Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson: I don't have enough "faith "to believe in evolution
23 views
Skip to first unread message
jope
May 24, 2013, 2:33:58 PM5/24/13
to
http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
"By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
values."
"By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
values."
Mr. B1ack
May 24, 2013, 9:36:38 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
preserved and amplified ?
What arrogance. What narcicissim.
What a pinhead.
wrote:
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
preserved and amplified ?
What arrogance. What narcicissim.
What a pinhead.
Terry Cross
May 24, 2013, 9:45:39 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
understand how civilization arose.
TCross
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> preserved and amplified ?
>
> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> What a pinhead.
What an off-the-wall interpretation. Obviously, this person does not
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> preserved and amplified ?
>
> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> What a pinhead.
understand how civilization arose.
TCross
Jope
May 24, 2013, 11:28:09 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing his
rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
essentially a moral time bomb.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> preserved and amplified ?
>
> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> What a pinhead.
Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>
> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> preserved and amplified ?
>
> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> What a pinhead.
for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing his
rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
essentially a moral time bomb.
Mr. B1ack
May 25, 2013, 3:00:07 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:36�pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>> � �Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>> � �itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>> � �preserved and amplified ?
>>
>> � �What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>> � �What a pinhead.
>
>What an off-the-wall interpretation.
Not in the least. Indeed I was almost charitible ...
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:36�pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>> � �Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>> � �itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>> � �preserved and amplified ?
>>
>> � �What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>> � �What a pinhead.
>
>What an off-the-wall interpretation.
>Obviously, this person does not understand how civilization arose.
the info wasn't out there after all .............
Mr. B1ack
May 25, 2013, 3:10:59 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>> preserved and amplified ?
>>
>> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>> What a pinhead.
>
>Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>for moral values.
But there's nothing "natural" about it ... the universe is NOT
arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics. People just
make this shit up to suit them.
Seems you want to suppress any knowledge or interpretation
of nature that does not suit YOUR particular ideals.
Nope.
Ain't happening.
>I would like to see an atheist providing his
>rationale for morality
Isn't any beyond "human nature" ... empathy.
This IS a common feature across people, civilizations
and time. It's how we're wired. We CAN put ourselves
in another persons shoes.
And it's the best way to encourage 'civilized' behavior.
The core stuff, the important stuff ... not micro-details.
> besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
>to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.
Which one, rad Islam ?
Worship of Shiva ?
Bloody Woden ?
Abusive Baal ?
Capricious Yaweh ?
Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
The serene Buddha ?
So many ....
>And since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
>threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
>best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
>essentially a moral time bomb.
Many "christian values" being sold ain't particularly
"christian" in the first place ... but the works of self-
interested men and their institutions of power.
Dump 'em !
To start off ... "christianity" was the "new deal" ... so
be a 'christian' (rather broad def there) and tear that
old testament out of your book. :-)
wrote:
>On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>>
>> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
>> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
>> preserved and amplified ?
>>
>> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>>
>> What a pinhead.
>
>Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>for moral values.
arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics. People just
make this shit up to suit them.
Seems you want to suppress any knowledge or interpretation
of nature that does not suit YOUR particular ideals.
Nope.
Ain't happening.
>I would like to see an atheist providing his
>rationale for morality
This IS a common feature across people, civilizations
and time. It's how we're wired. We CAN put ourselves
in another persons shoes.
And it's the best way to encourage 'civilized' behavior.
The core stuff, the important stuff ... not micro-details.
> besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
>to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.
Worship of Shiva ?
Bloody Woden ?
Abusive Baal ?
Capricious Yaweh ?
Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
The serene Buddha ?
So many ....
>And since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
>threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
>best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
>essentially a moral time bomb.
"christian" in the first place ... but the works of self-
interested men and their institutions of power.
Dump 'em !
To start off ... "christianity" was the "new deal" ... so
be a 'christian' (rather broad def there) and tear that
old testament out of your book. :-)
me
May 25, 2013, 5:27:07 AM5/25/13
to
assume that there is no morality or thought for the natural female
instinct to build, make, engender love between heterosexuals. Love :)
Jope
May 25, 2013, 12:36:34 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 3:10 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
What are you talking about?I am simply describing an historical
fact.
