Checkmate, Atheists!
Cliff
Dixon
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
Checkmate huh? Well let's get a "REAL" Christian response for your video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o5jRklNY0Uw&watch_response
Dixon
Adam Corolla
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
LOL!
Adam Corolla
"Dixon" <dixo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AeKdnVClE7GdX6Ta...@comcast.com...
That one's just sad.
By the way, you know the "checkmate" video is tongue-in-cheek, right? If
you watch it, you'll see what I mean.
vinny
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
That was retarded. there were no facts even mentioned. Oh, except the bible
exists.
How friggen stupid. Dumbasses like that make more atheists than not.
We need to not seperate science from religion.
Here's an example.
GOD created the universe.
The universe is everything we know, including laws of physics.
So before the "universe" was created was GOD bound by the laws of physics?
Who knows, but if he created them, then they didnt exist at the creation?
I am a Christian, but one heck of a confused one.
The man lived.
the man was killed on a cross.
those are facts. Beyond that who knows.
But its deep, real deep. The bible is called the new testememnet, or the
"new covenent". Its what the whole thing is about from adam to me. Thats why
we are called sons of GOD and Jesus is called the Son of man. To understand
that one must understand the covenent. I bet less than .0001% even know what
the covenent is. Let alone the "new" covenent.
The Earth is a self sufficient machine, a spaceship kinda. Nobody disputes
that. Way to complex to happen by chance.
If you don't believe in GOD, or life force, or "the force" then your blind.
Things are either alive or there not. Once they are not alive they are never
gonna be alive. The life force isnt there.
It's in everything alive, once its there nothing can stop it.
The problem arises when we think we have to know exactly what GOD is.
To my dog I am god.
Seriously, look at it this way.
Pretend we are 2 dimensional. A flat square with no height.
Then GOD stands next to us, but he is 3 dimensional, he has height.
When we look at him what will we see, another 2 dimensional object. We
cannot see height if we are 2 dimensional.
WE CAN NEVER put an image in our heads other than what we are. So we make
him seem like an old man.
Then there's time.
If GOD created the Universe, time would be something created at that time.
So when he created the universe time hadn't existed yet.
Can we contemplate that? NO. We are clocks, we have a voltage to syncronize
us. Ever notice time is whipping by, or going slow, all thats going on is
our voltage is off from everyone else.
One thing I have a problem with, most dinosaur bones are found less than 1
foot under the soil.
Now leave something in your yard for 100 years and the thing is buried. im
supposed to believe in millions of years or hundreds of millions of years
these bones are laying on the surface? How ridiculous.
Carbon dating is not seen as fact. IN fact the guy who invented the
process said it was flawed.
I know, we were told its fact so it is!
Bullshit. For every scientist that says its fact another disputes it.
Then there's the footprints, the ones they say were from the first animal to
walk on land from the sea. On some beach in ireland.
WHAT?
Footprints lasted on the surface for 200 million years?
Im sorry, thats just the dumbest shit i ever heard. Friggen scientists dream
shit up in their head, then go out to prove it.
Thats how its done, ask any scientist.
Is there a GOD? There's definetely a life force?
Is it an old man with a beard, proberbly not.
What is it...never gonna know, we lack the tools to know. A blind man can
never see. Its just the way it is.
Are we special? Now thats the big question. Are we just the most evolved or
are we chosen and created for a specific purpose?
Trevor Jones
guy) and they were trying to sell me on their brand. PITA
The second guy actually made me laugh. But I think I would rather
share a booth in a restaraunt with the second guy.
Cheers
Trevor Jones
Adam Corolla
"vinny" <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:7Is_i.125$7v1.1...@news.sisna.com...
>
> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
>> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>
> That was retarded. there were no facts even mentioned. Oh, except the
> bible exists.
> How friggen stupid.
Actually, that's pretty much what the Christians I know, who are otherwise
intelligent people, believe:
The Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible.
The earth is only 8,000 years old because that's what the Bible seems to
say. All the evidence to the contrary is simply misunderstood by scientists
because, I presume, the devil is misleading them.
Dinosaurs existed at the same time as people.
The theory of evolution is obvious nonsense.
The Bible is true and the proof of that is that Israel was reformed, which
the Bible predicts.
Etc.
I'm certainly not saying that's what *all* Christians believe. The ones I
know happen to be fundamentalists, Bible literalists.
On one hand it seems sad to give in so completely to superstition, on the
other hand I've seen that it doesn't really matter what you believe as long
as it works for you. Because what can you really know for certain anyway?
Adam Corolla
"Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
news:8St_i.28202$h57.8518@edtnps89...
> Dixon wrote:
>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>>
>>
>>
>> Checkmate huh? Well let's get a "REAL" Christian response for your video.
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=o5jRklNY0Uw&watch_response
>>
>> Dixon
> I've been accosted by a few of the type in the first video (checkmate
> guy) and they were trying to sell me on their brand. PITA
You know that was all tongue-in-cheek, right?
> The second guy actually made me laugh. But I think I would rather share a
> booth in a restaraunt with the second guy.
>
> Cheers
> Trevor Jones
The second guy seemed schizophrenic to me. They can be entertaining at
times, but if you know someone who's gone through that then it's just sad.
vinny
"Adam Corolla" <nos...@nospam03550265902.com> wrote in message
news:Fdudnb-ZsOj8w6ba...@giganews.com...
Except for one thing. According to Christianity, if you don't believe, your
condemned to being away from GOD forever.
scary.
I try to mix what we know scientifically with what I read. It almost tells
you to do that in a lot of places in the bible.
And I never read the 8000 year thing. Ive heard weeks of years, and stuff
like that, but never referencing the creation.
And the devil? That crap scares the hell out of me.
According to the bible, he hates us because he refused to serve us like GOD
told him too. He would only serve GOD and no other.
In the book of JOB they sound like they are two guys that work together at
the office.
scaaaarrryyy.
Proctologically Violated┊
The original good cop-bad cop strat.
Give yerself a break w/ the Kamasutra.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
> scaaaarrryyy.
>
>
vinny
"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:cWM_i.2279$ID....@newsfe08.lga...
Ok, I will when i figure out what that means.
Trevor Jones
I'll still choose him over a zealot.
Cheers
Trevor Jones
Proctologically Violated┊
It's the east indian bibble, basically a very long sex manual.
It's helps to be double jointed, or at least very flexible.
My HoloBarre can help greatly along these lines.
Well, actually, as usual, the burden falls on the female to be double
jointed, so you might want to get my shit for her.
Or move to India. :)
Cliff
"New Conservative Science Theme Park"
[
will open this spring in Kentucky
.....
The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs,
built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are
portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific
opinion that they lived millions of years apart.
.....
Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah's Ark
and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.
.....
"We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs," said Mr Ham. "It's
going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by
the professionalism of this place."
.....
Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the
Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great
Flood .....
.....
Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at
Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12
classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist
teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival
of the fittest.
.....
Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids ...
.....
while in another room, visitors will see a tyrannosaurus rex pursuing
Adam and Eve ....
.....
... which gained further strength with the re-election of President
Bush in November....
.....
... America's religious Deep South – have got around the ban by
teaching the theory of "intelligent design" ....
.....
"Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more
membership applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham ..
]
http://tinyurl.com/6xjdb
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
Cliff
beekeep
>
>Is there a GOD? There's definetely a life force?
> Is it an old man with a beard, proberbly not.
> What is it...never gonna know, we lack the tools to know. A blind man can
>never see. Its just the way it is.
>
> Are we special? Now thats the big question. Are we just the most evolved or
>are we chosen and created for a specific purpose?
>
>
>
If there was a God, wouldn't our penises taste like chocolate?
beekeep
Tom Kunich
news:473c816f.2258419390@usenet.radix.net...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:45 -0500, "vinny" <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote:
>>
>>Is there a GOD? There's definetely a life force?
>>
Ahem, there are some here who claim they do.
Frank Warner
<frigg...@gawab.com> wrote:
> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
> > http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>
> That was retarded. there were no facts even mentioned. Oh, except the bible
> exists.
> How friggen stupid. Dumbasses like that make more atheists than not.
>
> We need to not seperate science from religion.
Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
religion I'm thinking of.
> Here's an example.
>
> GOD created the universe.
Evidence?
> The universe is everything we know, including laws of physics.
> So before the "universe" was created was GOD bound by the laws of physics?
> Who knows, but if he created them, then they didnt exist at the creation?
Who or what created God? If God always existed, why is God a special
case and the Universe isn't? Special Pleading is a fundamental logical
fallacy.
> I am a Christian, but one heck of a confused one.
> The man lived.
> the man was killed on a cross.
> those are facts. Beyond that who knows.
Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong. Not just some things.
Not just most things. Everything. If anyone by that name existed (and
there is no convincing contemporary evidence he did) it is more likely
he was the First-Century equivalent of today's Middle Eastern suicide
bomber, trying to expel Roman occupiers from his land.
Jesus wasn't even a Christian. Christianity was started by his
followers Paul and, later, Peter, for reasons of their own.
> But its deep, real deep. The bible is called the new testememnet, or the
> "new covenent". Its what the whole thing is about from adam to me. Thats why
> we are called sons of GOD and Jesus is called the Son of man. To understand
> that one must understand the covenent. I bet less than .0001% even know what
> the covenent is. Let alone the "new" covenent.
>
> The Earth is a self sufficient machine, a spaceship kinda. Nobody disputes
> that. Way to complex to happen by chance.
Chance had nothing to do with it (and by that you aren't to read that
supernatural forces did). Very, VERY few things in science or physics
happen by chance. Chemistry and its underlying physics have extremely
predictable processes and results. The Earth and everything on it is
here because of these natural, predictable processes, not because it
was magicked into existence by some Late Stone Age Middle Eastern myth.
> If you don't believe in GOD, or life force, or "the force" then your blind.
> Things are either alive or there not. Once they are not alive they are never
> gonna be alive. The life force isnt there.
