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.
Bob Engelhardt
> ...
> By the way, you know the "checkmate" video is tongue-in-cheek, right? ...
I had to re-read it to catch it. So much of the religious ranting is so
bizarre that the first time I read it I just thought it was that -
bizarre. On the re-read I felt kinda stupid for not seeing it as the
satire that it is.
Bob
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.
Monika Krug
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:45 -0500, "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.
I hate to break that to you, but that guy is an atheist. Look up satire.
>> 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.
This is good.
>> The man lived.
>> the man was killed on a cross.
>> those are facts. Beyond that who knows.
These are not facts at all.
Jesus never existed. I know it's a minority view, even non-Christians
mostly belief Jesus existed as a person, but that's just because they
never gave much consideration to the idea that he didn't. There are no
facts that support that Jesus existed and quite a few that support that
he didn't.
Let's go to the easier part: "He was killed on the cross." Many million
Christians around the world believe this. Not sure, but I think Jews
also think he may have lived and died as a human non-god being. Atheists
in Christian areas of the world typically believe this. But there are
many million Moslems, too. And in the Koran (or Quran, if you prefer
that transliteration) it says that Jesus was not crucified, but rescued
by Allah. Jesus was prophet and loved by Allah, and Allah would not
allow one of his prophets to be murdered by an angry mob or sentenced to
death. Another man died for Jesus on the cross, a criminal if I remember
correctly.
>> 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
Are we? Which bible verse calls us 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.
I don't know what a covenent is, either. But a covenant is a treaty or
contract between God and the humans. As I as a non-Christian and
non-native speaker of the English language know this, I think a lot more
than 0.0001% of American Christians probably know this, too.
>> 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.
Or maybe those who believe in GOD or a life force or "the force" are
delusional. Who knows.
>> Things are either alive or they're not.
What about viruses?
>> Once they are not alive they are never gonna be alive.
Define alive or life, please.
This is not a trick question. It was defined on page 1 on our
fifth-grade biology book and it indeed requires definition. There are
some slightly different definitions of life, so we need to agree on one
before we can discuss this question. How do you differentiate living
beings (plants, animals, one-cell life forms) from inanimate objects? Or
we could also talk about the definition of death of human beings.
>> 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.
Dinosaur bones are not found a foot under the soil. Who gave you that
silly idea? Not even Roman ruins are foot one foot under soil, but many
feet deep.
>> 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.
It is. Except by some loony American Christians. European Christians
don't seem to have such problems. Nor do they have problems with a
million-year-old earth and evolution.
>> 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.
I didn't hear of that. How would they know it was the first animal?
Probably they didn't mean it was the first, just the oldest foot print
they have found so far.
>> WHAT?
>> Footprints lasted on the surface for 200 million years?
>> Im sorry, thats just the dumbest shit i ever heard.
Depends on what they stepped into and what fell onto it. If no other
animal walked over it, and the material falling into the print was
different from the material under it (i.e. not leaves falling on earth,
these would become earth sooner or later if they have oxygen), I see no
problem with this.
>> Friggen scientists dream
>> shit up in their head, then go out to prove it.
>> Thats how its done, ask any scientist.
I did. What you say is nonsense. Did you?
>> 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?
That purpose seems to be that we kill each other and destroy this
planet, looking at the current state of the world.
Monika.
--
Every time you reboot, God kills a kitten.
E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use
@arcor.de instead.
Monika Krug
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:47:35 -0500, "vinny" <frigg...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>> Except for one thing. According to Christianity, if you don't believe, your
>> condemned to being away from GOD forever.
>> scary.
Depends on the version of Christianity. Believe or go to hell, accept
Jesus as a savior and go to heaven mostly seems to be taught by many
sub-groups of American Protestants and by a few European Protestant
sub-groups (Calvinists I think). Catholics seem to put more emphasis on
the part of the bible that says you have to lead a life free of sin (or
repent your sins) to get into heaven. European main-stream Protestants
seem to be somewhere in-between.
>> 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.
Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
devil. (For some reason sometimes confused with Lucifer, the morning
star, and with the beast, a roman ruler, probably Nero). Another of his
sons is the god of the desert, I forgot the name (was is Azrael?), to
whom the "scape goat", really an animal sacrifice equal to the sacrifice
given to Jahwe, is sent in one chapter of the Old Testament.
