On Apr 13, 12:16=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:57:23 -0500, Dave wrote:
> > I will no longer comment on this subject because folks like Balderstone=
,
> > Burns, et al, are an insult to ones intelligence so I will no longer
> > comment or read posts on this subject. =A0The folks who always negative=
ly
> > post negative comments about religion must live very troubled lives and
> > blame everything on God for their misfortunes.
>
> Chuckle. =A0Another example of religious logic. =A0How can I blame a god =
for
> any misfortunes I might have when I don't think any such exists?
>
> And you think the posts by myself and other skeptics are insulting to
> your intelligence? =A0Naah, I won't say it.
>
> And we post these "negative" comments in the (possibly forlorn) hope that
> someday, someone, somewhere, will see them and rethink their addisction
> to an unproven belief. =A0IOW, we're missionaries, but we don't insist yo=
u
> wear clothes :-).
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
At the same time, everybody has the right to their beliefs and express
their beliefs], just as you have the right to express, albeit wrong,
your beliefs.
"dse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:48:34 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Happy Easter to you too.
>>> It's a very good feeling to know that we too can have eternal life too,
>>> by trusting and believing in the Lord.
>>>
>>
>> It may well be a good feeling, but that doesn't mean that it's true :-).
>>
>> And a fabulous fertility festival to you.
>>
>
>
> Nor does it mean that it's NOT true.
>
> Give it a rest - for one day, please?
Amen.
In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Happy Easter
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
Enjoy your chocolate!
In article <[email protected]>, dse
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Happy Easter
> >
> > To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
> >
> > God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
> >
> > Enjoy your chocolate!
>
>
> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
Saying something like that doesn't sound very Christian to me.
Proud of yourself?
In article <[email protected]>, dse
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dse
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Happy Easter
> >>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
> >>>
> >>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy your chocolate!
> >>
> >> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
> >
> > Saying something like that doesn't sound very Christian to me.
> >
> > Proud of yourself?
>
> Always
The seventh of the Seven Deadly Sins. You may want to reconsider your
ways.
In article <[email protected]>, Dave
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:36:27 +0000, dse wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Happy Easter
> >>>
> >>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
> >>>
> >>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy your chocolate!
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
> >
> > Another good Christian who loves his neighbor, I see.
> >
> > I have trouble imagining anyone making that kind of a remark about early
> > onset Alzheimers in anyone, let alone someone whose satirical writings
> > are in a class by themselves. If there is by chance a deity, or
> > multiples thereof, you're in a heap of trouble.
> >
>
> We are all in a heap of trouble the way things are going in this world
> today. That's why we have got to put our trust in God. No one is perfect
> except Jesus. There is not a perfect church on this earth. If there is, the
> minute I or you walk into its doors the church is no longer perfect. That's
> why we must go there to learn how to better our lives.
What an amazing paragraph. Complete nonsense, but amazing nonetheless.
So rather than human beings trying to fix what human beings have done,
we should all go to various buildings and let other human beings tell
us how something that isn't a human being, and that there's no proof
even exists, can tell us how to fix the mess human beings created
because a bunch of human beings believe something a bunch of other
human beings wrote down thousands of years ago, but they can't agree on
what it means, exactly, but they know it's true because, well, it just
is so stop arguing with them or you'll be called all kinds of bad names
and possibly killed?
And that's turned out well over the past umpteen thousand years exactly
how?
One of the clinical signs of insanity it doing the same thing over and
over, expecting a different result each time.
I think religion qualifies as insane by that definition.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:57:23 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
> > I will no longer comment on this subject because folks like Balderstone,
> > Burns, et al, are an insult to ones intelligence so I will no longer
> > comment or read posts on this subject. The folks who always negatively
> > post negative comments about religion must live very troubled lives and
> > blame everything on God for their misfortunes.
>
> Chuckle. Another example of religious logic. How can I blame a god for
> any misfortunes I might have when I don't think any such exists?
That's how you know it's there!
> And you think the posts by myself and other skeptics are insulting to
> your intelligence? Naah, I won't say it.
