A sad day for America

[Schizoid Man]

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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited from promoting
a Biblical worldview.

The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.

Can the government really force me to lie to children and pollute their
minds with theories that suggest that humans are nothing more than
glorified apes?

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

What a sad day for America indeed. :(

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

[snip]
> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
> godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
[snip]


Where did you get this flatulence?

[Trevor Wilson]

"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'.

**Are you serious? That is EXACTLY what 'Intelligent Design' is. It operates
from a point of complete absence of evidence. It is promoted by those who
are financially tied to the ignorance of millions. 'Intellignet Design'
should be placed in the trash can of history.

>
> I wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
> review the ruling.

**With that idiot, Dubya, running the show and his puppet masters, the
religious right, you can count on it.

>
> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited from promoting a
> Biblical worldview.

**Yeah, right.

>
> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
> godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
>
> Can the government really force me to lie to children and pollute their
> minds with theories that suggest that humans are nothing more than
> glorified apes?
>
> This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
> travesty.
>
> What a sad day for America indeed. :(

**I think you got your smiley 'round the wrong way.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Pooh Bear]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> 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'.

So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
it belongs.

Graham

[Schizoid Man]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "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'.
>
>
> **Are you serious?

No.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
>>godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Where did you get this flatulence?

I'm bored - waiting for my flight in the SFO lounge. Am off to sunny
London for Christmas.

[Schizoid Man]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>>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'.
>
> So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
> science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
> it belongs.

Schools, univeristies, libraries, museums, galleries, theaters, public
spaces, hearts and souls.

[Lionel]

In >, Pooh Bear wrote :

>
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>> 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'.
>
> So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
> science'.

More than that ! Any human attempt to describe an "Intelligent design" is
implicitly a conceited insult to God.


> It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
> it belongs.

It's just fudamentalist's crappy demagogy.



--
"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]

Poopie said:

> So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
> science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
> it belongs.

You'll never get into Heaven by carrying on like this. Ask Yaeger if you
doubt me.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "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'.
>>
>>
>> **Are you serious?
>
> No.

**Whew! Then I apologise.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"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).


> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited
> from promoting a Biblical worldview.

Remember that we are now a pluralistic society. If you don't want the
government to promote a Moslemic worldview, then you'll have to give up the
idea of the government promoting a Christian worldview.

> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is
> making us a godless and heathen society much like Western
> Europe.

No, its just putting religious education back into the hands of religious
people.

> Can the government really force me to lie to children and
> pollute their minds with theories that suggest that
> humans are nothing more than glorified apes?

Depends what your occupation is - if its public school teacher then, if you
like your job you better do your employer's bidding.

> This is a moral castastrophe.

Only if it stops you from doing the right thing. Arguably getting the
government out of the religious education business puts that business back
in the hands of religious educators, perhaps yourself included.

>It is affront to Him.

Ultimately such a thing can not persist.

> It is a spiritual travesty.

Should the government be in charge of promoting spirituality?

> What a sad day for America indeed. :(

Maybe just another case of some hypocracy biting the dust.

[Clyde Slick]

"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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
> review the ruling.
>
> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited from promoting a
> Biblical worldview.
>

No one is prohibited from doing that.
However, the government is prohibited from doing that.
That is, in essence, establishment of a religion.



> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
> godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
>

We are not a Godless and heathen society, and
I doubt we will become one. However, we are a society of many
Gods, not just one particular God. And there are those among us
who beleive in no God, and they are free to do so.
The governemnt should stay out of that, and not
promote the veiled religious dogma of one particular group.

> Can the government really force me to lie to children and pollute their
> minds with theories that suggest that humans are nothing more than
> glorified apes?
>

If you are a science teacher, you shall teach science to children.
Considering your views, I don't think you are a science
teacher, therefore, you don't have to teach those things to children.


> This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
> travesty.
>

Personally, I think that Intelligent Design is not only a travesty
for science, but a travesty to Christianity and Judaism as well.
It is NOT AT ALL what is said in the Bible. It si turning you
against the acual precepts of your own basic rekigious teachings.

> What a sad day for America indeed. :(

Its a sad day for Chrisitians who want to force their
dogma on the rest of society.

[dizzy]

Schizoid Man wrote:

>This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
>travesty.

Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...

P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

13. dizzy
Dec 22, 5:27 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: dizzy > - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:27:15 GMT
Local: Thurs, Dec 22 2005 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Schizoid Man wrote:
>>This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
>>travesty.


>Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...

>P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.

Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.

What more do you want?

[Trevor Wilson]

"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. It is observable and
undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors which
contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to explain a
good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural Selection'.

>
>
>> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited
>> from promoting a Biblical worldview.
>
> Remember that we are now a pluralistic society. If you don't want the
> government to promote a Moslemic worldview, then you'll have to give up
> the idea of the government promoting a Christian worldview.

**Precisely! Many conveniently forget this point. It is absolutely vital for
government to remain above religion and the petty arguments which surround
it. If at some time in the future, the majority of the US Congress is
comprises of Muslims, then Sharia Law is not far behind.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! said:

> Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
> everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
> peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
> Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
> entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
> University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
>
> What more do you want?

I want a G35 in midnight blue.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Schizoid Man wrote :
>
>> 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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
>> review the ruling.
>>
>> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited from promoting
>> a Biblical worldview.
>>
>> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
>> godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
>>
>> Can the government really force me to lie to children and pollute their
>> minds with theories that suggest that humans are nothing more than
>> glorified apes?
>>
>> This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
>> travesty.
>>
>> What a sad day for America indeed. :(
>
>
> What's the problem ?
>
Most countries that were formerly "Catholic", such as France, have less
tolerance for intrusion of the church than the U.S., which never had an
established church. Here, it is an issue that the far right constantly tries
to worm their way into the educational establishment. But I would not be
surprised if the Supreme Court allows "intelligent design" to be taught.

"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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
> review the ruling.
>
> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited from promoting a
> Biblical worldview.
>
Nobody is being prevented from promoting it, they just aren't going to get
tax dollars to do it with.


> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is making us a
> godless and heathen society much like Western Europe.
>
There certainly is a war on religion from the lefties, and I think they are
going to far, Isay this as a devout atheist. Trying to remove all forms of
religious displays from public places is overkill, but not allowing
Creationist nonsense to be pushed in public schools is OK. Darwin is
science, creationism is religious nonsense.


> Can the government really force me to lie to children and pollute their
> minds with theories that suggest that humans are nothing more than
> glorified apes?
>
In the case of some here, not so glorified.

> This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
> travesty.
>
> What a sad day for America indeed. :(
You may now remove your tongue from your cheek.

"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).
>
One is based on observable data, the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.
>
>> It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited
>> from promoting a Biblical worldview.
>
> Remember that we are now a pluralistic society. If you don't want the
> government to promote a Moslemic worldview, then you'll have to give up
> the idea of the government promoting a Christian worldview.
>

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



>> The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is
>> making us a godless and heathen society much like Western
>> Europe.
>
> No, its just putting religious education back into the hands of religious
> people.
>
>> Can the government really force me to lie to children and
>> pollute their minds with theories that suggest that
>> humans are nothing more than glorified apes?
>
> Depends what your occupation is - if its public school teacher then, if
> you like your job you better do your employer's bidding.
>
>> This is a moral castastrophe.
>
> Only if it stops you from doing the right thing. Arguably getting the
> government out of the religious education business puts that business back
> in the hands of religious educators, perhaps yourself included.
>
>>It is affront to Him.
>
> Ultimately such a thing can not persist.
>
>> It is a spiritual travesty.
>
> Should the government be in charge of promoting spirituality?
>
>> What a sad day for America indeed. :(
>
> Maybe just another case of some hypocracy biting the dust.
>

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 13. dizzy
> Dec 22, 5:27 pm show options
>
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> From: dizzy > - Find messages by this author
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:27:15 GMT
> Local: Thurs, Dec 22 2005 5:27 pm
> Subject: Re: A sad day for America
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
>
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>>>This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
>>>travesty.
>
>
>>Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...
>
>>P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.
>
> Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
> everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
> peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
> Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
> entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
> University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
>
> What more do you want?
>
Science.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey bewails his lot in life.