> It's in everything alive, once its there nothing can stop it.
(Sigh) Life is nothing but chemistry. See above. There's no such thing
as a "life force." There's no such thing as a "soul." No verifiable
evidence for either of these things has ever been presented.
> The problem arises when we think we have to know exactly what GOD is.
> To my dog I am god.
>
> Seriously, look at it this way.
>
> Pretend we are 2 dimensional. A flat square with no height.
> Then GOD stands next to us, but he is 3 dimensional, he has height.
> When we look at him what will we see, another 2 dimensional object. We
> cannot see height if we are 2 dimensional.
> WE CAN NEVER put an image in our heads other than what we are. So we make
> him seem like an old man.
That's a fairly sophisticated argument. "God is so outside our realm of
comprehension that He/She/It demands our obeisance by its very
incomprehensibility."
My answer is, I live in the real world. I have real needs, real hopes,
real desires. I have to breathe, eat, shit, fuck, kill and die. It's
not too much to ask for any critter I worship to live in the real
world, too. If I'm an amoeba floating in a pond in China, chances are I
shouldn't be too concerned with an eagle flying over the mountains in
Idaho.
> Then there's time.
> If GOD created the Universe, time would be something created at that time.
> So when he created the universe time hadn't existed yet.
That's what the Big Bang theory states, too. There was no "time" before
the initial event. It's like saying "what's north of the north pole?"
> Can we contemplate that? NO. We are clocks, we have a voltage to syncronize
> us. Ever notice time is whipping by, or going slow, all thats going on is
> our voltage is off from everyone else.
I'm not sure I follow your example here.
> One thing I have a problem with, most dinosaur bones are found less than 1
> foot under the soil.
> Now leave something in your yard for 100 years and the thing is buried. im
> supposed to believe in millions of years or hundreds of millions of years
> these bones are laying on the surface? How ridiculous.
Uh. No. Most dinosaur bones are found in sediments that were buried and
then later exposed through erosion or other processes. The sediments
could have been dozens or hundreds of meters thick at one time.
> Carbon dating is not seen as fact. IN fact the guy who invented the
> process said it was flawed.
Cite? There is a margin of error in C13 dating, as in all nuclear
dating processes, but they are accurate enough to estimate an object's
age pretty closely. C13 dating has been calibrated with tree ring
dating going back tens of thousands of years.
> I know, we were told its fact so it is!
> Bullshit. For every scientist that says its fact another disputes it.
That's what science is all about! :)
> Then there's the footprints, the ones they say were from the first animal to
> walk on land from the sea. On some beach in ireland.
> WHAT?
> Footprints lasted on the surface for 200 million years?
> Im sorry, thats just the dumbest shit i ever heard. Friggen scientists dream
> shit up in their head, then go out to prove it.
> Thats how its done, ask any scientist.
Absolutely mind-boggling wrong. Science is the process of presenting a
hypothesis about something observed or suspected, backing it up with a
theory that explains the hypothesis, then designing experiments (or
doing field work) to DISPROVE the hypothesis, because nothing in
science is ever proved, it is only supported (to sometimes incredible
degrees) by further challenges and real-world application.
I don't understand. You are probably still alive only because of
science. Why are you knocking it so much?
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
Tom Kunich
news:161120071138427601%war...@verizonDOTnet.net...
> In article <7Is_i.125$7v1.1...@news.sisna.com>, vinny
> <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
>> > http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>>
>> That was retarded. there were no facts even mentioned. Oh, except the
>> bible
>> exists.
>> How friggen stupid. Dumbasses like that make more atheists than not.
>>
>> We need to not seperate science from religion.
>
> Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
> incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
> religion I'm thinking of.
Is that so? Perhaps you credit science for more than they have accounted
themselves.
>> Here's an example.
>>
>> GOD created the universe.
>
> Evidence?
By all means tell us when and where the universe came from and where it's
ends are.
> Who or what created God?
That alone proves that you couldn't grasp it if you were told.
> Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong.
And the proof comes from you.
> My answer is, I live in the real world. I have real needs, real hopes,
> real desires. I have to breathe, eat, shit, fuck, kill and die. It's
> not too much to ask for any critter I worship to live in the real
> world, too. If I'm an amoeba floating in a pond in China, chances are I
> shouldn't be too concerned with an eagle flying over the mountains in
> Idaho.
Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine. The fact that you find religious
people so offensive does lead me to believe that you have a lot more
questions than you'll admit.
> That's what the Big Bang theory states, too. There was no "time" before
> the initial event. It's like saying "what's north of the north pole?"
I suggest you don't get on a game show expecting to last past the first
round. Your understanding of time and the north pole are somewhat at odds
with the universe.
> Uh. No. Most dinosaur bones are found in sediments that were buried and
> then later exposed through erosion or other processes. The sediments
> could have been dozens or hundreds of meters thick at one time.
By all means tell me - how long is a Day to God?
> Absolutely mind-boggling wrong. Science is the process of presenting a
> hypothesis about something observed or suspected, backing it up with a
> theory that explains the hypothesis, then designing experiments (or
> doing field work) to DISPROVE the hypothesis, because nothing in
> science is ever proved, it is only supported (to sometimes incredible
> degrees) by further challenges and real-world application.
Maybe you can explain to me how religion and science are at odds?
Frank Warner
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> "Frank Warner" <war...@verizonDOTnet.net> wrote in message
> news:161120071138427601%war...@verizonDOTnet.net...
> > In article <7Is_i.125$7v1.1...@news.sisna.com>, vinny
> > <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
> >> > http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
> >>
> >> That was retarded. there were no facts even mentioned. Oh, except the
> >> bible
> >> exists.
> >> How friggen stupid. Dumbasses like that make more atheists than not.
> >>
> >> We need to not seperate science from religion.
> >
> > Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
> > incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
> > religion I'm thinking of.
>
> Is that so? Perhaps you credit science for more than they have accounted
> themselves.
In 300 years, science has given us virtually painless medicine, made
childbirth a relatively safe process instead of a dangerous one,
lighted, plumbed and heated entire cities, made it possible to go from
one continent to another in a matter of hours and speak to someone on
the other side of the planet (or even off the planet) instantaneously,
eradicated a number of horrible diseases and made others little more
than annoyances, made bigger, faster, stronger, more precise and
durable machines used by the members of these newsgroups, . . . . But
you get the idea, and I haven't even scratched the surface.
In contrast, religion has given us a few great buildings, some music,
some art, literature, and lots of superstitious claptrap, needless
fear, and destructive prejudices.
(But even the great buildings, art, music and literature needed some
science before they could exist.)
> >> Here's an example.
> >>
> >> GOD created the universe.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> By all means tell us when and where the universe came from and where it's
> ends are.
That's just it. Atheists aren't afraid to say, "I don't know." They
also say, "But we're working on the answer, and we're a little closer
now than we were a while ago."
Theists say, "I know the answer," and every one of them has a different
one.
> > Who or what created God?
>
> That alone proves that you couldn't grasp it if you were told.
>
> > Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong.
>
> And the proof comes from you.
The proof comes from crawling out from under your superstition and
learning a little about the way history works, particularly religious
history.
> > My answer is, I live in the real world. I have real needs, real hopes,
> > real desires. I have to breathe, eat, shit, fuck, kill and die. It's
> > not too much to ask for any critter I worship to live in the real
> > world, too. If I'm an amoeba floating in a pond in China, chances are I
> > shouldn't be too concerned with an eagle flying over the mountains in
> > Idaho.
>
> Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine. The fact that you find religious
> people so offensive does lead me to believe that you have a lot more
> questions than you'll admit.
I don't find religious people offensive. That is, most of them. Most of
them are perfectly fine and I get along great with them. It's the fact
that religion turns otherwise rational people's minds to mush (or
worse, to mindless violence) that I find offensive.
And yes, I have a million questions that I don't claim to have the
answers to. Like, why would any rational person believe that a Jew
nailed to a tree somehow absolves them of all their sins? And what is
sin, anyway? An offense against God? Which god?
> > That's what the Big Bang theory states, too. There was no "time" before
> > the initial event. It's like saying "what's north of the north pole?"
>
> I suggest you don't get on a game show expecting to last past the first
> round. Your understanding of time and the north pole are somewhat at odds
> with the universe.
I'll never be on a game show. But thanks for the suggestion, anyway.
> > Uh. No. Most dinosaur bones are found in sediments that were buried and
> > then later exposed through erosion or other processes. The sediments
> > could have been dozens or hundreds of meters thick at one time.
>
> By all means tell me - how long is a Day to God?
On this planet, "day" has a very specific meaning. It's a legal measure
of time derived from how long it takes for the Earth to complete one
full rotation in relation to the sun. But God, being an arbitrary
bastard, can redefine it to mean anything He wants, right? Imaginary
friends have super powers.
> > Absolutely mind-boggling wrong. Science is the process of presenting a
> > hypothesis about something observed or suspected, backing it up with a
> > theory that explains the hypothesis, then designing experiments (or
> > doing field work) to DISPROVE the hypothesis, because nothing in
> > science is ever proved, it is only supported (to sometimes incredible
> > degrees) by further challenges and real-world application.
>
> Maybe you can explain to me how religion and science are at odds?
The simplest answer is that religion doesn't work while science does.
Taken a little further, we have thousands of different religions, tens
of thousands if you go back in human history long enough, and all of
them tell a different tale. There is no consistency from one cult to
another. There is no way to calibrate one to another. If there were any
sort of sooper dooper magic sky critter like you suppose, you'd think
he'd manage to get his story straight the first time and every time
instead of reinventing the wheel every few decades or so.
Contrast that with the fact that there's only one scientific method. It
works the same for everybody who follows its procedures, and no other
"reform" methods have come along to supplant it, nor are they likely
to.
Tom Kunich
> In article <13js1uu...@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
>> > incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
>> > religion I'm thinking of.