>Which one, rad Islam ?
>Worship of Shiva ?
> Bloody Woden ?
>Abusive Baal ?
religion may still lead you to hell
Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
wrong.
As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
interested in the truth.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
fact.
>Which one, rad Islam ?
>Worship of Shiva ?
> Bloody Woden ?
>Abusive Baal ?
>Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
>The serene Buddha ?
>So many ....
A religion may be false,yet still provide moral values.That
>The serene Buddha ?
>So many ....
religion may still lead you to hell
Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
wrong.
As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
interested in the truth.
Free Lunch
May 25, 2013, 12:42:56 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
> >But there's nothing "natural" about it ... the universe is NOT
> >arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics
> What are you talking about?I am simply describing an historical
>fact.
>
> >Which one, rad Islam ?
> >Worship of Shiva ?
> > Bloody Woden ?
> >Abusive Baal ?
> >Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
> >The serene Buddha ?
> >So many ....
> A religion may be false,yet still provide moral values.That
>religion may still lead you to hell
> Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
>wrong.
> As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
>interested in the truth.
How do you determine which religion is correct?
What evidence do you rely on?
in alt.talk.creationism:
...
> >But there's nothing "natural" about it ... the universe is NOT
> >arranged to amplify anyones morality or ethics
> What are you talking about?I am simply describing an historical
>fact.
>
> >Which one, rad Islam ?
> >Worship of Shiva ?
> > Bloody Woden ?
> >Abusive Baal ?
> >Zeus the lightning-bearer ?
> >The serene Buddha ?
> >So many ....
> A religion may be false,yet still provide moral values.That
>religion may still lead you to hell
> Yet ,it will teach that murder ,adultery and homosexuality are
>wrong.
> As for the right religion,the truth is available to anyone who is
>interested in the truth.
What evidence do you rely on?
Bert
May 25, 2013, 12:41:47 PM5/25/13
to
In news:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.com Free Lunch
It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
but true nonetheless.
> What evidence do you rely on?
You try not to think about it.
Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
but true nonetheless.
> What evidence do you rely on?
Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Jope
May 25, 2013, 9:53:11 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
is worthless.
The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
is the one that is true.
"But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works
I have done, even if you don't believe me"
John 10v38
> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>
> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
> but true nonetheless.
>
> > What evidence do you rely on?
>
> You try not to think about it.
>
> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>
> --
> b...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>
> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
> but true nonetheless.
>
> > What evidence do you rely on?
>
> You try not to think about it.
>
> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>
> --
Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
is worthless.
The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
is the one that is true.
"But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works
I have done, even if you don't believe me"
John 10v38
Terry Cross
May 25, 2013, 11:27:24 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 12:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> >> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> >> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> >> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> >> preserved and amplified ?
>
> >> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> >> What a pinhead.
>
> >What an off-the-wall interpretation.
>
> Not in the least. Indeed I was almost charitible ...
Where does he say the "natural world" should be "warped"?
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 6:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> >> > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> >> >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
>
> >> Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> >> itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> >> preserved and amplified ?
>
> >> What arrogance. What narcicissim.
>
> >> What a pinhead.
>
> >What an off-the-wall interpretation.
>
> Not in the least. Indeed I was almost charitible ...
> >Obviously, this person does not understand how civilization arose.
>
> And deserves to be spanked for it .... not as if
> the info wasn't out there after all .............
Jews and the Romans were corrected by Christianity. Later, Mohamed
brought the same to the Middle East.
TCross
Mr. B1ack
May 26, 2013, 2:00:59 AM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>>
>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>>
>> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
>> but true nonetheless.
>>
>> > What evidence do you rely on?
>>
>> You try not to think about it.
>>
>> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>>
>> --
>> b...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
>
>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>is worthless.
>The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
>is the one that is true.
They ALL claim 'miracles'.
wrote:
>On May 25, 12:41 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:4fq1q8d3gtiim0ndl...@4ax.comFree Lunch
>>
>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > How do you determine which religion is correct?
>>
>> It's almost always the one you were born into. A strange coincidence,
>> but true nonetheless.
>>
>> > What evidence do you rely on?