> > What more do you want?

> Science.

And yet science shall always elude the dimwits among us. Sorry, Mickey.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> What more do you want?

>I want a G35 in midnight blue.

You can have anything you want, if you only just pray hard for it.

If you found a midnight blue G35 in the middle of a field, would you
presume that something that complex had evolved there, or would you
presume it had been delicately placed there by the loving hand of a
higher power?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh-Mikey bewails his lot in life.
>
>> > What more do you want?
>
>> Science.
>
> And yet science shall always elude the dimwits among us. Sorry, Mickey.
>
>
Me too. Audio is science and you seem to run screaming from the room
whenever that fact is mentioned.

Sad.

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

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

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

[surf]

> 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?

[surf]

> wrote

> Audio is science


no it's not.

[surf]

> wrote

> .... as a devout atheist.


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

[Trevor Wilson]

"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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"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. It is observable and
> undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
> which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
> explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
> Selection'.
>
Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

[Robert Morein]

"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?

[Robert Morein]

"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....

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

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

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


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

[Robert Morein]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> What more do you want?
>
>>I want a G35 in midnight blue.
>
> You can have anything you want, if you only just pray hard for it.
>
> If you found a midnight blue G35 in the middle of a field, would you
> presume that something that complex had evolved there, or would you
> presume it had been delicately placed there by the loving hand of a
> higher power?
>
I would presume that Jesus of Newark abandoned it, thinking the cops were in
pursuit.

[Robert Morein]

"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.
Mikey is a product of Unintelligent Design.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > 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. It is observable and
>> undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
>> which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
>> explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
>> Selection'.
>>
> Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
> Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
> Design."

**Whilst there is abundant evidence to support Natural Selection as part of
the evolutionary process, there is no evidence to suggest any intelligent
design. If evidence comes to hand to support intelligent design, then and
only then, should it be considered.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"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?

[Clyde Slick]

"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.
>

I've balled some hot looking atheist babes.

[Clyde Slick]

"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.
>

It nust be something to do with natural selction.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > 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. It is observable and
>> undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
>> which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
>> explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
>> Selection'.
>>
> Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
> Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
> Design."
>

or the intelligent design would be to have natural selection.

[Pooh Bear]

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?

And how can you prove it's not a total fairy tale ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

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

"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.

[Pooh Bear]

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

[paul packer]

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.

[Lionel]

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

[Lionel]

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

[Lionel]

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

[Lionel]

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

[Clyde Slick]

> 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?

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[surf]

"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.

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[George M. Middius]

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]

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?

[surf]

"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.

[dave weil]

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.

[AZ Nomad]

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.

[AZ Nomad]

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.

[John Stone]

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/content/full/310/5756/1878

[Pooh Bear]

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

[Trevor Wilson]

"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

[Trevor Wilson]

"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

[George M. Middius]

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.

[George M. Middius]

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.

[Trevor Wilson]

"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:Opdbpy9ADs0J:www.gg.gov.au/speeches/pdfs/1999/sp991019.pdf+ted+noffs&hl=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

[Lionel]

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

[Lionel]

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

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[Clyde Slick]

> 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.

[Lionel]

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

[paul packer]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "I enjoy a robust discussion with Atheists."

Yeah, but did he ever try it on RAO?

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "I enjoy a robust discussion with Atheists."
>
> Yeah, but did he ever try it on RAO?

**Since he died in 1996, I doubt it. I assume you, also, had great respect
for Ted Noffs?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[dave weil]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:20:07 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>
>> Is your wife an athiest or something?
>
>
>At least she hasn't murdered my children... ;-)

Yet.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

surf Dec 22, 10:52 pm:

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

Hopefully this is said tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, you lose based on a
total lack of knowledge of logical argument.

I would like to know what 'irreduceably complex mechanisms' would cause
Darwin to '****can' his theory.

And please, let's not drag out the tired old eyeball again. That one's
been flogged to death by the buh-leevers. Give me something new.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Trevor Wilson Dec 22, 11:44 pm:

* 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.

Um, how about that Jesus never actually existed, and that the stories
about Him were allegorical?

[Trevor Wilson]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Trevor Wilson Dec 22, 11:44 pm:
>
> * 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.
>
> Um, how about that Jesus never actually existed, and that the stories
> about Him were allegorical?

**Possible, but there is quite a bit of direct and indirect evidence to
suggest that he did exist. The existence of a Jewish man called Jesus of
Nazareth (whose lineage can be traced to King David), born to Joseph and
Mary, who agitated for equality and fairness for all people (not just Jews)
is not a bizarre notion. Much fits with the archaeological evidence and
writings of the time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[surf]

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


for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
understanding
everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
believing intelligent design.

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>
>> **I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
>> laws which dominate this universe.
>
>
> for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
> understanding
> everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.

**"Other worldly"? Are you discussing the supernatural? I just don't waste
my life on the supernatural. It is beyond reason and logic.

> Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
> believing intelligent design.

**That would be yet another strawman.

Now, would you care to proffer an explanation of the alleged rise after
death of Jesus, based on the natural laws which dominate this universe?

In your answer, you may care to examine the reasons why Jews of 2,000 years
ago, interred the dead in a cave, before burying the body permanently.

BTW: The concept of a 'Big Bang' does not violate the laws of this universe.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Schizoid Man]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
> everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
> peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
> Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
> entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
> University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
>
> What more do you want?

Aaah. Bob Jones University - the postillion of higher education. If I
remember correctly, they have an outstanding Genetics Engineering
program. ;-)

Isn't that the school where 'colored' folk cannot be in romantic
relationship with white folk?

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

>>Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
>>everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
>>peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
>>Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
>>entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
>>University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
>>
>>What more do you want?
>
> Science.

Mickey,

Not only are you insulting Jesus by perpetually waving the 'science'
flag, but your are also offending our
commander-the-jury-is-out-on-evolution-in-chief.

To so blatantly contradict the Book of Genesis is a sign of depravity.
It is the word of God.

Hello from St Johns Wood, btw.

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

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

Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Schizoid Man >
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:59:47 -0800

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

>Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?

I don't think Dubya is urging. I think he's ordering.

[paul packer]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> "I enjoy a robust discussion with Atheists."
> >
> > Yeah, but did he ever try it on RAO?
>
> **Since he died in 1996, I doubt it. I assume you, also, had great respect
> for Ted Noffs?

Indeed. There were few who didn't.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:20:07 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Is your wife an athiest or something?
>>
>>
>>At least she hasn't murdered my children... ;-)
>
>
> Yet.


At least. :-)


--
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]

Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
life wondering and searching. At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.

You choose to discount and disbelieve the story of Jesus, including
that he was witnessed after his death because you don't have any
proof. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Merry Christmas.

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>
> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.

You'll get over it, Trev.
I say that because they all seem angry when they're discussing their
belief. They get all riled up. Angry people aren't generally attractive
- the boyishly charming Mikey excepted.

[Sander deWaal]

"surf" > said:

>Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
>I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
>life wondering and searching. At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
>taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
>eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
>choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.


I, for one, respect your choice.
But why are you not respecting mine?

You said: "I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll
spend your life wondering and searching. "

Now that's just projection of your own fears onto others.
Why would one who doesn't believe in your God, "spend his life
wondering and searching"?
Don't you think it is possible for someone who doesn't believe in your
God to still feel good about his life?