>>
>> Is that so? Perhaps you credit science for more than they have accounted
>> themselves.
>
> In 300 years, science has given us virtually painless medicine, made
> childbirth a relatively safe process instead of a dangerous one,
> lighted, plumbed and heated entire cities, made it possible to go from
> one continent to another in a matter of hours and speak to someone on
> the other side of the planet (or even off the planet) instantaneously,
> eradicated a number of horrible diseases and made others little more
> than annoyances, made bigger, faster, stronger, more precise and
> durable machines used by the members of these newsgroups, . . . . But
> you get the idea, and I haven't even scratched the surface.
I hate to point this out but "science" is really only some 150 years old.
Oh, wait, you're trying to tell us that what the CHURCH did was science. Old
Gregor Mendel and his like?
> In contrast, religion has given us a few great buildings, some music,
> some art, literature, and lots of superstitious claptrap, needless
> fear, and destructive prejudices.
And, ahem, science.
>> By all means tell us when and where the universe came from and where it's
>> ends are.
>
> That's just it. Atheists aren't afraid to say, "I don't know."
Ahem, but they aren't to afraid to say that there isn't a God with equal
knowledge.
>> > Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong.
>>
>> And the proof comes from you.
>
> The proof comes from crawling out from under your superstition and
> learning a little about the way history works, particularly religious
> history.
Ah, yes, your version of history - oh yeah, RELIGIOUS history as if you even
had the slightest clue what you were talking about.
>> Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine. The fact that you find religious
>> people so offensive does lead me to believe that you have a lot more
>> questions than you'll admit.
>
> I don't find religious people offensive. That is, most of them. Most of
> them are perfectly fine and I get along great with them. It's the fact
> that religion turns otherwise rational people's minds to mush (or
> worse, to mindless violence) that I find offensive.
And your claim that you know how the universe was created in a big bang is
like SOOOO scientific.
> And yes, I have a million questions that I don't claim to have the
> answers to.
Strange that you don't seem to have any question about the existance of God.
>> By all means tell me - how long is a Day to God?
>
> On this planet, "day" has a very specific meaning.
But the bible claims that it wasn't until the third day that God created the
earth. So your claim is that he would have had to know what a day was before
there was a sun and then an earth and he would force his time schedule to
your beliefs.
You grow more interesting by the minute. Tell me, does all that knowledge
prevent you from being a stupid ass all the time? Or do you have moments of
lucidity?
Tom Kunich
news:Xns99EAA86952C4Fdu...@invalid.quakefour.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can explain to me how religion and science are at odds?
>
Then by all means tell me the FACTS and the EVIDENCE that the universe
started in a Big Bang. Explain how the universe can be expanding but
infinite.
> Religion is based on faith, the definition of which is just the opposite.
And yet my guess is that you haven't the slightest clue how the mathematics
of the Big Bang are even written let alone understanding anything about
them. So you believe it based solely on faith.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> "sittingduck" <du...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns99EAA86952C4Fdu...@invalid.quakefour.net...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe you can explain to me how religion and science are at odds?
> >
> > Science is based on facts and evidence.
> Then by all means tell me the FACTS and the EVIDENCE that the universe
> started in a Big Bang. Explain how the universe can be expanding but
> infinite.
That's a pretty big subject. Maybe you shoud read a book or somethig?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Frank J Warner
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> "Frank Warner" <war...@verizonDOTnet.net> wrote in message
> news:161120071613095641%war...@verizonDOTnet.net...
> > In article <13js1uu...@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
> > <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> >
> >> > Yes, we do. 300 years of spectacularly successful science has brought
> >> > incalculably more benefits to humans than 2000 years of one particular
> >> > religion I'm thinking of.
> >>
> >> Is that so? Perhaps you credit science for more than they have accounted
> >> themselves.
> >
> > In 300 years, science has given us virtually painless medicine, made
> > childbirth a relatively safe process instead of a dangerous one,
> > lighted, plumbed and heated entire cities, made it possible to go from
> > one continent to another in a matter of hours and speak to someone on
> > the other side of the planet (or even off the planet) instantaneously,
> > eradicated a number of horrible diseases and made others little more
> > than annoyances, made bigger, faster, stronger, more precise and
> > durable machines used by the members of these newsgroups, . . . . But
> > you get the idea, and I haven't even scratched the surface.
>
> I hate to point this out but "science" is really only some 150 years old.
Really hard to put a date on it. Some say it started as far back as the
Italian Renaissance in the 15th and 16th Centuries, with people like Da
Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus and others who actively started exploring
our world absent silly superstition. (I hold this view, because that is
when the scientific method was first proposed; that events we observe
every day can be explained _and accurately predicted_ by empirical
means rather than supernatural ones.)
300 years was merely a number I plucked out of the air. 1707
corresponds to the important working period of one of the most famous
and influential scientists of all time: Isaac Newton. (Yes, he believed
in God. Lots of other scientists do, too.)
150 years ago, science was in full swing. By then, we had people like
Charles Darwin working on the important questions in nature. I guess
he's one of your favorite guys, huh? (Also a believer, BTW.)
> Oh, wait, you're trying to tell us that what the CHURCH did was science. Old
> Gregor Mendel and his like?
Mendel was a monastic. That's not difficult to understand. Then, as
now, some of the great institutions of higher learning (and scientific
study) were religiously based.
I don't overlook the contributions of religion to scientific knowledge.
For instance, I have enormous respect for the Jesuit order at the
Vatican, who operate one of the most sophisticated observatories on the
planet.
> > In contrast, religion has given us a few great buildings, some music,
> > some art, literature, and lots of superstitious claptrap, needless
> > fear, and destructive prejudices.
>
> And, ahem, science.
I said that. You snipped it. Try to be more honest, you're embarrassing
yourself.
> >> By all means tell us when and where the universe came from and where it's
> >> ends are.
> >
> > That's just it. Atheists aren't afraid to say, "I don't know."
>
> Ahem, but they aren't to afraid to say that there isn't a God with equal
> knowledge.
Most atheists don't say that at all. They say, if there is a God, it's
up to you to provide evidence of such. Until then, it's within my
rights to lack belief in one. It's the default position.
In the official parlance, these are called "weak atheists," but don't
let the name fool you. They'll tear you and your silly superstitions a
new one; most of them have forgotten more about it than you will ever
learn.
Some atheists, on the other hand, make a positive assertion for which
the burden of proof is on them. I am one of those. I am a so-called
"strong atheist." I actively believe that there is no such thing as a
God or gods. And, ironically, I stand on the weakest of evidence,
because my evidence is that there is no evidence.
As somebody once said (an atheist, by the way), "Lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack." But that same person also said, "Sometimes you
can open your mind so much your brain falls out."
> >> > Everything you were taught about Jesus is wrong.
> >>
> >> And the proof comes from you.
No. It comes from real history, not from a book of stories that were
written 40-200 years after the event, from 2nd & 3rd hand sources, and
that do not even support each other in several major details. (Read the
Gospels: who was at the Resurrection and Ascension in each of them?
Don't you think the most important event in the history of mankind
should have been portrayed consistently in its own paltry few
stories?).
> > The proof comes from crawling out from under your superstition and
> > learning a little about the way history works, particularly religious
> > history.
>
> Ah, yes, your version of history - oh yeah, RELIGIOUS history as if you even
> had the slightest clue what you were talking about.
Not my version. A version. One that has some basis in actual historical
fact, supported by contemporary documents and a variety of other
evidence. As opposed to _this_ delightful bit of circular reasoning:
"The bible is true because the bible says it's true."
> >> Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine. The fact that you find religious
> >> people so offensive does lead me to believe that you have a lot more
> >> questions than you'll admit.
> >
> > I don't find religious people offensive. That is, most of them. Most of
> > them are perfectly fine and I get along great with them. It's the fact
> > that religion turns otherwise rational people's minds to mush (or
> > worse, to mindless violence) that I find offensive.
>
> And your claim that you know how the universe was created in a big bang is
> like SOOOO scientific.
I could be wrong. That's my whole point about science. The Big Bang
might be one of those "just so" stories, like the ones you learned in
Sunday School. But the Big Bang is one of the best models we have right
now about how everything we can measure came to be. It works down to
the smallest detail (with caveats, because there are some problems in
some interpretations of it--and some VERY interesting ideas are coming
out of that).
I can assure you that 1000 years from now people will be wondering how
we could believe in such a quaint notion. Those people will be the
descendants of scientists, not Jerry Falwell.
> > And yes, I have a million questions that I don't claim to have the
> > answers to.
>
> Strange that you don't seem to have any question about the existance of God.
No. None at all. I have no question about the purple monkeys flying out
your ass, either. What's that? You say you can't prove there are no
purple monkeys flying out your ass? Well, I say you're wrong, and I
have this book right here that tells me so.
> >> By all means tell me - how long is a Day to God?
> >
> > On this planet, "day" has a very specific meaning.
>
> But the bible claims that it wasn't until the third day that God created the
> earth. So your claim is that he would have had to know what a day was before
> there was a sun and then an earth and he would force his time schedule to
> your beliefs.
Oh, Puh-lease. Save me your ancient regional creation myths. In my neck
of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
lizard. You can't prove it didn't happen that way, away out there on
the rainbow bridge.
> You grow more interesting by the minute. Tell me, does all that knowledge
> prevent you from being a stupid ass all the time? Or do you have moments of
> lucidity?
Meh. Grow up. Do you want to talk about this or do you want to hurl
what you mistakenly believe are witty insults?
*
Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in article
<161120072057246651%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net>...
>
> 300 years was merely a number I plucked out of the air.
Finally.....!!!!!
A liberal athiest who reveals the "unimpeachable source" of his facts and
figures.
Other liberals seem to pluck most of their "facts" out of the air, too!
Just watch the Democrats debate!
Frank J Warner
wrote:
> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in article
> <161120072057246651%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net>...
