| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 10:33:11 PM |
| Object: |
Theophobia |
Atheists are anti-religious bigots. Their stupid prejudices are
exceeded only by their complete lack of intelligence.
That's because they suffer from Theophobia - the irrational fear of
God.
Freud said, "A irrational fear of God is a sign of retarded sexual and
emotional maturity."
Freud also said, "The wish is father to the fear." That is, the
'irrational fear of God ' often arises from an unconcious impulse or
wish to do something socially unacceptable, like engage in perverted
acts. This is combined with a lack of mature coping mechanisms to deal
with these feelings.
Ever notice just how angry and impulsive anti-religious bigots are.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
| User: "Scotmc" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 03:25:01 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:QrOdnVsa3plHs8rfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
Wikipedia:
0 results for "Existential Realism"
Dictionary.com
0 results for "Existential Realism"
Google:
224 results for "Existential Realism" Aha! Success! *reads* Umm...from
the links in Google (the ones that don't relate to the NGs), it says that
"existential realism" is either a book or the root words.
Existential realism, basically, says "That which can exist does."
Therefore, since an invisible pink unicorn can exist, therefore it does.
Douglas Adams delved into this with his tale of the sentient mattresses on
Squornshellous Zeta.
Question, SOB, do you believe in the Squornshellous Zeta mattresses?
If you google for "existential metaphysics" you actually get a
couple of hits on the stuff SOB is talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 04:35:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:27:41 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what existential realism is.
That's because you are too dull to understand it.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 04:46:01 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4256f926.32337709@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:27:41 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what existential realism is.
That's because you are too dull to understand it.
No, fuckwit, that is not it. It is not that I dont understand it, is that
I've never heard the term.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 04:35:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:10:17 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Remember that you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism in
order to participate. That was the condition I placed on proving the
existence of the Supreme Being.
Which proves only that some medieval philosopher came up with a worldview
that reflects his religious beliefs.
Aristotle was not medieval.
If you have a better Worldview, then let's see it.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 05:11:26 PM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4256f8f7.32291172@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:10:17 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Remember that you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism in
order to participate. That was the condition I placed on proving the
existence of the Supreme Being.
Which proves only that some medieval philosopher came up with a worldview
that reflects his religious beliefs.
Aristotle was not medieval.
If you have a better Worldview, then let's see it.
Aristotle's physics was pretty much all garbage, so we can ignore him.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 07:50:24 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in
news:4256f8f7.32291172@news-server.houston.rr.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:10:17 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Remember that you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism in
order to participate. That was the condition I placed on proving the
existence of the Supreme Being.
Which proves only that some medieval philosopher came up with a
worldview that reflects his religious beliefs.
Aristotle was not medieval.
Aquinas was. Your arguments owe more to him than to Aristotle.
If you have a better Worldview, then let's see it.
I'd recommend Popper, for starters. Then do some study in modern logic
and the concepts of Rationalism and Empiricism. On the scientific front,
I'd go to Feynman for Physics and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler for General
Relativity. General study in Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence wouldn't hurt. Biology too.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 11:00:55 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:10:17 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Remember that you must adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism in
order to participate. That was the condition I placed on proving the
existence of the Supreme Being.
Which proves only that some medieval philosopher came up with a worldview
that reflects his religious beliefs.
Aristotle was not medieval.
No, he was much farther back. I wouldn't attract too much attention to
that fact if I were trying to base an argument on his work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:17:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:00:55 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@ispwest.com>
wrote:
Aristotle was not medieval.
No, he was much farther back. I wouldn't attract too much attention to
that fact if I were trying to base an argument on his work.
That's because you are too dull to appreciate the contributions that
Aristotle made to Metaphysics.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 10:41:02 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4257e3e5.92437518@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:00:55 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@ispwest.com>
wrote:
Aristotle was not medieval.
No, he was much farther back. I wouldn't attract too much attention to
that fact if I were trying to base an argument on his work.
That's because you are too dull to appreciate the contributions that
Aristotle made to Metaphysics.
We can appreciate them and realize how they send western philosophy into a
blind alley for the next 2000 years. It is important to view philosophical
ideas from a historical point of view. About this Rorty says the following:
"We should treat the history of philosophy as we treat the history of
science. In the latter field, we have no reluctance in saying that we know
better than our ancestors what they were talking about. We do not think it
anachronistic to say that Aristotle had a false model of the heavens, or
that Galen did not understand how the circulatory system worked. We take the
pardonable ignorance of great dead scientists for granted. We should be
equally willing to say that Aristotle was unfortunately ignorant that there
are no such things as real essences, or Leibniz that God does not exist, or
Descartes that the mind is just the central nervous system under an
alternative description. We hesitate merely because we have colleagues who
are themselves ignorant of such facts, and whom we courteously describe not
as 'ignorant', but as 'holding different philosophical views.' Historians of
science have no colleagues who believe in crystalline spheres, or who doubt
Harvey's account of circulation, and they are thus free from such
constraints."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:43:28 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
That's because you are too dull to appreciate the contributions that
Aristotle made to Metaphysics.