What about a Buddhist, a Hindu or an Islamist? Would they feel bad
their entire life because they don't believe in your God?


Nothing is as simple as that, Tom.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:43:33 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:


wrote:

>>>Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
>>>everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
>>>peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
>>>Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
>>>entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
>>>University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
>>>
>>>What more do you want?
>>
>> Science.

>Mickey,

>Not only are you insulting Jesus by perpetually waving the 'science'
Jesus is insulted by any brain activity above that of a sheep.
Keep quiet, do what you're told, and don't question anything no matter how
insane.

>flag, but your are also offending our
>commander-the-jury-is-out-on-evolution-in-chief.

>To so blatantly contradict the Book of Genesis is a sign of depravity.
>It is the word of God.
Of course. The king james version was dictated in english by god himself.
God at the time was a psychopathic barbarian who authorized that women are
property, children are disposable and nothing is wrong about slavery.
Funny how much this God was exactly in sync with the morals of the period.


>Hello from St Johns Wood, btw.

[[email protected]]

Religion is the opiate of the asses.

Or at least of this ass:



surf wrote:
> Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
> I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
> life wondering and searching. At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
> taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
> eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
> choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.
>
> You choose to discount and disbelieve the story of Jesus, including
> that he was witnessed after his death because you don't have any
> proof. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Merry Christmas.




I don't care if it rains or freezes
'long as I got my plastic Jesus
riding on the dashboard of my car

more:

http://snipurl.com/l1mg


Happy Pagan Holidays, all!!

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>
>> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.
>
> You'll get over it, Trev.

**Certainly. In case you didn't figure it out, I was suggesting that it was
a particularly un-Christian statement.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[surf]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote...

> I, for one, respect your choice.
> But why are you not respecting mine?
> You said: "I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll
> spend your life wondering and searching."
> Why would one who doesn't believe in your God, "spend his life
> wondering and searching"?
> Don't you think it is possible for someone who doesn't believe in your
> God to still feel good about his life?
> What about a Buddhist, a Hindu or an Islamist? Would they feel bad
> their entire life because they don't believe in your God?

You're right. I wasn't so much referring to folks that believe
in something spiritual as folks that don't.

> Now that's just projection of your own fears onto others.

I don't know what that means.

[surf]

dick writes...

> Religion is the opiate of the asses.


There you go, Sander. Even the big goon says religion
makes you more peaceful.

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
> I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
> life wondering and searching.

**How condescending of you. OTOH, if you imagine that all the answers to
your questions lie with religion, then you are sadly mistaken. I feel very
good about the wonderful discoveries and developments in science and related
areas. A recent one was the theory (and subsequent proof) that stomach
ulcers were caused by a bacterium. Wonderful stuff. Conventional wisdom (the
kind of wisdom one finds in old religious texts) was adamant that stomach
ulcers were caused by poor diet and stress.

At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
> taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
> eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
> choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.

**That would be your delusion, not choice.

>
> You choose to discount and disbelieve the story of Jesus, including
> that he was witnessed after his death because you don't have any
> proof. That's fine. Maybe you're right.

**Of course I'm right.

> Merry Christmas.

**Enjoy your holiday.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> > You said: "I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll
> > spend your life wondering and searching."
> > Why would one who doesn't believe in your God, "spend his life
> > wondering and searching"?

> You're right. I wasn't so much referring to folks that believe
> in something spiritual as folks that don't.

Spirituality doesn't have to encompass anthropomorphism. I believe that
if there were a Supreme Being (and I don't actually believe it, but bear
with me), It would be nothing at all like human beings. I'm sure you'd
agree with that premise, on the basis of logic. Out of all the billions
and billions of star systems that we know about, would It choose only a
single experiment in intelligent life? Of course we mere humans could
never divine the Supreme Being's intentions. Anyway, my point is that
all human religions project some sort of anthropomorphic entity. To me,
that's simply impossible. Which means all religions require a huge
suspension of disbelief. So I think your equating of man-made religions,
which are invariably rife with bizarre rituals and cockamamie myths and
preposterous superstitions, with spirituality in the general sense is
loopy. (I also believe Christianity is one of the loopiest religions,
but never mind that now.)

> > Now that's just projection of your own fears onto others.

> I don't know what that means.

I think you do. You've reduced the "religion" issue to either (a) being
a devout christian or (b) drifting aimlessly with no direction and no
hope.

I don't claim to understand why most people feel a need to believe in a
god. Many theories have been bandied about. Those of us who know the
truth -- i.e., that you believers are consumed by vapid superstitions --
don't, for the most part, understand the attraction of investing so much
emotion and expending so much effort on empty ritual.

YMMV, of course. <G>

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:59:55 -0700, surf > wrote:


>"Sander deWaal" > wrote...

>> I, for one, respect your choice.
>> But why are you not respecting mine?
>> You said: "I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll
>> spend your life wondering and searching."
>> Why would one who doesn't believe in your God, "spend his life
>> wondering and searching"?
>> Don't you think it is possible for someone who doesn't believe in your
>> God to still feel good about his life?
>> What about a Buddhist, a Hindu or an Islamist? Would they feel bad
>> their entire life because they don't believe in your God?

>You're right. I wasn't so much referring to folks that believe
>in something spiritual as folks that don't.

>> Now that's just projection of your own fears onto others.

>I don't know what that means.

If you look at what it is in reference to (why did you snip that?), it's
perfectly obvious. Look up the word "projection" if you're still totally
clueless as to it's meaning.

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>
>> **I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
>> laws which dominate this universe.
>
>
> for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
> understanding
> everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
> Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
> believing intelligent design.
Of course there was a cause, but it was one that conforms to laws of
physics, not from the brow of some hairy cosmic thunderer.

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
> I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
> life wondering and searching. At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
> taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
> eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
> choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.
>
> You choose to discount and disbelieve the story of Jesus, including
> that he was witnessed after his death because you don't have any
> proof. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Merry Christmas.
>
Since I and the other athiests I know, aren't searching for anything, I'd
say we spend no tiime searching and wondering.

The ones who seem to the searching and wondering are the ones trying to
reconcile senseless cruelty and barbarism when an all powerful God could
step in and protect the innocent any time he wants to.

Or why an innocent child is taken by a drive by shooting, or incurable
disease.
These are the sorts of questions that theists seem to have to deal with
constantly.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> I don't want the government to promote any religous view.
>
> Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?
>
Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since most
of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means that the
country is worth protecting.

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>
>> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.
>
> You'll get over it, Trev.
> I say that because they all seem angry when they're discussing their
> belief. They get all riled up. Angry people aren't generally attractive
> - the boyishly charming Mikey excepted.
I'm not particularly angry about discussing my reasoning for being an
atheist, it's simply the only choice I could make.

No theory of a supreme being is logically defensible.

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> Look - we're both wasting our time. Neither will convince the other.
> I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll spend your
> life wondering and searching. At the end, if an afterlife is as Jesus
> taught, I''l have had the more peaceful life and will have the better
> eternal afterlife. The belief is not an understanding of a fact, it is a
> choice. It's my choice. It's not yours.
>
> You choose to discount and disbelieve the story of Jesus, including
> that he was witnessed after his death because you don't have any
> proof. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Merry Christmas.
>

Jesus as an insurance policy?

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote...
>
>> I, for one, respect your choice.
>> But why are you not respecting mine?
>> You said: "I'll spend my life feeling good about my belief. You'll
>> spend your life wondering and searching."
>> Why would one who doesn't believe in your God, "spend his life
>> wondering and searching"?
>> Don't you think it is possible for someone who doesn't believe in your
>> God to still feel good about his life?
>> What about a Buddhist, a Hindu or an Islamist? Would they feel bad
>> their entire life because they don't believe in your God?
>
> You're right. I wasn't so much referring to folks that believe
> in something spiritual as folks that don't.
>
>> Now that's just projection of your own fears onto others.
>
> I don't know what that means.