> >
> > 300 years was merely a number I plucked out of the air.
>
>
> Finally.....!!!!!
>
> A liberal athiest who reveals the "unimpeachable source" of his facts and
> figures.
I plucked it out of the air because there is no set date when science
"began." And you dishonestly snipped my reason for choosing it.
What makes you think I'm liberal? Or is that just your general epithet
for everything you don't understand or don't like?
RadicalModerate
> I plucked it out of the air because there is no set date when science
> "began." And you dishonestly snipped my reason for choosing it.
> What makes you think I'm liberal? Or is that just your general epithet
> for everything you don't understand or don't like?
I'd daresay science began in ancient Egypt before the Greay Pyramids were
built.
And anyone who chooses a posting "nym" intended to be difficult to filter,
well I wouldn't expend too many wetware cycles on whatever he has to say
here :) .
--
The published From: address is a trap.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> In my neck
> of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
> lizard.
You are nuts. The world was created by the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Other liberals seem to pluck most of their "facts" out of the air, too!
What "seems" to you is very different from the real world.
Tom Kunich
news:161120072057246651%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
So now curiousity is "science"? So every 5 year old is a scientist?
>> Ahem, but they aren't to afraid to say that there isn't a God with equal
>> knowledge.
>
> Most atheists don't say that at all. They say, if there is a God, it's
> up to you to provide evidence of such. Until then, it's within my
> rights to lack belief in one. It's the default position.
The more a real scientist learns about the world around him the more
convinced he becomes that there must be a God. So I guess that neatly
catagorizes your beliefs.
>> Ah, yes, your version of history - oh yeah, RELIGIOUS history as if you
>> even
>> had the slightest clue what you were talking about.
>
> Not my version. A version. One that has some basis in actual historical
> fact, supported by contemporary documents and a variety of other
> evidence. As opposed to _this_ delightful bit of circular reasoning:
> "The bible is true because the bible says it's true."
You are entitled to believe anything you like. Though I am reminded of
"higher science" which talks about the string theories and the origins of
the universe in terms which could NEVER be verified in any manner. Why, you
just have to have faith.
>> And your claim that you know how the universe was created in a big bang
>> is
>> like SOOOO scientific.
>
> I could be wrong.
But that doesn't seem to stop you from claiming religous people are wrong.
What's the word I'm looking for.... oh, yeah - hypocrit.
>> > And yes, I have a million questions that I don't claim to have the
>> > answers to.
>>
>> Strange that you don't seem to have any question about the existance of
>> God.
>
> No. None at all.
Well, that reinforces that word above.
>> You grow more interesting by the minute. Tell me, does all that knowledge
>> prevent you from being a stupid ass all the time? Or do you have moments
>> of
>> lucidity?
>
> Meh. Grow up. Do you want to talk about this or do you want to hurl
> what you mistakenly believe are witty insults?
By all means Frank tell me that you have a degree in mathematics and you
actually understand the math behind the theory of the universe and aren't
taking it purely on faith.
Tom Kunich
news:fhmtjn$l1e$1...@reader1.panix.com...
You could dare and you'd be wrong. Science began with the invention of the
Scientific Method somewhere around 1850 by a man named Whewell if memory
serves.
Curiosity and learning are not science. Would you say that anyone that
learns anything about any science is therefore a scientist? No, it requires
a very strict interpretation of the world around you and a particular way of
learning by it.
Tom Kunich
news:fhlm1d$nq9$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "sittingduck" <du...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99EAA86952C4Fdu...@invalid.quakefour.net...
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe you can explain to me how religion and science are at odds?
>> >
>> > Science is based on facts and evidence.
>
>> Then by all means tell me the FACTS and the EVIDENCE that the universe
>> started in a Big Bang. Explain how the universe can be expanding but
>> infinite.
>
> That's a pretty big subject. Maybe you shoud read a book or somethig?
I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have several
hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as well.
So tell me - in what book is there some FACTS about the Big Bang.
Ed Huntress
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13ju1r2...@corp.supernews.com...
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> That's a pretty big subject. Maybe you shoud read a book or somethig?
>
> I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have several
> hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as well.
>
Ha-ha! Which ones did you get rid of?
--
Ed Huntress
Frank J Warner
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
Not a mathematician. Knife maker. But I've read hundreds of books just
like you, and I try to keep up. The latest thing, I hear, is a theory
that most of gravity exists in another dimension, and what we
experience here in this dimension is just a little leak-through. It
explains why gravity is such a weak force. Do I understand the
intricacies of it? No. I don't. I don't have to. If it's shown to be a
accurate description, others will confirm or falsify it. I'm just here
to reap the benefits of their knowledge, if any.
But more to your point, there's a massive difference between faith in
things that can be measured and things that can't. And I trust those
who measure because they give us things like electricity, automobiles,
antibiotics, nuclear energy, etc., as opposed to those who give us
talking in tongues, snake handling and buggering altar boys.
Lastly, I've about had it with your habit of dishonestly snipping my
salient points (as you did in the portion I snipped to get to your main
point) and responding to an introductory statement. Do it again and say
hello to the hand.
Frank J Warner
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
You can make lots of different arguments about this. The ancients had a
fairly good grasp of real world mechanics. They built buildings and
devices that boggle the mind today. Was it science? Yeah, in many ways
it was.
You can also make restrictive statements about the nature of science,
as you have. In which case one could easily argue that "true science"
didn't begin until 1934 when Karl Popper published his book, _The Logic
of Scientific Discovery_, in which he proposed (among other things)
that data must be _falsifiable_ before they could be considered
scientifically significant.
I'm taking a middle view. I still hold that the infancy of modern
science occurred in the 15th & 16th centuries with the discovery of
empirical evidence. By the 1700s it was in full swing. A hundred years
later it had brought us almost completely out of one of the darkest
periods in human history; a period entirely ruled by religion and
superstition: the Middle Ages.
Thanks for the reminder about Whewell. I'd heard of him before but had
forgotten about his contributions. It was a treat to re-read some of
his accomplishments.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have several
> hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as well.
> So tell me - in what book is there some FACTS about the Big Bang.
The big bang is a theory. Nobody who is knowledgeable would call it a
fact.
Simon Schnizzard
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fhncrc$k5h$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have
several
> > hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as
well.
>
> > So tell me - in what book is there some FACTS about the Big Bang.
>
> The big bang is a theory. Nobody who is knowledgeable would call it a
> fact.
>
Unlike the nutcases and their rigid religious bleefs.
Frank J Warner
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
> In misc.survivalism Frank J Warner <war...@verispammersdiezon.net> wrote:
>
> > In my neck
> > of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
> > lizard.
>
> You are nuts. The world was created by the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes.
You have me there! I am completely nuts!
Does she ever take that damn skirt off?
J. Nielsen
wrote:
>The more a real scientist learns about the world around him the more
>convinced he becomes that there must be a God. So I guess that neatly
>catagorizes your beliefs.
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a
personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S.
level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are
considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an
afterlife."
Scientific American, September 1999
"A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed
that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to
belief in a personal God."
Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
Spin that one, Einstein...
--
-JN-
vinny
"J. Nielsen" <mor...@post8.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:6jluj3l5bdnm35h2u...@4ax.com...
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Spin that one, Einstein...
I'll spin it, don't need einstein for this one. It's an age factor. These
silly polls always favor the results looked for and ignore the other 8
million variables.
What's the average age of a scientist.
What's the average age of a person when they question their faith?
Maybe it's the same?
It reminds me of what 100,000 people look like when protesting. WOW!
Then I wonder, what do the other 319,943,987 look like that stayed home?
DAMN!
It's all propaganda or ignorance. Always, everytime.
There, spin that!
Everyone believes in GOD. Put a loaded 44 magnum to their head held by a
crackhead having a bad day, or worse a young cop, and you will get a man
PRAYING TO GOD for his life everytime.
Jeff R.
"vinny" <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:gUI%i.84$IX7.1...@news.sisna.com...
> Everyone believes in GOD. Put a loaded 44 magnum to their head held by a
> crackhead having a bad day, or worse a young cop, and you will get a man
> PRAYING TO GOD for his life everytime.
Not so.
You really shouldn't project your own fears and delusions onto others.
You don't know what other people think.
--obviously--
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13ju1r2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> So tell me - in what book is there some FACTS about the Big Bang.
>
Well, most of my astronomy books dispassionately note the increasing red
shift of distant galaxies. This isn't a supposition or a theory or an
hypothesis - it's a simple, repeatable, verifiable observation.
Then - the Big Bang is a purty dam' good explanation for same. Doesn't
involve superstition.
Got a better explanation for that red shift? (*Without* invoking imaginary
sky people!)
--
Jeff R.
Pete
> "Frank J Warner" <warn...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in messagenews:161120072057246651%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
> > Most atheists don't say that at all. They say, if there is a God, it's
> > up to you to provide evidence of such. Until then, it's within my
> > rights to lack belief in one. It's the default position.
>
> The more a real scientist learns about the world around him the more
> convinced he becomes that there must be a God. So I guess that neatly
> catagorizes your beliefs.
Some scientists go that way, some (Dawkins is probably the most well
known example) go the other. Whatever you think of his books, Dawkins
has done some good work.
> You are entitled to believe anything you like. Though I am reminded of
> "higher science" which talks about the string theories and the origins of
> the universe in terms which could NEVER be verified in any manner. Why, you
> just have to have faith.
String theory right now is something of an embarrasment to physicists:
the big aim is to either show that it's so general that it really
can't make predictions (i.e. isn't more than a potentially useful
framework into which a theory might be built) or to find a testable
prediction which it makes (i.e. it is a valid theory itself) and test
it.
But right now, yes, believing in string theory really is just a matter
of faith: and far too many string theorists do behave like religious
fundamentalists (Lubos Motl) when their belief is challenged.
> By all means Frank tell me that you have a degree in mathematics and you
> actually understand the math behind the theory of the universe and aren't
> taking it purely on faith.