>>
>> You try not to think about it.
>>
>> Besides, asking for evidence is considered a sin in most religions.
>>
>> --
>> b...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
>
>Just because there are many roads,does not mean that everyone of them
>is worthless.
>The religion which has the miracles and the manifest presence of God
>is the one that is true.
Zerkon
May 26, 2013, 9:18:17 AM5/26/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700, jope wrote:
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
What are random acts and higher values? Is water, given it's presence in
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
the human product, a random act? Does submitting to a moral authority
demonstrate a higher value or don't humans have a direct access to higher
values via individual determination?
By making things relative to say one's family and law you or we can not
just do anything we/you want.
This should read:
"By believing I am a product.... I eliminate my ethical basis.. I can do
anything I want.." etc
Q: What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?
A: God does not pretend to be a neurosurgeon
Dare
May 26, 2013, 9:33:00 AM5/26/13
to
"Zerkon" <Zer...@Z.Zorg> wrote in message news:knt22p$krv$4...@dont-email.me...
(ouch)
>
> Q: What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?
> A: God does not pretend to be a neurosurgeon
Wow....that's perfect....and true.
> Q: What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?
> A: God does not pretend to be a neurosurgeon
(ouch)
Jope
May 26, 2013, 11:18:10 AM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 2:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
Not so.Christianity is based on miracles,matter of fact miracles.
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:53:11 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
Free Lunch
May 26, 2013, 11:44:46 AM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
Yes, the teachings claim that miracles happened, but there is no
evidence to support those claims.
in alt.talk.creationism:
evidence to support those claims.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 26, 2013, 2:05:55 PM5/26/13
to
DAMN EXCUSE. please go pedel your warez somewhere else. NOTHING and I
mean NOTHING is purely random. The universe is based on certain laws.
these laws apply everywhere and for everyone and everything. All
objects in normal space time must follow the set of laws. So There is
no randomness to it. None at all.
For reference see newtons laws and the laws of gravity the laws of
thermodynamics theroy of relativity and anyother I may have forgotten
bil...@microsoft.com
May 26, 2013, 2:24:50 PM5/26/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing his
>rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
>to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
>since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
>threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
>best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
>essentially a moral time bomb.
you freakin Moron. do you think in that feeble brain of yous that
moral values came from religon?
You fucking idiot wild animals have "moral values"
and BTW Atheists have WWAYY more moral values than anyone of any
religon
How many atheists are suicide bombers?
How many athesists mass murder millions of people <yes hitler was a
christian>
how many atheists get on television and lie about thier gods or lack
there of and beg and plead for money?
How many atheists get on usenet and go out of thier way to try and
convince others that thier god the better one?
how many atheists are laughing at how incredibly stupid you feel right
this very second??
wrote:
>
>Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
>for moral values.I would like to see an atheist providing his
>rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.Most atheists get
>to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.And
>since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
>threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
>best to discard those annoying christian values.The atheist is
>essentially a moral time bomb.
moral values came from religon?
You fucking idiot wild animals have "moral values"
and BTW Atheists have WWAYY more moral values than anyone of any
religon
How many atheists are suicide bombers?
How many athesists mass murder millions of people <yes hitler was a
christian>
how many atheists get on television and lie about thier gods or lack
there of and beg and plead for money?
How many atheists get on usenet and go out of thier way to try and
convince others that thier god the better one?
how many atheists are laughing at how incredibly stupid you feel right
this very second??
bil...@microsoft.com
May 26, 2013, 2:26:14 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:24:50 -0500, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>how many atheists are laughing at how incredibly stupid you feel right
>this very second??
if you were wondering I will put out a guess right now and say every
>this very second??
one of them
LOL
Terry Cross
May 26, 2013, 3:00:08 PM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 8:44 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
Those who wrote about them happening provided their testimony. You
may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
accounts of every other historian. History is NOT science. History
is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
applied.
In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.
Cross
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
accounts of every other historian. History is NOT science. History
is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
applied.
In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.
Cross
Ralph
May 26, 2013, 5:40:36 PM5/26/13
to
waiting while you justify
testimony made by some unknown person.