Lack of self awareness noted.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>>
>>> **I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
>>> laws which dominate this universe.
>>
>>
>> for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
>> understanding
>> everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
>> Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
>> believing intelligent design.
> Of course there was a cause, but it was one that conforms to laws of
> physics, not from the brow of some hairy cosmic thunderer.
>

Who devised the law of physics?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want the government to promote any religous view.
>>
>> Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of
>> America"?
>>
> Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since most
> of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means that
> the country is worth protecting.
>
>

His statement is a result of his own religious beliefs.
There is no law that says the President has to be an atheist.
What he said is his view, it is different than the establishment
of religion by govenrment.
This is something that atheist liberals have a hard time understanding.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>>
>>> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.
>>
>> You'll get over it, Trev.
>> I say that because they all seem angry when they're discussing their
>> belief. They get all riled up. Angry people aren't generally attractive
>> - the boyishly charming Mikey excepted.
> I'm not particularly angry about discussing my reasoning for being an
> atheist, it's simply the only choice I could make.
>
> No theory of a supreme being is logically defensible.
>

It is faith based.
But it is logical to believe that the universe, as is
known and explained by science, was originated
by a creator. Of course it is aso logical
to wonder who created the creator.
Somewhere along the line, something just started up,
without a Supreme Being around to create it.
Not that there isn't a Supreme Being, but somehow
he/she/it would have to be created.
Now, if you want to say the Supreme Being always
existed, you can also say that the universe always existed,
and that there never was a "creation".

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> What he said is his view, it is different than the establishment
> of religion by govenrment.

Are you channeling Gibberella?

> This is something that atheist liberals have a hard time understanding.

Indeed, some of us do. The ability to decipher gibberish is not
restricted to pinheaded conservatives and Hamas-loving Catholic
hypocrites.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Jesus as an insurance policy?

I've heard that "what if you're wrong" routine too many times.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:34:39 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want the government to promote any religous view.
>>
>> Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?
>>
>Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since most
>of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means that the
>country is worth protecting.


*God bless extraordinary rendition"

[Robert Morein]

"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?
>
No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I tend
to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we put
Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes back to
haunt us.

I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
Mikey is the Missing Link.
He's proof that Man evolved from apes.

[Robert Morein]

"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.
>
> Graham
>
It does indeed. But the Religous Right has argued that the words are to be
understood in the context of the time in which they were written, a context
they claim they know. I prefer the literal meaning.

But in fact, it is my understanding that the late 18th and early 19th
century, in America, were times of greater religious diversity, at least in
terms of tolerance of aetheism, than now.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
> Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
> Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.

The Trojan Horse was a disguise. "Intelligent design" is a bald
assertion of religious faith, about as subtle as duh-Mikey's adoration
of the Krooborg.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> What he said is his view, it is different than the establishment
>> of religion by govenrment.
>
> Are you channeling Gibberella?
>
>> This is something that atheist liberals have a hard time understanding.
>
> Indeed, some of us do. The ability to decipher gibberish is not
> restricted to pinheaded conservatives and Hamas-loving Catholic
> hypocrites.
>
>

Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> Jesus as an insurance policy?
>
> I've heard that "what if you're wrong" routine too many times.
>

It is known that insurance companes often refuse to
pay valid claims. I have as much faith in Jesus as I have in GEICO.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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?
>>
> No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
> tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we put
> Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes back
> to haunt us.
>
> I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
> Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
> Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.
>


Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
> Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

Do you really think the issue is that simple.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
>> Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?
>
> Do you really think the issue is that simple.
>
>

As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless America",
yes

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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?
>>>
>> No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
>> tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we
>> put Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes
>> back to haunt us.
>>
>> I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
>> Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
>> Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.
>>
>
>
> Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.
How could anything be worse than Creationism?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >> Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

> > Do you really think the issue is that simple.

> As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless America",
> yes

Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "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?
>>>>
>>> No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
>>> tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we
>>> put Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes
>>> back to haunt us.
>>>
>>> I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
>>> Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
>>> Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.
> How could anything be worse than Creationism?
>

Not worse, it just pollutes it.
Intelligent design actually refutes strict creationism

[Pooh Bear]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "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.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> It does indeed. But the Religous Right has argued that the words are to be
> understood in the context of the time in which they were written, a context
> they claim they know

I see. The 'we know better' argument . Typical..


> . I prefer the literal meaning.

Indeed.


> But in fact, it is my understanding that the late 18th and early 19th
> century, in America, were times of greater religious diversity, at least in
> terms of tolerance of aetheism, than now.

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Pooh Bear >
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000

>Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
>the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
>so easily hoaxed by religion.

I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.

In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
example), the odds are you will be too.

Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
learn?

This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
should just have faith that I'm correct.

By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

[Pooh Bear]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> From: Pooh Bear >
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000
>
> >Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
> >the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
> >so easily hoaxed by religion.
>
> I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
> of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.
>
> In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
> perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.

Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.


> If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
> whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
> particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
> example), the odds are you will be too.
>
> Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
> primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
> Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
> have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
> generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
> it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
> learn?

LOL !

> This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
> the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
> should just have faith that I'm correct.
>
> By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

Merry Christmas back at you ! ;-)

Have a great Feast of Mammon too.

Graham

[Schizoid Man]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> How could anything be worse than Creationism?

What about Creationists?

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>

> 'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.
>
> Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.
>

Some prisoners were sent to South Carolina, I think.
And Europeans sent more than a few 'unwilling' Africans over here.

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
wrote:
>>
>>>I don't want the government to promote any religous view.
>>
>>Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?
>
> Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since most
> of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means that the
> country is worth protecting.

My own staunch disbelief in God as an institution notwithstanding, I
take exception to what you just wrote.

When he gets on television and addresses the nation, he is given a
public forum to discuss American policy, not his own fervent religious
beliefs.

So whether he's ordering God to bless America, or urging people to stop
using cellphones and jump on his alcohol-free Menonite bandwagon, I
strongly the resent the injection of religious (be it Christian,
Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist) rhetoric into his speeches.

Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels. And in
a recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.

Go figure.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> >> Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?
>
>> > Do you really think the issue is that simple.
>
>> As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
>> America",
>> yes
>
> Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?
>
>

Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?
Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
religion?

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't want the government to promote any religous view.
>>>
>>>Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of
>>>America"?
>>
>> Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since
>> most of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means
>> that the country is worth protecting.
>
> My own staunch disbelief in God as an institution notwithstanding, I take
> exception to what you just wrote.
>
> When he gets on television and addresses the nation, he is given a public
> forum to discuss American policy, not his own fervent religious beliefs.
>
> So whether he's ordering God to bless America, or urging people to stop
> using cellphones and jump on his alcohol-free Menonite bandwagon, I
> strongly the resent the injection of religious (be it Christian, Islamic,
> Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist) rhetoric into his speeches.
>
> Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels. And in a
> recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
> director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.
>
> Go figure.
>

I just can't belive how anybody can be
offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> How could anything be worse than Creationism?
>
> What about Creationists?

I think that Creationists that have morphed into
Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
interpretation of the Bible.

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>I think that Creationists that have morphed into
>Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
>frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
>their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
>interpretation of the Bible.


Sort of a perverse form of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Schizoid Man >
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:11:27 +0000

>Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels.

So what's the matter with the other 31%? There's the problem right
there.

>And in a recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
>director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.

You'd think that more people in Miami would know that Tony Blair is
that salsa-dancing guy on the Sopranos, particularly since he's Latino.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >> As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
> >> America", yes

> > Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?

> Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?

In our times, they are different. Is your frame of reference the 17th
century?

> Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
> religion?

No, not both, silly person.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> I just can't belive how anybody can be
> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".

As a member of a religious minority, and moreover one that has arguably
suffered the greatest persecution in the history of mankind, you might
be more sensitive to exclusionary tactics of race-baiters.

> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

You *are* this obtuse. I had no idea.

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>>I think that Creationists that have morphed into
>>Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
>>frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
>>their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
>>interpretation of the Bible.
>
I think there are probably very few actual believers in "intelligent
design". I think it's a Trojan Horse, to sneak Creationism into the public
school curricula.

I find "Intelligent Design" an idea that cannot be summarily dismissed. My
problem is not with the bare idea, but the people who push it.

Personally, I believe in "Unintelligent Design." For that, we have a living
example, Mikey McKelviphibian.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> I just can't belive how anybody can be
>> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
>
> As a member of a religious minority, and moreover one that has arguably
> suffered the greatest persecution in the history of mankind, you might
> be more sensitive to exclusionary tactics of race-baiters.
>

being blessed by God, whether it exists
or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
he is aking that you be blessed also.


>> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
>> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!
>
> You *are* this obtuse. I had no idea.
>
>
>
>

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: "Clyde Slick" >
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500

>being blessed by God, whether it exists
>or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
>it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
>he is aking that you be blessed also.

Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:

"May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."

"May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"Allah Akbar."

"May the Force be With America."

"Heil Hitler."

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Would any of these alternative presidential statements offend you,
given that none of them are directly aimed at you? If so, which ones?

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote

> * In case you didn't figure it out, I was suggesting that it was a
> particularly un-Christian statement.

bull****. to say that someone has an ugliness that seems to come
from inside, is hardly cruel or hostile. It's an observation. That's
in case you didn't figure out I wasn't actually saying they were
physically ugly. Take Mikey. Please........

Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly? I think
it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending. Mind you, I'm
not surprised by it or sensitive to it - just pointing it out. If you or
anyone else has a fundamental belief, you can no more prove it than
I can, which is what you demand of every assertion. Every belief
requires a leap of faith. And if you don't have a belief, then aren't
you probably seeking one?

Your belief, apparently, is that the universe as we know it, sprang
from an explosion of unknown cause. Before the explosion, there
existed a different explosive reality with different or unknown physical
laws. Universes probably exploded into existence a (billion x billion)
times. Several of them supported expansion. Several of them
supported carbon-based life. One time, one possessed the
physical laws that allowed it to expand AND the properties which
supported carbon-based life. What are the chances of that?
While this universe was expanding, matter and energy traded
particles and forms, and at some point, life happened. Life probably
happened a (billion x billion) times. Several times the organisms
possessed the ability to reproduce. Thank God for sex. Several
times they possessed the ability or attribute of mutation. One time,
they possessed both attributes. These made the wisest spousal
"selections" - usually choosing the mutated form if he or she was
stronger or more handsome. Of course, only the strongest survived.
Pretty soon we had fishes and alligators and monkeys. You know,
if you put a billion monkeys and just one typewriter in a large room
for a billion years, one of them will eventually write the Bible.
It's inevitable.

I choose to believe the New Testament is a first hand
perspective of the life of Christ. When I decided to believe
that, it came with a peace. And every week, attending service
reinforces that peace. "Opiate of the masses" as the goon says?
Fine. I'll take it. It's not an insurance policy. It's a choice.
Deluded? I think you're deluded if you believe you have the
ability to understand EVERYTHING, and that EVERYTHING
can be explained within the physical laws of this universe.

If you (and the rest of you) are fine with your belief, great.
If you don't have a belief, try attending a modern Christian service.
You might at least find it interesting.

with reluctance, I post this response. OK - flame away.

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly? I think
> it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
> and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending.

Oh good. You're getting the message.

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>
>> * In case you didn't figure it out, I was suggesting that it was a
>> particularly un-Christian statement.
>
> bull****. to say that someone has an ugliness that seems to come
> from inside, is hardly cruel or hostile.

**It is a particularly un-Christian statement. Profoundly so. Typical. Many
Christians pay 'lip service' to actually being Christian. You appear to be
one of those. If you still haven't worked that out, then you need to go back
to remdial Bible study.

It's an observation. That's
> in case you didn't figure out I wasn't actually saying they were
> physically ugly.

**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly un-Christian
attitude.


Take Mikey. Please........
>
> Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly?

**So? Study your Bible again. You've forgotten the basic stuff.

I think
> it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
> and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending.

**Deluded is a statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mind you, I'm
> not surprised by it or sensitive to it - just pointing it out. If you or
> anyone else has a fundamental belief, you can no more prove it than
> I can, which is what you demand of every assertion. Every belief
> requires a leap of faith. And if you don't have a belief, then aren't
> you probably seeking one?

**I'm not certain what you're trying to say here. I believe the stuff that I
can see, hear, feel, smell and prove with science. Anything else is
delusional.

>
> Your belief, apparently, is that the universe as we know it, sprang
> from an explosion of unknown cause.

**No. I DON'T KNOW how the universe came about. I just don't have any idea.
I am satisfied that the evidence points towards a 'Big Bang', around 15
billion years ago. How or why that occured is a mystery.


Before the explosion, there
> existed a different explosive reality with different or unknown physical
> laws.

**We don't, nor can we ever know what the precise nature of the universe
was, before the Big Bang. We know it was very small and very hot.

Universes probably exploded into existence a (billion x billion)
> times.

**Maybe, maybe not. We can't know.

Several of them supported expansion. Several of them
> supported carbon-based life. One time, one possessed the
> physical laws that allowed it to expand AND the properties which
> supported carbon-based life. What are the chances of that?

**Pretty remote. However, given that there are more stars in the observable
universe, than grains of sand on all the beaches all over the planet, there
seems to be a high probability that life would arise somewhere. Or several
somewheres.


> While this universe was expanding, matter and energy traded
> particles and forms, and at some point, life happened. Life probably
> happened a (billion x billion) times. Several times the organisms
> possessed the ability to reproduce. Thank God for sex. Several
> times they possessed the ability or attribute of mutation. One time,
> they possessed both attributes. These made the wisest spousal
> "selections" - usually choosing the mutated form if he or she was
> stronger or more handsome. Of course, only the strongest survived.
> Pretty soon we had fishes and alligators and monkeys. You know,
> if you put a billion monkeys and just one typewriter in a large room
> for a billion years, one of them will eventually write the Bible.
> It's inevitable.
>
> I choose to believe the New Testament is a first hand
> perspective of the life of Christ.

**Fair enough. You do, however, need to realise several VERY IMPORTANT
things about the New Testament:

* Some of it is factual.
* Some of it is parable.
* Some is peotry.
* Some has been politically altered.
* Some has been poorly and inaccurately translated.
* All was written long after the alleged death of Jesus of Nazereth.
* ALL was written by extremely primitive, scientifically illiterate and
highly superstitious people.

When bearing all this in mind, it is possible to use the Bible is a rational
way.

When I decided to believe
> that, it came with a peace.

**Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
chocolate.

And every week, attending service
> reinforces that peace. "Opiate of the masses" as the goon says?
> Fine. I'll take it. It's not an insurance policy. It's a choice.

**Indeed. One guaranteed you by the US Constitution.

> Deluded?

**Oh, most certainly. A harmful delusion? Probably not, but a delusion
nevertheless.

I think you're deluded if you believe you have the
> ability to understand EVERYTHING, and that EVERYTHING
> can be explained within the physical laws of this universe.

**They've worked pretty well, so far.

>
> If you (and the rest of you) are fine with your belief, great.
> If you don't have a belief, try attending a modern Christian service.
> You might at least find it interesting.

**I've attended many Christian services. I was a Christian, until I began
thinking. Critical thinking and Christianity (well, any religion, actually)
are not compatible.

>
> with reluctance, I post this response. OK - flame away.

