'Science cannot provide all the answers'
maff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
Mekkala
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:18510aff.03090...@posting.google.com:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Do you know what I noticed reading that article? I noticed that all of
those scientists acknowledged that there is no need for God, and that their
reasons for believing in God were "feel-good" reasons. Just because an
idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it's right.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
Gregory Gadow
All the while ignoring the plain fact that there is no Egyptian record of
anything that even remotely resembles the Hebrews, the plagues or the
Exodus.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
Jim07D3
Conformance with myth is not a test of truth, in science.
Ergo, for some, science cannot provide all the answers.
Jim07D3
Jesus Christ
> maff wrote:
>
> > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
> > Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
> >
> > Thursday September 4, 2003
> > The Guardian
> >
> > Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
> > professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
> > of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
> > like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
> > selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
> > the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
> > believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
> > search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
> > burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea
and
> > the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
> > it.
>
> All the while ignoring the plain fact that there is no Egyptian record
of
> anything that even remotely resembles the Hebrews, the plagues or the
> Exodus.
Clearly they didn't write anything down out of sheer embarassment.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
\| Pastor Frank Ontheway
M. Clark Duke32
CaptainKIRKusa1
Cheezits
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
> Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Asking why scientists believe in God (never mind why so many of them don't)
is about as relevant as asking why they listen to music, or why they plant
flowers or raise families or go hiking in the Lake District. No shit
science doesn't provide "all the answers"! Scientists have feelings just
like the rest of us.
Sue (not a scientist or a believer)
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Frank J
> On 04 Sep 2003, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) screwed up his face, groaned,
> pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> news:18510aff.03090...@posting.google.com:
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
>
> Do you know what I noticed reading that article? I noticed that all of
> those scientists acknowledged that there is no need for God, and that their
> reasons for believing in God were "feel-good" reasons. Just because an
> idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it's right.
I'm surprised that it didn't degenerate into the same old "intelligent
design" vs. "Darwinism" nonsense. Maybe that's why WorldNetDaily
pulled it off as quickly as they could.
Lane Lewis
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.03090...@posting.google.com...
Science can not reach to the outermost part of the universe or to the
innermost part of the atom. Between those two points it does a pretty good
job.
Lane
Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire
It just goes to show the power of indoctrination. Rational people believing
in irrational things, because they have been so well trained...their inner
support has been so severely white anted by religion...that rejecting things
they subconsciously know is false will make their weakened facade collapse,
so they continue to lie to themselves and to the outside world as well.
Science is self-correcting...religion is self-deluding!
>
Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire
As opposed to religion which only provides answers to the questions it makes
up.
Geoff Offermann
news:Xns93ECC50...@207.35.177.134...
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>
> > maff wrote:
> >
> > > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
> > > Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
> > >
> > > Thursday September 4, 2003
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> > > Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
> > > professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
> > > of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
> > > like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
> > > selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
> > > the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
> > > believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
> > > search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
> > > burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea
> and
> > > the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
> > > it.
> >
> > All the while ignoring the plain fact that there is no Egyptian record
> of
> > anything that even remotely resembles the Hebrews, the plagues or the
> > Exodus.
>
> Clearly they didn't write anything down out of sheer embarassment.
And Yul Brynner sayeth: "Let the name Charlton Heston be stricken
from all the books. So shall it be written. So shall it be done."
Geoff Offermann
And what answers does religion provide?
Phylter
@posting.google.com:
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
Gee, might as well throw away my copies of "The Lancet" and textbooks and
crack the Bible then....
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Gregory Gadow
And yet, we know about Ankenatum and Nefertiti. We know that Tutankamun was
originally named Tutankhatum. The Egyptians were positively neurotic about
getting stuff written down, and there are many, many instances where stuff
"stricken from all the books" survived. There were simply too many records, not
only official state records but more personal accounts written on papyri and
tomb walls.
Had there been a distinct ethnic group held as slaves in Egypt for some 400
years, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There is no possible way that 400 years
of a basic slave caste could have been just erased with no trace, not when
records were literally carved in stone.
Had there been a string of disasters of the scope claimed in the Bible, THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. There are many instances in extant records of famine,
of infestations of locusts, of drought, of rampant disease. No where in any of
the records is there mention of any series of event even close to comparable to
"the Ten Plagues." Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood or a hail
of fire or a disease that struck only the first born would have been written
down *somewhere*.
Had tens of thousands of slaves all left at once, carrying with them most of
Egypt's wealth, pursued by the mighty army of Egypt which was lost as the "Reed
Sea" (the English translation of 'Yam Soof' as 'Red Sea' is in error) when the
tide came, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS. Egyptian histories tell of many
defeats in battle. Why not this one which would have been so noteworthy?
Interestly enough, Egyptian records DO tell of a group of Semitic invaders, the
Hyksos. The Hyksos were (by Egyptian standards) a warlike people that had the
temerity to attack and actually *conquer* Egypt, due to the fact that the
Hyksos had horses and chariots; the Egyptians did not. The 15th Dynasty was
Hyksos, not Egyptian (the 16th Dynasty ran parallel and consisted of Egyptian
vassal kings.) Written examples of the Hyksos language show strong
similarities to early Hebrew and other Semitic tongues. The Hyksos were
defeated around 1570 and 1546 BCE by the founder of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose 1.
