Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393633 > unrolled thread

Jesus rose from the dead

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Jesus rose from the dead  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 12:01 -0700
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 15:39 -0700
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:57 +0000
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 18:14 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:53 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:52 +0000
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:17 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:41 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:58 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:34 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-30 20:48 +0000
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 15:17 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-10-01 00:10 +0000
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-24 20:55 -0700
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:31 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 11:06 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-25 12:11 -0600
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 15:36 -0700
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 05:54 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 07:48 -0700
                  Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:33 -0700
                    Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 12:25 -0700
                      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:49 -0700
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:41 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 03:55 -0700
    Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 20:27 +1000
      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:01 -0700
        Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:36 +1000
          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 07:12 -0700
            Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 15:14 +1000
              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 04:53 -0700
                Re: Jesus rose from the dead HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:39 +1000
                  Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 19:53 -0700
                    Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 05:33 +1000
                      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 13:21 -0700
                  Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:39 -0700
                    Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 06:03 +1000
                      Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:06 -0700
                        Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 09:50 +1100
                          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 09:54 -0700
                            Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 10:17 +1100
                              Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 06:00 -0700
                                Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 07:42 -0700
                                  Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:30 -0700
                                  Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:34 +1100
                                    Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:00 -0700
                                      Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-09 09:32 +1100
                                        Re: Jesus rose from the dead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:10 -0700
                                          Re: Jesus rose from the dead Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 08:00 -0700
                                Re: Jesus rose from the dead "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-04 07:32 +1100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#394650

On 03/10/16 03:54, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:

>>
>> Then you know very little about the world. Why do you think both
>> the pope and the muslims force their female to produce many
>> children? A) because they are trying to outbreed each other. If
>> birth control is encouraged, as it obviously should be, the numbers
>> will drop and the other one will dominate. It is stated muslim
>> policy to get a foothold in a country then outbreed the locals so
>> they can take over. The catholics have been doing it for years,
>> like they are in Mexico right now (ask Donald Trump). Breed like
>> Drosophila then export the surplus. Ireland and Italy did the same
>> for hundreds of years.
>>
>
> Ah.. I was thinking technology has allowed us to overpopulate the
> planet, much more than religion.  But you're right.. Religion
> encourages "having lots of babies".  Any value system that encourages
> having lots of babies will cause having lots of babies.

> Some religions value "be fruitful and multiply" over personal rights.
> Capitalist systems sometimes value "career" over "family" which leads
> to a reduction in population.

Capitalism and most autocracies have always relied on religion to subdue 
the masses. Convincing them the bad people will 'rot in hell' has 
probably prevented many a revolution.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics A major criticism of eugenics
> policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive"
> policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria
> of selection are determined by whichever group is in political
> power.

Correct...but we know enough now to at least rid the world of many 
genetic defects. That is already happening. No kid should be born 
deformed or handicapped in any way... A wide range of people should be 
prevented or discouraged from having children that would carry 
deleterious genes.



>>
>> There is no absolute right or wrong. Before humans became
>> moderately civilized, virtually whatever was good for survival was
>> regarded as acceptable. The same applies in the natural world
>> today.
>>
>> Today, individual rights and freedom are important to everyone and
>> laws are made for the purpose of preventing one persons freedom
>> from interfering with another's. Often the laws are wrong and there
>> is no satisfactory solution.
>>
>
> You say there is no absolute right or wrong, yet you say that
> pedophiles, con-artists, and drug dealers ought to be exterminated,
> as though this is self-evident.

It is in our current society. There might be other animal kingdoms where 
such behavior is of benefit overall. For instance there are spiders that 
eat their own mothers...and it benefits them. I don't think humans would 
recommend that kind of thing.

> There are absolutes, but these absolutes are directional rather than
> locational...  You cannot BE absolute good, or BE absolute evil, but
> you can move in those directions.  Doing what you "know" is wrong and
> in conflict with your own principles is wrong.  Doing what you "know"
> is right, and in harmony with your own principles is right.

there are certain basic rules that are relevant to every society.

> However, there may be inescapably evil positions, such as
> "Existential Self hatred."  In this case, you might believe
> everything you know is true and feel is right is false, and hence you
> would consistently act against the best interest of yourself and
> everyone around you.
>
> An absolute right direction is "Doing right things for the right
> reasons"

For many it takes a lifetime to learn those reasons.

