable, in many cases,
even with adware and other agendas. And a lot of shareware avoids this
sort of stuff because they know it turns customers off. So there is a
lot of software that is effectively free, in the sense that earns
essentially no money for the producer. But that's just because it's
crap, like your knowledge of economics.
which of
course means that you are probably against it (at least you were just a
couple of hours ago in the "maximum wage" thread?).
I didn't say I was against free software. I just explained to you that
it had qualities that were a threat to traditional capitalist and profit
paradigms. I think free software can be a great thing, if others can
afford to produce it.
No, it's not "a threat to traditional capitalist and profit paradigms",
as explained above,
As usual, you didn't manage to intelligently explain anything. There is
free software, such as that provided by FSF that is more genuinely free
and it is a threat to traditional capitalist profit paradigms.
the currency is something other than cash.
No, sometimes the software really is, for all intents and purposes, free.
I
suspect you understand that, somewhat, but pretend otherwise, like the
deceitful commie comrade that you are.
Yawn.
Those type of websites are somewhat like communism, they try to make
you think that the product is free, but it isn't (the currency is
something other than dollars).
Now you're beginning to catch on...pretty soon you might even realize
that I wasn't ever advocating communism in the first place. What a
revolting development.
Now YOU are beginning to catch on.
Of course you are not advocating communism, you are a "Progressive"
now. The name has changed, but it's the same old *****. All you
commies have done is to CHANGE TACTICS, that's all.
"Changing tactics" like advocating capitalism would seem to preclude
still being a communist, as you laughably allege.
We both know that,
Dr. Quibbler.
You guys have realized that it's easier to do it in stages, chipping
away at freedom.
It's pretty clear that I support more genuine freedom than you do. That's
why I won't permit aristocrats and oligarchs to try to rig the financial
system at the top to provide them with the funds they need to undermine
democracy.
You believe that most people are too stupid and
ignorant to realize what's going on while it's going on, and you are
right about that.
It's certainly right in your case.
Dr. Quibbler is right about something! Hooray!
You will have to tell me who this Dr. Quibbler is some day.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
08 Oct 2006 03:29:46 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160274035.497631.292060@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160200740.635143.8170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160191891.057777.270940@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160186207.182950.163260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160173342.062691.284210@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jim_hallerud@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
So as Dawkins suggests, the next time someone says he or she must defer
to a priest or theologian on some "deep" question, you should say
instead, "why not the cook or the gardener?" They, after all, are about
as qualified as a theologian to blow smoke on some "imponderable
question", but unlike a theologian, there is at least a chance that they
will offer an answer that says something other than "God doesn't want us
to know the answer to that".
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Are you by any chance Dr. Quibbler, famous Dr. Quibbler?
Are you the famous "two cows" after which tucows.com was named?
Another free download site for my Favorites folder.
Capitalism, ain't it great!
Is it capitalism if they're doing it for free. Sounds more like evil
communism. You should demand that they charge your ***** a lot of money
for each file, whether you end up using it or not.
No, they are dumping product for "free".
No, actually they are not dumping it, because dumping often connotes a
predatory intention of harming a competitor, whereas, in the case of much
shareware and freeware, it's often given away because it is not worth
substantially more than the low price at which it is offered.
You like to contradict yourself,
Nope, you're just to stupid to understand what is being said.
The problem is I understand your kind too well.
don't you commie boy?
You're the only communist around here, advocating for your "free"
software.
The communist calls me a communist! So you attribute me your evil
qualities to deflect away from you. What else is new? Like I said
before, typical commie tactic! You guys need to update the manual!
According to you, they give it away at less than what it costs them
voluntarily, yet that is not "dumping"?
And I explained to your stupid ***** that the defintion of dumping includes
the intent to predatorially damage a competitor.
Oh my mistake! They are trying to help their competitors! Why
couldn't I see it, it's so obvious!
I then carefully
explained that, for the most part they couldn't really make than about
zero dollars on the software they were giving away, because that is about
what some of it is worth. So just because the software is crummy and of
low value does not mean that it is being "dumped".