Curiously enough, the Hyksos are described in Egyptian records as fleeing the
land with much of Egypt's wealth, pursued by a vast army that turned back only
when the Hyksos fled in to the swamps of the Nile delta.
David Jensen
<3F589238...@serv.net>:
...
>Interestly enough, Egyptian records DO tell of a group of Semitic invaders, the
>Hyksos. The Hyksos were (by Egyptian standards) a warlike people that had the
>temerity to attack and actually *conquer* Egypt, due to the fact that the
>Hyksos had horses and chariots; the Egyptians did not. The 15th Dynasty was
>Hyksos, not Egyptian (the 16th Dynasty ran parallel and consisted of Egyptian
>vassal kings.) Written examples of the Hyksos language show strong
>similarities to early Hebrew and other Semitic tongues. The Hyksos were
>defeated around 1570 and 1546 BCE by the founder of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose 1.
>Curiously enough, the Hyksos are described in Egyptian records as fleeing the
>land with much of Egypt's wealth, pursued by a vast army that turned back only
>when the Hyksos fled in to the swamps of the Nile delta.
But, of course, the Hebrew story couldn't possibly be a retelling of
this, at least according to 'Bible literalists'.
Barry OGrady
As far back as when the Bible was written God's lackeys knew that the earth was flat with
four corners, pillars, and a solid dome. Even today, some scientists believe the world to
be round.
Psymaster
23:19:27 GMT in alt.atheism:
>> All the while ignoring the plain fact that there is no
>> Egyptian record of anything that even remotely resembles
>> the Hebrews, the plagues or the Exodus.
>
> Clearly they didn't write anything down out of sheer
> embarassment.
>
It couldn't be clearer.
--
"I believe in nothing, I fear nothing, I am free."
-Nikos Kazantzakis
Andrew Arensburger
> And what answers does religion provide?
How about:
- "Because you're a sinner"
- "Because it's $DEITY's will"
- "Soon. Very soon."
- "72."
- The ever-popular, "Indeed, our actions are justified!"
- And my personal favorite (no kidding), "Mu"
(The questions may or may not be obvious from the answers. Make up
your own.)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
While in conversation today, I will practice keeping
a mental inventory of other people's stupidity.
James Aubuchon
"Barry OGrady" <ba...@darkstar.example.net> wrote in message
news:3f58ad0e$0$28117$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Yes. What fools. Have they ever "questioned" whether it was round? If they
had, they would have found out that it was spherical....the fools...
Walking on Glass
in alt.atheism, news:Xns93EDB1454496...@192.189.54.177:
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) astounded us with:
> news:18510aff.0309041206.67cd2d72 @posting.google.com:
>
>> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
>
> Gee, might as well throw away my copies of "The Lancet" and textbooks
> and crack the Bible then....
Have you not learnt anything from history? You don't simply throw away such
heretical tomes - you have to burn them - and their authors - if they
refuse to recant their godless works.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
James Aubuchon
"Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:3f57ea1d$0$563$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Science is self-correcting...religion is self-deluding!
Yes. So the indoctrination goes.
Jesus Christ
I'm most impressed with Egypt's ability to not only ignore Noah's flood,
but to have records before, during and after the deluge that allegedly
killed everything but those folk on the ark. That takes *real* talent to
pull off.
Al Klein
<tech...@serv.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
Recorded many times
> or a hail of fire
Also scientifically explainable
> or a disease that struck only the first born would have been written
>down *somewhere*.
Now you've got me.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
cactus
"Geoff Offermann" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jyU5b.269665$Oz4.72130@rwcrnsc54...
Many religions provide ethical and moral guidance. They also provide solace
and explanation when bad things happen. It provides cultural
underpinnings - many values that are now considered secular started out as
religious in nature.
Kenny Leong
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
> Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
>
> Thursday September 4, 2003
> The Guardian
Yes...the article says......
""'Science cannot provide all the answers' Why do so many scientists
believe in God? Tim Radford reports""
The answer is easy and straight forward. It's because they're morons.
Simple.
Kenny L.
Kenny Leong
> maf...@yahoo.com (maff) astounded us with: news:18510aff.0309041206.67cd2d72
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
>
> Gee, might as well throw away my copies of "The Lancet" and textbooks and
> crack the Bible then....
Yeah....true. I don't suppose the bible tells us the answer on how
come up with a permanent cure for the flu or something right?
Kenny L.
Mark K. Bilbo
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html Why
> do so many scientists believe in God?
Except, they don't.
What a crappy article. Theists love that 40% number. Ignoring that it
means 60% don't. And 60% is what we usually call a "landslide."
And they *love to just flat out *ignore that the 2,200+ members of the NAS
(the folks recognized for major contributions) are *over 90%
atheist/agnostic.
"C olin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge."
Whoopee.
"Tom McLeish is professor of polymer physics at Leeds. Supermarket plastic
bags are polymers..."
Uh huh. He's making a better grocery bag eh?
"Russell Stannard is now emeritus professor of physics at the Open
University."
Meaning he's an old fart and retired.
I mean, this is *lame. They may do good work and all but, come on, why
don't these "scientists find god" people EVER talk to, oh, Nobel Prize
winners?
"You get a few scientists like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins
[professor of chemistry at Oxford] who at least talk as though they cannot
understand how a scientist could possibly be religious..."