> Then there are the grey areas, where we don't know how to do right
> without doing wrong... For instance, spanking a child to get him to
> stop hitting.  Or where we commit to something we think is good,
> which turns out to be a horrible decision.  Or when we make
> unnecessary sacrifices to achieve what we need.  Or when we argue
> bitterly and it only leads to more misery and strife.

What is not widely accepted is that our genes are largely responsible 
for our basic motivations and priorities. That's why we are all so 
different. it si also why worker ants and drone bees are all the same. 
They are cloned. One day humans might be similarly cloned...who knows?


> One might say these grey areas exist because there is no absolute
> good.  I say these grey areas exist because we do not know the path
> to absolute good.  We may still lack the knowledge or technology to
> get to the right place in the right way.  But to give up on doing
> good because it has never been done before, is folly.

If one doesn't do anything bad, one should be able to feel perfectly 
satisfied. Many people do 'good', ie., charitable acts, for their own 
long term glorification and benefit.
Even drug riddled bikie gangs go round collecting money for kid's cancer 
so the police wont be able to touch them. 'Never trust a charity 
worker', is something I have learnt....not that they are all bad...there 
are plenty of genuine ones.

>> I understand that. Taking away a person's religion would be like
>> removing their whole culture. The only way to do it is through
>> education....but I think it is too late. Homo sapiens will wipe
>> itself out before that can happen.
>>
>
> Indeed, the only way to do it is through education.  But part of
> education is that the teacher doesn't just say "wrong" but tries to
> understand exactly what mistake the student is making.
>
> If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is
> wrong...  Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be
> terribly effective.  It's like throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater.

There is a fine line between education and indoctrination...
The difference is the same as between scientific method and religious faith.


>> Yes, what is wrong with that. Property has to be protected too.
>> ...but confidence tricksters who make fortunes selling seats in a
>> non-existent after life should be quietly exterminated like drug
>> dealers and pedophile priests.
>>
>
> You did not say "Yes, I take it for granted that we share these
> values."  Instead you asked "Yes, What is wrong with that?"
>
> Well, if you really share the same values, then the only argument is
> how to seek those values.  If everyone agrees that comfort and
> safety, is a good thing, then whether two people agree on whether god
> exists is not a major consideration, unless the belief in god or
> not-god requires something inconsistent with comfort and safety of
> others.

The belief that some kind of non-existent god thing is maintaining the 
Earth's environment is the main cause of the environmental disaster that 
is going to wipe out homo sapiens and justa baout eb=very other life 
form very soon.

Catholics in particular are well known as the enemy of green movements.

