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

Groups > sci.physics > #500034 > 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. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-14 15:49 -0500
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Tim" <me@rsabc.com> - 2015-06-15 07:06 -0400
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-15 08:56 -0500
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-15 13:58 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-15 21:43 +0000
    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-15 23:48 +0200
      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-16 12:52 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 14:36 -0400
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 00:05 -0400
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 19:20 +0000
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:15 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 21:33 +0000
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:00 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:37 +0000
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 07:17 +1000
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:16 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:15 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 00:12 +0200
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-16 18:48 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 19:27 +0000
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-17 14:33 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-17 23:41 +0200
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:00 -0700
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mattb. <Trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:03 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-06-18 02:35 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:02 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-06-18 11:23 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:35 -0400
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-22 09:56 -0700
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:17 -0500
        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 19:28 +0200
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-18 06:12 +1000
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 22:36 +0200
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-17 15:42 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-18 22:43 +1000
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:21 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +1000
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:39 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 06:57 +1000
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:24 -0500
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-21 09:14 +1000
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 14:58 -0500
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-22 09:27 +1000
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:56 -0500
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-24 08:50 +1000
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Sesiom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-06-23 20:20 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-24 03:11 -0700
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:14 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-25 07:55 +1000
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:37 -0500
                                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-26 08:50 +1000
                                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:14 -0500
                                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-27 08:21 +1000
                                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-27 11:50 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-24 19:27 +0000
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-24 14:32 -0500
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:06 -0400
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 05:12 -0400
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 12:15 -0400
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:55 -0400
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:15 -0500
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:12 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-25 07:58 +1000
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:38 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-26 08:51 +1000
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:15 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:15 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:31 +0000
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:27 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-20 20:16 +0000
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 14:59 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 21:59 +0000
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:57 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 13:55 +0200
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:30 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 17:05 +0200
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:00 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-22 19:38 +1000
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:58 -0500
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-24 08:54 +1000
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:07 -0400
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:17 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-22 21:57 +0200
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:59 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:14 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-19 20:13 +1000
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-19 06:31 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:42 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:41 -0500
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 07:03 +1000
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:33 -0500
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-21 09:18 +1000
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:00 -0500
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 22:02 +0000
                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:00 -0500
                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-24 19:31 +0000
                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:41 -0500
                                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-25 21:13 +0000
                                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:17 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-26 16:39 -0700
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-27 11:52 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-27 10:47 -0700
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-27 20:06 +0000
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 09:23 -0500
                                              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-28 08:03 -0700
                                                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 17:06 -0500
                                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-27 20:04 +0000
                                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 09:27 -0500
                                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-28 19:55 +0000
                                            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 17:09 -0500
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 14:01 +0200
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:36 -0500
          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:23 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 21:30 +0000
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:24 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:25 +0000
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 14:10 +0200
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:44 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-20 20:10 +0000
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:07 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 21:57 +0000
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:06 -0500
            Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-18 01:30 +0200
              Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:39 -0500
                Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 02:29 +0200
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-19 21:18 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:54 -0500
                  Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:23 -0400
                    Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 06:24 -0400
                      Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jane@home.. - 2015-06-20 21:05 +1000
                        Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:31 -0400
                          Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-20 05:50 -0700
                            Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 09:41 -0400
                            Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jane@home.. - 2015-06-21 09:46 +1000
                              Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-21 07:05 -0400
                        Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-20 05:24 -0700
                          Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:29 -0400
                      Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:07 -0400
                        Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-22 07:56 -0700
                  Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:51 -0500
                    Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 21:18 +0200
                      Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:12 -0500
                        Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-22 22:19 +0200
                          Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:08 -0500

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#500753

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>> It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
>> the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
>> constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
>> Vatican-directed fighting.
>> 
>> This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
>> countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
>
>And would have put an end to Turkey's bid to become a member.

During the first Gulf War, the US wanted to use NATO bases in Turkey
to attack Iraq.

(The North Atlantic Treaty was for mutual defence against a soviet
threat, and did not allow NATO to be used offensively, outside Europe.
I don't it has been renegotiated) 

Bush1 promised Turkey that he would get them into the EU, in return
for using these bases.

Which went down like a lead balloon in Europe,

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

#500791

On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
>> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>
> The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
> religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
>
> It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
> the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
> constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
> Vatican-directed fighting.
>
> This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
> countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
>

I'm conflicted here.

On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted 
in Christianity or any other religion.

On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the 
success of a venture such as the European Union.