Yes. And notice that not one of the "believers" mentioned is anywhere near
Dawkins' level?
I'd like to see surveys done such as what do Noble winners think. And
there are ways to check citations of papers. Compare citations of papers
(a rough indication of usefulness) with the beliefs of the author.
Bet it would turn up some interesting stuff...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Mark K. Bilbo
Yul musta been a librul!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Mark K. Bilbo
And what kind of "scientist" can he be if he believes in something like
the story of Exodus? I mean, get a *grip. There's no evidence any such
thing happened. NONE.
He may do material science, may even be competent at it, but he's
obviously never going to do anything major...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
John Wilkins
How many errors has any religion self-corrected, apart from the
corrections imposed on it by science?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
David Jensen
<1g0x609.1olrilv1okfvz1N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:
>James Aubuchon <nork...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au> wrote
>> in message news:3f57ea1d$0$563$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> > Science is self-correcting...religion is self-deluding!
>>
>> Yes. So the indoctrination goes.
>
>How many errors has any religion self-corrected, apart from the
>corrections imposed on it by science?
Does the Reformation and (more importantly) the Counter-Reformation
count?
John Wilkins
David Jensen
Whatever is No Longer Taught was an error. You can tell because it is no
longer taught.
My serious point is that it is possible for religions to make changes in
their teachings that have nothing to do with science. I realize that
self-correcting or correction of any kind is in the eye of the beholder
in this case.
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.03090...@posting.google.com...
True Faith can cure all diseases, you merely need to touch Jesus in order
to be cured of anything. Renounce your sins and just go find Him in a crowd
and touching his cloak will cure you. I am sure he is around here
somewhere, right? I mean he rose from the dead, right?
Wait - okay, here it is:
If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed - Matthew 17:20.
The problem is that we really have no faith and that is why we aren't cured
of diseases, and why we can't walk on water.
Illness is a sign from God that we still haven't learned to trust him enough
to let him cure everything. Before Evolution, there was no disease because
everyone believed in Creation and God. Darwin brought atheism and disease.
> Kenny L.
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
John Wilkins
> In talk.origins, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> <1g0x8y9.16se73r1w8tlwgN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:
>
> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In talk.origins, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> >> <1g0x609.1olrilv1okfvz1N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>:
> >>
> >> >James Aubuchon <nork...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
> >> >> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3f57ea1d$0$563$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Science is self-correcting...religion is self-deluding!
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. So the indoctrination goes.
> >> >
> >> >How many errors has any religion self-corrected, apart from the
> >> >corrections imposed on it by science?
> >>
> >> Does the Reformation and (more importantly) the Counter-Reformation
> >> count?
> >
> >Which were the errors, and how can oyu tell?
>
> Whatever is No Longer Taught was an error. You can tell because it is no
> longer taught.
:-)
But it *is* still taught, just not by the same groups...
>
> My serious point is that it is possible for religions to make changes in
> their teachings that have nothing to do with science. I realize that
> self-correcting or correction of any kind is in the eye of the beholder
> in this case.
This is a serious and critical point - how do you recognise error in
religion? There are three, and only three sources:
1. Revelation, preferably written. However, as any semiotician will tell
you a text can be multiply interpreted (if you are not constrained by
historical context, anyway).
2. Authority of an institution, tradition or community. The problem here
is that for any position, there is or can be at short notice an
institution, tradition and community to back it up.
3. Personal experience of the numinous. Of course, you only have *my*
word for it that my experience of the numinous is correct, and should
*your* experience contradict *my* experience, we are back to 2...
Now, there are facts in the world, contrary to some postmodernists, and
they can disprove a religious claim - for example, one particular
textual revelation and tradition asserted that the earth was the center
of the universe; this has been overturned in the sense it was
interpreted, and a new interpretation had to "correct" that older one.
But the thing doing the correction here was not religion - it was
science...
Scott Rutter
<Je...@christ.hvn> wrote:
>> Had tens of thousands of slaves all left at once, carrying with them
>> most of Egypt's wealth, pursued by the mighty army of Egypt which was
>> lost as the "Reed Sea" (the English translation of 'Yam Soof' as 'Red
>> Sea' is in error) when the tide came, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDS.
>> Egyptian histories tell of many defeats in battle. Why not this one
>> which would have been so noteworthy?
>
>I'm most impressed with Egypt's ability to not only ignore Noah's flood,
>but to have records before, during and after the deluge that allegedly
>killed everything but those folk on the ark. That takes *real* talent to
>pull off.
We just couldn't keep those anal retentive record keepers in line.
To this day we have existing Egyptian records of things like the
amount of grain harvested for particular years and numbers of arrows
produced for the army, you'd think someone would have written down
about the massive devastation caused by the plagues, the loss of the
first born males from all the houses ect.
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Temporal Adjustment
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
Scott Rutter
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>> And what answers does religion provide?
>
> How about:
>
> - "Because you're a sinner"
> - "Because it's $DEITY's will"
> - "Soon. Very soon."
> - "72."
Oh, you're going to burn for that one. Not knowing the Answer to
Life the Universe and Everything. It's not too late, REPENT SINNER!
<grin>
We've gone less than two generations and already some poor deluded
fools have corrupted the message. And others want us to believe they
have not made any changes in their "holy books" in more than two
thousand years! <smirk>
Scott Rutter
(Kenny Leong) wrote:
>> Gee, might as well throw away my copies of "The Lancet" and textbooks and
>> crack the Bible then....