You are full of it.
No, you just insist on not reading what was said and not knowing the
definition of your terms before you use them. You then jibber and
bluster, wasting everyone's time.
Before you use the standard commie technique of changing sides on the
issue
I'm sure that to a fool like yourself, it seems that your opponents are
"changing sides on the issue" when really, you just never understood your
own side or what your opponent was saying to begin with.
And the good Dr. Quibbler is only too happy to explain everything to
me. Thanks Dr!
and claim that I was holding the wrong opinion,
It's really not about opinions.
I am going to
spell it out for you: I am all in favor of "dumping".
That's a remarkably stupid proposition to commit to, but I guess I'm not
surprised that you'd say that.
Let's see:
1) If the merchants sell to you for a profit, that makes you angry
because they make a profit.
2) If the merchants sell to you for a loss, that makes you angry
because they dont't make a profit.
You are not particularly bright Dr. Quibbler.
There are,
of course, other reasons for shareware, including the stealh installation
of ad, nag and spyware onto others systems, but that's a different story.
That's why I wrote that it's "free", not free.
Yeah, I picked up on that not so subtle comment on your part.
You are a bright boy.
See the difference Dr.
Quibbler?
Way ahead of you, moron.
I know you can, but you pretend not to
What you need to know is that you are a time-wasting moron and that
people easily pick up on your not-so-subtle signals.
when it suits your
purpose. Typical deceitful commie.
Except that the only one doing any deceiving is you and it's to yourself.
While it's obvious that much shareware isn't really "free", it's also
obvious that it isn't really being "dumped", but I don't expect you to be
consistent.
Your imagination is working overtime today.
That's a good thing,
No, actually dumping isn't a good thing, though freeware can be. I know
you can't wrap your brain around this, but I am not opposed to capitalism
or the market. I'm just not a fringe fanatic like yourself who believes
that anything other that a blank check to business is equivalent to
collectivization. But the fact that you like free software means that
you unwittingly are not nearly as much of a capitalist as you like to
claim.
Really? I haven't forced anyone to give anything for free at the point
of a gun, like you guys do.
It's not clear where you get your delusions about me, but if you haven't
forced anyone to do something at the point of a gun then it probably just
means that you don't understand the economic coercion that necessarily
takes place in the capitalist world. Gun boat diplomacy to advance
capitalist interests is a time-honored tradition amongst you so-called
free-marketeers.
Like you said "so-called free-marketeers"; not everybody is what they
claim to be, fool! You are a prime example.
As mentioned above, apparently you understand that it's not really free
(they are trading in another intermediary currency instead of cash),
but like the dishonest commie that you are, pretend otherwise when you
are trying to "make a point".
Is that like the way that you pretend that I am a "commie" even when I
tell you specifically that I favor capitalism and a market mechanism?
Typical commie tactic.
Yes, you use your commie tactics well, but simply change the names on the
doors before you do it.
Free software breaks the consumer and profit paradigm at many
points. It is far more akin to putting the capital of former monopolists
into the hands of the workers, so you apparently make a good comrade
after all.
Again, "free", not free.
Not always. But it's still too cheap to be profitable, in many cases,
even with adware and other agendas. And a lot of shareware avoids this
sort of stuff because they know it turns customers off. So there is a
lot of software that is effectively free, in the sense that earns
essentially no money for the producer. But that's just because it's
crap, like your knowledge of economics.
which of
course means that you are probably against it (at least you were just a
couple of hours ago in the "maximum wage" thread?).
I didn't say I was against free software. I just explained to you that
it had qualities that were a threat to traditional capitalist and profit
paradigms. I think free software can be a great thing, if others can
afford to produce it.
No, it's not "a threat to traditional capitalist and profit paradigms",
as explained above,
As usual, you didn't manage to intelligently explain anything. There is
free software, such as that provided by FSF that is more genuinely free
and it is a threat to traditional capitalist profit paradigms.
