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

Groups > sci.physics > #554738 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> - 2016-02-20 00:56 +0100
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:01 -0500
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-27 20:59 +1100
        Re: Scientists are more humane. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 09:55 -0800
          Re: Scientists are more humane. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:55 +1100
            Re: Scientists are more humane, they breed less. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-27 17:00 -0800
          Re: Scientists are more humane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-27 16:07 -0800
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:39 -0500
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:18 +1100
            Re: Christianity is neither scientific nor logical. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 02:20 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-28 03:53 -0800
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-02-28 07:46 -0800
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:34 -0800
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 02:45 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:43 -0800
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:07 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 04:58 -0800
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:14 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2016-03-03 20:23 -0600
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0600
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-27 20:58 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#554738 — Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science.

In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
213.giganet.hu>
je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>
> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>  Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>
> > I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
> > the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
> > automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
> > something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
> > does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
> > that origin was.
>
> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>
> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.

Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.

> --
> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#556098

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:

>In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>213.giganet.hu>
>je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>
>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>  Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>> > I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>> > the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>> > automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>> > something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>> > does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>> > that origin was.
>>
>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>
>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>
>Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>
>> --
>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

    Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have
a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are
doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being
correct with no evidence at all to back it up. 

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

#556119

On 2/23/2016 6:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>> 213.giganet.hu>
>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>>   Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>>> that origin was.
>>>
>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>>
>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>>
>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>>
>>> --
>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>
>      Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik.

You don't know anything.

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

#556773

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:58:32 -0800, Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con>
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:49 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>>>213.giganet.hu>
>>>je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>>>  Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>>>> > the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>>> > automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>>> > something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>>>> > does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>>> > that origin was.
>>>>
>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>>>
>>>Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>>
>>    Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
>>possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have
>>a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are
>>doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being
>>correct with no evidence at all to back it up. 
>
>You don't know anything.

    Try providing evidence that suggests I'm wrong.

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

#557174

On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>> 213.giganet.hu>
>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>>   Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>>> that origin was.
>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>>
>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>>
>>> --
>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>      Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have
> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are
> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being
> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.

that's exactly right

-- 
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

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

#557265 — Re: Scientists are more humane.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
> Â
> Christians enslave women, forcing them to breed exponentially.
> When resourses get tight, they die like flies.
> 
> Scientists are more humane.


 “Go forth and multiply” comes from the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion.



"The study, commissioned by the Jewish Agency, was conducted by Prof. Sergio Della-Pergola of Hebrew University, Dr. Mina Zemach of the Dahaf Institute and Dr. Rimona Weisel of the Jewish Agency.

They claim that birth trends in Israel are exceptional compared to the Western world: While most developed nations in Europe and America have recorded declines in birth rates, the birth rate in Israel has remained steady, despite the rise in the standard of living."


Now American is mostly Christians and the birth rate is declining. Israel is all Jewish and birth rate is steady...around up to 3 children per nice jewish girl.



Get your facts straight!


Now go die like a fly.




      ,,                ,,
    (((((              )))))
   ((((((              ))))))
   ((((((              ))))))
    (((((,r@@@@@@@@@@e,)))))
     (((@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)))
      \@@/,:::,\/,:::,\@@
     /@@@|:::::||:::::|@@@\
    / @@@\':::'/\':::'/@@@ \
   /  /@@@@@@@//\\@@@@@@@\  \
  (  /  '@@@@@====@@@@@'  \  )
   \(     /          \     )/
     \   (            )   /
          \          /

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

#557362 — Re: Scientists are more humane.

On 28-February-2016 4:55 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> Â
>> Christians enslave women, forcing them to breed exponentially.
>> When resourses get tight, they die like flies.
>>
>> Scientists are more humane.
>
>   “Go forth and multiply” comes from the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion.
>
>
>
> "The study, commissioned by the Jewish Agency, was conducted by Prof. Sergio Della-Pergola of Hebrew University, Dr. Mina Zemach of the Dahaf Institute and Dr. Rimona Weisel of the Jewish Agency.
>
> They claim that birth trends in Israel are exceptional compared to the Western world: While most developed nations in Europe and America have recorded declines in birth rates, the birth rate in Israel has remained steady, despite the rise in the standard of living."
>
>
> Now American is mostly Christians and the birth rate is declining. Israel is all Jewish and birth rate is steady...around up to 3 children per nice jewish girl.
>
>
>
> Get your facts straight!
>
>
> Now go die like a fly.
>
>
>
>
>        ,,                ,,
>      (((((              )))))
>     ((((((              ))))))
>     ((((((              ))))))
>      (((((,r@@@@@@@@@@e,)))))
>       (((@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)))
>        \@@/,:::,\/,:::,\@@
>       /@@@|:::::||:::::|@@@\
>      / @@@\':::'/\':::'/@@@ \
>     /  /@@@@@@@//\\@@@@@@@\  \
>    (  /  '@@@@@====@@@@@'  \  )
>     \(     /          \     )/
>       \   (            )   /
>            \          /

and demographers tell us that at current birth rates in the Europe and 
America, their cultures will die out before the end of this century



-- 
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

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

#557440 — Re: Scientists are more humane, they breed less.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
> Â
> There's an estimated 7.4 billion people on this planet,
> guzzling oil as fast as they can, breeding exponentially.
> When resourses get tight, they'll drop like flies.
> 
> Scientists are more humane, they breed less.



there is a reason why....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWt94YoYSgM

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

#557412 — Re: Scientists are more humane.

