Why atheists are stupid
Kadaitcha Man
damned bloodsuckers, ye should be a woman and yet thy beard forbids me
to interpret that ye are so. Ye conveyed:
> While ancient people can be forgiven for their ignorant, modern human
> should be ashamed.
> Yet people like you have not advanced for more than a few thousand
> years...the time when all these religions were invented.
Religion has an evolutionary origin. Clearly then, atheists are
throwbacks.
--
Brillo pad sim. Coarse vaginal hair. For example, a red headed (collar
and cuffs (qv)) Scots lassie might be described as having 'A mott like
a rusty Brillo pad'.
bpuharic
<monstrous.l...@sci.med.giddy-charity-girl> wrote:
>Yap, ye heedless jolthead and unmannered slave. Ye hell-hated knot of
>damned bloodsuckers, ye should be a woman and yet thy beard forbids me
>to interpret that ye are so. Ye conveyed:
>
>> While ancient people can be forgiven for their ignorant, modern human
>> should be ashamed.
>> Yet people like you have not advanced for more than a few thousand
>> years...the time when all these religions were invented.
>
>Religion has an evolutionary origin. Clearly then, atheists are
>throwbacks.
gee. einstein was an atheist.
some throwback
Kigir the abstracted fuckstick-stirrer
mild man, it offends me to the soul to hear ye, a pragging banditto
slave, tear a passion to tatters, to very rags. Ye brown-nosed:
No doubt your next devolution will entail dragging your knuckles... oh,
hang on...they already do.
--
turtle's head : n. The initial protrusion of a stool though the teal
towel holder (qv); the point at which contracts are exchanged for the
building of a log cabin (qv). See also touching cloth; touching socks.
wgroom
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:43:39 +0800, Kadaitcha Man
>
Actually Einstein stated that, "science without religion is lame."
And here's 'the god' he did believe in.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) Following his wife's advice
in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International
Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly
demanding Do you believe in God? Quoted from and citation notes
derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001),
chapter 3.
wg
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 6:31�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:43:39 +0800, Kadaitcha Man
>>
>> <monstrous.landing.st...@sci.med.giddy-charity-girl> wrote:
>> >Yap, ye heedless jolthead and unmannered slave. Ye hell-hated knot of
>> >damned bloodsuckers, ye should be a woman and yet thy beard forbids me
>> >to interpret that ye are so. Ye conveyed:
>>
>> >> While ancient people can be forgiven for their ignorant, modern human
>> >> should be ashamed.
>> >> Yet people like you have not advanced for more than a few thousand
>> >> years...the time when all these religions were invented.
>>
>> >Religion has an evolutionary origin. Clearly then, atheists are
>> >throwbacks.
>>
>> gee. einstein was an atheist.
>>
>> some throwback
>
>Actually Einstein stated that, "science without religion is lame."
>
>And here's 'the god' he did believe in.
>
>I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
>of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
>actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
doesnt do much for you creationists, does it?
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think creationists care one iota about an Einstein. It
doesn't bode well for Evo's if you read it correctly because if he
believed in total blind, random happenstances as a good explanation he
wouldn't have dwevled into this orderly harmony and apply it to
someone's version of a God. His beef, obviously, was not for the
impetus that made for order in a grand way, by a personality making
the sceanrios of his version of justice somehow unworthy. That is
theology, not creationism.
wg
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 6:03�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:48:46 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> gee. einstein was an atheist.
>>
>> >> some throwback
>>
>> >Actually Einstein stated that, "science without religion is lame."
>>
>> >And here's 'the god' he did believe in.
>>
>> >I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
>> >of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
>> >actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
>>
>> doesnt do much for you creationists, does it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I don't think creationists care one iota about an Einstein
except creationists keep telling us how stupid atheists are.
einstein was not known to be stupid
. It
>doesn't bode well for Evo's if you read it correctly because if he
>believed in total blind, random happenstances as a good explanation he
>wouldn't have dwevled into this orderly harmony and apply it to
>someone's version of a God.
no evolutionary biologist believes in yoru comic book view of
evolution
you creationists are free to invent any definition of science you
want. you're free to say science includes dancing bears and juggling
clowns. that does NOT mean science does so
science is based on natural law. evolution is science. therefore
evolution is based on natural law
creationism, OTOH, is based on the whims of god. if, tomorrow, a
fruitfly gave birth to a bus, that would be random chance
and creationism could explain it with 'god did it'
science would not have an answer. there is NO natural law that would
allow this
so its' CREATIONISM not EVOLUTION which is based on random chance
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this blather to circumvent your misstatement that Einstein was an
atheist? I guess that's what evolutionists are forced to do,
discussion-wise. Now THAT is stupid.
wg
bpuharic
wrote:
tell you what
if you disprove my contention that einstein did not believe in a
personal god
or that he thought the bible was a book of fairy tales
i'll become a creationsits and give my life to christ
>
>wg
Mitchell Holman
news:053efbca-d4d7-4c89...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
The word "god" is for me nothing more than the expression
and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection
of honourable, but still primitive legends which are
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter
how subtle can change this.