I like to be threatened then.
the currency is something other than cash.
No, sometimes the software really is, for all intents and purposes, free.
I
suspect you understand that, somewhat, but pretend otherwise, like the
deceitful commie comrade that you are.
Yawn.
Those type of websites are somewhat like communism, they try to make
you think that the product is free, but it isn't (the currency is
something other than dollars).
Now you're beginning to catch on...pretty soon you might even realize
that I wasn't ever advocating communism in the first place. What a
revolting development.
Now YOU are beginning to catch on.
Of course you are not advocating communism, you are a "Progressive"
now. The name has changed, but it's the same old *****. All you
commies have done is to CHANGE TACTICS, that's all.
"Changing tactics" like advocating capitalism would seem to preclude
still being a communist, as you laughably allege.
We both know that,
Dr. Quibbler.
You guys have realized that it's easier to do it in stages, chipping
away at freedom.
It's pretty clear that I support more genuine freedom than you do. That's
why I won't permit aristocrats and oligarchs to try to rig the financial
system at the top to provide them with the funds they need to undermine
democracy.
When did I say that I support a rigged financial system? Good luck
finding the post, Dr. Quibbler.
You believe that most people are too stupid and
ignorant to realize what's going on while it's going on, and you are
right about that.
It's certainly right in your case.
Dr. Quibbler is right about something! Hooray!
You will have to tell me who this Dr. Quibbler is some day.
I'm sorry Comrade Quibbler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
09 Oct 2006 02:52:42 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Tell that to Newton
I know this must come as a terrible shock to you, but Newton has been
dead for almost 300 years. I knew fundies were behind the times, but
this is ridiculous.
It is an expression moron. Your comment is irrelevant.
who is considered by many to be the Father of
Modern Physics.
He's also strongly suspected to have expropriated the works of other as
his own and to have lapsed into raving lunacy, not to mention episodes of
profound superstition and religious silliness (though his religious views
might be regarded as progressive by some today). His accomplishment in
physics, however, had little to do with his screwball religious beliefs,
nor does your comment about Newtonian physics have the slightest thing to
do with the theological discussion at hand. Do try to keep up.
Whose work did he expropriate? This comment is ridiculous. His
gravitional equations were just sitting around until a contemporary
asked about them. The question of his personal beliefs is irrelevant.
His works in developing Physics is just monumental. For you to say
otherwise is ridiculous. It shows that you are very prejudiced against
people who believe differently than you.
There are many Physicists who are not atheists. I don't know of any
who are asking their priests or ministers about the lack of a Quantum
Reality.
I'll leave you with this citation of Augustine from Dawkins' book which
reads, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to
try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond
our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not
wish to learn". As usual, Augustine has it backward. The disease here
is lack of curiosity and the cure is for ignorant theists to get a
scientific education about how the world really works.
There are still secrets of nature which have defied our understanding.
Obvious, but irrelevant.
Hardly, you think we know how the world really works. This is not
true. The reality is that we are still baffled by Quantum Mechanics.
If you weren't ignorant
I'm not.
you would know there is much about quantum
physics which we don't know.
Speak for yourself. Anyway, it's clear that you have carefully read any
of Dawkins works because he freely admits that science hasn't got all the
answers, but notes that religion has got even less answers.
Weak appeal to authority. Do you worship Dawkins?
Consequently, we don't know hos the world
"really works".
We know a lot more than Augustine, so it's a good thing that your
precious Newton and other scientists refused to follow that church
father's moronic advice.
Augustine was a religious leader from the dark ages. For you to label
him a moron is a bit ignorant of you. Have you read any of
philosophical works? He considered to a very brilliant man of his
time. For you to judge him by today's standards is unreasonable. You
are very prejudiced against people who have different beliefs. There
is a different between belief and scientific fact. It is apples and
oranges.
Jimmy Boy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only "Answer" that Theology Can Ever Give |
10 Oct 2006 02:31:53 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2006 12:52:42 -0 | | | | |