>
>Yeah....true. I don't suppose the bible tells us the answer on how
>come up with a permanent cure for the flu or something right?
Something about pigeon blood, check leviticus.
Scott Rutter
<tui...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Illness is a sign from God that we still haven't learned to trust him enough
>to let him cure everything. Before Evolution, there was no disease because
>everyone believed in Creation and God. Darwin brought atheism and disease.
Damn Darwin and his Bubonic Plague of 1347...oh, right.
<smirk>
Kenny Leong
> "Kenny Leong" <kenny_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:29154d7c.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > Phylter <Phy...@NOSPAhMotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93EDB1454496...@192.189.54.177>...
> > > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) astounded us with:
> news:18510aff.0309041206.67cd2d72
> > > @posting.google.com:
> > >
> > > > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> > >
> > > Gee, might as well throw away my copies of "The Lancet" and textbooks
> and
> > > crack the Bible then....
> >
> > Yeah....true. I don't suppose the bible tells us the answer on how
> > come up with a permanent cure for the flu or something right?
> >
>
> True Faith can cure all diseases, you merely need to touch Jesus in order
> to be cured of anything. Renounce your sins and just go find Him in a crowd
> and touching his cloak will cure you. I am sure he is around here
> somewhere, right? I mean he rose from the dead, right?
Yes...but I asked whether the bible tells you the answer on how to
come up with a 'permanent' ... yes permanent cure for flu. That is,
the cure comes out and nobody will get it ever again. That is..the flu
simply disappears from the face of the planet.
Kenny L.
Klaus Hellnick
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:nuoilvsobtt2mda0n...@Pern.rk...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Gregory Gadow
> <tech...@serv.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
>
> Recorded many times
Where?
>
> > or a hail of fire
>
> Also scientifically explainable
>
The fact that something like this might be "scientifically explainable"
does not mean it is recorded as a historical event. Where is this recorded?
Klaus
David Jensen
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
...
True. Though the problem with science doing the correction, as this
newsgroup (t.o.) is dedicated to, is that even science does not always
correct religious doctrine -- at least not immediately.
Religions can correct things that are perceived as errors (of teaching
or operation) by outsiders or unhappy insiders, often without even
acknowledging that they have. The Counter Reformation, glibly and
simplistically, was started with the claim that Luther et al. were
completely wrong, but maybe some reforms could be made (please don't
look at the reforms proposed by those evil heretics). The LDS managed
famously to discover that toleration of polygamy was not a valid
teaching and, decades later, that non-whites were completely equal to
whites in front of God. The SBC and other US southern religious groups
have moved away from the over racism that was a major part of their
past.
It seems to me that religions all have to reform themselves. While
pressure and evidence may come from the outside, it takes a commitment
from leaders inside to make the change, and these leaders, while often
willing to accept scientific evidence if that is part of their
tradition, seldom formally acknowledge any other sort of pressure from
the outside.
Douglas Berry
have seen Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> scrawl a message on the
wall:
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Gregory Gadow
><tech...@serv.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
>
>Recorded many times
Cite?
>
>> or a hail of fire
>
>Also scientifically explainable
Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor any
other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
--
Douglas Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Bobby D. Bryant
Religions do in fact continually split into sub-sects, but it's not clear
that that counts as progress. It's certainly not an example of
convergence, which is what science strives for.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> In talk.origins Geoff Offermann <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>> And what answers does religion provide?
>
> How about:
>
> - "Because you're a sinner"
> - "Because it's $DEITY's will"
> - "Soon. Very soon."
> - "72."
> - The ever-popular, "Indeed, our actions are justified!"
> - And my personal favorite (no kidding), "Mu"
I thought it was "Om".
Andrew Arensburger
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Arensburger
> <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>>> And what answers does religion provide?
>>
>> How about:
> Oh, you're going to burn for that one. Not knowing the Answer to
> Life the Universe and Everything. It's not too late, REPENT SINNER!
> <grin>
Not the question I had in mind, actually. Besides, the OP
asked which answers _religion_ provides, so unless you're going to
argue that Deep Thought was a religious figure...
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
You have old mail.
Jesus Christ
> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
> >
> > Recorded many times
>
> Where?
The Journal of Historical Satire.
Jesus Christ
> >> All the while ignoring the plain fact that there is no
> >> Egyptian record of anything that even remotely resembles
> >> the Hebrews, the plagues or the Exodus.
> >
> > Clearly they didn't write anything down out of sheer
> > embarassment.
> >
>
> It couldn't be clearer.
Only an evilutionist would say otherwise.
Andrew Arensburger
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> In talk.origins Geoff Offermann <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>>> And what answers does religion provide?
>>
> I thought it was "Om".
"Mu" is the answer to various koans. I'm not aware of any
question to which "Om" is the answer.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
AT&T is a modem test command.
Al Klein
<grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor any
>other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
there it would be difficult to find the sand.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
Christopher A. Lee
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:28:55 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Berry
><grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor any
>>other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
>
>Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
>evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
>thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
>there it would be difficult to find the sand.
Sounds like a particularly shitty task.
John Wilkins
Religions evolve - no doubt about it. Do they make progress and
eliminate error, though? I think what they do is just evolve; they adapt
to the social circumstances of their practitioners. That's *all* they
do.