-- Albert Einstein
bpuharic
<nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:053efbca-d4d7-4c89...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 5, 6:13�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 08:37:44 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> >> gee. einstein was an atheist.
>>>
>>> >> >> some throwback
>>>
>>> >> >Actually Einstein stated that, "science without religion is
>>> >> >lame."
>>>
>>> >> >And here's 'the god' he did believe in.
>>>
>>> >> >I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
>>> >> >harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
>>> >> >the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
>>>
>>> >> doesnt do much for you creationists, does it?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> All this blather to circumvent your misstatement that Einstein was an
>> atheist? I guess that's what evolutionists are forced to do,
>> discussion-wise. Now THAT is stupid.
>
>
>
>
>The word "god" is for me nothing more than the expression
>and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection
>of honourable, but still primitive legends which are
>nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter
>how subtle can change this.
>-- Albert Einstein
>
>
>
he'll completely ignore this and will, tomorrow, ask the very same
question
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That would not be what you said, as you said Einstein was an atheist.
Personal God isn't the issue.
wg
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, theology. The God spoke about is in nature and what was said
about Spinoza's God.
wg
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's to ignore? Just google it up.
Albert Einstein Quotes on Religion
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of
the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this
emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe,
is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive
forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the
natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense
arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a
meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any
religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be
Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it
clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it
is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as
our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert
Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
Princeton University Press
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes
place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for
the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will
hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a
prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. (Albert
Einstein, 1936) Responding to a child who wrote and asked if
scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein,
Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I
nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his
physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life
and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the
existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that
the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls
harbour such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert
Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) Following his wife's advice
in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International
Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly
demanding Do you believe in God? Quoted from and citation notes
derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001),
chapter 3.
One strength of the Communist system ... is that it has some of the
characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm
I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
be personal.
wg
bpuharic
wrote:
so you say.
tell you what, you get all christians and muslims to deny a personal
god is an issue with their religion and i'll believe you.
einstein was an atheist
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Feb 6, 3:55�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:41:56 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> >> >And here's 'the god' he did believe in.
>>
>> >>> >> >I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
>> >>> >> >harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
>> >>> >> >the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
>>
>> >>> >> doesnt do much for you creationists, does it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> All this blather to circumvent your misstatement that Einstein was an
>> >> atheist? �I guess that's what evolutionists are forced to do,
>> >> discussion-wise. �Now THAT is stupid.
>>
>> >The word "god" is for me nothing more than the expression
>> >and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection
>> >of honourable, but still primitive legends which are
>> >nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter
>> >how subtle can change this.
>> >-- Albert Einstein
>>
>> he'll completely ignore this and will, tomorrow, ask the very same
>> question- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>What's to ignore? Just google it up.
which has never stopped creationsits from ignoring evidence
>
>Albert Einstein Quotes on Religion
>The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of
>the mystical
the mystical does not require god.
.
>
>The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
>transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the
>natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense
>arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a
>meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any
>religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be
>Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
so god is not necessary. in fact, some sects of buddhism are quite
atheistic
you keep proving my point.
>
>I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
>be personal.
he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
PD
Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
Let Einstein's words stand on their own, for exactly what they are.
Do not add your own interpretations or additional assumptions or side
arguments to try to make Einstein sound as though he were wholly being
an agenda you'd like to drive.
So WHAT if he does not quite say what you want said? Why does
Einstein's PERSONAL stance about religion have ANY bearing on anyone
else's?
PD
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 4:02 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
>> >be personal.
>>
>> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
>
>Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
oh brother...the religiosu fanatic claims einstein believes in god.
yet you swoon over his assertion.
>Let Einstein's words stand on their own, for exactly what they are.
>Do not add your own interpretations or additional assumptions or side
>arguments to try to make Einstein sound as though he were wholly being
>an agenda you'd like to drive.
blah blah blah...
>
>So WHAT if he does not quite say what you want said? Why does
>Einstein's PERSONAL stance about religion have ANY bearing on anyone
>else's?
you got me. i did not start the thread. it seems to be an article of
faith among the religious crowd that einstein believed in a
creationist god.
>
>PD
PD
> >On Feb 6, 4:02 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
> >> >be personal.
>
> >> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
>
> >Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
>
> oh brother...the religiosu fanatic claims einstein believes in god.
