God created the Big Bang

2 views
Skip to first unread message

BURT

unread,
Sep 15, 2010, 9:24:12 PM9/15/10
to
Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
argument against it.

Mitch Raemsch

John Locke

unread,
Sep 15, 2010, 10:11:44 PM9/15/10
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
>

There's no truth in region and certainly no answers. That's why we
have science.


---------------------------------------------------------------

""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine

Inertial

unread,
Sep 15, 2010, 10:27:45 PM9/15/10
to
"BURT" wrote in message
news:1f0f1669-d5e6-4b43...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

>
>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.

Keep your religious claptrap out of physics forums. And you statement above
makes no sense

Uncle Vic

unread,
Sep 15, 2010, 10:43:12 PM9/15/10
to

Square god, round hole. Deal.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011

"REAL science is proving what the Bible has said all along."
--AllSeeing-I 9/12/10

Davej

unread,
Sep 15, 2010, 11:45:42 PM9/15/10
to
On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> argument against it.
>

Try reading Exodus 20-31. GAWD supposedly said all that stupid crap.
Religion is a reeking load of shit.

Olrik

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:15:21 AM9/16/10
to

Fruit Salad

Fresh summer fruits go perfectly with the Fruit Cream Dressing, making a
luscious dessert that's easier on the waistline than traditional fat
loaded cakes or pies.

Ingredients:

2 cups fresh seedless grapes , whole or cut depending on size
4 cups melon balls, cantaloupe or honeydew
4 cups nectarines or peaches, peeled & sliced
2 cups fresh blueberries
2 cups fresh strawberries
2 cups fresh pineapple chunks
1 cup sliced kiwi fruit


Directions:

1. Combine all fruits and chill.

2. Serve with Fruit Cream Dressing (recipe below).


Fruit Cream Dressing:

Ingredients:

1 (8-ounce) package cream cheese, softened
1 cup powdered sugar
1 cup whipping cream
1/4 cup granulated sugar
Juice from 1 lemon
Pineapple juice


Directions:

1. Soften cream cheese, whip with powdered sugar.

2. In a separate bowl, combine whipping cream and sugar together, whip
until it forms soft peaks.

3. Combine beaten cream cheese, whipped cream, and lemon juice; continue
to beat, adding just enough pineapple juice to achieve desired consistency.

4. Serve with fresh fruit salad.

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:21:42 AM9/16/10
to

I guess you're the fruit.

Mitch Raemsch

Steve Knight

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:34:44 AM9/16/10
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid


>argument against it.
>
>Mitch Raemsch

But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
in the world! So 'your' wrong.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:39:42 AM9/16/10
to
On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> >argument against it.
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
>  But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA

That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
right.

Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
Relgion didn't loose.

Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics

Uncle Vic

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:41:25 AM9/16/10
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Please taste it first.

Olrik

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:41:50 AM9/16/10
to
Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fruit Salad

> I guess you're the fruit.

Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless. Thanks.

> Mitch Raemsch

Uncle Vic

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:53:45 AM9/16/10
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>> >argument against it.
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch
>>
>>  But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
>> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
> That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
> right.

But he rides a wheelchair. How can you go wrong if you ride a
wheelchair?

>
> Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!

Can't prove a negative. Prove that I'm not the richest man in the world.

> Relgion didn't loose.

Religion didn't loose what? Did it not loose arrows? What did it not
loose? Or did you mean "LOSE"?

Religion always loses. Have you ever read the bible?

>
> Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
>

...yet cannot discern the difference between "loose" and "lose".

Bwaaaaahahahahaha!

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011

EAC looser of losers

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:53:46 AM9/16/10
to
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Religion didn't loose the argument on God.

Mitch Raemsch

Olrik

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 12:59:10 AM9/16/10
to

Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.

> Mitch Raemsch

Uncle Vic

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:07:18 AM9/16/10
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yet another internet "LOOSE" LOSER!!!

TEH!

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011

"REAL science is proving what the Bible has said all along."
--AllSeeing-I 9/12/10

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:08:35 AM9/16/10
to
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hawking didn't win.

Mitch Raemsch

Olrik

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:16:06 AM9/16/10
to

Just pray for yourself and leave science alone. It does not concern you.

Mickey

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:34:17 AM9/16/10
to

I see. You are going to disagree with anyone who
doesn't agree with you about anything, even if you
are wrong about everything or simply here to make
trouble. My guess would be that you just want to
make trouble. How fundie of you to troll alt.atheism
and to cross-post to a physics newsgroup that
obviously wants nothing to do with a fool like you.

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:39:07 AM9/16/10
to

Then I must of done something right.