I gave up on Aristotle when he said females have fewer teeth than males.
Apperently he never bothered to look. Also that howler about heavier
bodies falling faster than lighter bodies as a general principle.
Aristotle should have stuck with literarary criticism.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 10:16:33 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3bq80iF6gfqd8U5@individual.net...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
That's because you are too dull to appreciate the contributions that
Aristotle made to Metaphysics.
I gave up on Aristotle when he said females have fewer teeth than males.
Apperently he never bothered to look. Also that howler about heavier
bodies falling faster than lighter bodies as a general principle.
Aristotle should have stuck with literarary criticism.
Bob Kolker
I seem to recall reading somewhere that his wife had few teeth and Ari was
happy to apply induction in a rather loose fashion.
He also believed that sleep was induced by warm vapours that rise from the
stomach.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 11:53:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:16:33 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
He also believed that sleep was induced by warm vapours that rise from the
stomach.
That's because his farts knocked him out.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 11:52:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:43:28 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
I gave up on Aristotle when he said females have fewer teeth than males.
Don't they?
Apperently he never bothered to look.
Have you checked?
Or are you one of those people who trusts the word of fundie doctors?
Also that howler about heavier
bodies falling faster than lighter bodies as a general principle.
They do in the presence of friction.
Aristotle should have stuck with literarary criticism.
He made contributions to knowledge that have lasted over 4000 years.
By contrast when you die, no one will ever remember that you existed.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
11 Apr 2005 12:57:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:52:31 GMT, Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) <sob@sob.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:43:28 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
I gave up on Aristotle when he said females have fewer teeth than males.
Don't they?
Apperently he never bothered to look.
Have you checked?
Or are you one of those people who trusts the word of fundie doctors?
Also that howler about heavier
bodies falling faster than lighter bodies as a general principle.
They do in the presence of friction.
No. A parachutist is heavier than a 20-pound rock. A bedsheet
is heavier than a pebble.
Aristotle made a false extrapolation from a few datapoints.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 12:01:31 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:43:28 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
He made contributions to knowledge that have lasted over 4000 years.
By contrast when you die, no one will ever remember that you existed.
Aristotle's teachings led physics down a blind alley for nearly 2000
years. If the Ionians got the upper hand, or if Archimedes had founded a
School, we would be travelling around in Star Ships instead of jet
planes. From a scientific point of view, Aristotle was a disasters.
Strangely enough the pythagorean mystics and Plato made a much more
important contribution to science because they emphasized mathematics.
Kepler was a platonic-pyhtagorean nut case. He also got planetry motion
nearly right, better so than Galileo or Copernicus. Newton was another
nut-case. He spent more time on Alchemy and the Bible Code than on
physics. But it was the math he invented that carried the day.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 07:48:27 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:16:05 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
No it doesn't. For the simple reason that the definition has to make
sense. 'Supreme being' speaks for itself.
"Supreme being" doesnt speak for itself at all: it is an expression that is
used to refer to an entity for which there is not a shred of evidence, and
therefore nothing is known about its nature or properties.
Neither statement is correct.
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
07 Apr 2005 03:50:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:48:27 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
The Supreme Being must have an Essence that is Existence in order to
be able to cause things to exist. Therefore the Supreme Being needs no
cause for its existence. It *IS* its own existence.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 01:30:00 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:48:27 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Oh you did, oh well.
The Supreme Being must have an Essence that is Existence in order to
be able to cause things to exist.
Must ? How would a mere mortal human know what A Supreme Being MUST have ?
Therefore the Supreme Being needs no
cause for its existence. It *IS* its own existence.
Could say the same about the universe.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 02:17:40 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:KK2dnWv9F584UMvfRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:48:27 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Oh you did, oh well.
The Supreme Being must have an Essence that is Existence in order to
be able to cause things to exist.
Must ? How would a mere mortal human know what A Supreme Being MUST have ?
Therefore the Supreme Being needs no
cause for its existence. It *IS* its own existence.
Could say the same about the universe.
You're not helping. To play SOB's game you have to put yourself in a
medieval-state-of-mind. Aquinas, St Anselm, all that stuff. Scholastic
metaphysics. Gods, angels, that kind of thing. Forget Kant, Russell, Hume,
et al. Comfortably sitting in our armchair we can know more about the real
world than the physicists, the biologists or the astronomers. If you put
yourself in this frame of mind you'll find that SOB's ***** works.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 07:11:13 AM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:KK2dnWv9F584UMvfRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:48:27 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Oh you did, oh well.