I _do_ have a degree in mathematics, and so I can tell you that isn't
enough to understand most of the mathematics in question. Most
theoretical physicists, even, only understand bits of the mathematics
- string theorists should know that maths, but theoretical physicists
who don't like string theory (and there are a fair few) may not have
bothered to learn all of it; you only have so much time, and if
there's a different bit of maths you think might work better, you'll
be familiar with that.
For what it's worth, my take on this is:
I do not personally have a formal religious belief (i.e. I don't see
any reason to believe in Jesus and Heaven or Allah or whatever). But
I'm not going to object to anyone with such a belief as long as they
aren't preaching anti-scientific crap (Creationism, mainly) which I do
object to.
I think atheism is thoroughly stupid. A theist believes that there is
a God, et cetera. He can't prove any of what he believes in, but there
is some potential that he might be proved right (if the trumpets sound
and the dead are resurrected incorruptible, then there really isn't
going to be so much argument...). An atheist believes there is no God
- and he is going to prove this how? Because nothing happens? But
typically he will argue that Science Proves There Is No God - well,
science says no such thing.
I think agnosticism (i.e. I don't believe but I am not going to waste
time arguing) is a reasonable position: so again I won't argue with an
agnostic (but then they won't argue with me in the first place, so...)
For me, I don't believe the Universe just appeared from nothing with
no First Cause: but I'd much rather believe in a God-the-Artist who
gives a few rules and sets into motion this vast and beautiful machine
producing life and all that goes with it than a God-the-Autocrat who
goes interfering with his creation every time something happens he
doesn't like.
Pete
Michael A. Terrell
The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Tom Kunich
wrote:
Next you'll be telling me that REAL(tm) scientists would answer such a
survey.
Ed Huntress
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:473F75F4...@earthlink.net...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>> news:13ju1r2...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >> That's a pretty big subject. Maybe you shoud read a book or somethig?
>> >
>> > I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have
>> > several
>> > hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as
>> > well.
>> >
>>
>> Ha-ha! Which ones did you get rid of?
>
>
> The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
> space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
LOL! That makes more sense. I wondered how he had time to eat and sleep if
he'd read all the books in six libraries. Perhaps they were the pre-school
type.
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Kunich
> space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
Want to compare W2's?
> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> prove it.
Well, at least you've got a little more guts than most of the others
preaching science around here. That still only puts you on a level playing
field with most of the smart guys here.
Curly
> In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I have read all the books in about a half dozen libraries. I have several
>> hundred books in my home. I have gotten rid of thousands of books as well.
>
>> So tell me - in what book is there some FACTS about the Big Bang.
>
> The big bang is a theory. Nobody who is knowledgeable would call it a
> fact.
Don't get trapped in the crazymotherfucker dismissal of "fact". They are
too ignorant to comprehend the difference between common theory and
scientific theory. Well, perhaps a few are since they've fabricated this
attack on science in a vain attempt to undermine the credibility of
science.
You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and it
makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
After all, they are crazymotherfuckers...
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Huntress
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:473F75F4...@earthlink.net...
>>
>> The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
>> space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
>
> Want to compare W2's?
Wait, wait. You've read all the books in a half-dozen libraries, and you
hold down a job?
Let's see...the average small-town library holds 35,000 volumes (2.8 per
capita, in case your town is very small; the average university library
holds 384,000, but we'll cut you a break here). Without knowing your age,
let's say you're 63 and you started reading at adult speed at age 3. You
read seven days/week. That means you have to read an average of 9.6 books
per day.
Are you a nuclear-plant security guard, by any chance? d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
He's using the Reaganite definition: Liberal: "all who are not
Republican enough."
(To be precise, Reagan usually referred to "the L-word")
Dan
Dan
> In misc.survivalism Frank J Warner <war...@verispammersdiezon.net> wrote:
>
>> In my neck
>> of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
>> lizard.
>
> You are nuts. The world was created by the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes.
>
>
"In the beginning there was this Turtle, and the Turtle was alone..."
Dan
Richard W.
"Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
news:WGP_i.36282$h57.16606@edtnps89...
I am not replying to anyone in particular. I have read some of the postings
and thought I would say a few things.
I think it's rather odd that atheism was ruled by the supreme court as a
religion in 1961.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/200508/20050820_1.asp
The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief in
the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins,
the Court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
I also find the think soy's of people who claim to be Christian's
disturbing, since what they are writing as fact is not really. Christian's
are supposed to read the bible.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV
Science and the bible complement one another. Where the bible talks about
things centuries before it's proven by science.
In Astronomy the bible says in Proverbs 8:27 written between 1033-975 B.C.
Proverbs 8:27 "When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep," NASB
Another example is in Isaiah 40:22 which is written about 745-695 B.C.
Where the earth is described as a circle or ball.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, KJV
Aristotle believed the earth to be round in shape, because ships disappear
over the horizon and the shape of the earth on the moon during an eclipse
seen on the moon. 384-322 B.C. To bad only his students believed the
evidences he presented.
In 1520 A.D. the earth was still believed to be flat until the voyages of
Columbus and Magellan along with the introduction of the compass.
The bible says the earth isn't supported or not sitting on anything. Job
26:7 says the earth hangs on nothing written about 2000 B.C. Yet the history
of science still believed in the Ptolemy system, which says the earth was
rigidly supported and all movement was in the heavens. This is before 1543
A.D. Remember in grade school they told us that before Columbus if you went
to far out you would fall off the edge of the earth.
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the
earth upon nothing. KJV
You can find many examples of science written in the bible on the subjects
of astronomy, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics, biology and
archaeology. There are many books written showing the bible to give
scientific fact centuries before science proved bible facts were indeed
true. One of them is "HAS GOD SPOKEN" written by an engineer A. O. Schnabel.
You can buy this book on the web if you do a search for it.
A lot of people talk about dinosaurs and man living at the same time on the
earth. We have a bible account in Job describing a large animal that Job had
seen which bends his tail like a cedar. If there are other examples of this
I haven't found them yet.
Job 40:15-17
15 "Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins,
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 "He bends his tail like a cedar ;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together. NASB
I have not found an honest Preacher who would give a date of how old the
earth is. The bible doesn't say exactly. Some count the genealogies to
arrive at a date of the earth, yet what does the bible say about that.
1Timothy 1:3-5 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at
Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange
doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which
give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of
God which is by faith.
NASB
Many Jews converted to Christianity by the thousands as written in the
book of Acts. In James 1:1 it say's "to the twelve tribes". Which is a way
of honoring those Jews who converted to Christ. The old testament shows how
God dealt with the Jews every time they turned from him to worship other
gods. The old testament has about 350 prophecies pointing to Jesus the
Christ, which is the one the Jews were waiting to come. The promise of
salvation was made to the Jews first, then everyone else.
Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
NASB
This verse is a quote from Jesus showing there is no male or female in
heaven, but we are like the angels. What was that nonsense about getting a
bunch of virgins in the after life?
Matthew 22:30-31
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but
are like angels in heaven. NASB
This verse shows that the devil has his own angels.
Matthew 25:41
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones,
into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels ;
NASB
This verse shows what happens to those who do not confess and follow Jesus
the Christ.
Luke 12:8-9
"And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man
shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me
before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
NASB
Angels who sin will be cast into hell.
2 Peter 2:4-5
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell
and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
NASB
There is a lot to know about God and Jesus and the only way to know is to
read the bible. If you do that you will see that it takes more than lip
service to God to get to heaven and by what I have read many who claim to be
Christians will not make it, unless they study their bible and do what it
says. Remember that the devil not only believes in GOD, but has spoken to
him and where is he going to spend eternity. So where does your belief only
leave you?
The promise is to those who believe and are baptized into Christ and
continue in the faith.
Mark 16:16-17
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has
disbelieved shall be condemned.
NASB
Jude 3-4
Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common
salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand
marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our
God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
NASB
The bible says you are to study to show yourself approved of GOD. Nowhere
can you find anyone who prayed their way to heaven like in the believers
prayer. You should pray for guidance to find you way. You cannot find a
passage that says the preacher can study for you. You must do it yourself.
2 Timothy 2:15-16Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.16 But shun
profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
KJV
Richard W.
Ed Huntress
"Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pLqdnUOM14IlCaLa...@molalla.net...
>
> "Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:WGP_i.36282$h57.16606@edtnps89...
>
> I am not replying to anyone in particular. I have read some of the
> postings and thought I would say a few things.
>
> I think it's rather odd that atheism was ruled by the supreme court as a
> religion in 1961.
>
> http://www.dakotavoice.com/200508/20050820_1.asp
>
> The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief
> in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v.
> Watkins, the Court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Your source has misread Torcaso, Richard. You're talking about a comment in
Footnote 11 of the case, in which the Court referred to an earlier case that
involved a "secular humanist" community that professed certain philosophical
positions and that wanted to be given the rights of an organized religion.
But Torcaso was specifically about the right to non-belief, and both
non-belief (atheism) and beliefs that did not involve God (Buddhism, secular
humanism) were both included.
In no way did the Court equate atheism with secular humanism. You should
read the case for yourself instead of reading those Cliff's Notes versions
that the religious propagandists promote.
Here's the case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488#f10
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Kunich
news:pQL%i.3328$6S2....@newsfe09.lga...
>
>
> Let's see...the average small-town library holds 35,000 volumes
Let's just say that you're out of your league and I suggest you learn
something other than stupidity. Small libraries with 1000 volumes are the
rule EVERYWHERE. And there are many large libraries now that don't hardly
have that many books. Seems the information age has made books not very
stylish.
But keep trying. I'll bet that someday you'll learn that you aren't as smart
as you thought you were.
Tom Kunich
By ALL means tell us the difference between "common theory" and "scientific
theory" for, say, String Theory.
Ed Huntress
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:pQL%i.3328$6S2....@newsfe09.lga...