>
> And we post these "negative" comments in the (possibly forlorn) hope that
> someday, someone, somewhere, will see them and rethink their addisction
> to an unproven belief. IOW, we're missionaries, but we don't insist you
> wear clothes :-).
In article <[email protected]>, HeyBub
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >
> > At the same time, everybody has the right to their beliefs and express
> > their beliefs], just as you have the right to express, albeit wrong,
> > your beliefs.
>
> That's not so. Most of the people in the world do NOT have a right to
> believe or express whatever they wish.
We certainly don't here in Canada.
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Veatch
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:58:37 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as
> >reliable as the reporting in the New York Times..
>
> Can't say I disagree with him there, but it begs the question of the
> reliability of the NYT
Nope... pretty much sums it up IMO.
On Apr 12, 4:31=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dse
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, dse
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > >>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawd=
ust
> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Happy Easter
> > >>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>
> > >>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't ex=
ist.
>
> > >>> Enjoy your chocolate!
>
> > >> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
>
> > > Saying something like that doesn't sound very Christian to me.
>
> > > Proud of yourself?
>
> > Always
>
> The seventh of the Seven Deadly Sins. You may want to reconsider your
> ways.
Nowhere in the Bible is there such a list of seven deadly sins. Some
monk dreamt those up out of whole cloth.
sweet sawdust wrote:
> Remind me never to wish anyone a happy holiday again!!!!! You guys need to
> make sawdust.
Naw. Go listen to the Handel "Messiah" to remind you about how transcendent
the season can be. Ignore the grumps. Their reward is their own personalities.
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Happy Easter
>>
>
>
J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>> At the same time, everybody has the right to their beliefs and
>>> express their beliefs], just as you have the right to express,
>>> albeit wrong, your beliefs.
>>
>> That's not so. Most of the people in the world do NOT have a right to
>> believe or express whatever they wish.
>
> Nobody can prevent you from believing whatever you wish. Mind
> reading as a practical tool of oppression simply does not exist.
I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
Thanks for helping clear that up.
"JC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> On 15-Apr-2009, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> HeyBub wrote:
>> > J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> HeyBub wrote:
>> >>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
>> >>>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
>> >>>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless
>> >>>> one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other
>> >>>> way.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then there's torture...
>> >>
>> >> If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only
>> >> what they want to hear.
>> >
>> > There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply
>> > ask that you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they
>> > suspect you adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith,
>> > well, then you can't really believe in it, can you?
>>
>> Of course you can. It's called "lying".
>
> It's called lying to save your own skin....
Before the cock crows three times . . . . !
Dave in Houston
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>
> You kids keep pickin' on one another but I must point something out:
> *All* systems of knowledge - including reason itself - hinge upon at
> least one, and often many "unproven beliefs". If that's you're only
> objection to religion you are on very thin ice.
I had a customer tell me once: "I don't care what people 'believe.' I don't
even want to hear it. As far as I'm concerned, people don't have a right to
believe shit. I'm only interested in what a person can PROVE! By prove, I
mean present evidence sufficient on its face to compel a rational mind of
the virtual certainty of the proposition supported by the evidence."
He went on: "For example, I'm agnostic on UFOs. But until someone can put a
piece of one in my hand, I'm not interested in hearing about them and what
they may or may not be. A corollary to that position is someone's claim of
abduction and anal probing is NOT compelling evidence."
So I asked him: "You're a religious man, what's the compelling proof of
God?" "Easy," he said. "One hundred thousand eyeball witnesses at Sinai (not
counting slaves, women, and children) and an unbroken tradition re-telling
the story. And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as
reliable as the reporting in the New York Times... shit! Never mind."
I will no longer comment on this subject because folks like Balderstone,
Burns, et al, are an insult to ones intelligence so I will no longer comment
or read posts on this subject. The folks who always negatively post
negative comments about religion must live very troubled lives and blame
everything on God for their misfortunes.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:120420092347390304%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:36:27 +0000, dse wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> >>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet
>> >>> sawdust
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Happy Easter
>> >>>
>> >>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>> >>>
>> >>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't
>> >>> exist.
