"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.


It does. But it doesn't require the level of separation that some people
seem to think it does, in fact it doesn't require it at all. The phrase
separation of church and state came from somewhere else.

I've been an atheist most of my adult life, but the level that both sides of
the church/state debate are willing to go to, bothers me.

Removing religion from all public places is overkill and smacks of
intolerance, especially from the left who always want us to "celebrate our
diversity." They mean, as long as you're not religious.

When I grew up, there were displays that had all the typical manger, wise
man, camel stuff and we sang Christmas songs in school and all the parents
came to hear us do our off key versions. We said the Pledge of Allegiance
and some people said under God and some didn't. It didn't require a
lawsuit, people just did as they felt.

It's gotten so far the other way now that one city in Texas, Plano I
believe, has a school district where students are not allowed to wear red
and green! That's not separation, that's just ****ing nuts.

I don't agree with any idea of a supreme being, unless maybe it's Sol
Marantz :-)

In some ways these NG's are becoming or have become as polarized as the
whackos in the church/state fight, or as the religious/secular warriors.

There's the side that understands how things work and what is audible and
the other side that thinks there's magic if you buy the right wires or
choose the designer caps for your xover. The only thing sadder and stupider
than the debate over tubes vs. SS or blind listening vs. sighted is the
singularly unflattering idea that in the 21st Century people who own Hi-Fi
equipment that uses laser beams can still believe in people rising from the
dead and ascending to Heaven.

I know return you ro our regular scheculed mayhem.

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

Don't need to, that burden of proof rests eleswhere.

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

Audio is science


no it's not.

Try building an amplifier without adherence to scientific laws and see what
happens.

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.
Nope, not as good looking as when I was in my 30's but still considered
boyishly handsome.

wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

Audio is science


no it's not.

Try building an amplifier without adherence to scientific laws and see what
happens.

SET ?

Graham

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

**That would be a strawman, however, it is reasonable to deduce that one of
several things occurred:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged
rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.

Better to stick to electronics, Trevor.

surf a écrit :
wrote


.... as a devout atheist.

Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.


Did you ever think that it can also come from you ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

surf a écrit :

Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

Is it your strongest argument ?


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman écrit :

I've balled some hot looking atheist babes.



Liar.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Pooh Bear a écrit :


Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Perhaps an other effect of the "natural selection" ? :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

wrote in message
nk.net...


Nope, not as good looking as when I was in my 30's but still considered
boyishly handsome.



George, what is your opinion?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman écrit :

I've balled some hot looking atheist babes.



Liar.


Well, maybe they believed just a teeny bit.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


I cannot believe the audacity of Judge Johns. Not only
is he legislating from the bench, he is also not
qualified to dismiss the scientific theory of
intelligent design as 'thinly-veiled creationism'.

I don't know why Christians feel the need for their own
unsupportable theory of creation just like the one that
the secularizers have (evolution).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact.

Yeah sure. How many new species of human have evolved during your lifetime,
Trevor?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


I cannot believe the audacity of Judge Johns. Not only
is he legislating from the bench, he is also not
qualified to dismiss the scientific theory of
intelligent design as 'thinly-veiled creationism'.

I don't know why Christians feel the need for their own
unsupportable theory of creation just like the one that
the secularizers have (evolution).

Arny, you are so clear-headed, and fair sounding, when it
comes to subjects other than audio. Look at what you've
just tolerated -- repudiation of the Christian creation
myth, a pluralistic society, etc. Why not extend that
attitude to the relatively trivial subject of audio?

Been there done that.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

"surf" wrote...
wrote...

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

It's not a fact, Trevor. You're guesses are only guesses.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact.

Yeah sure. How many new species of human have evolved during your
lifetime, Trevor?


Minus 2 debating trade points for that fart, Arny.

Clyde Slick said:

Nope, not as good looking as when I was in my 30's but still considered
boyishly handsome.

George, what is your opinion?

Deep acne scarring, snaggly teeth, and slack features.... UGLY!

Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

"Robert Morein" wrote...

"surf" wrote...

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved....

There exists no mathematical reasoning that justifies the above statement.
You cannot trust your intuition on such matters.

Science is observable, subject to experimentation, repeatable and
verifiable.
Evolution isn't a science; it doesn't fit one of the four categories.
Neither
does intelligent design.

Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

You cannot speak for Darwin. You do not know his mind.

Darwin wrote that. Read him.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

We cannot prove it. However, the Constitution mandates separation of
Church and State. Viewpoints of ontology that originate from religion are
not permitted to be taught in public schools.

Agreed. However, ID has as much place in a science class as evolution.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:00:37 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman écrit :

I've balled some hot looking atheist babes.



Liar.

Is your wife an athiest or something?

Oh wait, he said "hot-looking".