Terry Cross
May 26, 2013, 5:58:27 PM5/26/13
to
wave propagating through an aether, but Newton rejected this idea.
Hygens based his theory on observations of propagation, interference,
and refraction, published in 1690 in his Traité de la lumière
(Treatise on light).
Newton, however, preferred a corpuscular model of light, based on his
observations of polarization. In 1720 James Bradley carried out a
series of experiments that supported Newton's theory of corpuscular
light.
A century later, Young and Fresnel revived the wave theory of light
when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather
than a longitudinal wave—the polarization of a transverse wave (like
Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the
wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of
Newton was finally abandoned. Physicists assumed, morever, that like
mechanical waves, light waves required a medium for propagation, and
thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 26, 2013, 6:58:27 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 26, 8:44 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 26, 2:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
...
indeed witnesses and the writers of the claimed work.
>You may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
>accounts of every other historian.
Please name the historians who claim that there is direct testimony in
the Bible.
>History is NOT science. History
>is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
>is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
>applied.
But courtrooms do not accept hearsay.
>In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.
Identify something that you consider to be solid, reliable evidence and
explain why. Don't make sweeping statements showing us that you take
offense that we are skeptical. Provide the evidence and the argument in
support of your assertion that it is evidence.
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 26, 8:44 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 26, 2:00 am, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> >> They ALL claim 'miracles'.
>>
>> >Not so.Christianity is based on miracles,matter of fact miracles.
>>
>> Yes, the teachings claim that miracles happened, but there is no
>> evidence to support those claims.
>
>Those who wrote about them happening provided their testimony.
Please name the witnesses and what evidence we have that they were
>>
>> >Not so.Christianity is based on miracles,matter of fact miracles.
>>
>> Yes, the teachings claim that miracles happened, but there is no
>> evidence to support those claims.
>
>Those who wrote about them happening provided their testimony.
indeed witnesses and the writers of the claimed work.
>You may not believe that testimony, but it is evidence, just as the
>accounts of every other historian.
the Bible.
>History is NOT science. History
>is not subjected to the rigors of laboratory proof. Historical proof
>is more akin to courtroom proof where there are varying standards
>applied.
>In any case, "no evidence" is a patently dishonest statement.
explain why. Don't make sweeping statements showing us that you take
offense that we are skeptical. Provide the evidence and the argument in
support of your assertion that it is evidence.
Free Lunch
May 26, 2013, 6:59:37 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>and refraction, published in 1690 in his Trait� de la lumi�re
special claim in the Bible?
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>(Treatise on light).
>
>Newton, however, preferred a corpuscular model of light, based on his
>observations of polarization. In 1720 James Bradley carried out a
>series of experiments that supported Newton's theory of corpuscular
>light.
>
>A century later, Young and Fresnel revived the wave theory of light
>when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather
>than a longitudinal wave�the polarization of a transverse wave (like
>Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the
>wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of
>Newton was finally abandoned. Physicists assumed, morever, that like
>mechanical waves, light waves required a medium for propagation, and
>thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.
Are you telling us this because you know you have no evidence for any
>
>Newton, however, preferred a corpuscular model of light, based on his
>observations of polarization. In 1720 James Bradley carried out a
>series of experiments that supported Newton's theory of corpuscular
>light.
>
>A century later, Young and Fresnel revived the wave theory of light
>when they pointed out that light could be a transverse wave rather
>than a longitudinal wave�the polarization of a transverse wave (like
>Newton's "sides" of light) could explain birefringence, and in the
>wake of a series of experiments on diffraction the particle model of
>Newton was finally abandoned. Physicists assumed, morever, that like
>mechanical waves, light waves required a medium for propagation, and
>thus required Huygens's idea of an aether "gas" permeating all space.
special claim in the Bible?
Jope
May 26, 2013, 7:59:05 PM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 2:24 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
I am pretty sure that your mother taught you better manners.