> As for "protecting property" it depends on how that is defined.  From
> the perspective of the drug-dealer, the pedophile, or the trickster,
> "protecting property" means protecting their rights to own and sell
> goods, such as drugs, children, or false hopes. In that sense, I am
> against protecting property.
>
> But if you explain how "property has to be protected" is consistent
> with  > (1) Protecting personal values (2) Comfort and safety (3)
> Unity (4) Conserve the world's dwindling resources (5) Distinction of
> truth vs. fiction (6) being in touch with nature.
>
> I think that "protecting property" quickly comes into conflict with
> all six of those things, and property ownership should only be
> protected when such property ownership is not in conflict with a
> higher moral principle.
>
>>> (1) "laws aimed at protecting money dominate over those relating
>>> to personal values" (2) "Man's greatest need, security, is
>>> becoming progressively harder to gain" (3)  and which divides the
>>> world into the (4) "antagonistic groups that are already fighting
>>> over the world's dwindling resources. (5) "gigantic hoax that
>>> lies at the heart of all poverty and oppression" (6) "humans have
>>> lost touch with nature. "
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel I share most of these values with you... Yet you speak
>>> about these values as though they can be taken for granted.  That
>>> we should all value the protection of peoples personal values.
>>> We value the comfort, safety, and health of all.  We want to
>>> conserve dwindling resources so that our descendants will have
>>> lives as good or better than ours.  We want to be authentic,
>>> recognizing truth.  We want to preserve the beauty of nature.
>>> And we want to live in unity and without unnecessary strife.
>>>
>>> You find these values to be so self-evident, that instead of
>>> advocating for them, you simply protest against those who you
>>> wrongly think don't share them.
>>
>> Sorry, I spend plenty of time advocating such things.
>>
>>> If we were to make a list of all of these shared values, and
>>> bind them into a book, we might put a label on this book called
>>> "Secular moral principles". And we'll make another book called
>>> "Religious moral principles" and it will contain the exact same
>>> values.
>>
>> Organized religion has no morals. It preaches good but acts with
>> evil. Religious nuts are too brain dead to realize how they are
>> being conned.
>>
>>> The only difference between these books is, one of them says
>>> "The name of God is Our-Father-in-Heaven" and another says "The
>>> name of God is Allah" and another one of them says "There is no
>>> God" and another says "The names of the Gods are Brahma, Shiva,
>>> and Vishnu" and another says "Don't speak the name of G-d in
>>> vain."
>>
>> THere is another fundamental difference. One is based on logic and
>> fact the other entirely on lies and fiction. There are no
>> gods...never were...
>>
>>> Certainly, there are other differences between religions besides
>>> the name(s) of their gods, but for the most part, they all
>>> promote the same common-good that the secular atheist religions
>>> promote.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a secular atheist religion.
>>
>>> Have a look here at an article about Secular Ethics.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
>>>
>>> You see that the Dalai Lama says "even as nonbelievers, we have
>>> the capacity to promote these things."
>>
>> Buddhism is hardly a religion. ..more like a reasonable code of
>> ethics.
>>
>
> One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which
> someone ascribes supreme importance."
>
> Buddhism seeks enlightenment.
>
> I guess it would be hard to pin secular atheism down with a singular
> pursuit or interest.  It varies.  Wealth, coolness, popularity, fame,
> truth, science, etc might be individual interests that people
> pursue...
>
> I'll accept, because secular atheism doesn't have any ONE supremely
> important pursuit, I'll agree that it isn't a religon.
>
> The paradox here, is that science actually is "a pursuit or interest
> to which someone ascribes supreme importance."  That interest is
> verifiable truth.  Imagine that.  Science is Religion.
>
>
>>> But this is a CAPACITY, not a GIVEN.  Worshipers of money do not
>>> generally promote unity except in a hypocritical way.  (If you
>>> can get everyone around you to behave as sheep, its easier for
>>> the wolf to take advantage)
>>>
>>> But when demonstrating that capacity to promote positive secular
>>> ethics, are you promoting fact: "is, does, and did", or are you
>>> promoting opinion: "should, should have, and shouldn't have".
>>>
>>> When you talk about the way we "should behave" and values we
>>> "should share" or virtually any sentence fragment containing the
>>> word "should" you are espousing a value or proseletyzing for a
>>> value that may or may not be shared by your audience.
>>
>> Of course. There will always be differences of opinion. Humans
>> form opinions very early in life and they are hard to change.
>> That's why religions grab young kids as soon as they can so they
>> can scare the daylights out of them with stories of the terrible
>> punishments they will receive at the hands of the omniscient god
>> thing. How do you think a 4yo kid feels when his mother tells him
>> he will burn forever if he doesn't spend his whole life groveling
>> to this infinitely sadistic god thing? You should know the answer
>> because it obviously happened to you.
>>
>
> It was actually my grandmother, and I was about five, when she
> introduced me to Pascal's wager.  (Of course my grandmother did not
> call this Pascal's wager.)
>
> The idea is that we should grovel to this "infinitely sadistic god
> thing," and "If our faith is wrong, we are safe, but if our faith is
> right, then we are still safe."
>
> I do agree that any religion which is based on Pascal's wager is a
> deeply flawed religion.  Not just flawed.  These people who base
> their beliefs on Pascal's wager are actually literally worshiping a
> totally cynical idea of God, and calling it faith.
>
>>> To many secular people, they don't hold their beliefs, so much
>>> as their beliefs hold them.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the secular "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are 'better',
>>> sometimes than the religious "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts".  But is
>>> it 90% of the time?  99% of the time?  I don't know... But I
>>> don't think it's 100%.  Unfortunately, we don't get to perform
>>> the experiment over and over again.  There might be millions of
>>> other planets with intelligent life on them, but Earth only gets
>>> one chance to get things right.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the basic evolutionary principle, survival of the
>> fittest, more or less guaranteed competition and war. Modern
>> medicine and MONEY have changed that principle somewhat to often
>> imply "survival of the richest, most devious or the most
>> dishonest". People who would never have lived to reproduce
>> successfully are now openly encouraged to do so. To achieve a truly
>> civilized society, evolution has to be completely bypassed and
>> replaced with the kind of genetic engineering that will weed out
>> the bad genes and maybe promote the good....but not in the ways
>> that Adolph Hitler tried to do it.
>
> This is an awkward subject.  You have already criticized religious
> organizations for encouraging their people to have lots of babies.
> Do you think it is WRONG, then, for humanity to attempt to influence
> humanity's future genetics, or do you think it is RIGHT?