Never mind.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:52:51 -0700, surf wrote:


wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


Can you prove you don't owe me a million dollars?
I could have materialized out of thin air, given you the money with you
signing a promisary note to repay and then vanished just as suddenly.
Prove it didn't happen.

I'm waiting. In the mean time, start your payments.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However
there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

So - Yah boo to Christianity.

Graham


Kill a Commie for Christ.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:52:51 -0700, surf wrote:


wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


Can you prove you don't owe me a million dollars?
I could have materialized out of thin air, given you the money with you
signing a promisary note to repay and then vanished just as suddenly.
Prove it didn't happen.

I'm waiting. In the mean time, start your payments.

Refer to burden of proof requirements. :-)

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

Audio is science


no it's not.

Try building an amplifier without adherence to scientific laws and see
what
happens.

SET ?

Graham


I stand corrected. :-)

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Nope, not as good looking as when I was in my 30's but still considered
boyishly handsome.

George, what is your opinion?

Deep acne scarring, snaggly teeth, and slack features.... UGLY!

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Nope, not as good looking as when I was in my 30's but still considered
boyishly handsome.

George, what is your opinion?

Deep acne scarring, snaggly teeth, and slack features.... UGLY!



Put down the mirror.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:47 GMT, Trevor Wilson wrote:



"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

**That would be a strawman, however, it is reasonable to deduce that one of
several things occurred:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged
rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.


Hardly. A far more likely explanation is that it's just a fairy tale assembled
from prior fairy tales of the times.

On 12/23/05 7:19 AM, in article
, "surf"
wrote:

Science is observable, subject to experimentation, repeatable and
verifiable.
Evolution isn't a science; it doesn't fit one of the four categories.
Neither
does intelligent design.

So why did Science Magazine just award recent research on evolution as the
"Breakthrough of the Year"? I guess a magazine devoted entirely to science
doesn't understand what science is?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../310/5756/1878

Lionel wrote:

Pooh Bear a écrit :

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.

Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


I cannot believe the audacity of Judge Johns. Not only
is he legislating from the bench, he is also not
qualified to dismiss the scientific theory of
intelligent design as 'thinly-veiled creationism'.

I don't know why Christians feel the need for their own
unsupportable theory of creation just like the one that
the secularizers have (evolution).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact.

Yeah sure. How many new species of human have evolved during your
lifetime, Trevor?

**I know that this will be difficult for you to comprehend, but the
evolutionary process is a lengthy process. This planet has been around for
approximately 4.5 billion years. Critters began appearing around 3 billion
years ago. A human lifespan is in the order of 100 years. A mere eyeblink in
evolutionary terms. Moreover, since I don't study critters intently, I am
extremely unlikely to notice any new species which may have arisen. That I
did not see it, does not mean it did not occur.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"surf" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

"surf" wrote...
wrote...

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

It's not a fact, Trevor. You're guesses are only guesses.

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical laws
which dominate this universe.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

AZ Nomad said:

Hardly. A far more likely explanation is that it's just a fairy tale assembled
from prior fairy tales of the times.

Surely you're not suggesting that some of the "events" recounted in Ye
Olde Bible did not actually happen? My god ... that would make those
religious guys a bunch of immoral fibbers.

Poopie said:

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.

That's what I was thinking about your reason-free abjuration of all tube
gear, Poopie.

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.

**What a curious and particularly offensive statement. I once watched one of
Australia's most respected (as opposed to self-important) Christians
interviewed on TV. The man spent his entire life devoted to assisting others
and rejecting the pomp and ceremony (as well as the ridiculous stone and
tile structures) associated with typical Christian Churches. Despite this,
he was very well known and attracted donations for people all over the
nation. Including donations from many atheists (myself included), because he
displayed the TRUE attributes of a Christian. All Australia mourned this
truly excellent man's passing. Christians and Atheists alike.

http://www.noffs.org.au/

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:O...=en&lr=lang_en

Anyway, back to the interview.

The journalist asked Ted about his views on various people in society. When
asked what he thought about Atheists, he replied (to paraphrase):

"I like Atheists. They're generally very thoughtful people. They've
considered their position very carefully and do not accept what is presented
to them at face value. I enjoy a robust discussion with Atheists."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

Is your wife an athiest or something?


At least she hasn't murdered my children... ;-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

In , Pooh Bear wrote :



Lionel wrote:

Pooh Bear a écrit :

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet )
and there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.


I fully agree... with your detractors ! :-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?



An Intelligent Designer would very well
come up with something like natural selection.
As well as the big bang.
and all the laws of the universe.
And mathematics.
So, intelligent design, whether God created the universe, is theology, not
science.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However
there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

So - Yah boo to Christianity.

Graham


Kill a Commie for Christ.

Kill a Christian for IslamoFascism.

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :


So, intelligent design, whether God created the universe, is theology, not
science.


Why are you so slow Arhtur ?


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"I enjoy a robust discussion with Atheists."

Yeah, but did he ever try it on RAO?