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

#500884

In article <cue7s4F4pteU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> 
> >> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
> >> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
> >> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
> >
> > The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
> > religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
> >
> > It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
> > the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
> > constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
> > Vatican-directed fighting.
> >
> > This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
> > countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
> >
> 
> I'm conflicted here.
> 
> On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted 
> in Christianity or any other religion.
> 
> On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the 
> success of a venture such as the European Union.


We have a rare privilege here. We can decide which of our cultural 
traits are worth keeping and which are not as we move our societies into 
the future. And we don't have to let the religions make those choices 
for us ever again; we can choose what most helps humanity and humans.

-- 

JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

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

#500886

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:00:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <cue7s4F4pteU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> 
>> >> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
>> >> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>> >> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>> >
>> > The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
>> > religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
>> >
>> > It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
>> > the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
>> > constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
>> > Vatican-directed fighting.
>> >
>> > This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
>> > countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
>> >
>> 
>> I'm conflicted here.
>> 
>> On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted 
>> in Christianity or any other religion.
>> 
>> On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the 
>> success of a venture such as the European Union.
>
>
>We have a rare privilege here. We can decide which of our cultural 
>traits are worth keeping and which are not as we move our societies into 
>the future. And we don't have to let the religions make those choices 
>for us ever again; we can choose what most helps humanity and humans.


Do you believe you have the right to remove religion?  To close mosque
and churches?   

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

#500889

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:03:17 -0700, Mattb. <Trdell12345@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:00:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <cue7s4F4pteU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> 
>>> >> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
>>> >> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>>> >> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>>> >
>>> > The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
>>> > religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
>>> >
>>> > It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
>>> > the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
>>> > constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
>>> > Vatican-directed fighting.
>>> >
>>> > This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
>>> > countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> I'm conflicted here.
>>> 
>>> On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted 
>>> in Christianity or any other religion.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the 
>>> success of a venture such as the European Union.
>>
>>
>>We have a rare privilege here. We can decide which of our cultural 
>>traits are worth keeping and which are not as we move our societies into 
>>the future. And we don't have to let the religions make those choices 
>>for us ever again; we can choose what most helps humanity and humans.
>
>
>Do you believe you have the right to remove religion?  To close mosque
>and churches?   
>

That should be a mandate. that should be enacted NOW, just to save
lives

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

#501025

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:03:17 -0700, Mattb. <Trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:00:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
><hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <cue7s4F4pteU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> 
>>> >> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
>>> >> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>>> >> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>>> >
>>> > The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
>>> > religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
>>> >
>>> > It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
>>> > the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
>>> > constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
>>> > Vatican-directed fighting.
>>> >
>>> > This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
>>> > countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> I'm conflicted here.
>>> 
>>> On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted 
>>> in Christianity or any other religion.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the 
>>> success of a venture such as the European Union.
>>
>>
>>We have a rare privilege here. We can decide which of our cultural 
>>traits are worth keeping and which are not as we move our societies into 
>>the future. And we don't have to let the religions make those choices 
>>for us ever again; we can choose what most helps humanity and humans.

>Do you believe you have the right to remove religion?  To close mosque
>and churches?   

It's her atheistic silliness anyway.  What most helps humanity and humans is
............... God.  


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#500980

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> 
> In article <cue7s4F4pteU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On 17/06/2015 01:48, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >
> > >> Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
> > >> gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
> > >> 'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
> > >
> > > The US is pretty much the only developed country which is so
> > > religious, with the possible exception of Ireland and Poland.
> > >
> > > It's not for nothing that Ratzinger used newbies Poland to try and get
> > > the EU to "acknowledge its Christian heritage" in the draft EU
> > > constitution, which ended up being abandoned because or the
> > > Vatican-directed fighting.
> > >
> > > This of course, went down like a lead balloon among both the secular
> > > countries and  the (nominally) Protestant ones.
> > >
> >
> > I'm conflicted here.
> >
> > On the one hand, I would not want a political regime explicitly rooted
> > in Christianity or any other religion.
> >
> > On the other hand, common cultural traits are absolutely vital for the
> > success of a venture such as the European Union.
> 
> We have a rare privilege here. We can decide which of our cultural
> traits are worth keeping and which are not as we move our societies into
> the future. And we don't have to let the religions make those choices
> for us ever again; we can choose what most helps humanity and humans.
> 
> --
> 
> JD


Those or "we can choose" are people who are guided by some sort of
...religion or beliefs..to help humanity and humans.

It's always been that way...

Israel believes they are running the United States...


Scientist spend billions of your money searching for a glass of water on
planet X...it's a cosmic religion.