The concept of Error in science is based on accuracy of observation and
measurement - anything that fails to deal with increasing accuracy has
to be refined, revised or dropped. In religion there is no standard that
is universal to all observers. One might, were one suitably cynical,
think that religion is nothing but what suits the practitioners at the
time...
David Jensen
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
...
>> It seems to me that religions all have to reform themselves. While
>> pressure and evidence may come from the outside, it takes a commitment
>> from leaders inside to make the change, and these leaders, while often
>> willing to accept scientific evidence if that is part of their
>> tradition, seldom formally acknowledge any other sort of pressure from
>> the outside.
>
>Religions evolve - no doubt about it. Do they make progress and
>eliminate error, though? I think what they do is just evolve; they adapt
>to the social circumstances of their practitioners. That's *all* they
>do.
That would be what I have in mind.
>The concept of Error in science is based on accuracy of observation and
>measurement - anything that fails to deal with increasing accuracy has
>to be refined, revised or dropped. In religion there is no standard that
>is universal to all observers. One might, were one suitably cynical,
>think that religion is nothing but what suits the practitioners at the
>time...
I would not want to have to disprove that theorem, at least not in your
class.
J.R.
I know what some priests thought religion was. (one of them 300 times)
Nick Keighley
> In talk.origins Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> >> In talk.origins Geoff Offermann <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> And what answers does religion provide?
> >>
> >> - And my personal favorite (no kidding), "Mu"
>
> > I thought it was "Om".
>
> "Mu" is the answer to various koans. I'm not aware of any
> question to which "Om" is the answer.
"which religion will strap you to red hot iron turtle for believing
the world is flat?"
--
Nick Keighley
Smitty Jagermanjenson
"Nick Keighley" <nick.k...@marconi.com> wrote in message
news:8ad2cfb3.0309...@posting.google.com...
Interesting point. Christians are quite happy allowing you to be as ignorant
as you want - but as soon as your intelligence gets in the way of their
religious beliefs they pull out the red hot iron turtle.
Lenny Flank
> > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> >> In talk.origins Geoff Offermann <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> And what answers does religion provide?
> >>
> >> - And my personal favorite (no kidding), "Mu"
>
> > I thought it was "Om".
>
> "Mu" is the answer to various koans. I'm not aware of any
> question to which "Om" is the answer.
"Om" is short for "Om mani padme hum." It means "Hail to the Jewel in
the Lotus".
It refers to the gem of enlightenment that is within all of us. Or,
it refers to the Tao or Brahma or Dharma whatever you want to call the
thing/no-thing which pervades the universe and unifies it. Or, it
refers to the writings of Buddha. Or, it refers to earthly life which
is surrounded by heaven. Or, it refers to all of these things at the
same time.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
John Wilkins
Bobby D. Bryant
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:<bjgh03$5ce$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
>> In talk.origins Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> >> In talk.origins Geoff Offermann <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>> And what answers does religion provide?
>> >>
>> >> - And my personal favorite (no kidding), "Mu"
>>
>> > I thought it was "Om".
>>
>> "Mu" is the answer to various koans. I'm not aware of any
>> question to which "Om" is the answer.
>
> "Om" is short for "Om mani padme hum." It means "Hail to the Jewel in
> the Lotus".
>
> It refers to the gem of enlightenment that is within all of us. Or, it
> refers to the Tao or Brahma or Dharma whatever you want to call the
> thing/no-thing which pervades the universe and unifies it. Or, it
> refers to the writings of Buddha. Or, it refers to earthly life which
> is surrounded by heaven. Or, it refers to all of these things at the
> same time.
And I mentioned it because of the almost-jest of it being an
almost-reverse-spelling of Mu.
Robert Carroll
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g0xetg.1cy4vm17cq7yoN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
> > In talk.origins, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> >
> > >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >James Aubuchon <nork...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire"
<cj...@SPAMBLOCKoptusnet.com.au>
> > >> >> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:3f57ea1d$0$563$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Science is self-correcting...religion is self-deluding!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Yes. So the indoctrination goes.
> > >> >
> > >> >How many errors has any religion self-corrected, apart from the
> > >> >corrections imposed on it by science?
> > >>
> > >> Does the Reformation and (more importantly) the Counter-Reformation
> > >> count?
> > >
> >
> > longer taught.
>
> :-)
>
> But it *is* still taught, just not by the same groups...
> >
> > My serious point is that it is possible for religions to make changes in
> > their teachings that have nothing to do with science. I realize that
> > self-correcting or correction of any kind is in the eye of the beholder
> > in this case.
>
> This is a serious and critical point - how do you recognise error in
> religion? There are three, and only three sources:
>
> 1. Revelation, preferably written. However, as any semiotician will tell
> you a text can be multiply interpreted (if you are not constrained by
> historical context, anyway).
And a fully qualified otician makes matters far worse.
Bob
<snip>
>
> 2>
Dave
>
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> :
>
>> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
>> >
>> > Recorded many times
>>
>> Where?
>
> The Journal of Historical Satire.
Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ,
or Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
Al Klein
<ca...@optonline.net> posted in alt.atheism:
Yeah, okay. :)
Actually coprolites are like rocks.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
Jesus Christ
Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
Phil Wain
Pithecanthropus erectus <tui...@comcast.net> writes
>
>"Kenny Leong" <kenny_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:29154d7c.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> Phylter <Phy...@NOSPAhMotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<Xns93EDB1454496...@192.189.54.177>...