You certainly could use some christian ethics.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
You certainly could use some christian ethics.
bil...@microsoft.com
May 26, 2013, 9:45:51 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:
after everything I just made you realize about just how faulty your
thinking is that is all you have to say?
but by you rationale you are saying I should become a mass murdering
child molestiing war starting hypocrit?
is that your take on christian ethics?
and my manners are fine but it would seem that you should have stayed
in school and got you soome learnin cause you just dont have enough
information nor do you have enough facts or have the ability to
research different subjects to get said facts.
wrote:
thinking is that is all you have to say?
but by you rationale you are saying I should become a mass murdering
child molestiing war starting hypocrit?
is that your take on christian ethics?
and my manners are fine but it would seem that you should have stayed
in school and got you soome learnin cause you just dont have enough
information nor do you have enough facts or have the ability to
research different subjects to get said facts.
Jope
May 26, 2013, 10:22:50 PM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 9:45 pm, bil...@microsoft.com wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for
tooth.’[h] But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And
if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as
well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who
wants to borrow from you."
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate
your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He
causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what
reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And
if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than
others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your
heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5v38-48
Do those sound like the words of a mass murderer?The problem
is ,children of hell like you ,get to call themselves christians ,when
that is profitable .
That has nothing to do with real christianity though.
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
tooth.’[h] But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And
if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as
well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who
wants to borrow from you."
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate
your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He
causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what
reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And
if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than
others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your
heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5v38-48
Do those sound like the words of a mass murderer?The problem
is ,children of hell like you ,get to call themselves christians ,when
that is profitable .
That has nothing to do with real christianity though.
Liberal Here
May 28, 2013, 1:00:51 PM5/28/13
to
Morality is a function of how a species lives. Humans are social
creatures (but not even pack animals...excluding, however,
conservatives, they are pack animals). Because we are social creatures
our interpersonal standards of behavior (aka: morality!) are what
makes survival of a group more probable.
But humans can justify violating genetically transmitted standards of
moral behavior (example: slavery!) because the sheer economic
advantage can create sufficient justification (cognitive dissonance).
Religion reduces the occurrences of such violations of standard
morality. When something like slavery occurs....religion itself
becomes a force in justifying those violations. It was okay to enslave
Africans because religion offered reasons why such slavery was the
proper "moral" course.
August Rode
May 28, 2013, 2:03:41 PM5/28/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 11:28:09 PM UTC-4, Jope wrote:
> On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
> >
> > > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> > >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
> >
> > Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> > itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> > preserved and amplified ?
> >
> > What arrogance. What narcicissim.
> >
> > What a pinhead.
>
> Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
> for moral values.
That's what you believe. What I believe is that we all learn our moral values from our families and teachers. We learn our moral values when we're very young and we don't understand whatever religion we're taught until rather later in life.
> On May 24, 9:36 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:33:58 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
> >
> > > "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> > >morality and the basis of ethical behavior.
> >
> > Um ... so he's saying the natural world should warp
> > itself to ensure that (xian) morality and ethics are
> > preserved and amplified ?
> >
> > What arrogance. What narcicissim.
> >
> > What a pinhead.
>
> Throughout history,religion has always been the traditional conduit
> for moral values.
> I would like to see an atheist providing his
> rationale for morality, besides a mere convenience.
> Most atheists get
> to grow up in society already replete with religious morality.
> And
> since they are in the minority,they try no to look to
> threatening.But,once they reach a critical number,they will do their
> best to discard those annoying christian values.
> The atheist is
> essentially a moral time bomb.
Let me ask you this... If you were absolutely convinced that you had received a message from God to kill someone, a message with no explanation whatsoever, would you do it? And remember that under your belief system, God already knows what your answer will be so you may as well say it.
Mr. B1ack
May 28, 2013, 6:00:53 PM5/28/13
to
each other ...
'Morality' is based on *empathy* ... something that's
univerally in our hard-wiring. It's why the 'Golden Rule'
has the right feel. If you can empathize with others
you're less inclined to be horrible towards them. It's
not a perfect technical fix for every possible wrong
people can do to each other - but it's a solid biological/
psychological foundation. Start with empathy and build
from there.
Immortalist
May 28, 2013, 9:31:15 PM5/28/13
to
On May 24, 11:33 am, jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
So if it comes to truth vs moral order, you chose moral order and
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
discard truth?