Who is without religion?

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

#501833

On 6/22/2015 12:23 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
> The reason my G=EMC^2 is so liked it does not need math.


Lol Then why is there an = sign in it?


> It states that God,or Gravity created all that is.To some its the
> merging of both. Both are in reality mysteries.We don't know what
> created either one. TreBert


That's some profound bullshit there Bert. Now go change your diaper.



-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

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

#501845

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> :B::ert Glazier the Swine & 
Hate monger "reber g=emc^2" introduced himself as/with
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how every thing works,.."
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: ***** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert *****
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "
:B:: because "I was mixing sulfur,carbon & iron together 
:B:: to make gun powder".Trebert  ... and about 
:B:: "the S.C killings when a **black** hate monger". Bert
... and now:
>
Galzier the Swine "reber g=emc^2" wrote:
> The reason my G=EMC^2 is so liked it does not need math. 
> It states that God,or Gravity created all that is.To some its 
> the merging of both. Both are in reality mysteries.
> We don't know what created either one. TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
Glazier, you Swine, you are lying again. G=EMC^2 is NOT
yours. You stole it off a farmer's barn in 1946, and you wrote
it down on a brown paper bag, so that you would not forget it.
That's how stupid you are, and to boot it has NOT dawned
on you yet during the last 69 years, that G=EMC^2 is short
for ___ Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism___ (LOL)
>

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

#500765

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:12:13 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen 
>news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen
>> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >(snip)
>> >
>> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded profession
>> >> that
>> >> there is NO God.
>> >
>> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that they /know/
>> >there is no God.

>> That's what I've been saying all along. ...

>So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that atheists say 
>they /know/ God doesn't exist.

Agnostics deny the evidence we all have that God lives amongst us.  You just
don't find it convincing.   Atheism, otoh, denies that there is even evidence
for God's presence, when we see it,  and yet still you can't show how you can
say "there is NO God."

>
>> ... That takes knowledge that no man
>> possesses. ...
>
>And so does knowing that God does exist.
>
>> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that you don't
>> believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that is available to us 
>> all.
>
>Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do.
>
>>
>> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is
>> >so. I /believe/ that God doesn't exist.
>>
>> Finally, you are an agnostic.  There's no such thing as a legitimate 
>> atheist.
>
>An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of them, and I 
>promise you I'm as legit as it gets.
>
>>
>> >Not because I have hard, physical evidence to back up my belief, but 
>> >because
>> >you have nothing to back up yours. And you're the one making the positive
>> >claim. An outrageous one as well, so I can sit back and wait for you to
>> >provide the evidence and see if it is sufficient to make me change my 
>> >mind.
>> >I can't make any promises, though, and as you already know, the Bible and
>> >'Tales of the Sacred Whispers in the Heart' have never convinced me, and
>> >never will. So, if that is all you've got, I'll just have to crank it up 
>> >a
>> >notch to 99,999996 % certainty.
>> >
>> >This is how it'll play itself out. We, as a species, are approaching 100%
>> >certainty asymptotically, and at some point it becomes absurd to still
>> >harbour beliefs in gods. But don't worry, you won't live to see it. 
>> >You're
>> >destined to remain deluded for the rest of your life.
>>
>> You too.
>
>Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as 
>gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%. 
>'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>
>>
>> the dukester, American-American
>>
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#500718

"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen
news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com...
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded profession
> >> that
> >> there is NO God.
> >
> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that they /know/
> >there is no God.
>
> That's what I've been saying all along. ...

(It might be the second time this post appears)

So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that atheists say
they /know/ God doesn't exist.

> ... That takes knowledge that no man
> possesses. ...

And so does knowing that God does exist.

> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that you don't
> believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that is available to us
> all.

Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do.

>
> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is
> >so. I /believe/ that God doesn't exist.
>
> Finally, you are an agnostic.  There's no such thing as a legitimate
> atheist.

An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of them, and I
promise you I'm as legit as it gets.

>
> >Not because I have hard, physical evidence to back up my belief, but
> >because
> >you have nothing to back up yours. And you're the one making the positive
> >claim. An outrageous one as well, so I can sit back and wait for you to
> >provide the evidence and see if it is sufficient to make me change my
> >mind.
> >I can't make any promises, though, and as you already know, the Bible and
> >'Tales of the Sacred Whispers in the Heart' have never convinced me, and
> >never will. So, if that is all you've got, I'll just have to crank it up
> >a
> >notch to 99,999996 % certainty.
> >
> >This is how it'll play itself out. We, as a species, are approaching 100%
> >certainty asymptotically, and at some point it becomes absurd to still
> >harbour beliefs in gods. But don't worry, you won't live to see it.
> >You're
> >destined to remain deluded for the rest of your life.
>
> You too.

Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.

>
> the dukester, American-American
>
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

-- 
Malte Runz 

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

#500761

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
wrote:

>"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen

>> >This is how it'll play itself out. We, as a species, are approaching 100%
>> >certainty asymptotically, and at some point it becomes absurd to still
>> >harbour beliefs in gods. But don't worry, you won't live to see it.
>> >You're
>> >destined to remain deluded for the rest of your life.
>>
>> You too.
>
>Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good as
>gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.

I can easily prove there are no gods. All I want is an accurate definition of
one first.
Read all about religion here: http://www.scisite.info/randf.html

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#500774

"Henry Wilson DSc."  skrev i meddelelsen 
news:40l3oat94vpdtkauqogvo936443nqc1dmi@4ax.com...
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen
>
> >> >This is how it'll play itself out. We, as a species, are approaching 
> >> >100%
> >> >certainty asymptotically, and at some point it becomes absurd to still
> >> >harbour beliefs in gods. But don't worry, you won't live to see it.
> >> >You're
> >> >destined to remain deluded for the rest of your life.
> >>
> >> You too.
> >
> >Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good 
> >as
> >gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
> >'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>
> I can easily prove there are no gods. All I want is an accurate definition 
> of
> one first.

You won't get it from our local crop of theists. I've often asked for it, 
when they demand evidence that there is no god. How can I falsify something 
that isn't even defined.


> Read all about religion here: http://www.scisite.info/randf.html

That's a lot of words. Could you cherry pick a few goodies for us?


-- 
Malte Runz 

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

#500776

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:36:02 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson DSc."  skrev i meddelelsen 
>news:40l3oat94vpdtkauqogvo936443nqc1dmi@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke"  skrev i meddelelsen
>>
>> >> >This is how it'll play itself out. We, as a species, are approaching 
>> >> >100%
>> >> >certainty asymptotically, and at some point it becomes absurd to still
>> >> >harbour beliefs in gods. But don't worry, you won't live to see it.
>> >> >You're
>> >> >destined to remain deluded for the rest of your life.
>> >>
>> >> You too.
>> >
>> >Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good 
>> >as
>> >gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%.
>> >'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us.
>>
>> I can easily prove there are no gods. All I want is an accurate definition 
>> of
>> one first.
>
>You won't get it from our local crop of theists. I've often asked for it, 
>when they demand evidence that there is no god. How can I falsify something 
>that isn't even defined.
>
>
>> Read all about religion here: http://www.scisite.info/randf.html
>
>That's a lot of words. Could you cherry pick a few goodies for us?

They're too stupid to understand that as far as we're concerned, it's
merely somebody else's religious belief, not even a thing that could
or could not exist.

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

#500912

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:36:02 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
wrote:

>> I can easily prove there are no gods. All I want is an accurate definition 
>> of
>> one first.
>
>You won't get it from our local crop of theists. I've often asked for it, 
>when they demand evidence that there is no god. How can I falsify something 
>that isn't even defined.
>
>
>> Read all about religion here: http://www.scisite.info/randf.html
>
>That's a lot of words. Could you cherry pick a few goodies for us?

When the first humans learned to seriously consider the concept of a
'tomorrow', curiosity itself took on a new dimension, along with two new words
'how' and 'why'. It would have soon dawned on those early thinkers that their
own deaths were inevitable. This was an unpalatable thought that not many
other animals appear to contemplate to this day even though their own self
preservation is always an instinctive priority. The cycle of life and death
and the destruction wrought by the unforgiving hand of nature caused many
unanswerable questions to be asked even in the most primitive societies.
Humans questioned their very existence and justifiably so. There is a natural
spirituality in all of us.

How and why did some mountains suddenly burst into fire and hurl huge rocks
and ash onto peaceful villages? How and why did tremendous winds sometimes
flatten the trees, drown the sailors and bring flooding rains? How and why did
the rivers occasionally run dry and cause animals and man to die of thirst and
starvation? How and why did it sometimes snow heavily and freeze the land so
nothing would grow? Why do little children turn into old people and die? Why
do all those stars appear in the sky at night?..etc.

The simplest answer to all these mysteries was that some kind of supreme force
was behind it all; maybe an omniscient creature whose mood swings could
produce thunder and lightning from nothing or transform a perfect day into are
massive tempest at any time. It is reasonable to assume that such notions
originated independently in many different communities around the globe,
leading to the formation of numerous cultures, each with its own version of
the power behind the unknown. 