**Suit yourself.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: "Clyde Slick" >
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500
>
>>being blessed by God, whether it exists
>>or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
>>it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
>>he is aking that you be blessed also.
>
> Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
> At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:
>
> "May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."
>
> "May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster."
>
> "Allah Akbar."
>
> "May the Force be With America."
>
> "Heil Hitler."
>
> "**** off and die. I'm above the law."
>
> Would any of these alternative presidential statements offend you,
> given that none of them are directly aimed at you? If so, which ones?
>

Heil Hitler, "at least" a little bit

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> **I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly
> un-Christian attitude.
>

he's a saint, compared to Arny.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:47:58 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>How could anything be worse than Creationism?

Well, there's always serial killers, concentration camps, stuff like
that.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:08:40 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>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?

We wouldn't want to ask the impossible of you, George.

[paul packer]

On 25 Dec 2005 15:01:18 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>From: "Clyde Slick" >
>Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500
>
>>being blessed by God, whether it exists
>>or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
>>it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
>>he is aking that you be blessed also.
>
>Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
>At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:
>
>"May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."
>
>"May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
>Flying Spaghetti Monster."
>
>"Allah Akbar."
>
>"May the Force be With America."
>
>"Heil Hitler."
>
>"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:52:50 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>> >> As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
>> >> America", yes
>
>> > Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?
>
>> Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?
>
>In our times, they are different. Is your frame of reference the 17th
>century?
>
>> Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
>> religion?
>
>No, not both, silly person.

I see you replying to Art, George, but I don't see you making any
logical points.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

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

> We wouldn't want to ask the impossible of you, George.

That's a relief, but your interjection raises the question of why you
thought Bobo was speaking for you.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >"**** off and die. I'm above the law."
>
> Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
> >> religion?

> >No, not both, silly person.

> I see you replying to Art, George, but I don't see you making any
> logical points.

Sorry, I forgot to couch my point as a subtext in a discussion of Aussie
hot rods. I'm sure you'd follow every twist and turn in that context.

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >"**** off and die. I'm above the law."
> >
> > Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.
>
> You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.

And what gave you the idea I was looking for a mark out of ten, George?
Thanks, but I'll let you know when I need your approval.

[Lionel]

Trevor Wilson a écrit :

> Critical thinking and Christianity (well, any religion, actually)
> are not compatible.

You cannot say that.
Gospels are controversy and subversion only. It is impossible to be a
real Christian without a very *strong* critical thinking.

And I'm sure it's the same for all the religions.

Religion is a personal adventure that you live among human beings. From
a spiritual POV being a member of the herd doesn't oblige you to mimic
the behaviour of the herd.
Just watch the most famous Christian mystics they were eminently subversive.


--
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

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"surf" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly
>>un-Christian attitude.
>>
>
>
> he's a saint, compared to Arny.


Says the racist and xenophobic little maggot. :-(


--
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

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > > Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.
> >
> > You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.
>
> And what gave you the idea I was looking for a mark out of ten, George?
> Thanks, but I'll let you know when I need your approval.

You don't have to ask, paulie. It's the name of the game on RAO.

[[email protected]]

A real "Christian" takes another hit of "the opiate of the asses":

surf wrote:

>
> I choose to believe the New Testament is a first hand
> perspective of the life of Christ.

*toke*


> When I decided to believe
> that, it came with a peace.

Have another hit!



> And every week, attending service
> reinforces that peace.


A few tokes a day keeps reasoned thought away!



>"Opiate of the masses" as the goon says?


That was "opiate of the asses", ass.



Given your credulous nature, you'll believe this is based on "a first
hand perspective" of a true story:

(Others will think it's the last verse of the satirical "Plastic
Jesus")


Driving home one foggy night,
with my honey cuddled tight,
I missed a curve and off the road we veered.
My windshield got smashed up good,
and my darling graced the hood.
Plastic Jesus, He had disappeared.

Plastic Jesus! Plastic Jesus,
no longer chides me with his holy grin.
Doctors in the X-ray room,
found Him in my darling's womb.
Someday, He'll be born again!

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:52:27 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> > > Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.
>> >
>> > You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.
>>
>> And what gave you the idea I was looking for a mark out of ten, George?
>> Thanks, but I'll let you know when I need your approval.
>
>You don't have to ask, paulie. It's the name of the game on RAO.

And I should trust your judgement? Thanks, I'll pass.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"surf" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly
>>>un-Christian attitude.
>>>
>>
>>
>> he's a saint, compared to Arny.
>
>
> Says the racist and xenophobic little maggot. :-(
>


None of my best friends are French.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
: When I decided to believe
: > that, it came with a peace.
:
: **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
: chocolate.

: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au
:
heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
effects ?

Rudy

[Trevor Wilson]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> : When I decided to believe
> : > that, it came with a peace.
> :
> : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
> : chocolate.
>
> : Trevor Wilson
> : www.rageaudio.com.au
> :
> heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)

**Why?

> but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
> effects ?

**Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > : When I decided to believe
> > : > that, it came with a peace.
> > :
> > : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
> > : chocolate.
> >
> > : Trevor Wilson
> > : www.rageaudio.com.au
> > :
> > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
>
> **Why?
>
> > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
> > effects ?
>
> **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
> situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.

It shows.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On 28 Dec 2005 15:25:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > : When I decided to believe
>> > : > that, it came with a peace.
>> > :
>> > : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
>> > : chocolate.
>> >
>> > : Trevor Wilson
>> > : www.rageaudio.com.au
>> > :
>> > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
>>
>> **Why?
>>
>> > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
>> > effects ?
>>
>> **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
>> situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
>
> It shows.

Unless you yourself practise daily, Scott, that's a naughty post. You
should get a hard whack on the left shoulder with a flat ruler for
that.

[ScottW]

paul packer wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2005 15:25:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > : When I decided to believe
> >> > : > that, it came with a peace.
> >> > :
> >> > : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
> >> > : chocolate.
> >> >
> >> > : Trevor Wilson
> >> > : www.rageaudio.com.au
> >> > :
> >> > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
> >>
> >> **Why?
> >>
> >> > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
> >> > effects ?
> >>
> >> **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
> >> situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
> >
> > It shows.
>
> Unless you yourself practise daily, Scott, that's a naughty post. You
> should get a hard whack on the left shoulder with a flat ruler for
> that.

Not everyone needs daily TM to avoid delusion induced stress.
The truth is the cure.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Not everyone needs daily TM to avoid delusion induced stress.
> The truth is the cure.
>

The truth can cause stress. Look at Arny



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[paul packer]

On 29 Dec 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On 28 Dec 2005 15:25:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > : When I decided to believe
>> >> > : > that, it came with a peace.
>> >> > :
>> >> > : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
>> >> > : chocolate.
>> >> >
>> >> > : Trevor Wilson
>> >> > : www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >> > :
>> >> > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
>> >>
>> >> **Why?
>> >>
>> >> > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
>> >> > effects ?
>> >>
>> >> **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
>> >> situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
>> >
>> > It shows.
>>
>> Unless you yourself practise daily, Scott, that's a naughty post. You
>> should get a hard whack on the left shoulder with a flat ruler for
>> that.
>
> Not everyone needs daily TM to avoid delusion induced stress.
> The truth is the cure.

Don't you mean "stress induced delusion"?

[ScottW]

paul packer wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >paul packer wrote:
> >> On 28 Dec 2005 15:25:54 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > : When I decided to believe
> >> >> > : > that, it came with a peace.
> >> >> > :
> >> >> > : **Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
> >> >> > : chocolate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > : Trevor Wilson
> >> >> > : www.rageaudio.com.au
> >> >> > :
> >> >> > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> **Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
> >> >> > effects ?
> >> >>
> >> >> **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
> >> >> situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
> >> >
> >> > It shows.
> >>
> >> Unless you yourself practise daily, Scott, that's a naughty post. You
> >> should get a hard whack on the left shoulder with a flat ruler for
> >> that.
> >
> > Not everyone needs daily TM to avoid delusion induced stress.
> > The truth is the cure.
>
> Don't you mean "stress induced delusion"?