"The Starmaker" aka kike Sternmacher <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
 
> "Go forth and multiply" comes from the Jewish religion, 
> not the Christian religion.
> "The study, commissioned by the Jewish Agency, was 
> conducted by Prof. Sergio Della-Pergola of Hebrew University, 
> Dr. Mina Zemach of the Dahaf Institute and Dr. Rimona Weisel 
> of the Jewish Agency ... claim that birth trends in Israel are 
> exceptional compared to the American which is mostly 
> Christians where the birth rate is declining. 
>
hanson wrote:
Hey Sternmacher, you splendid Schmuck, your citation
is self-serving to lunatic. All around Israel the Billions of
Muslims are breeding like flies and intermarriages been 
Israelis and Muslims are increasing at an alarming rate.   
>
In 2-3 generations the current stock, of white Diaspora
Settler Jews,  will be experiencing the same what the
WASPs in the US are seeing now: America is aging and
Browning.. and so will you  precious Israel. Pity, but
>
IAROTFMAO

 

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

#557495

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

>On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>>> 213.giganet.hu>
>>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>>>   Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>>>> that origin was.
>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>>      Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have
>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are
>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being
>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.
>
>that's exactly right

    So why are they ashamed of it? And since they clearly ARE ashamed of it,
what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly
ashamed to be in?

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

#557507

On 28-February-2016 3:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
>>>> 213.giganet.hu>
>>>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
>>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>>>>>    Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
>>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
>>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>>>>> that origin was.
>>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb "create".
>>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the word, it
>>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an agent?
>>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and nickel"
>>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to accept
>>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
>>>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
>>>       Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with the
>>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever could have
>>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in either are
>>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being
>>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.
>> that's exactly right
>      So why are they ashamed of it? And since they clearly ARE ashamed of it,
> what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly
> ashamed to be in?

atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may 
exist, and some spiritual things may be true. if they weren't, they 
would be happy to simply be non-religious like everyone who isn't 
religious, or nominally christian (or whatever) , if they wish to 
identify with a culture or heritage or belief system, or call themselves 
agnostic

-- 
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/

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

#557514 — Re: Christianity is neither scientific nor logical.

On 02/28/2016 01:24 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>
>     Christianity is neither scientific nor logical.

Rolf Big Font, this statement is neither true nor based on any rational 
thing. For this to be true you'd have to have superpowers like HVAC and 
sadly you do not. What you mean is that in your total ignorance 
Christianity is neither scientific nor logical for YOU.

The problem with all religions (not just Christianity) is that it is a 
pitiful human attempt to describe advanced science and understanding far 
beyond primitive human present understanding. So they end up talking 
about "miracles" when it's really just sufficiently advanced technology. 
The dumber people are the more they become convinced that anyone 
describing advanced science is "insane". HVAC and you being prime examples.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#557538

In article <djfhsrFlapjU1@mid.individual.net>,
 felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

> On 28-February-2016 3:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur" <arthurf@kxol.com> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <charlie-gordon1492-FFE6AD.03221624082015@88-209-239-
> >>>> 213.giganet.hu>
> >>>> je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>    Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At
> >>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
> >>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
> >>>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and
> >>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
> >>>>>> that origin was.
> >>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb 
> >>>>> "create".
> >>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the 
> >>>>> word, it
> >>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require 
> >>>>> an agent?
> >>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron 
> >>>>> and nickel"
> >>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to 
> >>>>> accept
> >>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
> >>>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
> >>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
> >>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
> >>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
> >>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
> >>>       Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with 
> >>>       the
> >>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever 
> >>> could have
> >>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in 
> >>> either are
> >>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess 
> >>> being
> >>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.
> >> that's exactly right
> >      So why are they ashamed of it? And since they clearly ARE ashamed of 
> >      it,
> > what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly
> > ashamed to be in?
> 
> atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may 
> exist, 

Nope, that's not it at all.

Why don't you pay attention when we tell you what it actually is?

-- 

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to 
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake 
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

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

#557576

In article <hlwdjsd2-925222.03533028022016@news.giganews.com>,
 Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> > > what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly
> > > ashamed to be in?
> > 
> > atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may 
> > exist, 
> 
> Nope, that's not it at all.
> 
> Why don't you pay attention when we tell you what it actually is?