It is also reasonable to assume that opportunists and confidence tricksters
were present even in the earliest of human communities and that such
individuals soon realized the money making potential of providing awe
inspiring answers to the fundamental questions that ordinary people
continually asked. Not only that, people desperately wanted answers and were
keen to listen to anyone who could produce them, no matter how implausible or
faked. They would pay good money and much respect to those who continually
reassured them of a second chance at life. They would conspire against anyone
who denied it. (Nothing much has changed!) The personification of the forces
behind natural phenomena in the form of gods and deities led to the setting up
of a variety of different belief systems. Organized religion came into
being...and in many forms.

Religious belief is a very interesting phenomenon in itself, particularly with
regard to the vehemence with which its adherents will fight to protect their
faith. It has survived even though the reasons behind many of the basic
questions have been well answered and there is absolutely no evidence of any
operating force behind conscious life other than the natural ones uncovered by
science. There are several reasons for this fanaticism. 
Firstly, the mind of a young child is very impressionable and programmed to
learn as quickly as possible. It will accept almost any snippet of information
it receives from a parent or trusted person. Facts and opinions instilled at
early age will likely remain in its subconscious forever. The christian
religion literally puts the fear of god into its young recruits through a
system of eternal penalties imposed for even minor misdemeanors. It conditions
its followers to cruelty and violence by surrounding them with images of a
live individual strung up on a cross. This horrible custom constitutes a
serious form of child abuse yet the church has been getting away with it for
centuries. Another major religion openly encourages its members to kill anyone
who is not prepared to support it. 
Secondly, many people are too proud to accept that they will one day cease to
exist and will welcome any reassurance that they will live forever. They
naturally empathize with those who support their fantasy and tend to
congregate with them. Similarly, the thought of being reunited in an afterlife
with departed friends and loved ones proves so irresistible to many that it
deafens them to any suggestion to the contrary. In many parts of the world,
the whole social structure is intertwined with religious laws and rituals that
are never questioned. Thirdly, humans are social animals and possess an innate
desire to belong to a group. They do not like to be regarded as the 'odd man
out' and will tend to follow the herd in matters moral or philosophical. In
the past, many of the world's best people have been labelled atheist, infidel,
heretic, witch, etc., and severely penalized, often murdered, for simply
rejecting nonsensical claims about things undefined and non-existent. The
nature of religious indoctrination is such that doubt itself is forbidden. To
dare to question a religion will attract extreme punishment from either other
believers or the 'gods' themselves. The scare tactic that a 'god' knows what a
person is thinking has proved a very powerful psychological deterrent to
rejecting a faith. 
Fourthly, because religions make a special effort to involve themselves in
charitable activities and say the right things at christenings, marriages and
funerals, their administrators and associates are automatically regarded as
trustworthy citizens. Their appearance and eloquence attracts instant respect
wherever they go. It is therefore almost impossible for the average person to
even contemplate that such 'experts on life and death' might actually be
little more than willing participants in one gigantic money making hoax. In
fact, the best way to lose one's friends is to criticize a charity worker,
even if you know full well that he or she is an alcoholic and has a hand in
the till. Right now, however, the rise of religious extremism and the
revelations emerging from ongoing inquiries into pedophilia are painting a
much truer picture of organized religion and its high officials. Religion is
also a gigantic tax lurk. 
Prayer is a particularly intriguing custom. Certainly, if all else fails, a
desperate person might be excused for hysterically screaming in the air for
help but when whole groups of people get together and do something similar for
no apparent reason, one can only speculate on what they are trying to achieve.
An outsider might see the practice as a way of putting oneself into a kind of
hypnotic trance in order to reinforce one's self-delusion...or as the least
constructive approach to solving a problem...a method that has infinitesimal
usefulness. On the surface, prayer would appear to be just a disguised form of
begging or a high class alternative to groveling?... purely a case of wanting
something for nothing? Or maybe its participants committed terrible crimes way
back and are trying to clear their own consciences by appealing to some
imaginary provider of forgiveness. More than likely, they are just too scared
to accept the reality that over the thousands of years prayer has been
fashionable, it has never produced even one positive result? Whilst there are
probably lots of individual motives, the main reason for formal religious
gatherings and organized prayer meetings is that they allow the organizers to
keep an eye on their flock. Anyone who doesn't turn up or perform
enthusiastically is a possible doubter and should be called into line before
others follow. There is too money at stake to permit any dissension. 
The hypocrisy of religion is beautifully exemplified every time the catholic
pope prays for peace when it is his prohibition of birth control that is
responsible for much of the trouble in the world. Politicians love to include
religious references in their speeches. We hear expressions like, “god
willing” or “our hopes and prayers are with you”. “God is great” is a well
known war cry for another movement. In Australia, the 'lord's prayer' is
recited before each parliamentary sitting and 'swearing on the bible' is a
regular formality in law. One can only feel saddened that humanity is still
subjected to such outdated and nonsensical customs although religious
expressions have become very useful as profanities and blasphemy. One thing is
certain, whether one kneels on the floor, points one's hands to the sky or
faces north, south, east or west while performing a prayer ritual, the outcome
will be the same...completely null. 