>>
>>
>> Let's see...the average small-town library holds 35,000 volumes
>
> Let's just say that you're out of your league and I suggest you learn
> something other than stupidity. Small libraries with 1000 volumes are the
> rule EVERYWHERE.
I don't quote figures like that unless I've done my homework first, Tom. You
should have clarified that you're talking about really *teeny* libraries.
<g>
The 2.8 per capita figure for public libraries comes the National Center for
Education Statistics. The number actually is closer to 2.9 if you round up:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_4/4_3/5_1.asp
If you really get your dander up and want to see the details, they're here:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002344.pdf
You'll note (page 61) that the smallest category of municipal libraries,
those in towns and villages of less than 1000 population, have an average of
8,464 books in their collections.
So, I don't know where you get your "1000 volumes" figure. I had roughly
that number in my home before I cleaned house a few years ago.
Well, that's not accurate. I *do* know where you got your 1000 volumes
figure: you pulled it out of your ass. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> In article <fhmvvp$6r2$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
> > In misc.survivalism Frank J Warner <war...@verispammersdiezon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In my neck
> > > of the woods, the world was created by the sky fox and the earth
> > > lizard.
> >
> > You are nuts. The world was created by the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes.
> You have me there! I am completely nuts!
> Does she ever take that damn skirt off?
Dunno. I'll check Wikipedia.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and it
> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on faith.
There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
contexts.
But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or logic,
or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
J. Nielsen
wrote:
>> Spin that one, Einstein...
>Next you'll be telling me that REAL(tm) scientists would answer such a
>survey.
Why not? Surely, REAL(tm) scientists would be interested in the
outcome of such a survey as well, otherwise they wouldn't be scientists,
- at least not in my book - but then again, I could be wrong about what
characterize a REAL (tm) © ® scientist. Perhaps you could share your
definition?
Of course, I could do a BottleBob survey in one of the science groups,
but since you already made it clear REAL (tm) © ® scientists are
reluctant to participate in surveys, I'm afraid it would paint a false
picture ;)
--
-JN-
Michael A. Terrell
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:473F75F4...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
> > space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
>
> Want to compare W2's?
Sure! Mine is zero. I was recently declared 100% disabled, and the
VA doesn't provide a W2.
> > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> > prove it.
>
> Well, at least you've got a little more guts than most of the others
> preaching science around here. That still only puts you on a level playing
> field with most of the smart guys here.
I have had several EEs want to know why I don't have a degree, after
I not only pointed out design flaws, but documented them, and wrote up a
solution, along with either a in house stock number, or a proposed
vendor to supply the needed components. My title was Production Test
Technician, but I worked in every area of the company, except
accounting, sales and shipping. The last job I was assigned, was to work
with a team of engineers to take a prototype of an $80,000 DSP based
telemetry package from them, and prepare it for manufacturing. I was
part of the team that built a communications system for the ISS, and a
complete turn key earth station for NOAA to track their LEO satellites.
I have worked as a broadcast engineer in AM & TV, and built one station
from scratch.
As far as science and faith, I am a Christian, and I have my battles
with those who make silly claims about the bible that they claim
contradict science. I wrote a sci-fi trilogy about 20 years ago,
because I couldn't find anything worth reading. Someone demanded to
know how I could do it in "good faith", because the bible stated that
there was no other life in the universe. I asked for the book, chapter
and verse they were referring to. It's been 20 yeas, and they still
haven't found their proof.
Just because there is no design for an inter-galactic space ship in
the bible, that doesn't make it anti-science. :)
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:473F75F4...@earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
>> > space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
>>
>> Want to compare W2's?
>
> Sure! Mine is zero. I was recently declared 100% disabled, and the
> VA doesn't provide a W2.
Sorry to hear you're disabled Michael. But what would make you write
something like that?
> I have had several EEs want to know why I don't have a degree, after
> I not only pointed out design flaws, but documented them, and wrote up a
> solution, along with either a in house stock number, or a proposed
> vendor to supply the needed components. My title was Production Test
> Technician, but I worked in every area of the company, except
> accounting, sales and shipping.
Would it surprise you to learn that I had a similar history and have been a
non-degreed engineer for some 30 years?
> As far as science and faith, I am a Christian, and I have my battles
> with those who make silly claims about the bible that they claim
> contradict science. I wrote a sci-fi trilogy about 20 years ago,
> because I couldn't find anything worth reading. Someone demanded to
> know how I could do it in "good faith", because the bible stated that
> there was no other life in the universe. I asked for the book, chapter
> and verse they were referring to. It's been 20 yeas, and they still
> haven't found their proof.
>
> Just because there is no design for an inter-galactic space ship in
> the bible, that doesn't make it anti-science. :)
I was raised a Catholic but haven't really followed religion since my teens.
I haven't found anything in science that contradicts religion and even
Einstein said as much himself. But then these fools around here that don't
have the background to understand the disputed differences still claim that
science has "facts" behind it. I wonder what they would think if they
actually understood the science they were discussing.
Tom Kunich
news:fhoc97$3f6$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and it
>> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
>
> I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on faith.
> There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
> contexts.
>
> But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or logic,
> or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be explained
what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
Joseph Gwinn
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
something like thirty or forty years.
It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
expected flux.
The issue is pretty clearly explained in Sky and Telescope over the last
few yeaars, and I assume also in Scientific American et al.
Also, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem>.
Joe Gwinn
Ed Huntress
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-DA9A91...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Maybe Tom needs a bigger library. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Carl Sundquist
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-DA9A91...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>
>> produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be
>> explained
>> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
>
> Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
> something like thirty or forty years.
>
> It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
> change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
> soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
> understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
> for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
> solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
> expected flux.
>
Results 1 - 10 of about 114,000 for solar neutrino problem, nobel. (0.15
seconds)
Curly
Perhaps you don't realize just how dumb that question is, the old "if I
can't understand it then it must be false" argument.
You truly don't comprehend science yet feel qualified to judge.
Intentional ignorance is your fault and problem. No one here is
responsible to educate you.
Explaining exactly why science has a "sound footing" would require years
of education. Do it yourself.
Dan
> I was raised a Catholic but haven't really followed religion since my
> teens. I haven't found anything in science that contradicts religion and
> even Einstein said as much himself. But then these fools around here
> that don't have the background to understand the disputed differences
> still claim that science has "facts" behind it. I wonder what they would
> think if they actually understood the science they were discussing.
>
They are people deluded by pseudoreligonist politicians or good old
fashioned con men (the difference is that con men want to enrich
themselves, politicians want the power garnered by having people in
their thrall).
Dan
Curly
> I was raised a Catholic but haven't really followed religion since my teens.
> I haven't found anything in science that contradicts religion and even
> Einstein said as much himself. But then these fools around here that don't
> have the background to understand the disputed differences still claim that
> science has "facts" behind it. I wonder what they would think if they
> actually understood the science they were discussing.
You are the fool. Selected Einstein quotes:
"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."
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend
only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling
of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to
do with mysticism."
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the
charge is unjust. 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."
"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the
rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no
more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences
consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the
concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of
meaning.
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am
unable to take seriously."
"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 harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
"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."
"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."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it
is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
"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."
"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."
This exemplifies the danger of the religionist. Commonly uneducated, or
undereducated, ignorant, and pushes provably false nonsense. Einstein
didn't believe in a god.
Spending time to refute you crazymotherfuckers has exhausted my patience.
You are intentionally ignorant, lie, misrepresent, dissemble, twist,
manipulate, corrupt, slither, and attack truth. You are dishonest.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational folks.
> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
> produce enough neutrinos?
No, I wasn't.
If something as basic as that can't be explained
> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
Because so much of it CAN be explained, and because so much of it produces
testable and verifiable theories.
Is it your claim that no science has a sound footing? Or what?
jeff
class room when he graduated sixth grade.
Michael A. Terrell
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4740703B...@earthlink.net...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:473F75F4...@earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > The one's that he'd already colored? After all, there isn't much
> >> > space on the refrigerator to stick all of them.
> >>
> >> Want to compare W2's?
> >
> > Sure! Mine is zero. I was recently declared 100% disabled, and the
> > VA doesn't provide a W2.
>
> Sorry to hear you're disabled Michael. But what would make you write
> something like that?
Because its a fact of my life that I am still trying to adjust to.
Also, it can happen to any of us, at any time.
I never planned for retirement, but ended up 100% disabled at 52.
The VA awarded the 100% disability in less than two weeks from the date
I filed, and their paperwork states: "It is obvious that this individual
will never be able to work, again." :(
I used to spend eight hours at my full time job, five or six days a
week, and at least another 40 hours working in my home shop on all kinds
of projects. Now, I'm lucky to spend two hours a day at anything.
> > I have had several EEs want to know why I don't have a degree, after
> > I not only pointed out design flaws, but documented them, and wrote up a
> > solution, along with either a in house stock number, or a proposed
> > vendor to supply the needed components. My title was Production Test
> > Technician, but I worked in every area of the company, except
> > accounting, sales and shipping.
>
> Would it surprise you to learn that I had a similar history and have been a
> non-degreed engineer for some 30 years?
Not at all. I've met a lot of people with a similar background. I
tested out of a three year electronics course while in basic training,
and was awarded the US Army equivalent of a first class FCC license. I
was told that I had the highest score on record at Ft Knox for that MOS
test.
There used to be quite a few people who taught themselves enough
electronics to do design work, but all we have today are video game
players and losers who write virii.
> > As far as science and faith, I am a Christian, and I have my battles
> > with those who make silly claims about the bible that they claim
> > contradict science. I wrote a sci-fi trilogy about 20 years ago,
> > because I couldn't find anything worth reading. Someone demanded to
> > know how I could do it in "good faith", because the bible stated that
> > there was no other life in the universe. I asked for the book, chapter
> > and verse they were referring to. It's been 20 yeas, and they still
> > haven't found their proof.