>> >>>
>> >>> Enjoy your chocolate!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
>> >
>> > Another good Christian who loves his neighbor, I see.
>> >
>> > I have trouble imagining anyone making that kind of a remark about
>> > early
>> > onset Alzheimers in anyone, let alone someone whose satirical writings
>> > are in a class by themselves. If there is by chance a deity, or
>> > multiples thereof, you're in a heap of trouble.
>> >
>>
>> We are all in a heap of trouble the way things are going in this world
>> today. That's why we have got to put our trust in God. No one is perfect
>> except Jesus. There is not a perfect church on this earth. If there is,
>> the
>> minute I or you walk into its doors the church is no longer perfect.
>> That's
>> why we must go there to learn how to better our lives.
>
> What an amazing paragraph. Complete nonsense, but amazing nonetheless.
>
> So rather than human beings trying to fix what human beings have done,
> we should all go to various buildings and let other human beings tell
> us how something that isn't a human being, and that there's no proof
> even exists, can tell us how to fix the mess human beings created
> because a bunch of human beings believe something a bunch of other
> human beings wrote down thousands of years ago, but they can't agree on
> what it means, exactly, but they know it's true because, well, it just
> is so stop arguing with them or you'll be called all kinds of bad names
> and possibly killed?
>
> And that's turned out well over the past umpteen thousand years exactly
> how?
>
> One of the clinical signs of insanity it doing the same thing over and
> over, expecting a different result each time.
>
> I think religion qualifies as insane by that definition.
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4004 (20090413) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4004 (20090413) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:36:27 +0000, dse wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Happy Easter
>>>
>>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>>>
>>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Enjoy your chocolate!
>>
>>
>> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
>
> Another good Christian who loves his neighbor, I see.
>
> I have trouble imagining anyone making that kind of a remark about early
> onset Alzheimers in anyone, let alone someone whose satirical writings
> are in a class by themselves. If there is by chance a deity, or
> multiples thereof, you're in a heap of trouble.
>
We are all in a heap of trouble the way things are going in this world
today. That's why we have got to put our trust in God. No one is perfect
except Jesus. There is not a perfect church on this earth. If there is, the
minute I or you walk into its doors the church is no longer perfect. That's
why we must go there to learn how to better our lives.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4003 (20090412) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
sweet sawdust wrote:
> Remind me never to wish anyone a happy holiday again!!!!! You guys
> need to make sawdust.
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Happy Easter
Sawdust is waste.
Our new president has vowed to eliminate waste.
All building in the future will be with pre-formed and pre-sized Legos.
No more waste. It's for the children.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:48:34 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>
>> Happy Easter to you too.
>> It's a very good feeling to know that we too can have eternal life too,
>> by trusting and believing in the Lord.
>>
>
> It may well be a good feeling, but that doesn't mean that it's true :-).
>
> And a fabulous fertility festival to you.
>
Nor does it mean that it's NOT true.
Give it a rest - for one day, please?
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Happy Easter
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4002 (20090411) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
Happy Easter to you too.
It's a very good feeling to know that we too can have eternal life too, by
trusting and believing in the Lord.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4002 (20090411) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Remind me never to wish anyone a happy holiday again!!!!! You guys need to
make sawdust.
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Happy Easter
>
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:36:27 +0000, dse wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Happy Easter
>>
>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>>
>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
>>
>> Enjoy your chocolate!
>
>
> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
Another good Christian who loves his neighbor, I see.
I have trouble imagining anyone making that kind of a remark about early
onset Alzheimers in anyone, let alone someone whose satirical writings
are in a class by themselves. If there is by chance a deity, or
multiples thereof, you're in a heap of trouble.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Apr 15, 12:07=A0pm, "JC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15-Apr-2009, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > HeyBub wrote:
> > > J. Clarke wrote:
> > >> HeyBub wrote:
> > >>> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > >>>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have a=
n
> > >>>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while th=
e
> > >>>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>
> > >>>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>
> > >>>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless
> > >>>> one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other
> > >>>> way.
>
> > >>> Then there's torture...
>
> > >> If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only
> > >> what they want to hear.