>> > maf...@yahoo.com (maff) astounded us with:
>news:18510aff.0309041206.67cd2d72
>> > @posting.google.com:
>> >
>> >
>and
>> > crack the Bible then....
>>
>> Yeah....true. I don't suppose the bible tells us the answer on how
>> come up with a permanent cure for the flu or something right?
>>
>
>True Faith can cure all diseases, you merely need to touch Jesus in order
>to be cured of anything. Renounce your sins and just go find Him in a crowd
>and touching his cloak will cure you. I am sure he is around here
>somewhere, right? I mean he rose from the dead, right?
>
>
>If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed - Matthew 17:20.
>
>The problem is that we really have no faith and that is why we aren't cured
>of diseases, and why we can't walk on water.
>
>Illness is a sign from God that we still haven't learned to trust him enough
>to let him cure everything. Before Evolution, there was no disease because
>everyone believed in Creation and God. Darwin brought atheism and disease.
>
>
>
>> Kenny L.
>>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
>
the cross. It normally took a few days for a person to die of
crucifiction. According to the Gospels, Jesus is supposed to have lasted
between 6 and 9 hours depending on which Gospel you believe. Joseph of
Aramathea took a large quantity of Aloes into the tomb - known to be a
healing herb at the time. The so called resurrection was actually a
resuscitation. People of the time knew nothing of the distinction
between brain death and revival from stopped heart or whatever. He may
even have been sedated with something beforehand to simulate death. One
of the Gospels, I forget which, records that Jesus was administered with
a sponge supposedly soaked in honey and vinegar shortly before he
"died".
According to a recent BBC TV programme I saw, Jesus may have spent the
rest of his life as a preacher in Kashmir. There's even a tomb and
everything. An Israelite figure called Issa, also called "the
teacher" and "the Shepherd" is known to have preached there at the right
time. (Note that the Israelite name for Jesus is Yeshu. Jesus is the
Greek form.) His tomb bears footprints which show scars which suggests
that this figure survived a crucifiction!. Issa appeared in Kashmir at
the age of 14 where he was taught the teachings of the Buddha. He went
back to Israel at the age of 29 and reappeared in Kashmir at the age of
36 where he lived until he was 80 odd.
This programme noted the absence in the Gospel for any doings of Jesus
between the ages of 14 and 29. Jesus was supposed to be about 36 when
he was crucified. It also noticed some striking similarities between
some Buddhist writings about love thy neighbour and the virtue of
poverty, and the preachings of Jesus.
All circumstantial but fascinating.
This programme also asserted that most RCC theologians do not believe in
the literal truth of the resurrection either.
No resurrection - no Christ!
--
Phil Wain
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Phil Wain" <Ph...@softquality.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dNROowlr34X$Ew...@softquality.demon.co.uk...
So, the corpse of Jesus could turn out to be "Another Roadside Attraction."
>
> This programme noted the absence in the Gospel for any doings of Jesus
> between the ages of 14 and 29. Jesus was supposed to be about 36 when
> he was crucified. It also noticed some striking similarities between
> some Buddhist writings about love thy neighbour and the virtue of
> poverty, and the preachings of Jesus.
>
> All circumstantial but fascinating.
>
> This programme also asserted that most RCC theologians do not believe in
> the literal truth of the resurrection either.
>
> No resurrection - no Christ!
>
> --
> Phil Wain
>
"You are by your true nature a very curious person."
Tom Robbins
Walter Bushell
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> :
>
> > On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:23:32 +0000, Jesus Christ wrote:
> >
> > > "Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> :
> > >
> > >> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
> > >> >
> > >> > Recorded many times
> > >>
> > >> Where?
> > >
> > > The Journal of Historical Satire.
> >
> > Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ,
> > or Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
>
> Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> :
>
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:23:32 +0000, Jesus Christ wrote:
>>
>> > "Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> :
>> >
>> >> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
>> >> >
>> >> > Recorded many times
>> >>
>> >> Where?
>> >
>> > The Journal of Historical Satire.
>>
>> Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ, or
>> Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
>
> Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
These are not the saviors we're looking for...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Jesus Christ
> >> >> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Recorded many times
> >> >>
> >> >> Where?
> >> >
> >> > The Journal of Historical Satire.
> >>
> >> Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ, or
> >> Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
> >
> > Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
>
> These are not the saviors we're looking for...
Move along!
Jesus Christ
> > > >> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Recorded many times
> > > >>
> > > >> Where?
> > > >
> > > > The Journal of Historical Satire.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ,
> > > or Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
> >
> > Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
>
> Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.
I chose the wrong groups to hang out in! :)
Mark K. Bilbo
> pr...@panix.com (Walter Bushell) :
>
>> > > >> > >Something as bizarre as the Nile turning to blood
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Recorded many times
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Where?
>> > > >
>> > > > The Journal of Historical Satire.
>> > >
>> > > Just to clarify who we're talking to... are you Jesus H. Christ, or
>> > > Jesus F. Christ, or one of the many other Jesi?
>> >
>> > Jesus R. Christ. These are not the saviours you're looking for.
>>
>> Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.
>
> I chose the wrong groups to hang out in! :)
I chose the wrong groups to hang out in...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
Walter Bushell
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:28:55 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Berry
> <grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor any
> >other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
>
> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
food.