> >
> > Just because there is no design for an inter-galactic space ship in
> > the bible, that doesn't make it anti-science. :)
>
> I was raised a Catholic but haven't really followed religion since my teens.
> I haven't found anything in science that contradicts religion and even
> Einstein said as much himself. But then these fools around here that don't
> have the background to understand the disputed differences still claim that
> science has "facts" behind it. I wonder what they would think if they
> actually understood the science they were discussing.
Their minds are closed so they don't have to think, only rant and
prove what nut cases they are. All they do is spew the crap their small
minds are made of, while proving they don't have an original thought
more than once a year.
Martin H. Eastburn
of Santa Cruz (county I believe). I had many more books than it and
a wide subject matter. Our collection is still expanding (ugh) and will
very likely be donated to our local Friends of the library which get good
books for the shelves and sell the rest in book sales in order to buy books.
For myself, the library has a killer building, it being a gift from a very
wealthy person with vision. The books within (we are "Friends of the Library")
a goodly child and young person - where the money goes - and next a massive
romance novel selection - way down on the list is tech or even crafts.
With a farming / ranching / oil service / welding / foundry(ies) area there
is a distinct lack of books for those people. Likely the least likely to
go for help I suppose. Sad. I think the trades and Crafts should be strong
if only in book for those of us who do can find out how to do it. If trades
are being scrapped from colleges (2 yr) and out of High School (every boy is a
rocket scientist) then who will know how to do anything in 50 years ?
With luck these strange and archaic looking text messages will be available
in some form for those who search for them.
With luck someone - Google or the like will archive them on glass disks or
from medium to new medium along with the billion or so web sites they have.
Martin (Have yet to put in our last book - 'Book Collection' program
" The complete Idiot's guide to: Improving your Memory") Hummmmmm
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Donald Munro
> Maybe Tom needs a bigger library. d8-)
He doesn't need a bigger library, he's got his very own universe.
Tom Kunich
news:pan.2007.11.19....@home.com...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:04:46 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> I was raised a Catholic but haven't really followed religion since my
>> teens.
>> I haven't found anything in science that contradicts religion and even
>> Einstein said as much himself. But then these fools around here that
>> don't
>> have the background to understand the disputed differences still claim
>> that
>> science has "facts" behind it. I wonder what they would think if they
>> actually understood the science they were discussing.
>
> You are the fool. Selected Einstein quotes:
>
> only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling
> of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to
> do with mysticism."
Ain't if funny how the stupid asses such as yourself can't even understand
the written word? Here's a hint - if you are so stupid you contradict
yourself don't expect anyone else to bother with you.
Tom Kunich
news:joegwinn-DA9A91...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:fhoc97$3f6$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>> > In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can't argue religion with crazymotherfuckers, they're insane and
>> >> it
>> >> makes you nuts trying to make sense of their babbline.
>> >
>> > I just wish that they would accept that thier beliefs are based on
>> > faith.
>> > There's nothing wrong with that. Faith is a good thing in certain
>> > contexts.
>> >
>> > But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or
>> > logic,
>> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational
>> > folks.
>>
>> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
>> produce enough neutrinos? If something as basic as that can't be
>> explained
>> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
>
> Actually, the neutrino deficit problem has been solved, although it took
> something like thirty or forty years.
Actually it hasn't.
> It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
> change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
> soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
> understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
> for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
> solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1.3 of the
> expected flux.
You do understand the difference between "theory" and "fact" don't you?
Tom Kunich
news:fhqpma$pmo$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >
>> > But when they try to claim that there is some kind of evidence, or
>> > logic,
>> > or sense to it all, then they tend to become a problem for rational
>> > folks.
>
>> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
>> produce enough neutrinos?
>
> No, I wasn't.
Maybe you ought to get your soulmate Curly to explain science to you. He
seems to have such a tight grasp on it that he can't even read English.
> If something as basic as that can't be explained
>> what the hell makes you think that any of it has a sound footing?
>
> Because so much of it CAN be explained, and because so much of it produces
> testable and verifiable theories.
>
> Is it your claim that no science has a sound footing? Or what?
Unless your theories are testable it AIN'T SCIENCE. So explain why so much
money is going into things that are by their very nature untestable?
Ed Huntress
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13k4h4r...@corp.supernews.com...
Because a great deal of the money that goes into science is for research, to
ask questions, to make discoveries, and to formulate hypotheses. Testing
theories comes later, once you have enough data and evidence to produce
them.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly
> You do understand the difference between "theory" and "fact" don't you?
A more important question is whether or not you do. Please define
"Scientific Theory" for us. Not "theory."
Curly
I believe that you are hiding behind alternate definitions. Tell us what
your definition of "religion" is, whether it has a supernatural aspect,
then we can proceed.
As I posted elsewhere, Einstein went to great lengths to make people
realize that his religion definition didn't a god.
Does yours?
William Noble
berrilum?
what kind of lathe would god use to turn the cosmos?
or don't answer, just go away
">
> I believe that you are hiding behind alternate definitions. Tell us what
> your definition of "religion" is, whether it has a supernatural aspect,
> then we can proceed.
>
> As I posted elsewhere, Einstein went to great lengths to make people
> realize that his religion definition didn't a god.
>
> Does yours?
>
> -- Regards, Curly
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Curly
> Answer me this - what kind of cutting angle would god use to machine
> berrilum?
>
> what kind of lathe would god use to turn the cosmos?
Heh, talk about a loaded question. How many pinheads would fit on the
head of a needle?
> or don't answer, just go away
I agree that the crazymotherfuckers seem to take delight in crossposting
and polluting inappropriate newsgroups. That's part of the very
definition of crazymotherfuckers, they do weird shit.
But their crimes against humanity cannot be allowed to hidden simply
because they are repulsive beings. They've destroyed our nation and very
culture, I shan't let them continue on this path in silence.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
I'm sorry for the disruption in inappropriate newsgroups. Do stand up and
tell the crazymotherfuckers to get back in their closet, that their
fascism isn't welcome.
> ">
>> I believe that you are hiding behind alternate definitions. Tell us
>> what your definition of "religion" is, whether it has a supernatural
>> aspect, then we can proceed.
>>
>> As I posted elsewhere, Einstein went to great lengths to make people
>> realize that his religion definition didn't a god.
>>
>> Does yours?
>>
>> -- Regards, Curly
-- Regards, Curly
Al Porter
>Answer me this - what kind of cutting angle would god use to machine
>berrilum?
>
>what kind of lathe would god use to turn the cosmos?
>
>or don't answer, just go away
>
What kind of drugs are you on...?
Jim Wilkins
> Answer me this - what kind of cutting angle would god use to machine
> berrilum?
>
> what kind of lathe would god use to turn the cosmos?
>
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> >> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
> >> produce enough neutrinos?
> >
> > No, I wasn't.
> Maybe you ought to get your soulmate Curly to explain science to you.
Who? And why would my being unaware of of one tiny little thing mean that
I need "science" to be explaied to me?
> Unless your theories are testable it AIN'T SCIENCE. So explain why so much
> money is going into things that are by their very nature untestable?
Are you saying that theoretical physics AIN'T SCIENCE? Are you saying that
theories AIN'T SCIENCE prior to our developing the technoogy to test them?
Dan
> In misc.survivalism Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> Are you aware that the present theories can't explain why the Sun doesn't
>>>> produce enough neutrinos?
>>> No, I wasn't.
>
>> Maybe you ought to get your soulmate Curly to explain science to you.
>
> Who? And why would my being unaware of of one tiny little thing mean that
> I need "science" to be explaied to me?
>
>
>> Unless your theories are testable it AIN'T SCIENCE. So explain why so much
>> money is going into things that are by their very nature untestable?
>
> Are you saying that theoretical physics AIN'T SCIENCE? Are you saying that
> theories AIN'T SCIENCE prior to our developing the technoogy to test them?
>
> Or what?
>
explaining it to him will have any effect. His mind is made up.
Dan
Joseph Gwinn
So the physics community and the Nobel Committee all blundered? This is
quite the revelation. Who knew?
> > It turns out that neutrinos have a very tiny mass, which causes them to
> > change between the three types that exist, so a beam of one kind will
> > soon become an equal mixture of the three kinds. (I don't pretend to
> > understand the math and physics, but I think someone got a Nobel Prize
> > for solving the "solar neutrino problem".) The original detectors of
> > solar neutrinos only responded to one kind, and so saw only 1/3 of the
> > expected flux.
>
> You do understand the difference between "theory" and "fact" don't you?
The word "theory" has a different meaning in science than in commonplace
use. For example, Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity" is still
and always will be called a theory, although there is no doubt that it
is correct. This is the theory from which E=mc^2 comes from, and atom
bombs do work.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity>
Joe Gwinn
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> He has the typical layman's misunderstanding of science. No amount of us
> explaining it to him will have any effect. His mind is made up.
I can't believe his understandig is typical among non-scientists. Most
folks took science labs in high school, where they did the whole
"hypothesis, experiment, confirmation" thing.
Kyle Legate
> In misc.survivalism Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> He has the typical layman's misunderstanding of science. No amount of us
>> explaining it to him will have any effect. His mind is made up.
>
> I can't believe his understandig is typical among non-scientists. Most
> folks took science labs in high school, where they did the whole
> "hypothesis, experiment, confirmation" thing.
>
Dan
> In misc.survivalism Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> He has the typical layman's misunderstanding of science. No amount of us
>> explaining it to him will have any effect. His mind is made up.
>
> I can't believe his understandig is typical among non-scientists. Most
> folks took science labs in high school, where they did the whole
> "hypothesis, experiment, confirmation" thing.
>
But that was school "science," and mostly cookbook. If that is where he
left off, as most do, there is no REAL understanding of what science is,
does, or is limited by.
And not all science is "hypothesis, experiment, confirmation."