> yet you swoon over his assertion.
No, I do not. But unlike you, I don't feel the need to hijack and
augment Einstein's stance.
>
> >Let Einstein's words stand on their own, for exactly what they are.
> >Do not add your own interpretations or additional assumptions or side
> >arguments to try to make Einstein sound as though he were wholly being
> >an agenda you'd like to drive.
>
> blah blah blah...
>
>
>
> >So WHAT if he does not quite say what you want said? Why does
> >Einstein's PERSONAL stance about religion have ANY bearing on anyone
> >else's?
>
> you got me. i did not start the thread. it seems to be an article of
> faith among the religious crowd that einstein believed in a
> creationist god.
Nice overgeneralization.
>
>
>
> >PD
>
>
wgroom
god theory.
>
> >Albert Einstein Quotes on Religion
> >The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of
> >the mystical
>
> the mystical does not require god.
>
> .
Evolution does, or else it can't be a viable theory.
Einstein: "Science without religion is lame"
>
>
>
> >The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
> >transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the
> >natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense
> >arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a
> >meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any
> >religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be
> >Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
>
> so god is not necessary. in fact, some sects of buddhism are quite
> atheistic
>
But something is, something more than a chaotic blast turning into the
great 'mystical'.
> you keep proving my point.
>
>
It keeps getting proved wrong. If Einstein didn't think that religion
was capable of no answers in the intelligence he observed, he
wouldn't have said it.
>
> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
> >be personal.
>
> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
Whatever he thinks of, it's not 'nothing'. Which is what evolution
springs from if they don't want to connect any non-life to life if
they want to be "all encompassing.:"
wg
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly.
wg
wgroom
> On Feb 6, 4:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:14:46 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> > <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 6, 4:02 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
> > >> >be personal.
>
> > >> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
>
> > >Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
>
> > oh brother...the religiosu fanatic claims einstein believes in god.
> > yet you swoon over his assertion.
>
> No, I do not. But unlike you, I don't feel the need to hijack and
> augment Einstein's stance.
>
>
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/sir-isaac-newton-quotes.html
wg
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Let Einstein's words stand on their own, for exactly what they are.
> > >Do not add your own interpretations or additional assumptions or side
> > >arguments to try to make Einstein sound as though he were wholly being
> > >an agenda you'd like to drive.
>
> > blah blah blah...
>
> > >So WHAT if he does not quite say what you want said? Why does
> > >Einstein's PERSONAL stance about religion have ANY bearing on anyone
> > >else's?
>
> > you got me. i did not start the thread. it seems to be an article of
> > faith among the religious crowd that einstein believed in a
> > creationist god.
>
> Nice overgeneralization.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wgroom
And this:
I know this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that
surrounds us- everything that exists - proves that there are infinite
laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical
in its precision.
Thomas A. Edison
wg
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 4:23�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:14:46 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 4:02�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
>> >> >be personal.
>>
>> >> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
>>
>> >Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
>>
>> oh brother...the religiosu fanatic claims einstein believes in god.
>> yet you swoon over his assertion.
>
>No, I do not. But unlike you, I don't feel the need to hijack and
>augment Einstein's stance.
and you havent proven i did that
>>
>> you got me. i did not start the thread. it seems to be an article of
>> faith among the religious crowd that einstein believed in a
>> creationist god.
>
>Nice overgeneralization.
here you go:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html
you're just uneducated about creationism
PD
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:28:22 -0800 (PST), PD
>
>
>
> >On Feb 6, 4:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:14:46 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 6, 4:02 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:46:06 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >I can't help it if he thinks of God as being great, and yet unable to
> >> >> >be personal.
>
> >> >> he doesnt think of 'god' at all.
>
> >> >Oh, come on. This is the worst sort of demagoguery.
>
> >> oh brother...the religiosu fanatic claims einstein believes in god.
> >> yet you swoon over his assertion.
>
> >No, I do not. But unlike you, I don't feel the need to hijack and
> >augment Einstein's stance.
>
> and you havent proven i did that
>
>
>
> >> you got me. i did not start the thread. it seems to be an article of
> >> faith among the religious crowd that einstein believed in a
> >> creationist god.
>
> >Nice overgeneralization.
>
> here you go:
>
> http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html
>
> you're just uneducated about creationism
Is your complaint about ONE creationist, or ALL creationists, or ALL
theists, with regard to how Einstein's position is to be interpreted.
I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 5:03�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:28:22 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Nice overgeneralization.
>>
>> here you go:
>>
>> http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html
>>
>> you're just uneducated about creationism
>
>Is your complaint about ONE creationist, or ALL creationists, or ALL
>theists, with regard to how Einstein's position is to be interpreted.
those who say einstein believed in a personal, creator god
>
>I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
>You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
>most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
do you think those quotes accurately reflect their views?