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#501037

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:43:36 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:36:02 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
>wrote:
>
>>> I can easily prove there are no gods. All I want is an accurate definition 
>>> of
>>> one first.
>>
>>You won't get it from our local crop of theists. I've often asked for it, 
>>when they demand evidence that there is no god. How can I falsify something 
>>that isn't even defined.
>>
>>
>>> Read all about religion here: http://www.scisite.info/randf.html
>>
>>That's a lot of words. Could you cherry pick a few goodies for us?
>
>When the first humans learned to seriously consider the concept of a
>'tomorrow', curiosity itself took on a new dimension, along with two new words
>'how' and 'why'. It would have soon dawned on those early thinkers that their
>own deaths were inevitable. This was an unpalatable thought that not many
>other animals appear to contemplate to this day even though their own self
>preservation is always an instinctive priority. 

Cavemen didn't know the difference.

>The cycle of life and death
>and the destruction wrought by the unforgiving hand of nature caused many
>unanswerable questions to be asked even in the most primitive societies.
>Humans questioned their very existence and justifiably so. There is a natural
>spirituality in all of us.

Even the cave man looked out at the night sky and the "stars" and accepted that
something greater than he was at work.

>How and why did some mountains suddenly burst into fire and hurl huge rocks
>and ash onto peaceful villages? How and why did tremendous winds sometimes
>flatten the trees, drown the sailors and bring flooding rains? How and why did
>the rivers occasionally run dry and cause animals and man to die of thirst and
>starvation? How and why did it sometimes snow heavily and freeze the land so
>nothing would grow? Why do little children turn into old people and die? Why
>do all those stars appear in the sky at night?..etc.

Oh, oh.  God.

>The simplest answer to all these mysteries was that some kind of supreme force
>was behind it all; 

Accurate too.

>maybe an omniscient creature whose mood swings could
>produce thunder and lightning from nothing or transform a perfect day into are
>massive tempest at any time. It is reasonable to assume that such notions
>originated independently in many different communities around the globe,
>leading to the formation of numerous cultures, each with its own version of
>the power behind the unknown. 

Acceptable.

>It is also reasonable to assume that opportunists and confidence tricksters
>were present even in the earliest of human communities and that such
>individuals soon realized the money making potential of providing awe
>inspiring answers to the fundamental questions that ordinary people
>continually asked. Not only that, people desperately wanted answers and were
>keen to listen to anyone who could produce them, no matter how implausible or
>faked. They would pay good money and much respect to those who continually
>reassured them of a second chance at life. They would conspire against anyone
>who denied it. (Nothing much has changed!) The personification of the forces
>behind natural phenomena in the form of gods and deities led to the setting up
>of a variety of different belief systems. Organized religion came into
>being...and in many forms.

All nice bs, but just a scenario you consider your own.