Nope. If he stuck with the truth, many of his worst fears would cease
to exist.

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Nope. If he stuck with the truth, many of his worst fears would cease
> to exist.

**Is this just another weasel mouthed American euphemism for calling me a
liar?

Out with it, weasel. Point out my alleged lie/s.

Be VERY precise and provide some actual Google cite/s.

I'll wait.

I'll also wait for your apology, which, in your usual mealy-mouthed fashion,
is not likely to be forthcoming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > :
: > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
:
: **Why?
:
you assert a lot in emotional(ly connotated) terms, reinforce text with
double asterix'es (or is that a google convenience?) a lot and in a
debate tend to polarize rather than harmonize - not in my experience
very common traits with those practising TM.

/example--
RB: "NE one heard one of these yet ?
Meridian DSP5200 Digital Active Loudspeakers"
TW:
**Why do you care? It doesn't use tubes. You have already stated that you
have an aversion to any product which uses transistors.
--/

needless to say, i never made such a statement, in fact.

: > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
: > effects ?
:
: **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
: situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
:
i would sum up my experience as:
the increased ability to consciously invade processes
due to decreased distractional noise (rao form:)

example: dream recollection is extensive and during a dream
you rationally evaluate and immediately question highly
suspect scenes - observer & participant at the same time
whereas with normal dreaming, all sorts of "Hollywood"
scene changes and violation of laws-of-physics can occur.

in general, inner balance or "quietude" enhances perception,
both in a direct sense and on a more abstract level,
it's like being more alive by being more relaxed :-)

a weird, non-permanent effect i've experienced:
very specific taste-blocking - for some 30 minutes after a
TM meditation, cigarettes have no taste at all - the analogy with
lidocain , as portrayed in 10 by Dudley Moore,
not Talisker 10, Paul D :-),
you know, the dentists' daughter,
comes to mind ;-)

R.
done tm, tr, tv, tp
: --
: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au
:
:

[Trevor Wilson]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > :
> : > heh, i'm having a hard time picturing you doing TM, Trevor :-)
> :
> : **Why?
> :
> you assert a lot in emotional(ly connotated) terms, reinforce text with
> double asterix'es (or is that a google convenience?)

**Convenience, when dealing with long posts.

a lot and in a
> debate tend to polarize rather than harmonize - not in my experience
> very common traits with those practising TM.

**Do you imagine that anyone who practises TM just rolls over and plays
dead? Dream on. The mistake you've made is that just because you've met/know
a few people who engage in TM, that all are the same. Truth be told, MOST of
the people who practise TM are of a particular type. Not ALL people who
practise are the same type.

>
> /example--
> RB: "NE one heard one of these yet ?
> Meridian DSP5200 Digital Active Loudspeakers"
> TW:
> **Why do you care? It doesn't use tubes. You have already stated that you
> have an aversion to any product which uses transistors.
> --/
>
> needless to say, i never made such a statement, in fact.
>
> : > but in case you do, what are some of your observations of it's
> : > effects ?
> :
> : **Better, deeper sleep, the ability to cope better with stressful
> : situations, etc. Sadly, I don't practise as much as I used to.
> :
> i would sum up my experience as:
> the increased ability to consciously invade processes
> due to decreased distractional noise (rao form:)
>
> example: dream recollection is extensive and during a dream
> you rationally evaluate and immediately question highly
> suspect scenes - observer & participant at the same time
> whereas with normal dreaming, all sorts of "Hollywood"
> scene changes and violation of laws-of-physics can occur.
>
> in general, inner balance or "quietude" enhances perception,
> both in a direct sense and on a more abstract level,
> it's like being more alive by being more relaxed :-)
>
> a weird, non-permanent effect i've experienced:
> very specific taste-blocking - for some 30 minutes after a
> TM meditation, cigarettes have no taste at all - the analogy with
> lidocain , as portrayed in 10 by Dudley Moore,
> not Talisker 10, Paul D :-),
> you know, the dentists' daughter,
> comes to mind ;-)
>
> R.
> done tm, tr, tv, tp

**Personally, I feel that TM is a rip-off. I can learn the same stuff from a
local Buddhist for next to nothing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:


>
> I just can't belive how anybody can be
> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

It's offensive because it's as if he were assuming that we all believed
in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Given the importance of the position
the President, I am offended that time and energy (and thus my tax
dollars) by him are wasted on fantasy and fairy tales. It's especially
offensive when it is suggested that somehow we deserve more supernatural
affection than other nations. The idea that God would take sides is just
silly. It's also offensive to me because it suggests that the President
still has the mind of a child, who needs fairy tales to protect him from
reality.


I don't get why the argument is made that since we don't have all the
understanding of the nature of the being of the universe explained by
science it follows that we have to accept mythology as fact, as if it's
the only other possible explanation of existence.

Happy New Year!

Edwin

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
universe?


Edwin

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"surf" > wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
> >
> > **I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
> > laws which dominate this universe.
>
>
> for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
> understanding
> everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
> Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
> believing intelligent design.

Who said there was no cause? Just because something is a mystery doesn't
mean that we need to anthropomorphize it.

Edwin

[Pooh Bear]

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

> In article >,
> "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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
> universe?

I reckon that the universe is sitting in a goldfish bowl on someone's coffee
table. Show me why not ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> I reckon that the universe is sitting in a goldfish bowl on someone's coffee
> table. Show me why not ?

I submit your existence as prima facie evidence of the randomness of the
universe.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
AZ Nomad > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:43:33 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
> >>>everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
> >>>peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
> >>>Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
> >>>entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
> >>>University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.
> >>>
> >>>What more do you want?
> >>
> >> Science.
>
> >Mickey,
>
> >Not only are you insulting Jesus by perpetually waving the 'science'
> Jesus is insulted by any brain activity above that of a sheep.
> Keep quiet, do what you're told, and don't question anything no matter how
> insane.
>


I don't think Jesus minds at all. It's his friends that are irked.

If you meet Jesus, don't turn him in! - 60s proverb.

Edwin

[Clyde Slick]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I just can't belive how anybody can be
>> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
>> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
>> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!
>
> It's offensive because it's as if he were assuming that we all believed
> in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Given the importance of the position
> the President, I am offended that time and energy (and thus my tax
> dollars) by him are wasted on fantasy and fairy tales. It's especially
> offensive when it is suggested that somehow we deserve more supernatural
> affection than other nations. The idea that God would take sides is just
> silly. It's also offensive to me because it suggests that the President
> still has the mind of a child, who needs fairy tales to protect him from
> reality.
>
>
> I don't get why the argument is made that since we don't have all the
> understanding of the nature of the being of the universe explained by
> science it follows that we have to accept mythology as fact, as if it's
> the only other possible explanation of existence.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Edwin

96% of the world offends you. Too bad!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
> universe?
>
>

Can you prove what caused matter/energy to become, from nothing?
If not, can you prove that matter/energy has existed for eternity?
Can you prove that there was a time, before time existed?
Can you prove that time existed eternally?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
>> universe?
>
> I reckon that the universe is sitting in a goldfish bowl on someone's
> coffee
> table. Show me why not ?
>

Who created that person's room?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
> > universe?
> >
> >
>
> Can you prove what caused matter/energy to become, from nothing?
> If not, can you prove that matter/energy has existed for eternity?
> Can you prove that there was a time, before time existed?
> Can you prove that time existed eternally?


Why bother? All I know is that the bible certainly doesn't explain it
and none of it really has much bearing on my everyday life and I am
getting tired of people telling me that some "God" did it all. If I have
to respect their God, why can't they respect my FSM? There is equal
evidence (and lack of evidence) for either.