Richo
Thomas A. Edison! The man who said "Religion is all Bunk"
1. My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may
be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it.
[Thomas Edison, Do We Live Again?]
2. All Bibles are man-made. [Thomas Edison]
3. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned
fake... Religion is all bunk. [Thomas Edison]
4. I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the
religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals,
or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine]
5. I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be
introduced into the public schools of the United States. [Thomas
Edison]
6. To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and
darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and
inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it
may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a
damnable false hope. [Thomas Edison]
7. I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul... No, all this
talk of an existence beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our
tenacity of life - our desire to go on living - our dread of coming to
an end. [Thomas Edison, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous
People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus
Books, 1996]
8. The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from
six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do
anything with them. [Thomas Edison, quoted by Joseph Lewis from a
personal conversation; source: Cliff Walker's Positive Atheism's Big
List of Quotations]
9. What fools. [Thomas Edison, commenting on he spectacle of
hundreds of thousands making a pilgrimage to the grave of an obscure
priest in Massachusetts, in the hope of effecting miraculous cures,
quoted by Joseph Lewis from a personal conversation; source: Cliff
Walker's Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations]
10. Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental
condition of so many people. [Thomas Edison, quoted by Joseph Lewis
from a personal conversation; source: Cliff Walker's Positive
Atheism's Big List of Quotations]
11. It is the best book ever written on the subject. There is
nothing like it! [Thomas Edison on Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason,
quoted by Joseph Lewis from a personal conversation; source: Cliff
Walker's Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotation]
PD
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:19:54 -0800 (PST), PD
>
>
>
> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 5:03 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:28:22 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >> >Nice overgeneralization.
>
> >> here you go:
>
> >>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html
>
> >> you're just uneducated about creationism
>
> >Is your complaint about ONE creationist, or ALL creationists, or ALL
> >theists, with regard to how Einstein's position is to be interpreted.
>
> those who say einstein believed in a personal, creator god
>
Ah. You could have been specific, instead of labeling people more
generally than what you meant. I think that's what I meant by "nice
overgeneralization".
>
>
> >I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
> >You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
> >most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
>
> do you think those quotes accurately reflect their views?
I don't dismiss them. On the other hand, it is useful to include the
greater context surrounding the quote, which is the *proper* way to
let the authors speak for themselves. You are welcome to do that. It's
much more constructive than spluttering back and forth about how to
interpret quotes without context.
wgroom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately these quotes are from an atheist site which even though
are true, simply evade what they want. They want to divorce any
'being' from a hand in making life. And by excluding the quote I
gave, they fall into a category of deception by eliminating. What
they attempt to do, is to force one's theological opinions on what
they want in their profile of 'their man'. Of course they know they
have to deal with the Edison quote I gave, and here's one as well,
that wont' make them happy campers.
http://www.squidoo.com/thomas-edison-quotes
wg
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 6:33�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:19:54 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>>
>>
>> >Is your complaint about ONE creationist, or ALL creationists, or ALL
>> >theists, with regard to how Einstein's position is to be interpreted.
>>
>> those who say einstein believed in a personal, creator god
>>
>
>Ah. You could have been specific, instead of labeling people more
>generally than what you meant. I think that's what I meant by "nice
>overgeneralization".
cant help you if you dont read what i wrote
>
>>
>>
>> >I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
>> >You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
>> >most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
>>
>> do you think those quotes accurately reflect their views?
>
>I don't dismiss them. On the other hand, it is useful to include the
>greater context surrounding the quote, which is the *proper* way to
>let the authors speak for themselves. You are welcome to do that. It's
>much more constructive than spluttering back and forth about how to
>interpret quotes without context.
it's not my job to do that, unless you have invented some new rule of
logic saying those who make an assertion don't have to defend it
PD
That's not a rule of logic. Assertions are made all the time. If the
asserting one doesn't care to try to *convince* you, or if a common
resolution is not agreed to be the end game, then there is no such
"rule" except by taunt and dare.
There are loons that post all the time to the physics groups, and
their common rejoinder is "Prove me wrong!" This is of course an
idiotic dare. Facts and resources can be pointed to, especially if the
address the loon's claims, and if the loon is in fact really
interested in finding the answer, then the loon can take advantage of
the pointers to learn something. If the loon is in fact not
interested, then no amount of "arguing" is going to convince them that
they're wrong.
In this case, there is a list of quotations from writings and
transcripts that have been cited. You can either find out what they
really said in context, or you can splutter and bitch that you haven't
been convinced. Suit yourself.
If your hobby here is to be combative and confront every assertion
made with "Prove it, you scurvy dog!" ... well, any loon can do that.