>Religious belief is a very interesting phenomenon in itself, particularly with
>regard to the vehemence with which its adherents will fight to protect their
>faith. It has survived even though the reasons behind many of the basic
>questions have been well answered and there is absolutely no evidence of any
>operating force behind conscious life other than the natural ones uncovered by
>science. There are several reasons for this fanaticism. 
>Firstly, the mind of a young child is very impressionable and programmed to
>learn as quickly as possible. It will accept almost any snippet of information
>it receives from a parent or trusted person. Facts and opinions instilled at
>early age will likely remain in its subconscious forever. The christian
>religion literally puts the fear of god into its young recruits through a
>system of eternal penalties imposed for even minor misdemeanors. It conditions
>its followers to cruelty and violence by surrounding them with images of a
>live individual strung up on a cross. This horrible custom constitutes a
>serious form of child abuse yet the church has been getting away with it for
>centuries. Another major religion openly encourages its members to kill anyone
>who is not prepared to support it. 
>Secondly, many people are too proud to accept that they will one day cease to
>exist and will welcome any reassurance that they will live forever. They
>naturally empathize with those who support their fantasy and tend to
>congregate with them. Similarly, the thought of being reunited in an afterlife
>with departed friends and loved ones proves so irresistible to many that it
>deafens them to any suggestion to the contrary. In many parts of the world,
>the whole social structure is intertwined with religious laws and rituals that
>are never questioned. Thirdly, humans are social animals and possess an innate
>desire to belong to a group. They do not like to be regarded as the 'odd man
>out' and will tend to follow the herd in matters moral or philosophical. In
>the past, many of the world's best people have been labelled atheist, infidel,
>heretic, witch, etc., and severely penalized, often murdered, for simply
>rejecting nonsensical claims about things undefined and non-existent. The
>nature of religious indoctrination is such that doubt itself is forbidden. To
>dare to question a religion will attract extreme punishment from either other
>believers or the 'gods' themselves. The scare tactic that a 'god' knows what a
>person is thinking has proved a very powerful psychological deterrent to
>rejecting a faith. 
>Fourthly, because religions make a special effort to involve themselves in
>charitable activities and say the right things at christenings, marriages and
>funerals, their administrators and associates are automatically regarded as
>trustworthy citizens. Their appearance and eloquence attracts instant respect
>wherever they go. It is therefore almost impossible for the average person to
>even contemplate that such 'experts on life and death' might actually be
>little more than willing participants in one gigantic money making hoax. In
>fact, the best way to lose one's friends is to criticize a charity worker,
>even if you know full well that he or she is an alcoholic and has a hand in
>the till. Right now, however, the rise of religious extremism and the
>revelations emerging from ongoing inquiries into pedophilia are painting a
>much truer picture of organized religion and its high officials. Religion is
>also a gigantic tax lurk. 
>Prayer is a particularly intriguing custom. Certainly, if all else fails, a
>desperate person might be excused for hysterically screaming in the air for
>help but when whole groups of people get together and do something similar for
>no apparent reason, one can only speculate on what they are trying to achieve.
>An outsider might see the practice as a way of putting oneself into a kind of
>hypnotic trance in order to reinforce one's self-delusion...or as the least
>constructive approach to solving a problem...a method that has infinitesimal
>usefulness. On the surface, prayer would appear to be just a disguised form of
>begging or a high class alternative to groveling?... purely a case of wanting
>something for nothing? Or maybe its participants committed terrible crimes way
>back and are trying to clear their own consciences by appealing to some
>imaginary provider of forgiveness. More than likely, they are just too scared
>to accept the reality that over the thousands of years prayer has been
>fashionable, it has never produced even one positive result? Whilst there are
>probably lots of individual motives, the main reason for formal religious
>gatherings and organized prayer meetings is that they allow the organizers to
>keep an eye on their flock. Anyone who doesn't turn up or perform
>enthusiastically is a possible doubter and should be called into line before
>others follow. There is too money at stake to permit any dissension. 
>The hypocrisy of religion is beautifully exemplified every time the catholic
>pope prays for peace when it is his prohibition of birth control that is
>responsible for much of the trouble in the world. Politicians love to include
>religious references in their speeches. We hear expressions like, “god
>willing” or “our hopes and prayers are with you”. “God is great” is a well
>known war cry for another movement. In Australia, the 'lord's prayer' is
>recited before each parliamentary sitting and 'swearing on the bible' is a
>regular formality in law. One can only feel saddened that humanity is still
>subjected to such outdated and nonsensical customs although religious
>expressions have become very useful as profanities and blasphemy. One thing is
>certain, whether one kneels on the floor, points one's hands to the sky or
>faces north, south, east or west while performing a prayer ritual, the outcome
>will be the same...completely null. 

Only if you don't see God.

>Henry Wilson DSc.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#501162

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:21:14 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:43:36 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>> One can only feel saddened that humanity is still
>>subjected to such outdated and nonsensical customs although religious
>>expressions have become very useful as profanities and blasphemy. One thing is
>>certain, whether one kneels on the floor, points one's hands to the sky or
>>faces north, south, east or west while performing a prayer ritual, the outcome
>>will be the same...completely null. 
>
>Only if you don't see God.

Poor fellow. I can only feel sorry for you. You must live in terrible fear all
the time. You think this god thing is reading your thoughts and is going to
strike you down with a  bolt of lightning if you dare even consider that the
the whole thing is a great money making, pedophilic hoax. 