Edwin
PS Can you prove that time exists now?

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I just can't belive how anybody can be
> >> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
> >> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
> >> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!
> >
> > It's offensive because it's as if he were assuming that we all believed
> > in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Given the importance of the position
> > the President, I am offended that time and energy (and thus my tax
> > dollars) by him are wasted on fantasy and fairy tales. It's especially
> > offensive when it is suggested that somehow we deserve more supernatural
> > affection than other nations. The idea that God would take sides is just
> > silly. It's also offensive to me because it suggests that the President
> > still has the mind of a child, who needs fairy tales to protect him from
> > reality.
> >
> >
> > I don't get why the argument is made that since we don't have all the
> > understanding of the nature of the being of the universe explained by
> > science it follows that we have to accept mythology as fact, as if it's
> > the only other possible explanation of existence.
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Edwin
>
> 96% of the world offends you. Too bad!
>

Actually 96% of the world doesn't offend me because 96% of the world
doesn't seem to espouse these myths as truth. In fact, what offends me
is one particular person espousing these beliefs, the POTUS, so that
means that approximately 1/6,000,000,000 of the world offends me. Not
bad! In fact, according to the reasoning of Justice Alito, perhaps I
could pass a law making it legal for me to lock him away and strip him
from power as it would affect only 1/6,000,000,000th of the world (see
his reasoning behind supporting requiring women to get the approval of
their spouses for an abortion as it wouldn't really affect that many
people).


I am unoffended by almost everyone I have ever met, and am constantly
heartened by the wonderful people I meet, especially in the US. As a
touring musician, I have the opportunity to visit a lot of parts of the
country and I have yet to experience any parts of the country that live
up to negative stereotypes. It's a beautiful thing!

Edwin

[Clyde Slick]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "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 that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
>> > universe?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can you prove what caused matter/energy to become, from nothing?
>> If not, can you prove that matter/energy has existed for eternity?
>> Can you prove that there was a time, before time existed?
>> Can you prove that time existed eternally?
>
>
> Why bother? All I know is that the bible certainly doesn't explain it
> and none of it really has much bearing on my everyday life and I am
> getting tired of people telling me that some "God" did it all. If I have
> to respect their God, why can't they respect my FSM? There is equal
> evidence (and lack of evidence) for either.
>
> Edwin
> PS Can you prove that time exists now?

I do respect your FSP, as long as you
agree that he is al dente.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I just can't belive how anybody can be
>> >> offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
>> >> Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
>> >> but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!
>> >
>> > It's offensive because it's as if he were assuming that we all believed
>> > in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Given the importance of the
>> > position
>> > the President, I am offended that time and energy (and thus my tax
>> > dollars) by him are wasted on fantasy and fairy tales. It's especially
>> > offensive when it is suggested that somehow we deserve more
>> > supernatural
>> > affection than other nations. The idea that God would take sides is
>> > just
>> > silly. It's also offensive to me because it suggests that the President
>> > still has the mind of a child, who needs fairy tales to protect him
>> > from
>> > reality.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't get why the argument is made that since we don't have all the
>> > understanding of the nature of the being of the universe explained by
>> > science it follows that we have to accept mythology as fact, as if it's
>> > the only other possible explanation of existence.
>> >
>> > Happy New Year!
>> >
>> > Edwin
>>
>> 96% of the world offends you. Too bad!
>>
>
> Actually 96% of the world doesn't offend me because 96% of the world
> doesn't seem to espouse these myths as truth. In fact, what offends me
> is one particular person espousing these beliefs, the POTUS, so that
> means that approximately 1/6,000,000,000 of the world offends me. Not
> bad! In fact, according to the reasoning of Justice Alito, perhaps I
> could pass a law making it legal for me to lock him away and strip him
> from power as it would affect only 1/6,000,000,000th of the world (see
> his reasoning behind supporting requiring women to get the approval of
> their spouses for an abortion as it wouldn't really affect that many
> people).
>
>

Numerous millions of Islamists that would have me
convert by the sword offend me much more
than does Bush, who merely asks that the the God he believes in
would bless America. BTW, I am agnostic, I certainly don't
avow a belief in God, and most certainly not the
intervening sort as espoused by most of Christianity, Judaism,
and Islam. But such expressions by others don't offend me.
I don't expect a President to park his beliefs
at the oval office door, its part and parcel of who he is.


AFA Abortion, minors should be required to
get approval from their parents, but wives should not be
required to get approval from their husbands,
though to amke things fair,we should require wives
to get abortions if their husbands demand it.
We just can't have to much of a good thing!


> I am unoffended by almost everyone I have ever met, and am constantly
> heartened by the wonderful people I meet, especially in the US. As a
> touring musician, I have the opportunity to visit a lot of parts of the
> country and I have yet to experience any parts of the country that live
> up to negative stereotypes. It's a beautiful thing!
>
> Edwin



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:


>
> I do respect your FSP, as long as you
> agree that he is al dente.
>
>


Oooh, what a horrible thought! I couldn't live in a universe that wasn't
al dente! Overcooked FSM, yech! That's like listening to Bose.


Edwin

[WillBrink]

In article >,
Schizoid Man > wrote:

> I cannot believe the audacity of Judge Johns.

You mean Jones, the Christian Republican Judge?

>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'.

Sure he is.

>
> I wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
> review the ruling.

Why? The ruling was exactly as it should be.

Moronic dribble snipped.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

[WillBrink]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "surf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
> >>>
> >>> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.
> >>
> >> You'll get over it, Trev.
> >> I say that because they all seem angry when they're discussing their
> >> belief. They get all riled up. Angry people aren't generally attractive
> >> - the boyishly charming Mikey excepted.
> > I'm not particularly angry about discussing my reasoning for being an
> > atheist, it's simply the only choice I could make.
> >
> > No theory of a supreme being is logically defensible.
> >
>
> It is faith based.

Exactly. Faith = lack of proof.

> But it is logical to believe that the universe, as is
> known and explained by science, was originated
> by a creator.

No it's not. There is nothing logical about it.

> Of course it is aso logical
> to wonder who created the creator.
> Somewhere along the line, something just started up,
> without a Supreme Being around to create it.
> Not that there isn't a Supreme Being, but somehow
> he/she/it would have to be created.
> Now, if you want to say the Supreme Being always
> existed, you can also say that the universe always existed,
> and that there never was a "creation".
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

[Clyde Slick]

"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> >
>> > "surf" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>> >>>
>> >>> **What a curious and particularly offensive statement.
>> >>
>> >> You'll get over it, Trev.
>> >> I say that because they all seem angry when they're discussing their
>> >> belief. They get all riled up. Angry people aren't generally
>> >> attractive
>> >> - the boyishly charming Mikey excepted.
>> > I'm not particularly angry about discussing my reasoning for being an
>> > atheist, it's simply the only choice I could make.
>> >
>> > No theory of a supreme being is logically defensible.
>> >
>>
>> It is faith based.
>
> Exactly. Faith = lack of proof.
>
>> But it is logical to believe that the universe, as is
>> known and explained by science, was originated
>> by a creator.
>
> No it's not. There is nothing logical about it.
>

Read on... the point was that there is "no"
logical explanation for the utlitmate beginning
of time, matter, and energy.
God is as good or bad as any other explanation.
Any explanation you provide begs the question of who or what
caused 'that' to happen, and the question of what existed
before the uniberse existed.


>> Of course it is aso logical
>> to wonder who created the creator.
>> Somewhere along the line, something just started up,
>> without a Supreme Being around to create it.
>> Not that there isn't a Supreme Being, but somehow
>> he/she/it would have to be created.
>> Now, if you want to say the Supreme Being always
>> existed, you can also say that the universe always existed,
>> and that there never was a "creation".
>>
>>
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>
>



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access