Judaism did not start out as a monotheistic religion, you see, but
developed from polytheism over monolatrism (believing in many gods, but
worshiping only one) to monotheism. Darrell can explain better, if he
happens to come by this post, he has read the Bible in the original
languages.
Dan
hierarchy, with "God" as the CEO, and lots of VPs and middle management
(angels and other demigods). We are the worker bees, but we produce
nothing of value for the boss, who is a pernicious narcissist afraid we
will desert and go to the competition ("Thou shalt have no gods BEFORE
me").
There is no way this crap wasn't invented by humans...
Dan
Dan
jk
>
>Dinosaur bones are not found a foot under the soil. Who gave you that
>silly idea? Not even Roman ruins are foot one foot under soil, but many
>feet deep.
>
Uh.... a fair number have been found on the surface, and at varying
depths. ERosion, its a wonderful thing.
And as for ROman ruins, Lots of them are ABOVE the surface. Just
because they are ruins doesnt mean they are buried. And those that are
buried are not all "many feet" deep.
jk
Shat T. Cat
(probably more than some of my religious realatives).
On Nov 16, 11:04 am, Monika Krug
<monikak...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
<snip>
>>> The man lived.
>>> the man was killed on a cross.
>>> those are facts. Beyond that who knows.
>
> These are not facts at all.
>
> Jesus never existed. I know it's a minority view, even non-Christians
> mostly belief Jesus existed as a person, but that's just because they
> never gave much consideration to the idea that he didn't. There are no
> facts that support that Jesus existed and quite a few that support that
> he didn't.
As I recall, Darrell pointed out that the name translated as Jesus
was actually the third most common name at the time. So, yes "a"
Jesus did live and probably quite a few of them actually. As quite a
few men named John (including my older brother) live today.
> Let's go to the easier part: "He was killed on the cross." Many million
> Christians around the world believe this. Not sure, but I think Jews
> also think he may have lived and died as a human non-god being. Atheists
> in Christian areas of the world typically believe this. But there are
> many million Moslems, too. And in the Koran (or Quran, if you prefer
> that transliteration) it says that Jesus was not crucified, but rescued
> by Allah. Jesus was prophet and loved by Allah, and Allah would not
> allow one of his prophets to be murdered by an angry mob or sentenced to
> death. Another man died for Jesus on the cross, a criminal if I remember
> correctly.
By many accounts, Jesus was a criminal. But, the "cross" was not
the usual means of execution, so he likely did not die on the cross.
<snip>
>>> One thing I have a problem with, most dinosaur bones are found less than 1
>>> foot under the soil.
>
> Dinosaur bones are not found a foot under the soil. Who gave you that
> silly idea? Not even Roman ruins are foot one foot under soil, but many
> feet deep.
Many of the early discoveries in the western US were openly
visible. Look up the term: Erosion
>>> 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.
>
> It is. Except by some loony American Christians. European Christians
> don't seem to have such problems. Nor do they have problems with a
> million-year-old earth and evolution.
"The Lord works in strange and mysterous ways."
<snip>
>>> Friggen scientists dream shit up in their head, then go out to prove it.
>>> Thats how its done, ask any scientist.
>
> I did. What you say is nonsense. Did you?
Well, they do form hypotheses and conduct experiments to test them.
>>> 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.
I have to agree with this. By the time we, as individual people,
actually know the answer, it won't matter anymore (we'll be dead).
>>> Are we special? Now thats the big question. Are we just the most evolved or
>>> are we chosen and created for a specific purpose?
>
> That purpose seems to be that we kill each other and destroy this
> planet, looking at the current state of the world.
Personally, I believe the purpose of man (that is mankind) is to
see what happens when they are allowed to run loose on a planet. The
killing and destorying are just some of the results, not the purpose.
And, the planet was here long before we were, and it will still be
here long after we're gone. We don't yet have the ability to actually
destory it. We can only mess it up enough to end up destorying
ourselves.
--
Shat T. Cat
Creature of Cyberspace
"In Fluffy We Trust"
/\~/\
(' ; ') n
/ \//
(,,, ,,,)
Powered by MEOW!
strabo
Some Jew(s)existed who skewered the Sanhedrin and divided the Jews.
The name in that context was being used in Rome by 30AD.
There is other evidence but I'm not interested in making a case.
<snipped>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Dinosaur bones are not found a foot under the soil. Who gave you that
> silly idea? Not even Roman ruins are foot one foot under soil, but many
> feet deep.
>
You need to visit Utah or Mongolia or parts of China.