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 5:11�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:35:09 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>>
>> >> >I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
>> >> >You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
>> >> >most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
>>
>> >> do you think those quotes accurately reflect their views?
>>
>> >I don't dismiss them. On the other hand, it is useful to include the
>> >greater context surrounding the quote, which is the *proper* way to
>> >let the authors speak for themselves. You are welcome to do that. It's
>> >much more constructive than spluttering back and forth about how to
>> >interpret quotes without context.
>>
>> it's not my job to do that, unless you have invented some new rule of
>> logic saying those who make an assertion don't have to defend it
>
>That's not a rule of logic. Assertions are made all the time.
and it's the job of those who make them to defend them. it's not my
job to disprove them
If the
>asserting one doesn't care to try to *convince* you, or if a common
>resolution is not agreed to be the end game, then there is no such
>"rule" except by taunt and dare.
since a creationist is, by definition, trying to 'convince' someone,
it's self evident that the responsibility lies with them to defend the
quotes
>
>In this case, there is a list of quotations from writings and
>transcripts that have been cited. You can either find out what they
>really said in context, or you can splutter and bitch that you haven't
>been convinced. Suit yourself.
so merely posting a quote is PROOF that it means exactly what the
creationist says it means
alice in wonderland had a quote along those lines...'a word means
exactly what i say it means; nothing more, nothing less'
so you're giving them the alice in wonderland defense
sorry. that's not a defense. it's an excuse.
and you can sputter and bitch that SOME of us STILL require evidence
to defend an assertion.
your standards of evidence seem non existent. and that's being
generous
PD
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:12:27 -0800 (PST), PD
>
>
>
> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 5:11 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:35:09 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >> >> >I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the referenced link was.
> >> >> >You do realize that all of those people quoted are noted scientists,
> >> >> >most of them physicists, right? Do you think they were misquoted?
>
> >> >> do you think those quotes accurately reflect their views?
>
> >> >I don't dismiss them. On the other hand, it is useful to include the
> >> >greater context surrounding the quote, which is the *proper* way to
> >> >let the authors speak for themselves. You are welcome to do that. It's
> >> >much more constructive than spluttering back and forth about how to
> >> >interpret quotes without context.
>
> >> it's not my job to do that, unless you have invented some new rule of
> >> logic saying those who make an assertion don't have to defend it
>
> >That's not a rule of logic. Assertions are made all the time.
>
> and it's the job of those who make them to defend them. it's not my
> job to disprove them
Of course it's not your job to disprove them.
You are ASSUMING that the end objective is some sort of "win", where
one is swayed to the position of the other.
Why do you assume that?
>
> If the
>
> >asserting one doesn't care to try to *convince* you, or if a common
> >resolution is not agreed to be the end game, then there is no such
> >"rule" except by taunt and dare.
>
> since a creationist is, by definition, trying to 'convince' someone,
Excuse me? What "definition" of creationist are you using?
Since you've made the assertion that the DEFINITION of a creationist
includes attempting to convince someone, PROVE to me that this is so.
And furthermore, if someone is attempting to convince you of
proposition A, does this mean that any statement B that they may make
is also something they're trying to convince you of, and therefore
they must prove that to you too? If so, PROVE that statement to me.
> it's self evident that the responsibility lies with them to defend the
> quotes
>
>
>
> >In this case, there is a list of quotations from writings and
> >transcripts that have been cited. You can either find out what they
> >really said in context, or you can splutter and bitch that you haven't
> >been convinced. Suit yourself.
>
> so merely posting a quote is PROOF that it means exactly what the
> creationist says it means
I didn't say that either. I did not say ACCEPT it. I said look it up
to find the larger context. I said that arguing about what a quote
means without knowing the larger context is an idiotic practice.
>
> alice in wonderland had a quote along those lines...'a word means
> exactly what i say it means; nothing more, nothing less'
>
> so you're giving them the alice in wonderland defense
>
> sorry. that's not a defense. it's an excuse.
>
> and you can sputter and bitch that SOME of us STILL require evidence
> to defend an assertion.
>
> your standards of evidence seem non existent. and that's being
> generous
Standards of evidence for WHAT? Are you confusing this with some kind
of legal proceeding?
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 8, 7:22�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:12:27 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>>
>>
>> >> it's not my job to do that, unless you have invented some new rule of
>> >> logic saying those who make an assertion don't have to defend it
>>
>> >That's not a rule of logic. Assertions are made all the time.
>>
>> and it's the job of those who make them to defend them. it's not my
>> job to disprove them
>
>Of course it's not your job to disprove them.
>You are ASSUMING that the end objective is some sort of "win", where
>one is swayed to the position of the other.