Whether it is right or wrong it is bound to happen out of sheer 
necessity. There will be a lot more Donald Trumps appearing in the 
future, I'm sure.

> For instance, I think it might be nice if people's IQ's averaged
> higher than 100.  It would also be good if people were not cruel to
> each other.  But which is more important, intelligence or kindness?
> I would prefer our descendants to be both intelligent and kind.

No, that is not the right approach. We need a full range of IQ's except 
the seriously handicapped. IQ is not a real factor any more anyway. 
There are hundreds of different categories of ability and humanity needs 
specialists right across the board.

> We have already used technology to influence humanity's genetics.
> Vast numbers of people have lived because of technology.  Many people
> have died because of human technology... but we've never DECIDED
> collectively to use technology to influence humanity's genetics,

I don't have time to answer long messages any more. I have nearly 
finished a book about life that will answer your questions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394675

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 6:17:06 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 03/10/16 03:54, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc.
> > wrote:

> I don't have time to answer long messages any more.

Okay

> > If you stand in front of a Christian and say "Everything you know is
> > wrong...  Here let me burn that book for you." it is not going to be
> > terribly effective.  It's like throwing the baby out with the
> > bathwater.
> 
> There is a fine line between education and indoctrination...

I think there are a list of things that really do need to be "indoctrinated" 
(1) you shouldn't use violence or shouting to get your way.
(2) Words have actual meaning.
(3) Intelligence is malleable


> The difference is the same as between scientific method and religious faith.
> 
> 

I probably don't disagree with you in content.  By your definition of religious faith--people use indoctrination to convince people of falsehoods and call it religious faith.  I don't want to ignore the fact that people have, through history done this, quite a lot.  (Goofus uses indoctrination to convince people of falsehoods and calls it religious faith.)

But is this what faith really is?  Is it what religion really is?  Or is it a corruption of language by a few bad apples?  (I think it is the corruption of one bad apple--the author of John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelations... and everyone who has not recognized the falseness therein)

One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." The scientific method is a pursuit which ascribes supreme importance to  verifiable truth.  So in that sense, science is a religion.  A person following the scientific method is motivated by a spirit of truth.

If faith is the opposite of reason then it is incompatible with the scientific method.  A person motivated by faith in opposition to reason is motivated by a spirit of falsehood.

But if faith is the opposite of cynicism, then it is still compatible with the scientific method.  I guess perhaps the best modern description of non-cynical approach is "win-win".  The expectation that an undiscovered "win-win" solution should exist in any particular circumstance is faith, in the sense of Hebrews 11:1.  You might not see the win-win scenario, but you have confidence that it is there.

So... it just occurred to me that the "Sign of God" and "Golden Rule" might be parsed as follows.

Love God with all your heart (commitment to life - love), all your mind (truth and scientific method - spirit of truth), all your strength (confidence in what you hope for - faith), and all your soul (identity- holy spirit).  Second, treat others as you would have them treat you--because if you are NOT committed to life, don't believe in truth, don't have any hope, and/or don't respect individual identity, it hardly matters if you treat others as you would have them treat you.

Is this education or indoctrination?  Am I forcing you to believe as I do, or am I saying "I believe this is a better belief."

The spirit of truth (the scientific method) compels you to look closely at the first and second word... "Love God."  That's perfectly appropriate to do so, because the existence of God is not a verifiable truth, and Love is not an empirically measurable quantity.  

But the WAYS in which you are asked to love God put restrictions on the nature of God.  

For instance, the God of Pascal's wager is infinitely sadistic, and nobody could possibly love it with any one of their heart, mind, soul, or strength, let alone all four simultaneously.  

If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.  The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394697

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:00:58 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is probably
> not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.

exactly.

> The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that CAN be
> loved in this way, by everyone.