Agent Smith and Cypher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM
Liberal Here
May 30, 2013, 1:50:46 PM5/30/13
to
>
> 'Morality' is based on *empathy* ... something that's
> univerally in our hard-wiring. It's why the 'Golden Rule'
> has the right feel. If you can empathize with others
> you're less inclined to be horrible towards them. It's
> not a perfect technical fix for every possible wrong
> people can do to each other - but it's a solid biological/
> psychological foundation. Start with empathy and build
> from there.
survival value is "empathy"? I'm not arguing it has none, I asserting
***YOU*** aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of what you
post. Humans are social animals, but not herd animals. A human, on his
own, without advanced weapons like a stone-tipped spear, was unlikely
to survive long on its own....and certainly not a female. The ability
to socialize meant more eyes to spot a danger, more hands to throw
rocks at the danger....
Empathy, and its resultant vehicle: morality, is the evolutionary
trait that enabled physically weak and powerless Homo erectus to
survive on African savannas
But why did I assert "PHYSICS* as the basis of the answer? Because the
energy cost to a single person to hunt or simply find food and still
reproduce is proportionately higher than sharing these functions in a
group. Energy budgets, statistically, are the determining factor to
species survival.
African lions evolved social instincts because, I suspect, Africa had
herd animals that provide food and these herd animals were physically
large, allowing one kill to feed many. India is different. Its tigers
are loners. Few examples of prey animals able to feed a pride of
tigers with one kill....thus no sociability. Plus, the terrain does
not lend itself to large herds of prey animals, ensuring the
probability of a kill. Lions stalk a target and will often drive it
towards a lion lying in wait or distract it until another lion is able
to get close, tigers ambush. Notice the difference in energy costs.
Terry Cross
May 30, 2013, 1:56:10 PM5/30/13
to
Single people do NOT reproduce. Check your Bio 101 text.
TCross
Free Lunch
May 30, 2013, 2:02:29 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>> Egad....are you really that incapable of following logic? Of what
>> survival value is "empathy"? I'm not arguing it has none, I asserting
>> ***YOU*** aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of what you
>> post. Humans are social animals, but not herd animals. A human, on his
>> own, without advanced weapons like a stone-tipped spear, was unlikely
>> to survive long on its own....and certainly not a female. The ability
>> to socialize meant more eyes to spot a danger, more hands to throw
>> rocks at the danger....
>>
>> Empathy, and its resultant vehicle: morality, is the evolutionary
>> trait that enabled physically weak and powerless Homo erectus to
>> survive on African savannas
>>
>> But why did I assert "PHYSICS* as the basis of the answer? Because the
>> energy cost to a single person to hunt or simply find food and still
>> reproduce
>]
>Single people do NOT reproduce. Check your Bio 101 text.
>
>TCross
Nice to see you've given up on that silly claim about Jesus.
>> survival value is "empathy"? I'm not arguing it has none, I asserting
>> ***YOU*** aren't smart enough to grasp the consequences of what you
>> post. Humans are social animals, but not herd animals. A human, on his
>> own, without advanced weapons like a stone-tipped spear, was unlikely
>> to survive long on its own....and certainly not a female. The ability
>> to socialize meant more eyes to spot a danger, more hands to throw
>> rocks at the danger....
>>
>> Empathy, and its resultant vehicle: morality, is the evolutionary
>> trait that enabled physically weak and powerless Homo erectus to
>> survive on African savannas
>>
>> But why did I assert "PHYSICS* as the basis of the answer? Because the
>> energy cost to a single person to hunt or simply find food and still
>> reproduce
>]
>Single people do NOT reproduce. Check your Bio 101 text.
>
>TCross
Terry Cross
May 30, 2013, 8:41:50 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 11:02 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
TCross
TruthSlave
Jun 2, 2013, 5:39:48 AM6/2/13
to
On 24/05/13 19:33, jope wrote:
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
How does the principles for the origins of life invalidate the
> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
> values."
necessity for morality and ethical behavior?
If one accepts we are of 'nature' does that mean we should remain
organised according to 'natural principles'?
Would the principles underlying our evolution be the only basis
for all order, eg Darwinian rules of fitness and survival?
It seems to me dispite our biological origins, our sophistication
as biological beings demands rules which are equal to that
sophistication for our co-existance.