Walter Bushell
<Snip>
> One might, were one suitably cynical,
> think that religion is nothing but what suits the practitioners at the
> time...
If religions were given by God to meet the needs of the people, then
that would be pretty much what you would expect.
Walter Bushell
> And a fully qualified otician makes matters far worse.
What is "otician" my dictionary does not have it.
Walter Bushell
<Snip>
> "Om" is short for "Om mani padme hum." It means "Hail to the Jewel in
> the Lotus".
But whose jewel is in whose lotus?
M
@hotmal.com says...
>
> "Geoff Offermann" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > And what answers does religion provide?
>
> and explanation when bad things happen. It provides cultural
> underpinnings - many values that are now considered secular started out as
> religious in nature.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
One could equally suggest that "many values that are now considered
religious started out as secular in nature".
M.
Lenny Flank
> > "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:18510aff.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> > > Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
> > >
> > > Thursday September 4, 2003
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> > > Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
> > > professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
> > > of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
> > > like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
> > > selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
> > > the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
> > > believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
> > > search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
> > > burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
> > > the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
> > > it.
> >
> > And what answers does religion provide?
>
> Many religions provide ethical and moral guidance.
So do Grimm's fairy tales. <shrug>
They also provide solace
> and explanation when bad things happen.
So does LSD and cocaine. <shrug>
Lenny Flank
> Lenny Flank <lfl...@ij.net> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > "Om" is short for "Om mani padme hum." It means "Hail to the Jewel in
> > the Lotus".
> <Snip>
>
> But whose jewel is in whose lotus?
Ahhh, you must be Tantric. ;>
Al Klein
Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
>> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
>> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
>> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
>food.
"Special properties"? Like non-existence?
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > One might, were one suitably cynical,
> > think that religion is nothing but what suits the practitioners at the
> > time...
> <Snip>
>
> If religions were given by God to meet the needs of the people, then
> that would be pretty much what you would expect.
But there are a few unmet needs that any self-respecting deity should
provide, under the Code of Best Divine Practice issued by Deloitte...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
John Wilkins
> Robert Carroll <rwca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > And a fully qualified otician makes matters far worse.
>
> What is "otician" my dictionary does not have it.
It's based on the -otic/-omic distinction...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au |If you are only half interested,
For long you live and high you fly, |you are a semiotician
David Jensen
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>> <Snip>
>> > One might, were one suitably cynical,
>> > think that religion is nothing but what suits the practitioners at the
>> > time...
>> <Snip>
>>
>> If religions were given by God to meet the needs of the people, then
>> that would be pretty much what you would expect.
>
>But there are a few unmet needs that any self-respecting deity should
>provide, under the Code of Best Divine Practice issued by Deloitte...
Our deity was using Andersen.
Thomas P.
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC), pr...@panix.com (Walter
>Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
>>> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
>>> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
>>> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>
>>The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
>>food.
>
>"Special properties"? Like non-existence?
A wonderful preservative.
Thomas P.
TomS
<1g18b8n.1ccp1tdgcfu5nN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Carroll <rwca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > And a fully qualified otician makes matters far worse.
>>
>> What is "otician" my dictionary does not have it.
>
>It's based on the -otic/-omic distinction...
Has anybody ever come up with a use for the word "mete" -- defined
that which bears the "-etic":"-emic" relation to a "meme"?
Liz
<3at4mv0klaec1tkh5...@Pern.rk> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC), pr...@panix.com (Walter
>Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
>>> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
>>> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
>>> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>
>>The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
>>food.
No shit?
>
>"Special properties"? Like non-existence?
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
John Wilkins
It would be mete that they did so...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
Robin Levett
news:1g18b8n.1ccp1tdgcfu5nN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Carroll <rwca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > And a fully qualified otician makes matters far worse.
> >
> > What is "otician" my dictionary does not have it.
>
> It's based on the -otic/-omic distinction...
And what do you call the sins of one of the latter kind of
"-ician"?
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
Walter Bushell
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC), pr...@panix.com (Walter
> Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
> >> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
> >> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
> >> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>
> >The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
> >food.
>
> "Special properties"? Like non-existence?
If it's all you eat you don't need to excrete solids. ;)
Al Klein
Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC), pr...@panix.com (Walter
>> Bushell) posted in alt.atheism:
>> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack of
>> >> evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens of
>> >> thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
>> >> there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>> >The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
>> >food.
>> "Special properties"? Like non-existence?
>If it's all you eat you don't need to excrete solids. ;)
After a while you don't even need to exhale CO2.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
Jesus Christ
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:28:55 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Berry
> > <grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor
> > >any other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
> >
> > Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack
> > of evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens
> > of thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
> > there it would be difficult to find the sand.
>
> The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
> food.
Poo-free food!
The problem is that everything that makes food good is what winds up as
poo... manna must've tasted pretty bland.
John Wilkins
Of course, it tasted like chicken.
Walter Bushell
> Jesus Christ <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote:
>
> > pr...@panix.com (Walter Bushell) :
> >
> > > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:28:55 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Berry
> > > > <grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> > > >
> > > > >Sure, but the point is that the Egyptians never mentioned it. Nor
> > > > >any other of the events recorded in Exodus. It didn't happen.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it. Lack
> > > > of evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to find tens
> > > > of thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty convincing. If it were
> > > > there it would be difficult to find the sand.