There aren't any fucking gods you dopey bastard. The God idea is what they
drum into little kids so they will donate plenty of money to the church for
the rest of their lives.

>>Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>the dukester, American-American
>
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#501259

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:21:14 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:43:36 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>>> One can only feel saddened that humanity is still
>>>subjected to such outdated and nonsensical customs although religious
>>>expressions have become very useful as profanities and blasphemy. One thing is
>>>certain, whether one kneels on the floor, points one's hands to the sky or
>>>faces north, south, east or west while performing a prayer ritual, the outcome
>>>will be the same...completely null. 
>>
>>Only if you don't see God.
>
>Poor fellow. I can only feel sorry for you. You must live in terrible fear all
>the time. You think this god thing is reading your thoughts and is going to
>strike you down with a  bolt of lightning if you dare even consider that the
>the whole thing is a great money making, pedophilic hoax. 

Don't worry about me.  It's clear you are a void when it comes to knowledge of
God.  I expected as much with your first post.

>There aren't any fucking gods you dopey bastard. The God idea is what they
>drum into little kids so they will donate plenty of money to the church for
>the rest of their lives.

Where is your evidence for that comment?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

#501295

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:39:48 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:

>>>Only if you don't see God.
>>
>>Poor fellow. I can only feel sorry for you. You must live in terrible fear all
>>the time. You think this god thing is reading your thoughts and is going to
>>strike you down with a  bolt of lightning if you dare even consider that the
>>the whole thing is a great money making, pedophilic hoax. 
>
>Don't worry about me.  It's clear you are a void when it comes to knowledge of
>God.  I expected as much with your first post.
>
>>There aren't any fucking gods you dopey bastard. The God idea is what they
>>drum into little kids so they will donate plenty of money to the church for
>>the rest of their lives.
>
>Where is your evidence for that comment?

Poor fellow....have you ever heard of the Vatican? Does it have any money?

>the dukester, American-American
>
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#501437

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 06:57:16 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:39:48 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +1000, Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> wrote:
>
>>>>Only if you don't see God.
>>>
>>>Poor fellow. I can only feel sorry for you. You must live in terrible fear all
>>>the time. You think this god thing is reading your thoughts and is going to
>>>strike you down with a  bolt of lightning if you dare even consider that the
>>>the whole thing is a great money making, pedophilic hoax. 
>>
>>Don't worry about me.  It's clear you are a void when it comes to knowledge of
>>God.  I expected as much with your first post.
>>
>>>There aren't any fucking gods you dopey bastard. The God idea is what they
>>>drum into little kids so they will donate plenty of money to the church for
>>>the rest of their lives.
>>
>>Where is your evidence for that comment?
>
>Poor fellow....have you ever heard of the Vatican? Does it have any money?

This place?

When people think of the supposed wealth of the Church they most likely picture
the grandeur of St Peter’s Basilica and the works of art within the walls of the
Vatican. It is wise to recall though that the Church DOES NOT consider itself
the owners of these items but rather the custodians of them for all humanity.
For if the Catholic Church had not safeguarded the great treasures of culture
for two thousand years through war and through peace, who do we suppose was
going to do it? Something else worth remembering is that many of the pieces that
are today regarded as great works of art were originally created as works of
devotion, and the only reason they have existed long enough to be considered so
valuable, is again because the Catholic Church has watched over them with
solicitude across the centuries. - See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/07/07/how-wealthy-is-the-catholic-church/#sthash.IEcakyKK.dpuf

The Vatican has for some years publicly released its annual budget, although as
a sovereign nation it is under no requirement to do so. The Vatican runs with an
annual operating budget of around $300 million but keep in mind that the Vatican
employs close to 3000 people and supports 1000 retirees. With that same money it
keeps St Peter’s Basilica and the key Churches of Rome in operation, it
maintains the Vatican museums and provides important missionary services such as
the Vatican radio and newspaper. This budget does not include the monies that
are sent in from the lay faithful around the world to support the charitable
works of the Pope known as ‘Peter’s Pence’. 

Totaling around $70 million each year, Peter’s Pence is used to support
ecclesial communities most often in mission countries who have no one else to
turn too. The Vatican Bank, or more properly, the Institute for the Works of
Religion, controls a much larger amount of money estimated to be around $6
billion, however most of it is not the money of the Vatican but religious
orders, dioceses and Catholic organisations which use the money for their
particular work of ministry and charity. - See more at:
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/07/07/how-wealthy-is-the-catholic-church/#sthash.IEcakyKK.dpuf

>Henry Wilson DSc.

Is he as dumb as a rock?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

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

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web