To admit we are of nature, shouldn't mean we are ruled by nature.
Can we not look to ourselves as we are now for what is necessary
as moral authority, or can this athority only be found in a
supreme being?
TruthSlave
Jun 2, 2013, 6:39:40 AM6/2/13
to
On 29/05/13 02:31, Immortalist wrote:
> On May 24, 11:33 am, jope<jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
>> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
>> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
>> values."
>
> So if it comes to truth vs moral order, you chose moral order and
> discard truth? '
> On May 24, 11:33 am, jope<jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>
>> "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate
>> morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such
>> thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make
>> everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher
>> values."
>
> So if it comes to truth vs moral order, you chose moral order and
I think i see what you are implying here. 'Moral order' - as the
illusion necessary to maintain a semblence of order, Vs Truth -
as the persuit of science.
Not everyone has that scientific mind, not everyone can handle
the truth, not everyone can act ethically without some external
agency to guide them. Science where its practiced in the name
of control, is not without its lies. And so one looks for what
is defined clearly and shared openly with the group.
The group without a focus, without rules, without laws, without
a central guiding text, would be at the behest of whomever
shouted the loudest. Its order would be determined according
to the whims of the moment.
The group without a focus would be anything but ordered.
Truth or morality - One could say the truth lies in our biology.
We just need a way to recognise this.
Liberal Here
Jun 3, 2013, 1:33:18 PM6/3/13
to
"joke" wasn't all that funny?
Terry Cross
Jun 3, 2013, 1:54:01 PM6/3/13
to
> Are you too stupid to grasp my point or too stupid to not realize your
> "joke" wasn't all that funny?
It was both a joke and a fact. Your paradigms have been captured and
> "joke" wasn't all that funny?
framed by movie dramas -- like "One Million BC" with Raquel Welch.
Further than that, of course, we know your overarching theory of life,
but it is not necessarily true, simply by your subscription.
Evolution may "explain" empathy in the tortured and exaggerated manner
of Evolutionary speculation, but speculation is not truth.
You realize that, right?
TCross
Liberal Here
Jun 3, 2013, 2:03:44 PM6/3/13
to
who are in physical or mental pain?
you might try reading about "mirror neurons".
>
> You realize that, right?
Yet all religion is only exercise in speculation that the supernatural
exists and can explain what we don't understand.
Prove **YOUR** doG exists and Zeus does not. After all, Bullfinches'
Mythology "proves" Zeus exists.
>
> TCross
Terry Cross
Jun 3, 2013, 2:37:33 PM6/3/13
to
Magazine. Somebody you don’t know in some place you’ve never been
says she proved something by some method you don’t understand and
haven’t a hope of duplicating – yet you believe it and you call that
“science.”
It is not Science -- it is just your FAITH.
> Prove **YOUR** doG exists and Zeus does not.
TCross
Ralph
Jun 3, 2013, 3:38:04 PM6/3/13
to
certain isotopes of uranium that a huge explosion would occur.
The people who said that were not understood by the average person, used
unseen particles exploding, yet even as stupid as
you are, we wouldn't catch you at ground zero.
People in laboratories predicted the existence of chemical compounds
even though they hda never been seen, yet today we know they exist.
Yet in the instances above we call this science.
I also have little doubt that you wouldn't be able to understand
articles written in the journal "Nature".
Every month I get magazines that you wouldn't be able to understand. Is
what they write about an article of faith? I guess that the articles speak
great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
earth, even one as big as yours.
Terry Cross
Jun 3, 2013, 4:37:34 PM6/3/13
to
> that if you split an atom of
> certain isotopes of uranium that a huge explosion would occur.
> The people who said that were not understood by the average person, used
> unseen particles exploding, yet even as stupid as
> you are, we wouldn't catch you at ground zero.
black holes, gravitons, and Brontosauruses?
> People in laboratories predicted the existence of chemical compounds
> even though they hda never been seen, yet today we know they exist.
> Yet in the instances above we call this science.
they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
> I also have little doubt that you wouldn't be able to understand
> articles written in the journal "Nature".
>
> Every month I get magazines that you wouldn't be able to understand.
accomplishments. You know only that I disagree with you. And
incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
therein.