> > >
> > > The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the miracle
> > > food.
> >
> > Poo-free food!
> >
> > The problem is that everything that makes food good is what winds up as
> > poo... manna must've tasted pretty bland.
> >
> Of course, it tasted like chicken.
About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the lack of
onions and nothing but manna to eat, so there is Biblical evidence (fow
what that is worth) to show manna was bland. Sort of like Wonder Bread
without the sugar.
Jesus Christ
> > > > > Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it.
> > > > > Lack of evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to
> > > > > find tens of thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty
> > > > > convincing. If it were there it would be difficult to find
> > > > > the sand.
> > > >
> > > > The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the
> > > > miracle food.
> > >
> > > Poo-free food!
> > >
> > > The problem is that everything that makes food good is what winds
> > > up as poo... manna must've tasted pretty bland.
> > >
> > Of course, it tasted like chicken.
>
> About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the lack
> of onions and nothing but manna to eat, so there is Biblical evidence
> (fow what that is worth) to show manna was bland. Sort of like Wonder
> Bread without the sugar.
There are also verses telling the Hebrews what to do with their feces, so
the pooless food conjecture is false.
As an aside, the fact that the Hebrews had to go outside of the camp and
bury their crap is just one of the many items that make the whole exodus
of over 600,000 logistically impossible.
Earle Jones
Jesus Christ <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote:
[...]
> There are also verses telling the Hebrews what to do with their feces, so
> the pooless food conjecture is false.
>
> As an aside, the fact that the Hebrews had to go outside of the camp and
> bury their crap is just one of the many items that make the whole exodus
> of over 600,000 logistically impossible.
*
They didn't bury all of their crap:
"But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy
master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he]
not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall,
that they may eat their own dung, and drinktheir
own piss with you?"
--Isaiah 36:12
earle
*
Walter Bushell
> pr...@panix.com (Walter Bushell) :
>
> > > > > > Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded it.
> > > > > > Lack of evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our failure to
> > > > > > find tens of thousands of tons of coprolites is pretty
> > > > > > convincing. If it were there it would be difficult to find
> > > > > > the sand.
> > > > >
> > > > > The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna, the
> > > > > miracle food.
> > > >
> > > > Poo-free food!
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that everything that makes food good is what winds
> > > > up as poo... manna must've tasted pretty bland.
> > > >
> > > Of course, it tasted like chicken.
> >
> > About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the lack
> > of onions and nothing but manna to eat, so there is Biblical evidence
> > (fow what that is worth) to show manna was bland. Sort of like Wonder
> > Bread without the sugar.
>
> There are also verses telling the Hebrews what to do with their feces, so
> the pooless food conjecture is false.
>
> As an aside, the fact that the Hebrews had to go outside of the camp and
> bury their crap is just one of the many items that make the whole exodus
> of over 600,000 logistically impossible.
Such a nice theory to be killed by such an inconvient factoid.
Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > Oh, no argument, and not just because they never recorded
> > > > > > > it. Lack of evidence is poor evidence of lack. But our
> > > > > > > failure to find tens of thousands of tons of coprolites is
> > > > > > > pretty convincing. If it were there it would be difficult
> > > > > > > to find the sand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The abscence is due to the "special properties" of manna,
> > > > > > the miracle food.
> > > > >
> > > > > Poo-free food!
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that everything that makes food good is what
> > > > > winds up as poo... manna must've tasted pretty bland.
> > > > >
> > > > Of course, it tasted like chicken.
> > >
> > > About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the
> > > lack of onions and nothing but manna to eat, so there is Biblical
> > > evidence (fow what that is worth) to show manna was bland. Sort of
> > > like Wonder Bread without the sugar.
> >
> > There are also verses telling the Hebrews what to do with their
> > feces, so the pooless food conjecture is false.
> >
> > As an aside, the fact that the Hebrews had to go outside of the camp
> > and bury their crap is just one of the many items that make the
> > whole exodus of over 600,000 logistically impossible.
>
> Such a nice theory to be killed by such an inconvient factoid.
Sort of like how Intelligent Design "theory" is killed off by five
seconds of thought.
Jesus Christ
Who the hell sits on a wall anyway? Use a chair, I say. They got what
they deserved for such a silly seating arrangement.
j
> About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the lack of
> onions and nothing but manna to eat...
The Hebrews complained so much (that they wanted to eat meat) that the
Lord rained down upon them enormous quantities of quail to eat until
it "becomes loathsome to you". Numbers 11:4-32.
I initially thought this was a joke. Pretty funny, though.
John Wilkins
> pr...@panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote:
>
> > About manna being bland, the Hebrews were complaining about the lack of
> > onions and nothing but manna to eat...
>
> The Hebrews complained so much (that they wanted to eat meat) that the
> Lord rained down upon them enormous quantities of quail to eat until
> it "becomes loathsome to you". Numbers 11:4-32.
>
> I initially thought this was a joke. Pretty funny, though.
Hence the expression, "to quail before the Lord"...
zosdad
> 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
> Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
>
> Thursday September 4, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
> professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
> of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
> like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
> selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
> the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
> believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
> search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
> burning bush,
Well, *there's* a tough one. Bushes never burning on their own or anything...