>Why do you assume that?
dont care about 'winning'. creationists are immune to evidence so
'winning' is not possible
their world view is superstition.
>
>>
>> If the
>>
>> >asserting one doesn't care to try to *convince* you, or if a common
>> >resolution is not agreed to be the end game, then there is no such
>> >"rule" except by taunt and dare.
>>
>> since a creationist is, by definition, trying to 'convince' someone,
>
>Excuse me? What "definition" of creationist are you using?
>Since you've made the assertion that the DEFINITION of a creationist
>includes attempting to convince someone, PROVE to me that this is so.
the book of matthew. the great commission. ever hear of it?
>
>And furthermore, if someone is attempting to convince you of
>proposition A, does this mean that any statement B that they may make
>is also something they're trying to convince you of, and therefore
>they must prove that to you too? If so, PROVE that statement to me.
?? 'any' statement? you're denying a creationist making a statement
about creationism is trying to evangelize??
that your claim?
>>
>> so merely posting a quote is PROOF that it means exactly what the
>> creationist says it means
>
>I didn't say that either. I did not say ACCEPT it. I said look it up
>to find the larger context. I said that arguing about what a quote
>means without knowing the larger context is an idiotic practice.
i dont have to look it up. what i have to prove is that they quote
mine. and there is ample evidence for that; stephen jay gould wrote an
essay comparing what he said to the quote mines creationsits claimed
he said
quote mining is a standard propaganda ploy of fanatics
PD
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:56:47 -0800 (PST), PD
>
>
>
> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 7:22 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:12:27 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >> >> it's not my job to do that, unless you have invented some new rule of
> >> >> logic saying those who make an assertion don't have to defend it
>
> >> >That's not a rule of logic. Assertions are made all the time.
>
> >> and it's the job of those who make them to defend them. it's not my
> >> job to disprove them
>
> >Of course it's not your job to disprove them.
> >You are ASSUMING that the end objective is some sort of "win", where
> >one is swayed to the position of the other.
> >Why do you assume that?
>
> dont care about 'winning'. creationists are immune to evidence so
> 'winning' is not possible
>
> their world view is superstition.
Then if you're not concerned about winning, evidence is not required.
>
>
>
> >> If the
>
> >> >asserting one doesn't care to try to *convince* you, or if a common
> >> >resolution is not agreed to be the end game, then there is no such
> >> >"rule" except by taunt and dare.
>
> >> since a creationist is, by definition, trying to 'convince' someone,
>
> >Excuse me? What "definition" of creationist are you using?
> >Since you've made the assertion that the DEFINITION of a creationist
> >includes attempting to convince someone, PROVE to me that this is so.
>
> the book of matthew. the great commission. ever hear of it?
You may be confusing "creationist" and "Christian". They are not
identical sets.
Furthermore, the book of Matthew does not use the word "creationist"
anywhere in it.
So far you seem to be having difficulty even making sense of, let
alone proving, your assertion that creationists BY DEFINITION are
trying to convince someone.
>
>
>
> >And furthermore, if someone is attempting to convince you of
> >proposition A, does this mean that any statement B that they may make
> >is also something they're trying to convince you of, and therefore
> >they must prove that to you too? If so, PROVE that statement to me.
>
> ?? 'any' statement? you're denying a creationist making a statement
> about creationism is trying to evangelize??
Yes, I'm denying that. If I tell you that I believe that a particular
painting is the most beautiful painting I've ever seen, does that
statement imply to you that I'm trying to sway you into the same
conclusion? If I tell you that I believe that Glenn Beck is a clownish
ass, does that statement imply to you that I'm trying to sway you to
the same conclusion?
Has it occurred to you that the problem you have with other people
believing things different than you is YOURS?
>
> that your claim?
>
>
>
> >> so merely posting a quote is PROOF that it means exactly what the
> >> creationist says it means
>
> >I didn't say that either. I did not say ACCEPT it. I said look it up
> >to find the larger context. I said that arguing about what a quote
> >means without knowing the larger context is an idiotic practice.
>
> i dont have to look it up.
You don't HAVE to do anything. That would be part of the point. You
claim that there are *obligations* in discussion. There aren't, given
that there is no mutual agreed objective that would lead to those
obligations. The fact that YOU don't feel any particular obligation
should be a clue to you that others ALSO do not feel any particular
obligation. You are not special.
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 3:30�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:56:47 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>>
>>
>> dont care about 'winning'. creationists are immune to evidence so
>> 'winning' is not possible
>>
>> their world view is superstition.
>
>Then if you're not concerned about winning, evidence is not required.
what does winning have to do with truth?
>> >Excuse me? What "definition" of creationist are you using?