> Is
> what they write about an article of faith?
blind faith.
> I guess that the articles speak
> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
> earth, even one as big as yours.
TCross
bil...@m.nu
Jun 3, 2013, 5:59:30 PM6/3/13
to
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 12:38�pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
>lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
>tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
>lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
>was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
dude you may think there are canals on mars and you may *think* other
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 12:38�pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
>lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
>tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
>lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
>was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
people do but anyone who has been educated past the 10th grade knows
there are no canals on mars
>
>This is a goofy ad homenim. You have no knowledge of my education or
>accomplishments. You know only that I disagree with you. And
>incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
>a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
>therein.
>
as in other posts shows everyone that you have nothing, as in no
information.
>
>
>Maybe, maybe not. But YOUR belief in those magazines is willfully
>blind faith.
>
>
>> I guess that the articles speak
>> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
>> earth, even one as big as yours.
>
>
>So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.
you are confused on what a cult is
>> I guess that the articles speak
>> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
>> earth, even one as big as yours.
>
>
>So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.
Terry Cross
Jun 3, 2013, 6:32:25 PM6/3/13
to
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
> >lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
> >tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
> >lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
> >was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
>
> dude you may think there are canals on mars
Notice that it is appears in a list with the Piltdown man and the
> >On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2013 2:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> >they do not excuse the canals on Mars, the Piltdown Man, tetra ethyl
> >lead, thalidomide, Freon-12, DDT, the Brontosaurus, the endorsement of
> >tobacco, keeping small pox alive for bio-weapons, Avastin, Fen-Phen,
> >lead-based paint, arsenic pigments, dioxin, PCBs, and Chernobyl, which
> >was 100% Atheist science under 100% Atheist supervision.
>
> dude you may think there are canals on mars
Brontosaurus and other discreditable claims of "science"?
> and you may *think* other
> people do but anyone who has been educated past the 10th grade knows
> there are no canals on mars
> >This is a goofy ad homenim. You have no knowledge of my education or
> >accomplishments. You know only that I disagree with you. And
> >incidentally, the information in magazines are not science unless you
> >a method for you to empirically and personally verify the claims
> >therein.
>
> I have proof. it is simple . the fact that ytou keep repeating youself
> as in other posts shows everyone that you have nothing, as in no
> information.
> >Maybe, maybe not. But YOUR belief in those magazines is willfully
> >blind faith.
>
> ya see there ya go again same argument different thread
>
> >> I guess that the articles speak
> >> great truths that will literally get your ass eliminated from this
> >> earth, even one as big as yours.
>
> >So far, your favorite cult has a lousy record.
>
> you are confused on what a cult is
The first is a culture, a system of beliefs and principles.
The second is a body of "true believers" who don't understand what
they believe but demonstrate a fierce loyalty to it. A cult usually
often has spokes persons like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or L.
Ron Hubbard, but not always.
TCross
bil...@m.nu
Jun 3, 2013, 7:32:01 PM6/3/13
to
Terry Cross
Jun 3, 2013, 8:01:19 PM6/3/13
to
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 2:59 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The second is a body of "true believers" who don't understand what
> >they believe but demonstrate a fierce loyalty to it. A cult usually
> >On Jun 3, 2:59 pm, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The second is a body of "true believers" who don't understand what
> >they believe but demonstrate a fierce loyalty to it. A cult usually
> >has spokes persons like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking or L.
> >Ron Hubbard, but not always.
>
> >TCross
>
> stephen hawking? Richard dawkins? OMFG you are insane
If you mean I am an Atheist infidel, you have that right. I do not
> >Ron Hubbard, but not always.
>
> >TCross
>
> stephen hawking? Richard dawkins? OMFG you are insane
agree with you. And most Atheists like you, find that intolerable.
INTOLERABLE, I say!
We don't forget that "political insanity" (as they called it in that
late, great Atheist society, the USSR) is punishable by chemical and
surgical mutilation, incarceration, electrocution, and other
punishments extending over decades until the "patient" recants of the
heresies. The ferocity of Atheism exceeds the inquisition by
multiples.
TCross
0 new messages