The Supreme Being must have an Essence that is Existence in order to
be able to cause things to exist.
Must ? How would a mere mortal human know what A Supreme Being MUST have ?
Therefore the Supreme Being needs no
cause for its existence. It *IS* its own existence.
Could say the same about the universe.
You're not helping. To play SOB's game you have to put yourself in a
medieval-state-of-mind. Aquinas, St Anselm, all that stuff. Scholastic
metaphysics. Gods, angels, that kind of thing. Forget Kant, Russell, Hume,
et al. Comfortably sitting in our armchair we can know more about the real
world than the physicists, the biologists or the astronomers. If you put
yourself in this frame of mind you'll find that SOB's ***** works.
Indeed, indeed, he keeps going on about this 'Essence' nonsense, but
we've learnt an awful lot since Platos time !
Maybe I should just ignore him.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 07:42:43 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:U_ydnSlvsPTAW8rfRVnyvg@pipex.net...
Milan wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in message
news:KK2dnWv9F584UMvfRVnyjg@pipex.net...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:48:27 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
First there is ample evidence of the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being - the existence of the Universe.
So who made the 'Supreme Being.' ?
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Oh you did, oh well.
The Supreme Being must have an Essence that is Existence in order to
be able to cause things to exist.
Must ? How would a mere mortal human know what A Supreme Being MUST have
?
Therefore the Supreme Being needs no
cause for its existence. It *IS* its own existence.
Could say the same about the universe.
You're not helping. To play SOB's game you have to put yourself in a
medieval-state-of-mind. Aquinas, St Anselm, all that stuff. Scholastic
metaphysics. Gods, angels, that kind of thing. Forget Kant, Russell,
Hume,
et al. Comfortably sitting in our armchair we can know more about the
real
world than the physicists, the biologists or the astronomers. If you put
yourself in this frame of mind you'll find that SOB's ***** works.
Indeed, indeed, he keeps going on about this 'Essence' nonsense, but
we've learnt an awful lot since Platos time !
Maybe I should just ignore him.
No, he's fun. I tend to believe that he might be a rather young student of
philosophy who is having fun trying to see whether he can ***** us off by
re-hashing old and long-forsaken arguments. It's entertaining to be reminded
of this scholastic crap I studied so long ago.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:26:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:42:43 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe I should just ignore him.
No, he's fun.
So are you.
I tend to believe that he might be a rather young student of
philosophy
Geez, did you get that wrong.
I am an old fart who has been around the block a few times. Each time
around I pick up some new insights.
But nothing really ever changes. For example there are still people
like you who are living proof that the IQ of half the population is
below 100.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 10:23:16 AM |
|
|
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob@sob.com> wrote in message
news:4257e576.92839225@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:42:43 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe I should just ignore him.
No, he's fun.
So are you.
I tend to believe that he might be a rather young student of
philosophy
Geez, did you get that wrong.
I am an old fart who has been around the block a few times. Each time
around I pick up some new insights.
If you are not a kid, then you are much more of a pathetic nitwit that I
imagined. Your moronic "yawn" and "how stupid" retorts could perhaps be
imagined coming from a teenager, but if they really come from an "old fart",
they come from a very sad old fart.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 11:53:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:23:16 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am an old fart who has been around the block a few times. Each time
around I pick up some new insights.
If you are not a kid, then you are much more of a pathetic nitwit that I
imagined. Your moronic "yawn" and "how stupid" retorts could perhaps be
imagined coming from a teenager, but if they really come from an "old fart",
they come from a very sad old fart.
How stupid!
<yawn>
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:23:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:11:13 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Indeed, indeed, he keeps going on about this 'Essence' nonsense, but
we've learnt an awful lot since Platos time !
Plato was not the only philosopher to embrace the concept of Essence.
Maybe I should just ignore him.
You already do.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
08 Apr 2005 04:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:30:00 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Who said it didn't?
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 07:09:51 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:30:00 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Who said the Supreme Being needs to be made?
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Who said it didn't?
Me. For one.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
09 Apr 2005 09:22:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:09:51 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Who said it didn't?
Me. For one.
Let's see you prove it.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
10 Apr 2005 05:11:08 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:09:51 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Who said it didn't?
Me. For one.
Let's see you prove it.
Why ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Theophobia |
10 Apr 2005 08:25:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:11:08 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
Who said the universe needed to be made by a supreme Being ?
Who said it didn't?
Me. For one.
Let's see you prove it.
Why ?
We cannot prove that God does not exist beause we cannot conceive of
things that do not exist. So, when people say that God does not exist,
they are entering a domain of thought that is uncertain.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