Or perhaps secular scientists are right that the "Cosmic All" is insensate
and chaotic, but God is a part of the CA and is trying (has succeeded?) in
bringing order out of chaos.  Have you considered that even in our Milky
Way neighborhood, we are just new kids on the block?  The MW is about 9
billion years old and our planetary system has only been around half that
time (and there's a red dwarf star only 150 light-years away that is nearly
as old as the universe itself.  Thus it is not at all inconceivable that
civilizations billions of years older than ours exist within the MW, and
maybe not so far away.

What would be the technology, ethics and morality of such a civilization?
Would they stoop to helping people like us on a backward planet?  Might
we even be their cousins, or even offspring?  Sounds a lot like God, does
it not?
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394817

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:42:17 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> What would be the technology, ethics and morality of such a civilization?
> Would they stoop to helping people like us on a backward planet?  Might
> we even be their cousins, or even offspring?  Sounds a lot like God, does
> it not?

Hmmm.


On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:32:34 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 04/10/16 00:00, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> 
> >
> > If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is
> > probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.
> > The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> > undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that
> > CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.
> 
> It is already defined and called Mother Nature and the Principle of 
> Evolution.

Hmmm.

You say aliens are God... or the principle of evolution is God...  I might go so far as to say, in some sense, these are "Lords" but I wouldn't go so far as to say "God".  One can't willingly disobey the principle of evolution, and perhaps, if aliens decided to come take over the earth, one might be compelled to obey aliens.  

But I don't worship either of these things as God.

I'm reminded of Deuteronomy 13:1-5

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+13%3A1-5&version=NIV

This says that even though prophets, dreamers--perhaps scientists as well--can show signs and wonders, if they say to worship other Gods, they ought to be put to death.  

To soften this sentiment, Jesus offers the parable of the weeds in Matt 13:24-29

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-29&version=NIV

It points out that we don't necessarily have the ability to distinguish between weeds and wheat, and we ought to try to live together... perhaps we can even get each other to grow heads.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395183

On 04/10/16 01:42, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was 
a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the 
action is".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395212

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> "I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was 
> a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the 
> action is".

Raunchie-boy just gets raunchier with every post.  How can anyone accept
his DirtyBaThWater when he behaves this way?

And all I was doing was engendering a philosophical discussion about God.
Atheists seem to be so full of hate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395220

On 09/10/16 09:00, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>> "I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was
>> a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the
>> action is".
>
> Raunchie-boy just gets raunchier with every post.  How can anyone accept
> his DirtyBaThWater when he behaves this way?
>
> And all I was doing was engendering a philosophical discussion about God.
> Atheists seem to be so full of hate.

religion is the cloak of the con-artist.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395252

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:32:27 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 09/10/16 09:00, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > > "I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was
> > > a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the
> > > action is".
> >
> > Raunchie-boy just gets raunchier with every post.  How can anyone accept
> > his DirtyBaThWater when he behaves this way?
> >
> > And all I was doing was engendering a philosophical discussion about God.
> > Atheists seem to be so full of hate.
> 
> religion is the cloak of the con-artist.

Just more hateful rhetoric, but what can you expect from someone who
swims in DirtyBaThWater?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395639

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:10:29 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:32:27 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >
> > On 09/10/16 09:00, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:34:39 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "I turned religious after I was fucked by a pedophile priest when i was
> > > > a little kid. I liked it so much I thought I'd better stay where all the
> > > > action is".
> > >
> > > Raunchie-boy just gets raunchier with every post.  How can anyone accept
> > > his DirtyBaThWater when he behaves this way?
> > >
> > > And all I was doing was engendering a philosophical discussion about God.
> > > Atheists seem to be so full of hate.
> > 
> > religion is the cloak of the con-artist.
> 
> Just more hateful rhetoric, but what can you expect from someone who
> swims in DirtyBaThWater?


Falwell v. Flynt

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/falwell/trialaccount.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394743

On 04/10/16 00:00, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

>
> If anyone offers a description of God which you cannot love, it is
> probably not a flaw with you, but a flaw in their description of God.
> The faith in God, then is the faith that there is something , as yet
> undefined and unknown, (perhaps the physical universe itself) that
> CAN be loved in this way, by everyone.

It is already defined and called Mother Nature and the Principle of 
Evolution.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web