Erosion or up-ending ground movement often exposes dinosaur
bones.
----== 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 =----
Darrell Stec
> Monika Krug wrote:
>> Cliff schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:45 -0500, "vinny" <frigg...@gawab.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:k01jj31hmt85d6ct8...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
>>>>
>>
>>>> The man lived.
>>>> the man was killed on a cross.
>>>> those are facts. Beyond that who knows.
>>
>> These are not facts at all.
>>
>> Jesus never existed. I know it's a minority view, even non-Christians
>> mostly belief Jesus existed as a person, but that's just because they
>> never gave much consideration to the idea that he didn't. There are no
>> facts that support that Jesus existed and quite a few that support that
>> he didn't.
>>
>
> Some Jew(s)existed who skewered the Sanhedrin and divided the Jews.
> The name in that context was being used in Rome by 30AD.
>
> There is other evidence but I'm not interested in making a case.
>
That is a baseless assertion not evidence. Monika is correct there is
absolutely zero evidence that a god-man named Joshua ever died on a cross
circa 30 CE.
It is good that you are not interested in making a case, as you have no
ammunition.
[lots snipped from the original poster who only half remembers what he
thinks he heard, most of which was balderdash.]
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>I don't know what a covenent is, either.
It's where young girls used to go to hook up with wealthy
& powerful priests?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> One thing I have a problem with, most dinosaur bones are found less than 1
>>> foot under the soil.
>
>Dinosaur bones are not found a foot under the soil. Who gave you that
>silly idea?
The deeper they are in the rock stata the harder to find by
walking past they are.
Many places are much eroded though & stuff can be found falling out
of the strata.
I'd like to know what's been found in Coal deposits (automated
screening, etc.) If anything (conditions may have promoted decay.)
Probably lots of meteorites might be easiy found IF someone had
set up detectors ...
--
Cliff
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
> has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
> mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
> devil.
Got cite?
--
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 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.
Monika Krug
> In misc.survivalism Monika Krug <monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>> Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
>> has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
>> mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
>> devil.
>
> Got cite?
Yep. It's called "Bible". You need to get it in the original Hebrew,
Aramaic etc. though.
This book sounds like it could be good: "Mark S. Smith, The Origins of
Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)."
Review: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review031.htm
I didn't read it, though.
Darrell Stec
> In misc.survivalism Monika Krug
> <monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>> Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
>> has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
>> mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
>> devil.
>
> Got cite?
>
>
How about the bible itself? Is that authoritative enough for you. Every
thing Monika stated can be found there although some if obfuscated by the
purposeful mistranslation of the Hebrew.
All of what Monika wrote is rather accepted fact by biblical scholars but
not by fundie ministers who have no real education in biblical criticism
nor the original languages of scripture and therefore cannot be classified
as scholars.
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
> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com schrieb:
> > In misc.survivalism Monika Krug <monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
> >> has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
> >> mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
> >> devil.
> >
> > Got cite?
> Yep. It's called "Bible". You need to get it in the original Hebrew,
> Aramaic etc. though.
That's silly. You may as well have claimed "its in the library". Were in
the Bible?
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?
Monika Krug
> In misc.survivalism Monika Krug <monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com schrieb:
>
>>> In misc.survivalism Monika Krug <monik...@expires-2007-11-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Close. According to the Old Testament, there is El, the highest god. He
>>>> has many sons, the Elohim. One of his sons is Jahwe, known to Christians
>>>> mostly as "God" or "Lord". One of his sons is Satan, also known as the
>>>> devil.
>>> Got cite?
>
>> Yep. It's called "Bible". You need to get it in the original Hebrew,
>> Aramaic etc. though.
>
> That's silly. You may as well have claimed "its in the library". Were in
> the Bible?
Elohim: In the first sentence in the Bible. Plural. Gods, not God.
Elohim, El, Jahwe, the sons of God (El), Jahwe and Satan both being sons
of El: the Book of Job, which vinny mentioned. That's not the only
place, but there it's pretty obvious. You even get to see some of it
when reading an English translation.
The desert god: Not sure where that is, but if you search an electronic
Bible for "scapegoat" you'll probably find it.
Darrell Stec
> The desert god: Not sure where that is, but if you search an electronic
> Bible for "scapegoat" you'll probably find it.
>
> Monika.
>
Azazel, god of the desert, Yahweh requires Azazel get a sacrificial offering
the same as he requires from his chosen people. Found in Leviticus.