>
> > > There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply
> > > ask that you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they
> > > suspect you adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith,
> > > well, then you can't really believe in it, can you?
>
> > Of course you can. =A0It's called "lying".
>
> It's called lying to save your own skin....
And that would be called 'legal'. YOU aren't lying, that torturer is
MAKING you lie. AKA situational ethics.
On 12-Apr-2009, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We are all in a heap of trouble the way things are going in this world
> today. That's why we have got to put our trust in God. No one is perfect
> except Jesus. There is not a perfect church on this earth. If there is, the
> minute I or you walk into its doors the church is no longer perfect. That's
> why we must go there to learn how to better our lives.
OK, let me guess, you read about this stuff in a book? Am I right?
HeyBub wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> At the same time, everybody has the right to their beliefs and
>> express their beliefs], just as you have the right to express,
>> albeit wrong, your beliefs.
>
> That's not so. Most of the people in the world do NOT have a right to
> believe or express whatever they wish.
Nobody can prevent you from believing whatever you wish. Mind reading as a
practical tool of oppression simply does not exist.
HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, everybody has the right to their beliefs and
>>>> express their beliefs], just as you have the right to express,
>>>> albeit wrong, your beliefs.
>>>
>>> That's not so. Most of the people in the world do NOT have a right
>>> to believe or express whatever they wish.
>>
>> Nobody can prevent you from believing whatever you wish. Mind
>> reading as a practical tool of oppression simply does not exist.
>
> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>
> Thanks for helping clear that up.
The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless one acts
on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other way.
HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>>
>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless one
>> acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other way.
>
> Then there's torture...
If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only what they
want to hear.
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:58:37 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as
>> reliable as the reporting in the New York Times..
>
> Can't say I disagree with him there, but it begs the question of the
> reliability of the NYT
Read the Bible with an open mind and you realize that it's journalistic
reportage, and like all journalistic reportage, it varies widely in both
accuracy and artistic merit.
Newspapers these days are their own worst enemy--they don't seem to be doing
much better on accuracy than your run of the mill blogger.
HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
>>>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
>>>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>>>>
>>>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless
>>>> one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Then there's torture...
>>
>> If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only
>> what they want to hear.
>
> There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply
> ask that you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they
> suspect you adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith,
> well, then you can't really believe in it, can you?
Of course you can. It's called "lying".
On 15-Apr-2009, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> HeyBub wrote:
> >>> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
> >>>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
> >>>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless
> >>>> one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other
> >>>> way.
> >>>
> >>> Then there's torture...
> >>
> >> If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only
> >> what they want to hear.
> >
> > There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply
> > ask that you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they
> > suspect you adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith,
> > well, then you can't really believe in it, can you?
>
> Of course you can. It's called "lying".
It's called lying to save your own skin....
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:58:37 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as
>reliable as the reporting in the New York Times..
Can't say I disagree with him there, but it begs the question of the
reliability of the NYT
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:45:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> You kids keep pickin' on one another but I must point something out:
>> *All* systems of knowledge - including reason itself - hinge upon at
>> least one, and often many "unproven beliefs".
>
> That seems to be one of your favorite posts, Tim. Tell me how "I don't
> know" rests on an unproven belief :-).
>
Don't try and drag me into your finger-in-the-eyes festival, Bubbie. I
was merely responding to:
... in the (possibly forlorn) hope that someday, someone, somewhere,
will see them and rethink their addisction to an unproven belief
*All* beliefs are "unproven" including (especially) that the sense-reason
process is reliable, correct, complete, and sufficient. There is no
particular reason to trust the human rational process moreso than the
human metaphysical curiosity ... unless, of course, you're satisfied with
an explanation of human existence that is entirely mechanical, lacks any
teleology, and cannot distinguish between microbes and humans. I ain't
pickin' sides in this fight (it's pointless), but you're kidding yourself
if you think the folks of faith are somehow down the intelligence scale
from the post-modern "thinkers" that have polluted intellectual pursuits
for the past 75+ years.
J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
>>>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
>>>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>>>
>>> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless
>>> one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other way.
>>
>> Then there's torture...