Dan
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Curly
You are making quite a number of erroneous assumptions. That is what
religionists do. Since you claim to be a "recovering catholic" I give you
some slack but don't cross the line by falling back into their bad habits.
Curly
> In misc.survivalism Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> He has the typical layman's misunderstanding of science. No amount of us
>> explaining it to him will have any effect. His mind is made up.
>
> I can't believe his understandig is typical among non-scientists. Most
> folks took science labs in high school, where they did the whole
> "hypothesis, experiment, confirmation" thing.
Don't make the same error as Dan. Speak of/to me in the first person to
dispel assumptions. This is what the crazymotherfuckers do, they
_believe_ and need no reality check.
Therefore they need no proof. A distingushing characteristic of
religionists and in opposition to science.
Dan
I do not see where I make any erroneous assumptions. I work from
observation (as a scientist, a layman, and a science teacher).
In order to understand what science is, one has to make the effort to
understand, and that takes a certain amount of heavy lifting. Our
offering a short series of remarks, no matter how accurate or
well-meaning, is not enough for someone to go from misunderstanding to
understanding.
I do make the statement that his mind is made up, and you may be right
that this statement carries some assumptions. For that, we'll see. I
took it directly from his statement, however.
I'm willing to change that opinion in a moment...
Dan
Dan
Ah! I see the misunderstanding. "He," above, was a reference to the
prior poster, not to you...
If I had meant "You," I would have typed "You." That is, unless we were
having a chat and he poked his head in with a non-sequitur, then I might
have spoken of the previous post in the third person as a way of
indicating that I did not appreciate the interruption, but that is rare.
Dan
Adam Corolla
"Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
news:WGP_i.36282$h57.16606@edtnps89...
> Adam Corolla wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:8St_i.28202$h57.8518@edtnps89...
>>
>>>Dixon wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Checkmate huh? Well let's get a "REAL" Christian response for your
>>>>video.
>>>>
>>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=o5jRklNY0Uw&watch_response
>>>>
>>>>Dixon
>>>
>>> I've been accosted by a few of the type in the first video (checkmate
>>> guy) and they were trying to sell me on their brand. PITA
>>
>>
>> You know that was all tongue-in-cheek, right?
>>
>>
>>> The second guy actually made me laugh. But I think I would rather share
>>> a booth in a restaraunt with the second guy.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Trevor Jones
>>
>>
>> The second guy seemed schizophrenic to me. They can be entertaining at
>> times, but if you know someone who's gone through that then it's just
>> sad.
> I'll still choose him over a zealot.
>
> Cheers
> Trevor Jones
ROFL, your point Sir!
Adam Corolla
>
> "Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pLqdnUOM14IlCaLa...@molalla.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:WGP_i.36282$h57.16606@edtnps89...
>>
>> postings and thought I would say a few things.
>>
>> I think it's rather odd that atheism was ruled by the supreme court as a
>> religion in 1961.
>>
>> http://www.dakotavoice.com/200508/20050820_1.asp
>>
>> The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief
>> in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v.
>> Watkins, the Court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
>
> Your source has misread Torcaso, Richard. You're talking about a comment
> in Footnote 11 of the case, in which the Court referred to an earlier case
> that involved a "secular humanist" community that professed certain
> philosophical positions and that wanted to be given the rights of an
> organized religion.
>
> But Torcaso was specifically about the right to non-belief, and both
> non-belief (atheism) and beliefs that did not involve God (Buddhism,
> secular humanism) were both included.
>
> In no way did the Court equate atheism with secular humanism. You should
> read the case for yourself instead of reading those Cliff's Notes versions
> that the religious propagandists promote.
>
> Here's the case:
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488#f10
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
There's lots of other misinformation in that post as well.
Adam Corolla
"Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pLqdnUOM14IlCaLa...@molalla.net...
>
> "Trevor Jones" <t.o....@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:WGP_i.36282$h57.16606@edtnps89...
>
> things centuries before it's proven by science.
This should be interesting...
> In Astronomy the bible says in Proverbs 8:27 written between 1033-975 B.C.
> Proverbs 8:27 "When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep," NASB
>
> Another example is in Isaiah 40:22 which is written about 745-695 B.C.
> Where the earth is described as a circle or ball.
>
> Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, KJV
The earth is not a circle though, it's a sphere, so the Bible is wrong. You
pretty much just proved it to me right there. It might refer to the earth
as a ball somewhere in there, but in those quotes, it clearly says "circle."
You could say that the earth was described as a circle because God was
speaking to people who weren't ready to understand that the earth is a
sphere. However, the same excuse could be used if the Bible described the
earth as flat. It's really, really easy to find evidence for anything you
choose to believe, providing you're willing to "interpret" that evidence to
mean what you want it to mean.
> Aristotle believed the earth to be round in shape, because ships
> disappear over the horizon and the shape of the earth on the moon during
> an eclipse seen on the moon. 384-322 B.C. To bad only his students
> believed the evidences he presented.
>
> In 1520 A.D. the earth was still believed to be flat until the voyages of
> Columbus and Magellan along with the introduction of the compass.
That's a common misconception. Very few people at that time still thought
the earth was flat, it was widely accepted as a sphere then.
>
> The bible says the earth isn't supported or not sitting on anything. Job
> 26:7 says the earth hangs on nothing written about 2000 B.C.
Can you post the quote?
> Yet the history of science still believed in the Ptolemy system, which
> says the earth was rigidly supported and all movement was in the heavens.
> This is before 1543 A.D. Remember in grade school they told us that before
> Columbus if you went to far out you would fall off the edge of the earth.
Yeah, they were way off on that. But then, in school they also told us that
America is a democracy (it's a representative republic,) that Columbus
discovered America (obviously one can't "discover" a place when there are
already millions of people living there) and so on and so forth. Paul Simon
had a good point there...
>
> Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the
> earth upon nothing. KJV
The earth doesn't "hang" in space. It travels at pretty high velocity
around the sun. Once again, it's only through creative interpretation that
this statement seems to point out scientific fact. And what on earth does
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place" mean? Is the northern
part of the earth supposedly hollow or something?
> You can find many examples of science written in the bible on the
> subjects of astronomy, geology, oceanography, meteorology, physics,
> biology and archaeology.
Can you post some examples? Believe it or not, I keep a pretty open mind
about this stuff.
> There are many books written showing the bible to give scientific fact
> centuries before science proved bible facts were indeed true. One of them
> is "HAS GOD SPOKEN" written by an engineer A. O. Schnabel. You can buy
> this book on the web if you do a search for it.
Rather than me buying this book, why don't you just cut to the chase and
post what you think is its most convincing example?
>
> A lot of people talk about dinosaurs and man living at the same time on
> the earth. We have a bible account in Job describing a large animal that
> Job had seen which bends his tail like a cedar.
Exactly how does a cedar bend? I'm having trouble picturing it. Thinner
cedar branches bend, but the thicker parts break.
> Job 40:15-17
>
> 15 "Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
> He eats grass like an ox.
> 16 "Behold now, his strength in his loins,
> And his power in the muscles of his belly.
> 17 "He bends his tail like a cedar ;
> The sinews of his thighs are knit together. NASB
Nothing in the above seems to hint at a dinosaur, unless it said "his tail
bends and is as thick as a full-grown cedar." If it said that, then I'd
have to agree it dounds like a dinosaur--nothing else on land has a tail
like that! Also, what the heck does "The sinews of his thighs are knit
together" mean?
> I have not found an honest Preacher who would give a date of how old the
> earth is. The bible doesn't say exactly. Some count the genealogies to
> arrive at a date of the earth, yet what does the bible say about that.
>
> 1Timothy 1:3-5 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on
> at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach
> strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless
> genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering
> the administration of God which is by faith.
> NASB
>
>
> Many Jews converted to Christianity by the thousands as written in the
> book of Acts. In James 1:1 it say's "to the twelve tribes". Which is a way
> of honoring those Jews who converted to Christ. The old testament shows
> how God dealt with the Jews every time they turned from him to worship
> other gods. The old testament has about 350 prophecies pointing to Jesus
> the Christ, which is the one the Jews were waiting to come. The promise of
> salvation was made to the Jews first, then everyone else.
>
> Romans 1:16-17
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for
> salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the
> Greek.
> NASB
>
>
> This verse is a quote from Jesus showing there is no male or female in
> heaven, but we are like the angels. What was that nonsense about getting a
> bunch of virgins in the after life?
Hold on a minute here. You believe that a perfect god created humanity
knowing that most of them would end up in hell, let the devil lead humanity
astray, came to earth as a man and temporarily sacrificed himself to himself
in order to make a loophole in a rule that he created, thus allowing himself
to forgive humans for behaving the way he always knew we would, so that he
wouldn't send us to the eternal punishment that he built (through a
subcontractor), and you're making fun of people believing in being given
virgins in the afterlife?
Dude, both are ridiculous, but I think I'd probably rather spend the
afterlife (if there is one) with a bunch of virgins rather than as a
neutered spirit. So if you don't want people to point out the silliness of
your beliefs, don't point to the silliness in others'.
Mark Jerde
> knowing that most of them would end up in hell, let the devil lead
> humanity astray, came to earth as a man and temporarily sacrificed himself
> to himself in order to make a loophole in a rule that he created, thus
> allowing himself to forgive humans for behaving the way he always knew we
> would, so that he wouldn't send us to the eternal punishment that he built
> (through a subcontractor),
Basically, yes.
> and you're making fun of people believing in being given virgins in the
> afterlife?
I'm not.
> Dude, both are ridiculous, but I think I'd probably rather spend the
> afterlife (if there is one) with a bunch of virgins rather than as a
> neutered spirit. So if you don't want people to point out the silliness
> of your beliefs, don't point to the silliness in others'.
My experience is that I'm right. I had a definate B.C. to A.D. conversion
in 1979. In an instant my life was totally changed and it has never gone
back.
Being a Christian is *so* worth it, plus there's this "eternal life in
heaven" stuff.
-- Mark