>> >Since you've made the assertion that the DEFINITION of a creationist
>> >includes attempting to convince someone, PROVE to me that this is so.
>>
>> the book of matthew. the great commission. ever hear of it?
>
>You may be confusing "creationist" and "Christian". They are not
>identical sets.
correct. but the creationists assume they are.
>Furthermore, the book of Matthew does not use the word "creationist"
>anywhere in it.
>So far you seem to be having difficulty even making sense of, let
>alone proving, your assertion that creationists BY DEFINITION are
>trying to convince someone.
so far you seem not to know much ABOUT creationists at all
>>
>> ?? 'any' statement? you're denying a creationist making a statement
>> about creationism is trying to evangelize??
>
>Yes, I'm denying that. If I tell you that I believe that a particular
>painting is the most beautiful painting I've ever seen, does that
>statement imply to you that I'm trying to sway you into the same
>conclusion? If I tell you that I believe that Glenn Beck is a clownish
>ass, does that statement imply to you that I'm trying to sway you to
>the same conclusion?
so you're unfamiliar with the general claims of creationists that
their view is the only true science and that it, necessarily, leads to
proving the existence of god?
well...you have your view of creationism. no one AGREES with it...
>
>Has it occurred to you that the problem you have with other people
>believing things different than you is YOURS?
hmmm....so you say.
and i can equally ask the question of you.
>>
>> >I didn't say that either. I did not say ACCEPT it. I said look it up
>> >to find the larger context. I said that arguing about what a quote
>> >means without knowing the larger context is an idiotic practice.
>>
>> i dont have to look it up.
>
>You don't HAVE to do anything. That would be part of the point.
uh no. as hitchens said, that which is offered w/o proof can be
dismissed w/o proof.
You
>claim that there are *obligations* in discussion. There aren't, given
>that there is no mutual agreed objective that would lead to those
>obligations. The fact that YOU don't feel any particular obligation
>should be a clue to you that others ALSO do not feel any particular
>obligation. You are not special.
except that i have the rules of logic, as hitchens seems to support
PD
Well, YOU clearly don't. I find it amazing that you claim to speak for
6 billion other people.
>
>
>
> >Has it occurred to you that the problem you have with other people
> >believing things different than you is YOURS?
>
> hmmm....so you say.
>
> and i can equally ask the question of you.
Of course.
>
>
>
> >> >I didn't say that either. I did not say ACCEPT it. I said look it up
> >> >to find the larger context. I said that arguing about what a quote
> >> >means without knowing the larger context is an idiotic practice.
>
> >> i dont have to look it up.
>
> >You don't HAVE to do anything. That would be part of the point.
>
> uh no. as hitchens said, that which is offered w/o proof can be
> dismissed w/o proof.
That is Hitchens' position on theism. While I respect him enormously,
he was not laying out "rules of logic".
In response to Hitchens, one might point to the Higgs boson, which has
been offered without proof, though there is a serious effort underway
to see if there is truth to it. The question is whether one should
correctly dismiss the Higgs boson RIGHT NOW while there is no proof.
For that matter, science doesn't have PROOF of any of its claims. All
scientific theories are at best provisional, and the evidence at most
supports. So if I were to take Hitchens' statement at face value, as
you seem to be doing, all of science would be swept away in one fell
swoop.
>
> You
>
> >claim that there are *obligations* in discussion. There aren't, given
> >that there is no mutual agreed objective that would lead to those
> >obligations. The fact that YOU don't feel any particular obligation
> >should be a clue to you that others ALSO do not feel any particular
> >obligation. You are not special.
>
> except that i have the rules of logic, as hitchens seems to support
You have no such thing.
You have a position that you are maintaining, which is of the form of
a tawdry confrontational dare with strong passive-aggressive
overtones. If anyone says anything with which you disagree, your
immediate response is "Prove it," which is a strategy by which you
absolve yourself of any responsibility for making sense of your
differing opinion and pushing the responsibility onto the other
person. That is not discussion, it is passive-aggressive behavior. You
have RELABELED that passive-aggressive behavior to "rules of logic" so
that it more palatable.
bpuharic
<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 4:20 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:00:32 -0800 (PST), PD
>>
>> well...you have your view of creationism. no one AGREES with it...
>
>Well, YOU clearly don't. I find it amazing that you claim to speak for
>6 billion other people.
nope. just for the folks who study creationism
>>
>> >You don't HAVE to do anything. That would be part of the point.
>>
>> uh no. as hitchens said, that which is offered w/o proof can be
>> dismissed w/o proof.
>
>That is Hitchens' position on theism. While I respect him enormously,
>he was not laying out "rules of logic".
