"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

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.

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.

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?

"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

"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.

"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

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

"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

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.

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

mo

http://snipurl.com/l1mg


Happy Pagan Holidays, all!!

"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

"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.

dick writes...

Religion is the opiate of the asses.


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

"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

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

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.

"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?

"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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

Clyde Slick said:

Jesus as an insurance policy?

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

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"

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.