Mitch Raemsch

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 1:44:16 AM9/16/10
to
> Just pray for yourself and leave science alone. It does not concern you.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Olrik? I am a two time Nobel Prize winner for this year
Science cannot get rid of me. The announcements are comming soon!
Maybe you can look down on me until then!

Mitch Raemsch

Mickey

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 2:19:47 AM9/16/10
to
On Sep 16, 12:15 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fruit Salad
>
> Fresh summer fruits go perfectly with the Fruit Cream Dressing, making a
> luscious dessert that's easier on the waistline than traditional fat
> loaded cakes or pies.
>
> Ingredients:
>
> 2 cups fresh seedless grapes , whole or cut depending on size
> 4 cups melon balls, cantaloupe and honeydew
> 4 cups nectarines and peaches, sliced

> 2 cups fresh pineapple chunks
> 1 cup sliced kiwi fruit
>
> Directions:
>
> 1. Combine all fruits and chill.
>
Come on, Olric! I just found out I'm diabetic. No
strawberries and blueberries (I'm allergic to
fresh strawberries) and, definitely no fruit
cream dressing. But the rest of the fruit salad
sounds delicious. And, none of this 'or' stuff.
I want them all! And, I've changed the ingredients
so my doctor won't bite my head off next time she
checks my blood sugar.

Mickey

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 2:20:53 AM9/16/10
to

Thank you for proving what a bigotted son of a trash
heap you are.

Mickey

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 2:44:26 AM9/16/10
to
On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
> > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
> > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>    wrote:

> > >>>> Fruit Salad
> > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>
> > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless. Thanks.
>
> > >>> Mitch Raemsch

> > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.


>
> > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>

> Hawking didn't win.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

And, you are so desperate for attention that you
constantly have to brag about Nobel Prizes that
can't be found on the Internet. First in
2008 and now in 2010. How odd.

Velociraptor

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 9:20:36 AM9/16/10
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:42 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:


>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>> >argument against it.
>>
>> >Mitch Raemsch
>>
>>  But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
>> in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
>That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
>right.
>
>Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!

OK
You said recently:

-- Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
-- argument against it.

That does not make sense. Maybe you left out a few words, or perhaps
you intended to type 2 different sentences and they got mixed up.

>Relgion didn't loose.
>
>Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics

Well I've got four Nobel prizes!
--
velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk

Igor

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 10:17:00 AM9/16/10
to
On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What truth is that? And science doesn't have to "bow" to anything.
Something is either falsifiable or it isn't. God isn't. Therefore
science has nothing to say about your silly beliefs.

archie dux

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 11:07:00 AM9/16/10
to

Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes,
or as those on the inside refer to them,
the "Real" Nobel Prizes.

Sadly, what with my having told you this,
you may expect a knock on your door
presently.

archie

archie dux

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 11:08:09 AM9/16/10
to

Really! They've started giving out more than one
Prize for physics per year?

When did this start?


archie

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 3:00:38 PM9/16/10
to

In three weeks. But you will have to wait until then!


>
> archie- Hide quoted text -

default

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 3:55:45 PM9/16/10
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
>argument against it.
>
>Mitch Raemsch

The big bang (a theory) happened therefore god dunnit?

Hmm - how do you know? Were you there? Did you see the almighty
smiter screwing around in space or nothingness?

How do you know it is a Universe, could this be part of a Multiverse?

That sounds redundant to me, maybe there's a "verse" with unlimited
"uni"verses?
--

Syd M.

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 4:22:03 PM9/16/10
to
On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> argument against it.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

No.
It has to do no such thing.

PDW

Smiler

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:14:06 PM9/16/10
to

From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
fit the prejudices of their believers.

JohnN

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:35:45 PM9/16/10
to
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Meanwhile, three weeks later on Oct 8th: chirp, chirp, chirp

JohnN

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 7:38:29 PM9/16/10
to
> JohnN- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bye Bye.

Steve Knight

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 8:38:31 PM9/16/10
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:39:42 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:

They don't choose the winners until October.

Whoops!

I should know. I have nine or ten of them.. no twenty! I have
twenty. Wanna buy a Tux?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

Darwin123

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 8:47:06 PM9/16/10
to
On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hawking didn't win.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Hawking didn't win or lose. Hawking wasn't even playing.

Darwin123

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 8:52:13 PM9/16/10
to
On Sep 16, 1:07 am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Yet another internet "LOOSE" LOSER!!!
Burt won two Noobel priizes.

DanielSan

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 9:14:13 PM9/16/10
to

I can't get any more. I have too many Pulitzers.

--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------

BURT

unread,
Sep 16, 2010, 9:26:09 PM9/16/10
to

Hawking said science would win. And told the world we don't need God.