>
>In response to Hitchens, one might point to the Higgs boson, which has
>been offered without proof, though there is a serious effort underway
>to see if there is truth to it. The question is whether one should
>correctly dismiss the Higgs boson RIGHT NOW while there is no proof.
nonsensical question. science always has unanswered questions.
>
>For that matter, science doesn't have PROOF of any of its claims. All
>scientific theories are at best provisional, and the evidence at most
>supports. So if I were to take Hitchens' statement at face value, as
>you seem to be doing, all of science would be swept away in one fell
>swoop.
sure we have proof of some claims. copernicus's books were once
published with a required statement that his ideas were 'only a
theory'.
does ANYONE doubt the earth orbits the sun?
>
>>
>> You
>>
>> >claim that there are *obligations* in discussion. There aren't, given
>> >that there is no mutual agreed objective that would lead to those
>> >obligations. The fact that YOU don't feel any particular obligation
>> >should be a clue to you that others ALSO do not feel any particular
>> >obligation. You are not special.
>>
>> except that i have the rules of logic, as hitchens seems to support
>
>You have no such thing.
>
>You have a position that you are maintaining, which is of the form of
>a tawdry confrontational dare with strong passive-aggressive
>overtones
hey, for 25 cents you, too, can be an amateur psychologist!
. If anyone says anything with which you disagree, your
>immediate response is "Prove it," which is a strategy by which you
>absolve yourself of any responsibility for making sense of your
>differing opinion and pushing the responsibility onto the other
>person. That is not discussion, it is passive-aggressive behavior. You
>have RELABELED that passive-aggressive behavior to "rules of logic" so
>that it more palatable.
so you DID beat your wife and sodomize the kid next door.
of course you'd want me to prove that, but i dont have to because you
said i dont
PD
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:42:40 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >On Feb 9, 4:20 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:00:32 -0800 (PST), PD
>
> >> well...you have your view of creationism. no one AGREES with it...
>
> >Well, YOU clearly don't. I find it amazing that you claim to speak for
> >6 billion other people.
>
> nope. just for the folks who study creationism
You speak for all of them.... Ah. How ... er... elected of you.
>
>
>
> >> >You don't HAVE to do anything. That would be part of the point.
>
> >> uh no. as hitchens said, that which is offered w/o proof can be
> >> dismissed w/o proof.
>
> >That is Hitchens' position on theism. While I respect him enormously,
> >he was not laying out "rules of logic".
>
> >In response to Hitchens, one might point to the Higgs boson, which has
> >been offered without proof, though there is a serious effort underway
> >to see if there is truth to it. The question is whether one should
> >correctly dismiss the Higgs boson RIGHT NOW while there is no proof.
>
> nonsensical question. science always has unanswered questions.
Including those unanswered hypotheses without proof, which I suppose
should be dismissed without proof, immediately.
According to the principle anyway.
>
>
>
> >For that matter, science doesn't have PROOF of any of its claims. All
> >scientific theories are at best provisional, and the evidence at most
> >supports. So if I were to take Hitchens' statement at face value, as
> >you seem to be doing, all of science would be swept away in one fell
> >swoop.
>
> sure we have proof of some claims. copernicus's books were once
> published with a required statement that his ideas were 'only a
> theory'.
And since they were offered without proof, why were they not dismissed
without proof? That, after all, is the principle.
>
> does ANYONE doubt the earth orbits the sun?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You
>
> >> >claim that there are *obligations* in discussion. There aren't, given
> >> >that there is no mutual agreed objective that would lead to those
> >> >obligations. The fact that YOU don't feel any particular obligation
> >> >should be a clue to you that others ALSO do not feel any particular
> >> >obligation. You are not special.
>
> >> except that i have the rules of logic, as hitchens seems to support
>
> >You have no such thing.
>
> >You have a position that you are maintaining, which is of the form of
> >a tawdry confrontational dare with strong passive-aggressive
> >overtones
>
> hey, for 25 cents you, too, can be an amateur psychologist!
>
> . If anyone says anything with which you disagree, your
>
> >immediate response is "Prove it," which is a strategy by which you
> >absolve yourself of any responsibility for making sense of your
> >differing opinion and pushing the responsibility onto the other
> >person. That is not discussion, it is passive-aggressive behavior. You
> >have RELABELED that passive-aggressive behavior to "rules of logic" so
> >that it more palatable.
>
> so you DID beat your wife and sodomize the kid next door.
>
> of course you'd want me to prove that, but i dont have to because you
> said i dont
Not really. You can say any fool thing you want.
Alright, you've already said that "that which is offered without proof
can be dismissed without proof" is some kind of logical rule. I look
at science and see that this claim doesn't seem to apply in a logical
endeavor. So prove your claim. Prove that it is a logical rule. In so
doing, either show that science either is illogical or that the rule
is rigorously applied in science.
PD