Archaeological discoveries find Azazel numbered with the rest of the
Canaanite pantheon. Scapegoat is an intentional mistranslation because it
would bring up more questions about why Yahweh would require his chosen
people to also sacrifice to his brother, another member of the Elohim.
Those translators try so hard to convey the idea that the Hebrews were
monotheistic which was only true after Darius allowed the hoi poloi to
return to Israel and trounce upon those who remained and still retained
vestiges of polytheism. Those who remained, the ordinary people of Israel
were known as Samaritans and that is why see see such hatred of them in the
New Testament.
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
> 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.
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
Dick 'Tater
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> faith. At least they are not afraid to admit that they are sometimes
> wrong, and can change their theories and ideas as facts become
> available.
> Some would like to believe science is nothing but crazy theories, but
> in reality, most of it is based on facts, knowledge, and research.
Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
--
D't
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.
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.
Curly
I disagree. Prove that assertion.
Dick 'Tater
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:24:51 +0000, Dick 'Tater wrote:
>
>> sittingduck wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> A scientist is far more credible than someone that works from blind
>>> faith. At least they are not afraid to admit that they are sometimes
>>> wrong, and can change their theories and ideas as facts become
>>> available.
>>> Some would like to believe science is nothing but crazy theories,
>>> but in reality, most of it is based on facts, knowledge, and
>>> research.
>>
>> Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
>
> I disagree. Prove that assertion.
I can't and wouldn't try.
All I can truthfully say is that I am not conflicted by either Jesus or
Darwin.
I've room for both, principally because my belief and adhearance to science
only clarifies my leap of faith.
--
D't
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?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course not. But it all depends on what one has faith in.
If one is talking about many variants of the Christian mythology, as
currently expressed by lots of folks, then faith in that mythology is
absolutely incompatible with the current state of scientific knowlege.
Many Christians believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted. To believe
that, they need to disbelieve much of paleontology, geology, biology, and
a host of other 'logies, and instead have faith in their theology.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
> I disagree. Prove that assertion.
I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His reality has been proven
by the stistically significat inverse relationship between global warming,
hurricanes, eathquakes and other natural disaters and the number of
pirates over time. I can provide cites it you wish to review them.
jeff
class room when he graduated sixth grade.
Curly
> In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
>
>> I disagree. Prove that assertion.
>
> I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His reality has been proven
> by the stistically significat inverse relationship between global warming,
> hurricanes, eathquakes and other natural disaters and the number of
> pirates over time. I can provide cites it you wish to review them.
That's not "science," that a correlation. Besides, the FSM is irrelevant
to the arguement.
Believers are not scientific, the two are mutually exclusive. When
someone believes in the supernatural they've foregone objective thought.
Objective thought is the basis of Science.
Curly
Then let's move on to your leap of faith. Can you scientifically
substantiate your religion?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His reality has been proven
> > by the stistically significat inverse relationship between global warming,
> > hurricanes, eathquakes and other natural disaters and the number of
> > pirates over time. I can provide cites it you wish to review them.
> That's not "science," that a correlation.
Not only is the correlation statistically significant, but it cannot be
via pure chance.
Besides, we have books which say it is true. Lots of them. More than
Christians have. Case Closed.
Dick 'Tater
No, I can't and if I could it would be science and not faith.
Don't think that I'm confusing my faith in something greater than either
myself or my fellows with guys in the religion business like Benny Hin or
Billy Graham. They, and their sort are after all, in business. They prey on
the weak and addled. They are perceptive, persistent and effective. None of
that has anything, however, to do with the basic tenets of right or wrong.
It has a lot to do with $40 million dollar Challengers and million dollar
Rolls Royce automobiles - and fraud.
I guess I'll have to stick with my Falcon 50. I don't have their brand of
cynicism in me and can't recommend it.
That these turds operate tax free as religions is sickening and demeaning,
to them and us all. We allow it, after all.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
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 =----
Curly
> In misc.survivalism Curly <curly....@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His reality has been proven
>> > by the stistically significat inverse relationship between global warming,
>> > hurricanes, eathquakes and other natural disaters and the number of
>> > pirates over time. I can provide cites it you wish to review them.
>
>
>> That's not "science," that a correlation.
>
> Not only is the correlation statistically significant, but it cannot be
> via pure chance.
>
> Besides, we have books which say it is true. Lots of them. More than
> Christians have. Case Closed.
Yes, that's the crazymotherfucker arguement but it ain't science.