Mitch Raemsch

Olrik

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 12:42:45 AM9/17/10
to

And Hawking's right. What's your problem ?

Olrik

> Mitch Raemsch

Mickey

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 11:57:12 AM9/17/10
to

That should be 'I must have'. So, you did
something wrong. Plus, you never did win
a Nobel Prize.

Mickey

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 11:59:58 AM9/17/10
to
Oh. I thought you meant the guys in the white coats.

Mickey

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 12:01:47 PM9/17/10
to
On Sep 16, 7:38 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:35 pm, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 3:00 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 8:08 am, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 15, 9:34 pm, Steve Knight <sknigh...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >Science has to bow to that truth that religion could use as a valid
> > > > > > >argument against it.
>
> > > > > > >Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > >  But, but, but... Hawking said it was bullshit. He's the SMARTEST man
> > > > > > in the world! So 'your' wrong.
>
> > > > > > Warlord Steve
> > > > > > BAAWA
>
> > > > > That guy never followed up with the few things in physics he got
> > > > > right.
>
> > > > > Prove that I am not the smartest man in the world now!
> > > > > Relgion didn't loose.
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch - Twice Nobel Laureate for this year in physics
>
> > > > Really!  They've started giving out more than one
> > > > Prize for physics per year?
>
> > > > When did this start?
>
> > > In three weeks. But you will have to wait until then!
>
> > Meanwhile, three weeks later on Oct 8th: chirp, chirp, chirp
>
> Bye Bye.

Giving up already?

Mickey

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 12:03:52 PM9/17/10
to
He's right. So?

Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 12:07:08 PM9/17/10
to

Because science models reality consistently, predictably and
predictively. Its explanations are expected to work, and do. Religion
plucks non-explanations for questions only it has, out of thin air and
expects them to be taken seriously.

BURT

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 2:39:52 PM9/17/10
to
On Sep 17, 9:07 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Mickey
>
> <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 16, 9:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 16, 5:47 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Hawking didn't win.
>
> >> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> >> >      Hawking didn't win or lose. Hawking wasn't even playing.
>
> >> Hawking said science would win. And told the world we don't need God.
>
> >He's right. So?

Not at all. Science can't win that argument.

Mitch Raemsch

Smiler

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 10:46:47 PM9/17/10
to

They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1, I'd have
thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.

BURT

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 10:58:19 PM9/17/10
to
> fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself.
Of course he lost that argument to religion.

Mitch Raemsch

Smiler

unread,
Sep 18, 2010, 7:05:25 PM9/18/10
to
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:19 -0700, BURT wrote:

> On Sep 17, 7:46 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
>> > On Sep 16, 7:14 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Mickey <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
>> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
>> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>> Fruit Salad
>> >> >> > > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>>
>> >> >> > > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was meaningless.
>> >> >> > > >> Thanks.
>>
>> >> >> > > >>> Mitch Raemsch
>> >> >> > > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>>
>> >> >> > > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> > Hawking didn't win.
>>
>> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> And, you are so desperate for attention that you constantly have

>> >> >> to brag about Nobel Prizes that can't be found on the Internet. Â


>> >> >> First in 2008 and now in 2010. How odd.
>>
>> >> > Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes, or as those on the
>> >> > inside refer to them, the "Real" Nobel Prizes.
>>
>> >> > Sadly, what with my having told you this, you may expect a knock
>> >> > on your door presently.
>>
>> >> From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!
>>
>> > Oh. I thought you meant the guys in the white coats.
>>
>> They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1, I'd
>> have thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.
>>
>> --
>> Smiler,
>> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
>> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly fit the prejudices of
>> their believers.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself. Of
> course he lost that argument to religion.
>
>

Nope.

BURT

unread,
Sep 18, 2010, 7:23:08 PM9/18/10
to
On Sep 18, 4:05 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:19 -0700, BURT wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 7:46 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
> >> > On Sep 16, 7:14 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Mickey <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a écrit :
> >> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a écrit :
> >> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

How is Hawking going to win that argument?
Religon didn't lose.

Mitch Raemsch

Smiler

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 7:41:55 PM9/19/10
to
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:23:08 -0700, BURT wrote:

> On Sep 18, 4:05 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:19 -0700, BURT wrote:
>> > On Sep 17, 7:46 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:59:58 -0700, Mickey wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 16, 7:14 pm, Smiler <Smi...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:07:00 -0700, archie dux wrote:

>> >> >> > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Mickey <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sep 16, 1:08 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 15, 9:59 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > Le 2010-09-16 00:53, BURT a crit :
>> >> >> >> > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >> Le 2010-09-16 00:21, BURT a crit :


>> >> >> >> > > >>> On Sep 15, 9:15 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >>>> Fruit Salad
>> >> >> >> > > >>> I guess you're the fruit.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >> Glad you acknowledge your original post was
>> >> >> >> > > >> meaningless. Thanks.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >>> Mitch Raemsch
>> >> >> >> > > > Religion didn't loose the argument on God.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > Another meaningless post. Sue your parents.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> >> > Hawking didn't win.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> >> >> >> And, you are so desperate for attention that you constantly
>> >> >> >> have to brag about Nobel Prizes that can't be found on the

>> >> >> >> Internet. First in 2008 and now in 2010. How odd.


>>
>> >> >> > Apparently these are the Covert Nobel Prizes, or as those on
>> >> >> > the inside refer to them, the "Real" Nobel Prizes.
>>
>> >> >> > Sadly, what with my having told you this, you may expect a
>> >> >> > knock on your door presently.
>>
>> >> >> From the guys in the black EAC (ntie) helicopters!
>>
>> >> > Oh. I thought you meant the guys in the white coats.
>>
>> >> They're too busy with BURT to bother with you. And, you being #1,
>> >> I'd have thought you *knew* about the black helicopters.
>>
>>

>> > Hawking says he's going to prove that the universe created itself. Of
>> > course he lost that argument to religion.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>

> How is Hawking going to win that argument? Religon didn't lose.
>

Try reading his exact words, not the spin you put on them.

BURT

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 8:42:59 PM9/19/10
to

I am responding to "Science will win."
But that would be foolish to believe.

Mitch Raemsch


>
> --
> Smiler,
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly

> fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -

Smiler

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:15:37 PM9/20/10
to

Which is not mentioned in this thread.

> But that would be foolish to believe.
>

Yep. It's always foolish to believe...without evidence.

BURT

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:28:31 PM9/20/10
to
- Which is not mentioned in this thread.

You say that I must use Hawking's very own words. And because I made
them exact
and now they are in this thread.

> > But that would be foolish to believe.


> Yep. It's always foolish to believe...without evidence.

Hawking cannot say there is No God without absolute evidence.
Relgion didn't lose.

Mitch Raemsch

>


> --
> Smiler,
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly

archie dux

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:39:32 PM9/20/10
to


Which of the tens of thousands of religion
"didn't lose"?

Which of the tens of thousands of
cresation stories was right?

archie

BURT

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:43:46 PM9/20/10
to

All that believe in God.

>
> Which of the tens of thousands of
> cresation stories was right?

The one that includes the Big Bang.


>
> archie
>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > --
> > > Smiler,
> > > The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> > > All gods are bespoke. They're all made to exactly
> > > fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

God is the Creator of the Big Bang.

Mitch Raemsch

Free Lunch

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:48:01 PM9/20/10
to
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> "didn't lose"?
>
>All that believe in God.
>
>>
>> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> cresation stories was right?
>
>The one that includes the Big Bang.

...

>God is the Creator of the Big Bang.

We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
correct in that statement.

BURT

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:50:29 PM9/20/10
to
On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>

God has no reason to prove that He exists.

Mitch Raemsch

AZ Nomad

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:52:07 PM9/20/10
to
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>God is the Creator of the Big Bang.

Kermit the frog created your god.

BURT

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 7:59:41 PM9/20/10
to
On Sep 20, 4:52 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>
> Kermit the frog created your god.

Jim Henson was a gentle genius.
And God Created Himself.

Mitch Raemsch

archie dux

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 8:06:00 PM9/20/10
to

Indeed.

Not only that, God seems to have gone to
rather extreme lengths to convince any
intelligent and reflective person that
He does not exist.

Rather an odd practice, but who am I
to tell God He's going about it all wrong?


archie


>
> Mitch Raemsch

BURT

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 8:07:55 PM9/20/10
to
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is Intelligent Design but you have to be intelligent to see it.

Mitch Raemsch

Free Lunch

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 8:24:16 PM9/20/10
to
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:50:29 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Sep 20, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:43:46 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 4:39 pm, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of religion
>> >> "didn't lose"?
>>
>> >All that believe in God.
>>
>> >> Which of the tens of thousands of
>> >> cresation stories was right?
>>
>> >The one that includes the Big Bang.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >God is the Creator of the Big Bang.
>>
>> We have no reason to accept that claim, though nothing shows that it is
>> wrong, either. One can substitute any noun for God and be equally
>> correct in that statement.
>
>God has no reason to prove that He exists.

God is indistinguishable from nothing.

Free Lunch

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 8:25:09 PM9/20/10