Most people are agnostics most of their lives, not thinking about any deity in 
the small joys and pains of daily life. My real life experiences are that beyond 
that most of the rest of the time people are not interested in fighting over 
religion. Why fight unless you think you can beat religion into or out of 
another?

Unfortunately a few toxic individuals do think they have the right and power to 
decide what others should think. My real life experiences are that such toxic 
personalities occur with the same frequency among atheists, Christians, Moslems, 
and every other beliefs. It is not function of religion or lack thereof but a 
sign that an immature baby is running an adult body and still believing they are 
the master of the universe.

And, yes, I put people who spontaneously state that you are going to hell or 
Christianity is irrelevant mythology or other poisons dripped into our wells of 
public discourse as toxic. It is one thing to tell your opinion when asked, and 
quite another to say things you know will cause anger in others simply because 
you disgree with them.

And anyone with a program to end all religion or to force their religion on 
everyone else is a putrifying personality that hates freedom.

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

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

#557585

And anyone with a program to end all religion or to force their religion on 
everyone else is a putrifying personality that hates freedom. 
----------

I agree. Trying to end religion is futile. Trying to force religion on people is futile. Therefore I suggest that we kill anyone who says they believe in god

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

#557806

On 02/28/2016 11:34 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> And anyone with a program to end all religion or to force their religion on
> everyone else is a putrifying personality that hates freedom.
> ----------
>
> I agree. Trying to end religion is futile. Trying to force religion on people is futile. Therefore I suggest that we kill anyone who says they believe in god

H&V! You just told me that you don't believe in your atheist religion 
and animal behavior for human animals. Clearly you do. Like any animal 
if you see something you want, you take it if you can. If someone gets 
in your way you kill them if you can. Natural Selection. It's what you 
believe.

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

#559166

BJ quacked
H&V! You just told me that you don't believe in your atheist religion 
and animal behavior for human animals. Clearly you do. Like any animal 
if you see something you want, you take it if you can. If someone gets 
in your way you kill them if you can. Natural Selection. It's what you believe. 
--------------

Natural selection isn't just what *I* believe. It's what every thinking person with a science background believes. *You*, on the other hand, believe in intelligent design... The ultimate fall back position of the uneducated.

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

#559167

On 03/04/2016 06:43 AM, HVAC wrote the screed:
>
> BJ quacked H&V! You just told me that you don't believe in your
> atheist religion and animal behavior for human animals. Clearly you
> do. Like any animal if you see something you want, you take it if you
> can. If someone gets in your way you kill them if you can. Natural
> Selection. It's what you believe. --------------
>
> Natural selection isn't just what *I* believe. It's what every
> thinking person with a science background believes. *You*, on the
> other hand, believe in intelligent design... The ultimate fall back
> position of the uneducated.

You of course view Darwinism as your religion that you accept as "fact" 
without any proof because of your undying faith.

Darwinism is full of holes. Data is far from irrefutable. NOTHING in 
science is ever "settled". Passing laws to teach Darwinism as "fact" is 
the ultimate insult to anyone's intelligence.

Trying to substitute your leftist religion for actual science is always 
the mark of uneducated ignorant savages. You can list the scientific 
papers you've published at any time to prove me wrong. I'll wait right 
here.

Am I getting in your way? Perhaps you need to kill me. You've told us 
many times just how "tough" you are. Funny. I'll bet Herb still thinks 
he's a fighter too. Just write "I win! You are down for the count!" on 
the slate around his neck and you've "won" the fight with him!

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

#559168

BJ quacked
You of course view Darwinism as your religion that you accept as "fact" 
without any proof because of your undying faith. 

Darwinism is full of holes. Data is far from irrefutable. NOTHING in 
science is ever "settled".
-----------

This is how BJ justifies his belief that intelligent design/creationism should be taught in school.

Flat earth anyone?

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

#559247

On 03/04/2016 07:58 AM, HVAC wrote the screed:
> BJ quacked
> You of course view Darwinism as your religion that you accept as "fact"
> without any proof because of your undying faith.
>
> Darwinism is full of holes. Data is far from irrefutable. NOTHING in
> science is ever "settled".
> -----------
>
> This is how BJ justifies his belief that intelligent design/creationism should be taught in school.
>
> Flat earth anyone?

Anyone notice that HVAC uses ESP to know just what everyone believes?
Anyone notice that nobody (especially me) said word one about 
intelligent design. Anyone notice that HVAC's argument it totally 
irrational?

What else is new. He worships his Atheist God as infallible. (Just as he 
believed the pope to be before he left that church.)

Is Evolution "fact"? Nothing in science is "truth". Should lies be 
taught as fact? HVAC thinks so because all he does is make up lies.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web