>
> If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only
> what they want to hear.
There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply ask that
you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they suspect you
adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith, well, then you can't
really believe in it, can you?
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an
>> UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the
>> authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.
>>
>> Thanks for helping clear that up.
>
> The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless one
> acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other way.
Then there's torture...
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:48:34 -0500, Dave wrote:
> Happy Easter to you too.
> It's a very good feeling to know that we too can have eternal life too,
> by trusting and believing in the Lord.
>
It may well be a good feeling, but that doesn't mean that it's true :-).
And a fabulous fertility festival to you.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dse
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Happy Easter
>>> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>>>
>>> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Enjoy your chocolate!
>>
>> Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
>
> Saying something like that doesn't sound very Christian to me.
>
> Proud of yourself?
Always
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:57:23 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> I will no longer comment on this subject because folks like Balderstone,
>> Burns, et al, are an insult to ones intelligence so I will no longer
>> comment or read posts on this subject. The folks who always negatively
>> post negative comments about religion must live very troubled lives and
>> blame everything on God for their misfortunes.
>
> Chuckle. Another example of religious logic. How can I blame a god for
> any misfortunes I might have when I don't think any such exists?
>
> And you think the posts by myself and other skeptics are insulting to
> your intelligence? Naah, I won't say it.
>
> And we post these "negative" comments in the (possibly forlorn) hope that
> someday, someone, somewhere, will see them and rethink their addisction
> to an unproven belief. IOW, we're missionaries, but we don't insist you
> wear clothes :-).
>
You kids keep pickin' on one another but I must point something out:
*All* systems of knowledge - including reason itself - hinge upon at least
one, and often many "unproven beliefs". If that's you're only objection
to religion you are on very thin ice.
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:45:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> You kids keep pickin' on one another but I must point something out:
> *All* systems of knowledge - including reason itself - hinge upon at
> least one, and often many "unproven beliefs".
That seems to be one of your favorite posts, Tim. Tell me how "I don't
know" rests on an unproven belief :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
HeyBub wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> You kids keep pickin' on one another but I must point something out:
>> *All* systems of knowledge - including reason itself - hinge upon at
>> least one, and often many "unproven beliefs". If that's you're only
>> objection to religion you are on very thin ice.
>
> I had a customer tell me once: "I don't care what people 'believe.' I don't
> even want to hear it. As far as I'm concerned, people don't have a right to
> believe shit. I'm only interested in what a person can PROVE! By prove, I
> mean present evidence sufficient on its face to compel a rational mind of
> the virtual certainty of the proposition supported by the evidence."
>
> He went on: "For example, I'm agnostic on UFOs. But until someone can put a
> piece of one in my hand, I'm not interested in hearing about them and what
> they may or may not be. A corollary to that position is someone's claim of
> abduction and anal probing is NOT compelling evidence."
>
> So I asked him: "You're a religious man, what's the compelling proof of
> God?" "Easy," he said. "One hundred thousand eyeball witnesses at Sinai (not
> counting slaves, women, and children) and an unbroken tradition re-telling
> the story. And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as
> reliable as the reporting in the New York Times... shit! Never mind."
>
>
+1
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, sweet sawdust
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Happy Easter
>
> To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
>
> God made us clever enough to eventually work out that He doesn't exist.
>
> Enjoy your chocolate!
Maybe Pratchett will work himself out of his own Alzheimer's, eh?
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:57:23 -0500, Dave wrote:
> I will no longer comment on this subject because folks like Balderstone,
> Burns, et al, are an insult to ones intelligence so I will no longer
> comment or read posts on this subject. The folks who always negatively
> post negative comments about religion must live very troubled lives and
> blame everything on God for their misfortunes.
Chuckle. Another example of religious logic. How can I blame a god for
any misfortunes I might have when I don't think any such exists?
And you think the posts by myself and other skeptics are insulting to
your intelligence? Naah, I won't say it.
And we post these "negative" comments in the (possibly forlorn) hope that
someday, someone, somewhere, will see them and rethink their addisction
to an unproven belief. IOW, we're missionaries, but we don't insist you
wear clothes :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw