FLM films - My Webpage

1999-11-21 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (Stephen Knight <nightworks@earthlink.net>)


On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:28:37 GMT, DJN@multicrap.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote: >On 21 Nov 1999 07:40:40 GMT, haji@u.washington.edu (H. McDaniel) >wrote: > >>Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk> writes: >> >>>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:50:23 GMT, DJN@multicrap.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in >>>alt.atheism: >> >>>>On 20 Nov 1999 13:59:14 GMT, mrgoodsalt@aol.com (MrGoodSalt) wrote: > >>>>>Would Mr. Spock from Start Trek believe in God? What do you think and why? > >>>>No > >>>>"That is illogical, captain" > >>>>"Life is illogical, Mr Spock." > >>>One of the books, I don't remember which, and it's probably not >>>canonical, claims that Vulcans intrinsically sense a deist type God, >>>while another features Sarek denying Christian Fundamentalism >>>explicitly. > >>Sarek probably thinks scented toilet paper is illogical too, so >>doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. > >Well, scented toilet paper _is_ illogical, now isn't it? From another perspective, scented toilet paper can be very effective in offsetting sudden aromatic discharges. Some of us rely on scented toilet paper as a life saving device. I don't think we should flush the idea just because a few find it "illogical". Steve Knight #855 Knight of BAAWA

1999-11-21 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (Fish <fish@infidels.org.god>)


Elroy Willis posted the following to alt.atheism: > Landis D. Ragon <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net> wrote: > > >Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk> wrote: > > >> And I want to see more of Janeway in the "Turn of the Screw" holodeck > >> game. > > > Or more of 7-of-9. > > I think they should've named her 6 of 9, if you get my drift. My wife and I refer to her as "42 of D". >;-> -- "Fish" (David B. Trout) Alt.Atheism #623 ICQ# 25302291 fish@infidels.org.god (remove "god" to reply by email) *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Fools speak because they have to say something, but a wise man speaks because he has something to say." -- Confucius *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

1999-11-21 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (DJN@multicrap.nl)


On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 20:47:58 +0000, Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:50:23 GMT, DJN@multicrap.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in >alt.atheism: >>On 20 nov 1999 13:59:14 GMT, mrgoodsalt@aol.com (MrGoodSalt) wrote: >>>Would Mr. Spock from Start Trek believe in God? What do you think and why? >>No >>"That is illogical, captain" >>"Life is illogical, Mr Spock." >One of the books, I don't remember which, and it's probably not >canonical, claims that Vulcans intrinsically sense a deist type God, >while another features Sarek denying Christian Fundamentalism >explicitly. >Not that I read trash like that, you understand. Who would doubt that? >Honestly. In the christian sense of the word? >I look at the pictures. In my minds eye. Baxter's pictures are >sharper, to be sure, but for one reason or another, .. well, you know >how it is... Yeah. >And while we're on the subject, fucking Voyager should go sublight to >99.999999% the speed of light, get proximately home in a few >subjective months, and the use well established time-travel >techniques, to jump back to their own time period. Voyager? >And I want to see more of Janeway in the "Turn of the Screw" holodeck >game. Heh. Existence is futile - Everything is going to be - Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother DJ Nozem #1465 zwagerman@multiweb.nl

1999-11-21 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (haji@u.washington.edu)


Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk> writes: >On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:50:23 GMT, DJN@multicrap.nl (DJ Nozem) wrote in >alt.atheism: >>On 20 Nov 1999 13:59:14 GMT, mrgoodsalt@aol.com (MrGoodSalt) wrote: >> >>>Would Mr. Spock from Start Trek believe in God? What do you think and why? >> >>No >> >>"That is illogical, captain" >> >>"Life is illogical, Mr Spock." >One of the books, I don't remember which, and it's probably not >canonical, claims that Vulcans intrinsically sense a deist type God, >while another features Sarek denying Christian Fundamentalism >explicitly. Sarek probably thinks scented toilet paper is illogical too, so doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. -McDaniel

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Mike Jones <mjonz@corp.sgi.com>)


TC wrote: > > D.M.S. wrote in message <3838A483.7168DE89@socal.rr.com>... > >I've wondered this a lot. > > > >In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how > the > >amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a > higher > >being that would have designed it. > >Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and > Kirk > >replied something like "Our one God is enough." > >But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot > believe in > >both. > > ??? Of course you can accept both. Most of the organised Christian > religions have no trouble accepting evolution. They believe, however, that > it was a guided process and not random chance. It is those who insist on a > literal interpretation of an inerrant bible that raise the stink about > evolution. > I once heard it put this way, and it seems to make sense. "Just because Evolution exists doesn't mean that God didn't create it." -- Mjonz "What's all that behind you?" "Oh, that. It's Captain Picard day. You see, I'm a role model." "I'm sure you are. Star Fleet out." Captain Picard and Admiral Necheyev

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:35:39 -0600, "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >(Sorry for the cross-post) >Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for >"evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright >hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? Visit any natural history museum with an open mind, not one that is already slammed shut by creationist beliefs. Science admits its mistakes and goes on; religion hardly ever admits a mistake and stands in place trying to block everyones' road to the future. Everything you wrote above against science can be used against creationism and from within the last ten years. You can't say the same about real science. You can only try and hope someone is dumb enough or ignorant enough to fall for it. > >And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the >infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. This is only according to your own religious beliefs. And, your religion is merely one out of many and you merely one out of billions. You have yet to prove that your 'God' exists, so the man-made book of myths you call the Bible proves nothing, as far as religion is concerned. > > >Michelle Malkin wrote in message ... > >On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:06:07 GMT, "D.M.S." > ><dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > > >>I've wondered this a lot. > >> > >>In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned >how > the > >>amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a > higher > >>being that would have designed it. > > > >Episode title, please, and the exact quote. > > > >>Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and > Kirk > >>replied something like "Our one God is enough." > > > >Episode title, please, and exact quote. > > > >>But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot > believe in > >>both. > >>I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > >>religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > > > >Who says that people who believe in a religion can't also > >accept the reality of evolution? Many religious people do. > >Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution. The > >religious folks that have a real problem with evolution are > >the fundamentalists - and not just the Christian ones. > > > > > >Michelle Malkin (Mickey) > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 > >High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am > >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >"I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to > >me to be the most absurd imposture of all the > >religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people > >can't see through a religion that encourages > >irresponsibility and bigotry." > >-Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Richard Van Fossan <richardv@pobox.com>)


"D.M.S." <dms@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:3838A483.7168DE89@socal.rr.com... > I've wondered this a lot. > > In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the > amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher > being that would have designed it. > Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk > replied something like "Our one God is enough." > But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot believe in > both. Maybe you can't believe in God and evolution. I can and do.

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


"D.M.S." <dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the > amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher > being that would have designed it. > Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk > replied something like "Our one God is enough." > But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot believe > in both. > I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. Uh huh. Did you ever see that episode of TNG when Picard was dealing with those vulcan-shaped primatives who decided that he was their god? At one point, one of the characters was going on and on about how their theistic belief would lead to all sorts of horrible things such as inquisitions and whatnot. This particular episode was pretty blatantly anti-religious. And there was also that episode about the agrarian society in which the people were convinced of an old legend that said how their fore-fathers had sold their world to the devil. Picard, naturally, proved that the lady "devil" was just a hustler using a hiden ship to project her "demonic" powers, in the process showing how supersticion over old beliefs was foolish. TNG was pretty blatant at times. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > (Sorry for the cross-post) > Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for > "evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright > hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? Talk to any biology or geology professor at a legitament university anywhere in the world, and you'll have more evidence than you even knew existed. > And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the > infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. Tell that to the believers, not us. We here on alt.atheism think the bible is a load of crap. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


Danny Johnson wrote: > > (Sorry for the cross-post) > Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for > "evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright > hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? > > And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the > infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. You don't have to believe that the bible is the infallible word of god in order to be a Christian. -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >(Sorry for the cross-post) >Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for >"evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright >hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? "Twin nested hierarchies" "Observed in the lab and in nature" "Fossil evidence" That's three. You're out. > >And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the >infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. > > >Michelle Malkin wrote in message ... > >On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:06:07 GMT, "D.M.S." > ><dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > > >>I've wondered this a lot. > >> > >>In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned >how > the > >>amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a > higher > >>being that would have designed it. > > > >Episode title, please, and the exact quote. > > > >>Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and > Kirk > >>replied something like "Our one God is enough." > > > >Episode title, please, and exact quote. > > > >>But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot > believe in > >>both. > >>I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > >>religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > > > >Who says that people who believe in a religion can't also > >accept the reality of evolution? Many religious people do. > >Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution. The > >religious folks that have a real problem with evolution are > >the fundamentalists - and not just the Christian ones. > > > > > >Michelle Malkin (Mickey) > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 > >High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am > >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >"I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to > >me to be the most absurd imposture of all the > >religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people > >can't see through a religion that encourages > >irresponsibility and bigotry." > >-Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("R. Stevens" <rstevens@u.washington.edu>)


Concerning religion and evolution: On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, it was written: > And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the > infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. Are you honestly saying that if you believe in a God, you MUST also believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? From that resoning, the overwhelming majority of people on this planet must not believe in God. This must come as some relief to the atheists out there. Take care, Rick

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Robert Hutchinson <servoid@hotmail.com>)


Danny Johnson wrote: > And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the > infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. Really? Darn. *winks out* Robert Hutchinson

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


"D.M.S." wrote: > > I've wondered this a lot. > > In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the > amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher > being that would have designed it. Picard said no such thing. The quote you are looking for is from 'Where Silence Has Lease'. In response to the question "what is death", Picard answered : "Some see it as a changing into an indestructible form, forever unchanging. They believe that the purpose of the entire universe is to them maintain that form in a Earthlike garden which will give delight and pleasure throughout all eternity. On the other hand there are those who hold to the idea of our blinking into nothingness with all of our experiences and hopes and dreams merely a delusion." "Which do you believe sir?" "Considering the marvelous complexity of the universe, its clockwork perfection, its balances of this against that... matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension, I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies, that what we are goes beyond Euclidian or other 'practical' measuring systems... and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality." Picard sums up bothe the common religious idea of a heaven, and the atheist idea of total death, and dismisses both of them. He makes absolutely no attempt to claim that the complexity of the universe leads to the idea of a creator, a God if you will. His discussion of our being part of a "greater reality" could be interpreted as referring to a spirit or soul, but there is nothing here which refers to any need for a god figure. > Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk > replied something like "Our one God is enough." This is a slight misquoting. I can't quote it perfectly, but it was more along the lines of "We find the one quite sufficient" Kirk did not say *our* one god is sufficient. There are several other quotes which indicate that religion exists in some form in TOS, at least for some of the crew. For example, in 'Bread and Circuses', the landing party was asked about their beliefs. McCoy replied : "Well if you're speaking of worships of sorts, we represent many beliefs." Then there is 'Balance of Terror'; duirng Kirks intro to the wedding, he says something about "our many faiths", but I don't have the exact wording. Most if not all of the statements about religion in TOS do not specifically pin any belief on any person. Rather we get statements about the existence of beliefs in general. It's thus perfectly possible that any paticular person, or any particular species, will be atheist. Or not. There is at least one fairly certain indication that Spock and McCoy at least have agnostic leanings. It comes from ST V. Kirk approaches the two and asks what they are talking about. McCoy replies : "We were speculating... is God really out there?" Which indicates that the idea is something that neither one is especially sure about. So I would say from this that the evidence is that Spock is an agnostic who is open minded about the possibility gods existence. But the evidence is pretty thin on the ground. > But, there are also numerous references to evolution, > and you cannot believe in both. Certainly you can. I know many religious people who "believe" in evolution simply because it has a great deal of supporting evidence. > I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. I think that Gene probably wanted all the Humans to be atheists, but didn't want to get into the hassle of having a fight with the powers that be and so just left it as ambiguous as possible. It's just a guess, mind. In TNG, I know for a fact that at least some of the makers do not share the view I attribute to Gene, but they have not made an issue of it. I don't really know why not, but I suspect that they don't want to risk badly annoying a significant fraction of their audience. Personally, I doubt I'd stop watching if they started turning out the odd religious Human. But if they did, Trek would have lost a bit more of its magic for me. If, on the other hand, they started showing Humans the way the do the Bajorans, with many episodes based largely around Human religion, I think I would reach for the off button. -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (DJN@multicrap.nl)


On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:32:34 -0500, James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >DJ Nozem wrote: >> Existence is futile - Everything is going to be - >> Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother >> DJ Nozem #1465 zwagerman@multiweb.nl >Wa hoah... that's deep, dude... Way out man. >Jamie Existence is futile - Everything is going to be - Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother DJ Nozem #1465 zwagerman@multiweb.nl

1999-11-22 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Danny Johnson")


(Sorry for the cross-post) Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for "evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. Michelle Malkin wrote in message ... >On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:06:07 GMT, "D.M.S." ><dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > >>I've wondered this a lot. >> >>In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the >>amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher >>being that would have designed it. > >Episode title, please, and the exact quote. > >>Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk >>replied something like "Our one God is enough." > >Episode title, please, and exact quote. > >>But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot believe in >>both. >>I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of >>religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > >Who says that people who believe in a religion can't also >accept the reality of evolution? Many religious people do. >Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution. The >religious folks that have a real problem with evolution are >the fundamentalists - and not just the Christian ones. > > >Michelle Malkin (Mickey) >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ >aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 >High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ >"I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to >me to be the most absurd imposture of all the >religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people >can't see through a religion that encourages >irresponsibility and bigotry." >-Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (noaj@yournet.com)


In article <oCu_3.2298$t57.37562@news2.mia>, manusmac@bellsouth.net says... (snip) >I can not provide any evidence of God's exisistance other than the fact that >you are reading this and he has supplied us with the written word of His >bible. You could have just said you don't have any evidence. In His grand wisdom he made us in his image and provided us with the >will to decide our own path in life. If your's is the path of disbelief then >you are free to do this. > >As you would like us Christian's to take the word of man or the work of man >(ie lab results or manuscripts) as infalible truth, we Christian's would >like you to take the word of God as the ONLY truth!! I don't recall seeing anyone ask what christians would like. They seem to have made that readily apparent, even to those that don't give a crap. One thing I've noticed is that christians are always ready to "straighten out" the rest of the world, even while their nest is dirty. > >A devout Christian, >Wallace Carter Whatta ya want, sympathy? Your being devout is noone's fault but your own. You won't get any sympathy here. You might try in the dictionary. It's between shit and syphillis. Noah Simoneaux -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (czar@ecn.ab.ca)


Wallace Carter (manusmac@bellsouth.net) wrote: : It would seem that you atheist's seem to put more weight in the written : word of man than the written word of God. Gee, which god would that be, Wally? Clue for the clueless: It's *all* written by man. : please present your evidence that God does not exist. Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. Another clue: the burden of proof, by logical necessity, rests with the existentially-positive claimant. IOW, the burden is on *you* to prove there *is*, not us to prove there isn't. And you just admitted you can't. Thanks for playing, and don't let the door hit yer fanny on the way out. -- ************************************************************* In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould *************************************************************

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com>)


"Christopher A. Lee" wrote: > 3. More Christians worldwide accept the facts of evolution than > don't. even in the educationally backward USA three or four times > as many Christians accept it than atheists. How can an atheist not accept evolution? Jamei

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Wallace Carter <manusmac@bellsouth.net>)


It would seem that you atheist's seem to put more weight in the written word of man than the written word of God. If you rely so heavily on the facts of man please present your evidence that God does not exist. I don't expect you to present any other arguement than someone whinning about, "how God has never done anything for me". Please take your time to think about this. I can not provide any evidence of God's exisistance other than the fact that you are reading this and he has supplied us with the written word of His bible. In His grand wisdom he made us in his image and provided us with the will to decide our own path in life. If your's is the path of disbelief then you are free to do this. As you would like us Christian's to take the word of man or the work of man (ie lab results or manuscripts) as infalible truth, we Christian's would like you to take the word of God as the ONLY truth!! A devout Christian, Wallace Carter

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Would Spock (Star Trek) believe in God? - (glr@mailcity.com)


Greetings, I posted this earlier in the thread "God Trek (Was Re: Voyager...)" in the Voyager newsgroup dated Nov. 16th (when it started) but think it would fit in well here. So I am reposting it: It is difficult to speculate about Voyager or DS9 since Gene Roddenberry was dead when these shows were created but Gene Roddenberry was an atheist and Humanist not a Pantheist, as some fellow on a website likes to claim, which might explain why human religions were not featured in TNG. To get an idea of what Gene R. had to say about religion go to: http://www.philosophysphere.com which is a site run by his son. Look for Gene's biography and the interview he did for "The Humanist Magazine". This is the site at which a fellow claims that Roddenberry was a Pantheist. Go to: http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/startrek.htm . The site is obviously a promo for Pantheism but he does site some episodes and other things that add to the discussion. The problem with this site is the quotes the author uses. They are not Roddenberry's although he does make it look like it. The quotes from Sweeney and his book for instance are intermeshed with quotes from another book which is supposed to be on Roddenberry. While in TNG the secular or agnostic/atheist view was espoused, it is a different story for TOS however. In TNG, perhaps Roddenberry or TPTB felt that there are so many religions it would be impossible to feature them all or that it would alienate some viewers or create favoritism and therefore contentious issues. Who knows? Or perhaps it was Roddenberry's view that people in the future would have outgrown the need for the supernatural or superstitions. I tend to believe the latter. This is a quote from Roddenberry that I found in a newsgroup: "I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain." [Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991) creator of Star Trek] Remember *I* did not say this. Roddenberry certainly had anti-religious views. As to the accuracy of this quote, I can't verify it as it was posted by someone on the net. Nonetheless, Roddenberry was an atheist but you wouldn't know it if all you watched was TOS. If you read what he has to say in the "Humanist Magazine", the quote above does seem to be something he would have said however. Below is a summary (not complete however) of some of the religious references that can be found in the various series. In the TOS episode that dealt with Roman gladiators, "Bread and Circuses", Christianity is featured. It is the one where at the end Spock wonders about the worship of the *sun* by some of the inhabitants and Uhura says, she has been listening to the TV or radio broadcasts from the planet and that they speak of the *son* of God, Jesus, and not the sun. I realize they were on another planet but they did say *Jesus* nonetheless. In another TOS episode, can't recall which one there is a mention of a Christmas party. In "Balance of Terror", there is a scene with a kind of chapel in it where Kirk is to marry a young couple. Whether it is actually a chapel or a place where these types of functions occur I can't recall. I haven't seen these eps in a long time. Needless to say, there are no chaplains on any ships in any series. In "This Side of Paradise", Kirk says something to the effect: "This time we weren't thrown out of paradise, this time we walked out on our own." This is the episode where Spock laughs while hanging from a tree like a small child because he is affected by the spores of some plants. What Kirk says at the end of the episode is a reference to the Garden of Eden story of the Bible. In "Who Mourns for Adonais?", Greek mythology is featured. In addition in this episode Kirk says: "We find the one we have sufficient", telling Apollo that they already have a god they believe in. Then there is the fifth movie, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" which featured the search for God but no actual mention of which god and the search for Eden and other trek cultures having their Eden and so on. Was Gene alive for this movie? As for the original show, I think at that point, because he was pushing for all his other ideas, it might have been difficult for Roddenberry to push for his beliefs or in this case non-beliefs. Hard to know for sure. Also the TOS time period was a very different time. Science and secular thought were not as accepted as they are today. In TNG however, the *secular* view was espoused. In the episode "Who Watches the Watchers", Picard is "the Picard" and is believed to be a god. There is some interesting reasoning in the episode, like how does one know or determine what a god wants as he/she/it seems to only directly speak (and it seems only in ancient times) to special chosen spokespersons who happen to be people or ordinary beings. Anyhow, this second guessing of what God truly wants or doesn't want is shown to be dangerous because people can imagine all sorts of things about what a god may desire; that they can't possibly *know* since the spokespersons are only too human, in this case whatever species they were. *Liko* for instance, decides that maybe *the Picard* wants Troi, disguised as a native, to be killed. They also discuss the idea that people expect a god to perform miracles, ie. *Liko* wants *the Picard* to bring his wife back from the dead. I forget if it is Picard or the scientist that also talks about the probability that there might be religious wars and so on. I forget if they talk about the insertion of political agendas into the religious writings by the *spokepersons*. Anyhow, Picard at one point is angry and appalled by the fact that a culture that has evolved beyond the need for the supernatural may regress to a more primitive supersticious state (Picard's words) because of the inadvertent involvement of the enterprise and the scientists with the planet's culture. Nonetheless, it suggested that religion(s) can have deleterious effects on the development of a culture. It was a rather agnostic or atheistic view. It was not written by Roddenberry, however as he was the executive producer he was in charge of choosing the stories. In the Humanist article Roddenberry talks about how he liked this episode and why. In another episode "Where Silence Has Lease", Picard while talking to the fake Troi and Data, states in so many words that he has a less than traditional vision of the afterlife but believes in more than a materialistic universe. This is again an agnostic or atheistic view. In another TNG episode, can't remember the name, Worf states that they killed their gods because they were more trouble than they were worth and yet there was the mention of Stovokor or Klingon heaven in DS9 and of course Klingon hell, Gre'thor, in Voyager. There is also the Christmas tree in "Generations" and in an episode of Voyager with Q, the Voyager is turned into a Christmas tree ornament by the wayward Q. Of course some would argue that Christmas is no longer viewed as a strictly religious holiday and perhaps in the future it is more traditional than religious. I don't recall anything else religious being said or done in Voyager except for of course "Barge of the Dead" and the episode "Mortal Coil" where Neelix dies and is brought back to life and consequently begins to doubt his beliefs in the afterlife. In DS9, apart from what I said above, the view is two-fold. For instance, Kira and the Bajorans see the prophets as gods while Jadzia Dax and others see them as wormhole aliens. The interesting thing about the prophets and so on is that it became a unifying theme of religion that was played out throughout the series. It is a kind of Christ archetype, where Sisko is the Christ, Kai Winn is Judas, Gul Dukat is the antichrist, the Bajorans are the Christians, the Cardassians are the Romans, the Founders and their allies are the evil kings of the world in this case the universe with their armies. In addition, the obligatory death of Kai Winn's servant (a murder) provides the initial satanic ritual sacrifice to summon the devilish Pah-Wraiths along with all the other satanic incantations by Winn with the firecaves being a sort of hell. Of course there are many other ways of looking at this. There was the episode with the then Vedek Winn where she complains to Keiko about her teaching the secular view and not the religious view of the creation and creators of the wormhole. This is a direct parallel to the Creationist vs. Evolutionists views in our culture and of course the secular view was suggested as the better alternative or so it seemed to me after viewing this episode. There was also the Dukat as the leader of the Pah-Wraith cult episode. Again a parallel can be drawn with cults that exist(ed) in our culture. And of course the notion of false gods (ie. Pah- Wraiths, Founders) and the ideas that the worship of the Founders is genetically engineered or drug induced which are odd but interesting ideas. In addition, the Ferengis had their god the "Blessed Exchequer" and a sort of hell "The Vault of Destitution" and heaven "Divine Treasury". There was also the "Rules of Acquisition" as a sort of Catechism. Anyhow, great satire on the excesses of Capitalism and religion with the culture becoming more leftist or at least centrist in the end. In another episode of DS9, Sisko's father quotes the Bible but Sisko remarks that he has never heard his father quote from it before. When Sisko and Kasidy are planning their wedding, Kasidy mentions a minister as someone to perform the marriage. In the finale of DS9, Admiral Ross says "God speed" to Sisko and the others at one point. Kasidy when she sees Sisko when he talks to her in a vision says: "God, Ben....." something or other I forget. It is used here more as an exclamation of surprise however. There are many other examples ie. the "Genesis" device in the movies and what McCoy says. In the second and third movie, Spock is shown to have a "soul". I think Roddenberry would have liked to inject his views in the original TOS but it would not have been accepted at the time and also for the reasons I mention above. It is impossible to know. He certainly did it in TNG. By the time of DS9 and Voyager, Roddenberry was dead so it's hard to know what he would have allowed on the shows. It will be interesting to see if anything more in terms of religion pops up on Voyager in its final two? seasons. Regardless, there was/is a heck of a lot of religion in Trek and like all Science Fiction, social issues are discussed through the use of aliens or fantastic situations so earth religions are featured on Trek just not always directly or obviously. Gis���le

1999-11-23 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (m5 <m5.drill@daystrom.org>)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote in message news:81c2gf$rda$1@sooner.brightok.net... > (Sorry for the cross-post) > Excuse me, but would you mind showing me ONE BIT of "evidence" for > "evolution" that hasn't been proven to be circular reasoning, an outright > hoax, forged data, or just plain ludicrous? Infectious diseases such as tuberculosis - which are becoming more and more resistant to traditional antibiotics. Molecular evolution in action! > > And, for the record, you can't believe in both. Either the Bible is the > infallible Word of God, or it isn't. You can't ride the fence on this one. > > > Michelle Malkin wrote in message ... > >On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:06:07 GMT, "D.M.S." > ><dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > > >>I've wondered this a lot. > >> > >>In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned > how > the > >>amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a > higher > >>being that would have designed it. > > > >Episode title, please, and the exact quote. > > > >>Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and > Kirk > >>replied something like "Our one God is enough." > > > >Episode title, please, and exact quote. > > > >>But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot > believe in > >>both. > >>I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > >>religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > > > >Who says that people who believe in a religion can't also > >accept the reality of evolution? Many religious people do. > >Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution. The > >religious folks that have a real problem with evolution are > >the fundamentalists - and not just the Christian ones. > > > > > >Michelle Malkin (Mickey) > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 > >High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am > >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >"I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to > >me to be the most absurd imposture of all the > >religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people > >can't see through a religion that encourages > >irresponsibility and bigotry." > >-Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 > >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ > >

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:05:39 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <e0I7OEbFPMFTl=avGwNPwOgiC5uG@4ax.com>, > Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:40:07 -0600, "Danny Johnson" >> <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >> >> >(Sorry for the cross-post) >> >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. >> >> Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this >> 'God' for us? > >Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all >mortal minds. > In other words, you have no idea what it is that you worship. >> > >> >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard >will leave >> >a fully operation 747 jet liner. >> >> Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right >> place and with the right conditions and ingredients. > >Good point, there. > >> >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current >level of >> >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many >seconds >> >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use >> >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I >don't >> >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. >> >> You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web >> pages and some non-creationist science books. >> You might learn something. >> > >Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles >Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing >against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is >correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once >sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you >think has a better chance to know the truth? The ones who study science, not the ones who blindly follow myths. > >> "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be >> the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and >> I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a >> religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." >> -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 > >I think the Butterfly McQueen doesn't know what Christianity really is - >mistaken it to be what it became when people were forced to join by >Roman emperor. (who didn't bother to join until few hours before his >death IIRC my history lessons). What existed in full quality when being >Christian and saying it meant being fed to lions or crucified - those >Christians were truly of Christian Faith. Ms McQueen (the first black actress to win an Academy Award) passed away right before the article from which that quote was taken was printed. She knew exactly what she was talking about and didn't fear to say it. She knew from being raised as a Christian and seeing how it helped to hold back her own people while telling them that it was helping them. She had the courage and wisdom to see through the sham. The woman behind that high-pitched little girl voice was a lion, not a lamb. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->Not really. The branch of science removed is >cosmology - the assumption that by observation one can demonstrate how >the universe came to be. Cosmologists observe the current configuration about the Universe and makes rational conclusions about how the configuration occurred.. Forensic scientists observe the current configuration of a murder scene and make rational conclusions about how the configuration occurred. The difference? > >Some scientists will - in lucid moments admit as much. Noted >astronomer George Abell: "Science can say nothing about the moment >before the Big Bang." > >The theologian can: "In the beginning, God..." > > > >On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:32:58 GMT, Landis D. Ragon ><Landis.Ragon@ibm.net> wrote: > >|"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >| >|>(yet another cross-post) >|>If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is NOT >|>science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. >| >|You have just removed astronomy from the realm of science. >| >| >| >|Landis Ragon >|Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. >| >|dS = dq/T Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:04:23 -0700, "Constable Odo" <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you don't >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON >FAITH!!!!! > We know, child. It's all based on you believing something someone else told you to believe and not think about - blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, you already have. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (David G Dick <D.Dick@lib.gla.ac.uk>)


Danny Johnson wrote in message <81ejkc$o6l$1@sooner.brightok.net>... >(Sorry for the cross-post) So don't cross-post! The startrek groups have made it clear they aren't interested, so I trimmed them from the followups. >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. Do you have any proof of that? Or are you taking the word of some guy who died thousands of years before the people who taught that to you were born? If I wrote a book and called it divinely inspired, I'd probably get put away as a loony. Yet you take it as given that this book is divinely inspired without questioning the authors' mental health at all? >You want proof of God? Look around you. Mkay. I see lots of things. My computer is built by humans. The building I am in was built by humans. My clothes were put together by humans. Where exactly does this "God" bloke come into it? >If you find a wrist-watch on Mars, what would you say? That it "evolved"? No, I'd say, "fuck, those conspiracy theorists were right all along! There are men living on Mars!" >You probably would say it did NOT "evolve". Yet humans are INFINITELY more >complex than that watch EVER will be. And your supposed God is also allegedly INIFINITELY more complex than us humans EVER will be. >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard will leave >a fully operation 747 jet liner. Not quite, it's closer to observing, that the 747 that *is* there now, *wasn't* there before the tornado, and then trying to figure out how the tornado created the 747 against all odds. >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current level of >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many seconds >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I don't >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. Care to provide those numbers then? Instead of making wild accusations that are completely and utterly unsupported? -- David G Dick "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com>)


In article <e0I7OEbFPMFTl=avGwNPwOgiC5uG@4ax.com>, Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:40:07 -0600, "Danny Johnson" > <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > > >(Sorry for the cross-post) > >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. > > Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this > 'God' for us? Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all mortal minds. > > > >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard will leave > >a fully operation 747 jet liner. > > Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right > place and with the right conditions and ingredients. Good point, there. > >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current level of > >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many seconds > >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use > >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I don't > >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. > > You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web > pages and some non-creationist science books. > You might learn something. > Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you think has a better chance to know the truth? > "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be > the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and > I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a > religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." > -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 I think the Butterfly McQueen doesn't know what Christianity really is - mistaken it to be what it became when people were forced to join by Roman emperor. (who didn't bother to join until few hours before his death IIRC my history lessons). What existed in full quality when being Christian and saying it meant being fed to lions or crucified - those Christians were truly of Christian Faith. -- Queen Ametica, "Totuus ei pala tulessakaan" - Finnish proverb Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Charlie Chester <guyc@csu.ac.uk>)


Wallace Carter wrote: > It would seem that you atheist's seem to put more weight in the written word > of man than the written word of God. Perhaps you'd care to present some of your god's writings for our perusal. First, you'll need to demonstrate that your god exists. Then you can go on to the evidence that it authored this "written word of God." > If you rely so heavily on the facts of > man please present your evidence that God does not exist. > Oh dear, yet another xtian who feels compelled to try & shift the burden of proof. You, as a theist, are making the positive claim that your god exists. It's up to you to present evidence for its existence. I haven't proved that Zeus, Odin, Ganesh, leprechauns, dragons, fairies & banshees don't exist. Do you believe in their existence? > > I don't expect you to present any other arguement than someone whinning > about, "how God has never done anything for me". Please take your time to > think about this. > No-one has been able to convincingly demonstrate the existence of any god. Your particular god appears to be a fictional character based on the bronze age fairy tales of a bunch of middle eastern goat herders. How can a fictional character do anything for anyone? > I can not provide any evidence of God's exisistance other than the fact that > you are reading this and he has supplied us with the written word of His > bible. That's not evidence. You haven't shown that the Bible is the written word of any god. > In His grand wisdom he made us in his image So what does your god look like exactly? > and provided us with the > will to decide our own path in life. If your's is the path of disbelief then > you are free to do this. It's not a choice. I can no more choose to believe in your god than you can choose to start believing in the Great Pumpkin. > As you would like us Christian's to take the word of man or the work of man > (ie lab results or manuscripts) as infalible truth, Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Infallible truth is something best left to bleating theist sheep. Science (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with atheism) attempts to explain our observations of the world around us. It isn't looking for any ultimate truth. Your bible is the work of man & you appear very keen to believe in it. > we Christian's would > like you to take the word of God as the ONLY truth!! > Provide credible, objective evidence for the existence of your god & then we'll talk. > > A devout Christian, It shows. Charlie Chester Manchester - England

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (xyz <waltham02154@hotNOspAMmail.com>)


I don't believe in religion or god, but as a historical work, written by a monotheist, I suggest "The Gift of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill. It does a lot to put into a historical perspective the Torah, Old Testament, etc. "Mike Jones" <mjonz@corp.sgi.com> wrote in message news:3839DB03.20F58E96@corp.sgi.com... > TC wrote: > > > > D.M.S. wrote in message <3838A483.7168DE89@socal.rr.com>... > > >I've wondered this a lot. > > > > > >In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how > > the > > >amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a > > higher > > >being that would have designed it. > > >Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and > > Kirk > > >replied something like "Our one God is enough." > > >But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot > > believe in > > >both. > > > > ??? Of course you can accept both. Most of the organised Christian > > religions have no trouble accepting evolution. They believe, however, that > > it was a guided process and not random chance. It is those who insist on a > > literal interpretation of an inerrant bible that raise the stink about > > evolution. > > > > I once heard it put this way, and it seems to make sense. "Just because > Evolution exists doesn't mean that God didn't create it." > > -- > Mjonz > > "What's all that behind you?" > "Oh, that. It's Captain Picard day. You see, I'm a role model." > "I'm sure you are. Star Fleet out." > Captain Picard and Admiral Necheyev

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Danny Johnson")


To a degree, yes. Unless it repeats *itself* (supernovae, for example), it cannot be repeated (by man). Landis D. Ragon wrote in message ... >"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > >>(yet another cross-post) >>If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is NOT >>science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. > >You have just removed astronomy from the realm of science. > > > >Landis Ragon >Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. > >dS = dq/T

1999-11-24 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >To a degree, yes. Unless it repeats *itself* (supernovae, for example), it >cannot be repeated (by man). Interesting. Police departments worldwide will be agog at your claim that forensics is not science. > >Landis D. Ragon wrote in message ... >>"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >> >>>(yet another cross-post) >>>If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is >NOT >>>science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. >> >>You have just removed astronomy from the realm of science. >> >> >> >>Landis Ragon >>Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. >> >>dS = dq/T > Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->No, they arent - for the Lord in Isaiah says, "Come now, and let us reason together...." On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:40:58 GMT, "Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com> wrote: |Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. |> | |Yes, they are.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->Yeah, prove it. Seems to me you reason from faith when it suits you, and reason apart from faith when it suits you. The you's in the previous sentence are plural and refer to no specific poster. On 25 Nov 1999 11:48:00 -0600, noaj@yournet.com (Noah Simoneaux) wrote: |Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. | |They're not??? OK, now it's time to fire the Ultimate Atheist Salvo. Prove it.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:12:29 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->No, they arent - for the Lord in Isaiah says, "Come >now, and let us reason together...." The Bible is a book of myths and proves nothing - except that you believe in myths. > > >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:40:58 GMT, "Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com> >wrote: > >|Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. >|> >| >|Yes, they are. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:21:59 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man---->Yeah, prove it. Seems to me you reason from faith when >it suits you, and reason apart from faith when it suits you. The >you's in the previous sentence are plural and refer to no specific >poster. We noticed. We also noticed that you didn't provide anything to back up your assertion. Bible quotes don't count. > >On 25 Nov 1999 11:48:00 -0600, noaj@yournet.com (Noah Simoneaux) >wrote: > >|Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. >| >|They're not??? OK, now it's time to fire the Ultimate Atheist Salvo. Prove it. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 03:07:11 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: [>Masked Man---->As the thread title says, yes and no. In my circle, we [>do and must. The Bible is the basis for our faith. Without it, we [>have very little. You have less than very little since the bible is innacurate. Actually, you sell yourself short. Stoney [>On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:21:54 +0000, Graham Kennedy [><graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: [> [>|You don't have to believe that the bible is the infallible [>|word of god in order to be a Christian.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->The difference between a forensic scientist and a >cosmologist is one of degree, not of kind. It is a wonderfully >tempting argument to reason that because a forensic scientist can >solve crimes by examining evidence, a cosmologist can deduce how the >Universe came to be by the same method, but the universe is manifestly >a phenomenon whose origins defy explanation. You state this, but make no effort to back it up. Why? > >Then, too, there is the principle in scientific method - and God help >me, I wish I could come up with specific attribution - that science is >not concerned with truth in an absolute sense, but with a model that >satisfactorily explains observable phenomena. Hey, that works for me. >Let's call the Big Bang Theory what it is - a figment of somebody's >imagination which explains certain astronomical phenomena, and stop >trying to dogmatically assert it as some sort of philosophical truth. >It is not, and never can be, because of the rules established by the >men who formed it, not those outside the scientific community who >criticize it. Then the same description should apply to "Germ Theory" and "Atomic Theory" and "Cellular Theory" and... Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->Problem is, you thought that, and then went about trying to prove it to others. Of all that might be said about atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned objectivity - I find most offensive. On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:58:35 -0800, see-sig@for.email.org (Frank Wustner) wrote: |Tell that to the believers, not us. We here on alt.atheism |think the bible is a load of crap.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->Few Christians say otherwise. Paul wrote his letters, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, etc. What you miss because you refuse to see is what the Bible says about itself - that it is inspired, which means literally God-breathed. At a minimum, the original autographs bear the imprimatur of the Almighty. You can deny that now, but the day will come when it will be impossible to reject. On 23 Nov 99 16:02:07 GMT, czar@ecn.ab.ca () wrote: |Clue for the clueless: It's *all* written by man.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Robert Hutchinson <servoid@hotmail.com>)


Brian Barjenbruch wrote: > > > Of all that might be said about > > atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned > > objectivity - I find most offensive. > > And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to > believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is > unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. Speaking as a Christian, you both are stereotyping atheists. I know several atheists who wouldn't dream of impeding religion. Robert Hutchinson

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:02:57 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote in alt.atheism: >Masked Man---->It is a great deal more than that. Let us set aside >issues of prophecy or theology or even inspiration. The Bible >qualifies as a history of Israel, unsurpassed in its depth and >breadth. Its poetry (Psalms), drama (Job), wisdom (Proverbs and >Ecclesiastes) are likewise unmatched, having stood the test of time >for thousands of years. As a code of conduct that governs the >relations of men to men, to say nothing of the relations of men to >their Creator, it also has no equal. Abraham Lincoln has said that >the Bible is the best gift God ever gave to man. Life without those >words would be intolerable. A billion Muslims would disagree, as would a billion Hindus.If, as you suggest, we set aside the theology and so on, what's specifically, unique about the Bible? >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:54:33 -0500, Michelle Malkin ><malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > >|The Bible is a book of myths and proves nothing - except >|that you believe in myths. -- "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage. ....... HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html> Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:41:22 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->Problem is, you thought that, and then went about >trying to prove it to others. Of all that might be said about >atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned >objectivity - I find most offensive. And, you just thought that you would drag your egotisitical little self over to alt.atheism to tell us that. Considering that you knew the kind of reception your proselytizing would get, I would have to say that you are the one who is intellectually dishonest. You set up the situation and then bellyached when you got what you expected. People like you are usually referred to as hypocrites. And, now your acquaintances in the ST newsgroups know that you are a hypocrite, too. If you want to believe in your mythology, go right ahead. I don't know of any atheist who will tell any theist that they aren't entitled to their own beliefs. If we disagree with what they say to us, we'll say so and why. The place where we draw the line is when theists like you try to push your beliefs in our faces and then insult us when we respond in a way you don't like. You just crossed that line. You are no longer a visitor in alt.atheism. You are an invader. And, you will be treated as an invader deserves, since it is obvious that you are here for no good reason - insulted in return, killfiled or just plain ignored. <<PLONK!>> > >On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:58:35 -0800, see-sig@for.email.org (Frank >Wustner) wrote: > >|Tell that to the believers, not us. We here on alt.atheism >|think the bible is a load of crap. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:22:44 GMT, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: >> Of all that might be said about >> atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned >> objectivity - I find most offensive. > >And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to >believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is >unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. I see. Did a little group of you decide to get together to make it look like there are more of you than there actually are? That is so pitiful - especially when you have to drag other newsgroups that have nothing to do with the discussion into it. How about the fact that you are sending your messages to an atheist newsgroup? We are not cross-posting to a theist newsgroup to tell you to believe or not believe anything. So, that would make you not only a hypocrite but a liar, as well. How about having the courage of your convictions and posting from alt.atheism or a theist newsgroup and not the Star Trek newsgroups? And, by the way, don't tell us what we would like to do about anything. We will individually make that kind of decison. You have nothing to say about it, except to spread lies and make trouble. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:35:56 GMT, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: >> I see. Did a little group of you decide to get together to >> make it look like there are more of you than there actually >> are? That is so pitiful - especially when you have to drag >> other newsgroups that have nothing to do with the discussion >> into it. >> >> How about the fact that you are sending your messages to an >> atheist newsgroup? We are not cross-posting to a theist >> newsgroup to tell you to believe or not believe anything. >> So, that would make you not only a hypocrite but a liar, as >> well. >> >> How about having the courage of your convictions and posting >> from alt.atheism or a theist newsgroup and not the Star Trek >> newsgroups? And, by the way, don't tell us what we would >> like to do about anything. We will individually make that >> kind of decison. You have nothing to say about it, except to >> spread lies and make trouble. > >Interesting, your constant use of the term "we." Got a nice little >arrogant ego trip going there, eh? > >And you still haven't answered my question... What question would that be? The quotes which you very conveniently deleted consisted of a partial quote from someone else and some insults from you, nothing else. Did you ask someone else a question and forget who they were? I'll bite. What question? By the way, I am removing the Star Trek newsgroups from the newsgroup line from now on. If you want to respond to me from now on, you'll have to do it in alt.atheism. Clogging up the ST newsgroups with our messages isn't fair to them, though that doesn't seem to bother you at all. Or do you consider it your mission to proselytize in the ST newsgroups? Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (noaj@yournet.com)


In article <3849c819.90934148@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net says... > >Masked Man----->Problem is, you thought that, and then went about >trying to prove it to others. Of all that might be said about >atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned >objectivity - I find most offensive. And you think people who claim god exists and also claim it's proven because they believe it are being honest? Is that Bill Clinton's definition of honest? Noah Simoneaux -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:32:41 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->This is getting out of hand, so I'm going to bail on >this thread right now. Some closing thoughts before I go. I do not >subscribe to the alt.atheism newsgroup. This "Yes and No" thread >showed up in the alt.tv.startrek.voyager newsgroup, and I responded. >From my point of view, it is the atheists who intruded where they >werent welcome. I'll make you this promise - you keep your >proselytizing out of the star trek newsgroups, and I'll keep mine out >of the atheism newsgroup. Good day to you. Sorry for pulling your plug, mister. :) 'Bye. > >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:03:52 -0500, Michelle Malkin ><malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > >|And, you just thought that you would drag your egotisitical >|little self over to alt.atheism to tell us that. Considering >|that you knew the kind of reception your proselytizing would >|get, I would have to say that you are the one who is >|intellectually dishonest. You set up the situation and then >|bellyached when you got what you expected. People like you >|are usually referred to as hypocrites. And, now your >|acquaintances in the ST newsgroups know that you are a >|hypocrite, too. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Danny Johnson")


Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, I won't limit you) is not true. Michelle Malkin wrote in message <2a89OFCwWyFa8pVvAeYqPu0II5P2@4ax.com>... >On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:12:29 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net >(Masked Man) wrote: > >>Masked Man----->No, they arent - for the Lord in Isaiah says, "Come >>now, and let us reason together...." > >The Bible is a book of myths and proves nothing - except >that you believe in myths. > > >> >> >>On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:40:58 GMT, "Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com> >>wrote: >> >>|Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. >>|> >>| >>|Yes, they are. > >Michelle Malkin (Mickey) >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ >aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 >High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ >"I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd >imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people >can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." >-Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, > I won't limit you) is not true. The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the untruth of that part of the bible. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man---->Sure, they count, and they are all that do. Just > because you dismiss them as irrelevant does not mean that I do. We don't care what you consider relevant. If you intend to prove anything to us, it must be to our satisfaction rather than to yours. If you aren't here to prove anything, then stop wasting our time and go away. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man----->Problem is, you thought that, and then went > about trying to prove it to others. When, exactly, have we done that? > Of all that might be said about > atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of > feigned objectivity - I find most offensive. I find this particular blatant lie quite offensive myself. Most believers are perfectly nice people. But the irrational fringe like yourself enjoy spreading lies about people who dare to disagree with you, be it atheists or non-christian theists. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: > And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to > believe. Care to pull up any such examples of atheists doing that? Or are you merely lying? I, on the other hand, could give you many examples of theists trying to force atheists to believe in their special religion. Such as the spanish inquisition, trying to force their religion into public schools, and many postings to this very news group. > Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. Prove it. Go on, child. Show that you know atheists better than they know themselves. > That is unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. And I find your lying far more offensive than that. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (raven1 <psychedelephant@erols.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <aL08OBvLDIJbdanB51LBBkZFPlQa@4ax.com>, > Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:04:23 -0700, "Constable Odo" >> <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: >> >> >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you >don't >> >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON >> >FAITH!!!!! >> > >> We know, child. It's all based on you believing something >> someone else told you to believe and not think about - >> blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, >> you already have. > >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". > >> Michelle Malkin (Mickey) "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." - Merlin, "Excalibur"

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: > Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > > "Constable Odo" <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: > > >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you don't > > >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON > > >FAITH!!!!! > > We know, child. It's all based on you believing something > > someone else told you to believe and not think about - > > blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, > > you already have. > Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. Unfortunately, most faithful people, such as the constable above, don't seem to realize that. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (see-sig@for.email.org)


sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man----->Not really. The branch of science removed is > cosmology - the assumption that by observation one can demonstrate how > the universe came to be. And this removal is valid...how? Observation has already gotten us quite far back. > Some scientists will - in lucid moments admit as much. Noted > astronomer George Abell: "Science can say nothing about the moment > before the Big Bang." Did Abell qualify his statement with "Not yet, at any rate"? > The theologian can: "In the beginning, God..." False. The theologican *thinks* he can. The truth is that he is only guessing, which is far less valid than scientific cosmology. -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (noaj@yournet.com)


In article <81jq2k$s57$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, ametica@my-deja.com says... (snip) >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. They're not??? OK, now it's time to fire the Ultimate Atheist Salvo. Prove it. Noah Simoneaux -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (xyz <waltham02154@hotNOspAMmail.com>)


Raven - Touch���! "raven1" <psychedelephant@erols.com> wrote in message news:o289OIVnwccocrD1NqcCOKOJKHiL@4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >In article <aL08OBvLDIJbdanB51LBBkZFPlQa@4ax.com>, > > Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:04:23 -0700, "Constable Odo" > >> <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you > >don't > >> >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON > >> >FAITH!!!!! > >> > > >> We know, child. It's all based on you believing something > >> someone else told you to believe and not think about - > >> blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, > >> you already have. > > > >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. > > Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" > in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. > Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". > > > > >> Michelle Malkin (Mickey) > > > > "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." > - Merlin, "Excalibur"

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <aL08OBvLDIJbdanB51LBBkZFPlQa@4ax.com>, > Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:04:23 -0700, "Constable Odo" >> <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: >> >> >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you >don't >> >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON >> >FAITH!!!!! >> > >> We know, child. It's all based on you believing something >> someone else told you to believe and not think about - >> blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, >> you already have. > >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. > Yes, they are. As soon as faith is involved, thinking stops. And, since thinking about possible disproofs leads to fear of a loss of faith, this leads to a fear of knowledge and the acceptance of deliberate ignorance. Most fundamentalists only read about science with an eye to disproving it. They don't read about it to learn. And if it should disprove one or more of their beliefs, they ignore this. Since their minds are already made up, learning that they could be wrong is only to be denied or ignored. Those fundies who read to learn, aren't fundies anynmore. They have sprung the trap and escaped the lies and myths to become thinking human beings. Are you posting from a Star Trek newsgroup? This really isn't the kind of material that should be posted there. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->Not really. The branch of science removed is cosmology - the assumption that by observation one can demonstrate how the universe came to be. Some scientists will - in lucid moments admit as much. Noted astronomer George Abell: "Science can say nothing about the moment before the Big Bang." The theologian can: "In the beginning, God..." On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:32:58 GMT, Landis D. Ragon <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net> wrote: |"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: | |>(yet another cross-post) |>If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is NOT |>science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. | |You have just removed astronomy from the realm of science. | | | |Landis Ragon |Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. | |dS = dq/T

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->As the thread title says, yes and no. In my circle, we do and must. The Bible is the basis for our faith. Without it, we have very little. On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:21:54 +0000, Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: |You don't have to believe that the bible is the infallible |word of god in order to be a Christian.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->Certainly, it is out of place, and more in keeping with the Trek vision to cut the sentence after "gods". Some like that idea; that it so fills Trek ("We dont need no stinking deities") is one of two reasons why I could never long to be part of Trek. On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:01:39 -0600, "TC" <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com> wrote: |I'd always felt |that last part was inserted at the insistence of NBC to head off letters.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com>)


In article <aL08OBvLDIJbdanB51LBBkZFPlQa@4ax.com>, Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:04:23 -0700, "Constable Odo" > <constableodo@deepspacenine.com> wrote: > > >Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you don't > >believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON > >FAITH!!!!! > > > We know, child. It's all based on you believing something > someone else told you to believe and not think about - > blind faith. Leave your brain at the church door. Oh, sorry, > you already have. Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. > Michelle Malkin (Mickey) -- Queen Ametica, "Totuus ei pala tulessakaan" - Finnish proverb Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


Constable Odo wrote: > > Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. You believe or you don't > believe it. Nothing has to be proven to be true. IT'S ALL BASED ON > FAITH!!!!! Agreed. I just wish more religious people would realize this, then they could stop trying to do things like tear down evolution or find Noahs Ark. -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->The difference between a forensic scientist and a cosmologist is one of degree, not of kind. It is a wonderfully tempting argument to reason that because a forensic scientist can solve crimes by examining evidence, a cosmologist can deduce how the Universe came to be by the same method, but the universe is manifestly a phenomenon whose origins defy explanation. Then, too, there is the principle in scientific method - and God help me, I wish I could come up with specific attribution - that science is not concerned with truth in an absolute sense, but with a model that satisfactorily explains observable phenomena. Hey, that works for me. Let's call the Big Bang Theory what it is - a figment of somebody's imagination which explains certain astronomical phenomena, and stop trying to dogmatically assert it as some sort of philosophical truth. It is not, and never can be, because of the rules established by the men who formed it, not those outside the scientific community who criticize it. On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:35:43 -0600, Landis D. Ragon <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net> wrote: |The difference?

1999-11-25 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


Masked Man wrote: > > Masked Man---->As the thread title says, yes and no. In my circle, we > do and must. The Bible is the basis for our faith. Without it, we > have very little. What you do in your circle is irrelevant. So long as it is possible for even one Christian not to believe the bible to be the infallible word of god, then the statement I made is true. > On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:21:54 +0000, Graham Kennedy > <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > |You don't have to believe that the bible is the infallible > |word of god in order to be a Christian. -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:12:29 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: [>Masked Man----->No, they arent - for the Lord in Isaiah says, "Come [>now, and let us reason together...." Correction. A character in a bronze age tome says. Superstition and reason are strangers. Stoney [>On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:40:58 GMT, "Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com> [>wrote: [> [>|Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. [>|> [>| [>|Yes, they are.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>)


Michelle Malkin wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:15:51 +0000, Brian > <mattone@bhip.infi.net> wrote: > >I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this > >gives me pause to continue: > >The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, > >considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' > >science classes. > >I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on > >the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. > >Period. > >The fundamentalists will never win this one. > > For the sakes of your and other children, I hope you are > right. Oh, I'm right. I have all the precedents before me, I've done all the research. It's cut-and-dried. -Brian Matthews

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: > Nopel wrote: >> Is this kind of theism really this widespread in America, or am I >> getting an exaggerated view from this discussion? Sure, here in Europe, >> we've got our share of nuts and cultmembers, but in general, if you were >> to say that you believed Genesis was literally true, you'd get laughed >> at by just about everyone. Aside from some Jehovah's Witnesses, not even >> real Christians believe that over here. > You make it sound like Christianity is a bad thing. In the wrong hands and minds, it can be. > Here in America, if someone said they believed Genesis was true, then > most Americans have the decency not to laugh at them. I think a "You must be joking, right", or "You can't be serious?" are appropriate, or maybe "So do you think the moon is made of green cheese too?". > Disagree, yes. That too. > But not ridicule and deride them. Well, that depends on how far gone they are in their delusions. -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Al Klein <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:35:52 +0000, Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: >James Pittman wrote: >> Can't tell you right now, because I don't have my sources. But I know that I've >> heard about evidence for a world-wide flood. Sorry, can't be more specific. >If you heard evidence for a flood which covered the world, >you heard wrongly. There isn't enough water for it. And that's only ONE problem with the story. --- Al Klein aklein at villagenet dot com

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Al Klein <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:26:51 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: >No... empathy. Sense of presence. I feel when someone I know is hurt - >via emotional sense - when I have no idea until I find out later who >and how was hurt. Sometimes I can't tell difference between my own >emotions and those of others. Then you're different than almost everyone else. Almost no one can tell, except if they're present or (sometimes) in the case of identical twins, when someone else gets hurt. And almost no one can feel another person's emotions. --- Al Klein aklein at villagenet dot com

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Al Klein <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:38:11 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >I'm gonna bail on this thread, and request of you atheists that you >forego any further off topic posts into the startrek newsgroups. If >you will, you will neither see nor hear from me again. I noticed that YOU didn't snip the startrek news groups. Any reason you want to keep posting this thread to them? --- Al Klein aklein at villagenet dot com

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (haji@u.washington.edu)


elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) writes: >James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >> Nopel wrote: >>> Is this kind of theism really this widespread in America, or am I >>> getting an exaggerated view from this discussion? Sure, here in Europe, >>> we've got our share of nuts and cultmembers, but in general, if you were >>> to say that you believed Genesis was literally true, you'd get laughed >>> at by just about everyone. Aside from some Jehovah's Witnesses, not even >>> real Christians believe that over here. >> You make it sound like Christianity is a bad thing. >In the wrong hands and minds, it can be. >> Here in America, if someone said they believed Genesis was true, then >> most Americans have the decency not to laugh at them. >I think a "You must be joking, right", or "You can't be serious?" are >appropriate, or maybe "So do you think the moon is made of green >cheese too?". Those would all be silly and insulting comments. If someone says his mother is the best looking woman there is, you don't say something rude in response. Now a question like, "why do you believe that?" is perfectly reasonable but to have a real discussion with someone you have to actually listen and consider what they say otherwise you're putting yourself in the position of an instructor and you're really wasting your time unless the other person wants to be instructed by you. Guess what? They won't if you're rude and insulting. The above is true regardless of what you believe. -McDaniel

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Captain <captquirk@yahoo.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:04:40 -0500, James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >Captain wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:40:20 -0500, James Pittman >> <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >> >> >Frank Wustner wrote: >> > >> >> "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, >> >> > I won't limit you) is not true. >> >> >> >> The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the >> >> untruth of that part of the bible. >> > >> >You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological >> >evidence to suggest it did happen. >> >> And what evidence would that be? >> >> --- >> Captain > >Can't tell you right now, because I don't have my sources. But I know that I've >heard about evidence for a world-wide flood. Sorry, can't be more specific. What a surprise. I won't wait up.... --- Captain

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("yang hu")


Constable Odo wrote: > Christianity is faith you fools, not a religion. And Christianity says by your speech, you are to be burned in hell (Matt 5:22) -- Yang a.a.#28 EAC mole and other furry creatures rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin ``Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness.'' Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the New Millennium"

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:22:44 GMT, Brian Barjenbruch <brianb1@home.com> wrote: [>> Of all that might be said about [>> atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of [>>feigned objectivity - I find most offensive. Projection. [>And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to [>believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is [>unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. That's pure horseshit. The xtian martyr/persecution complex raises its ugly head. If a person is religious, that is their private business. It becomes other when the person brings it into a public venue and asserts that others need to pay attention to it, follow it, or the follower attempts to codify their superstition into secular law. Stoney

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 18:30:45 -0500, Robert Hutchinson <servoid@hotmail.com> wrote: [>Brian Barjenbruch wrote: [>> [>> > Of all that might be said about [>> > atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned [>> > objectivity - I find most offensive. [>> [>> And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to [>> believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is [>> unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. [> [>Speaking as a Christian, you both are stereotyping atheists. I know [>several atheists who wouldn't dream of impeding religion. Thank you, Robert. [>Robert Hutchinson Stoney

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:36:02 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote: [>In article <o289OIVnwccocrD1NqcCOKOJKHiL@4ax.com>, [> raven1 <psychedelephant@erols.com> wrote: [>> On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> [>> wrote: [>> > [>> >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. [>> [>> Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" [>> in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. [>> Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". [> [>No. I can listen to your arguements and anyone trying to say "it does [>not exist..." and thus question the faith - but nothing has ever been [>able to end it. Superstition is based on irrationality and fear. In a prior post you indicated having trouble coming to terms with your grandfathers(?) death. Now this elf waved his magic wand and banished your fears away.... [ Besides - there are many things you *must* take on [>faith. That touching an object means to you it exists - but can you [>really - objectively trust that sense? Solipism. The loaded lorry travelling at high speed on the roadway does not exist. It is only in your mind so there is no reason not to ignore it and step in front of it... [> Do you not believe your eyes [>despite optical illusions? Then there is emotional sense... [> [>I can imagine a society where everyone tells only truth - but not [>one with no concept of sacred. That is your limitation for I can imagine such a society. I can also imagine a society where each human is encouraged and supported for their individualities and their own merits. Stoney

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com>)


Captain wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:40:20 -0500, James Pittman > <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: > > >Frank Wustner wrote: > > > >> "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > >> > >> > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, > >> > I won't limit you) is not true. > >> > >> The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the > >> untruth of that part of the bible. > > > >You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological > >evidence to suggest it did happen. > > And what evidence would that be? > > --- > Captain Can't tell you right now, because I don't have my sources. But I know that I've heard about evidence for a world-wide flood. Sorry, can't be more specific. Jamie

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


James Pittman wrote: > > Frank Wustner wrote: > > > "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > > > > > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, > > > I won't limit you) is not true. > > > > The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the > > untruth of that part of the bible. > > You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological > evidence to suggest it did happen. There's archeological proof that a flood covered the whole Earth? What proof would that be? -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Robrey <robrey@mailbag.com>)


Nopel wrote: > > It's really quite baffling to see this discussion take place. A few > years back I lurked in alt.atheism (there were some good flamewars going > on with a chap named Bryce Wellington, if anyone there remembers him), > but I bowed out a long time ago. > > Is this kind of theism really this widespread in America, or am I > getting an exaggerated view from this discussion? Not really exaggerated. There is a significant portion of the population, particularly in the South, as well as and Utah and surrounding areas that is likely to accept what they see as the Word of God over secular science. However, their 'danger' is often overblown. In regard to teaching evolution in school, their main concern is that almost any religious references were removed from public schools several decades before by the Supreme Court, making schooling solely an atheist and secular experience in their eyes. They interpret the First Amendment as meaning the avoidance of a government religion, such as in many European countries, not the removal of religion itself from public institutions. So most of the arguments for prayer in schools and the teaching of creationism are attempts to allow both to be taught, and children to make up their own minds, as opposed to only one theory being presented without rebuttal. My own view? There seems to be a lot of fossils and other evidence about that indicates the world has been here quite some time, well above Bishop Usher's estimate of a world five thousand years old. Thus I can't imagine a God that would deny us the opportunity to study such evidence in order to better understand this world. The Bible is several thousand years old and may very well have been mistranslated many times. Add to this the distinct possibility that it was not written as an evolutionary text anyway. One can imagine that 'days' may in fact indicate eons, and God is perfectly able to use evolution in order to create if he so desires. That's not how I felt as a young punk, I was a fervent supporter of hometown atheist queen Annie Gaylor, and a student of the irreverent Robert A Heinlein. But I stared into the void long enough to decide I liked not what dwelt there. Perhaps it was my profession, or the company I kept, but I found many of the religious people I dismissed as fools were pretty decent people, and not as backward or ignorant as I assumed. I'm a practitioner of Pascal's Gambit, and enjoy going to church for social reasons as well. Your mileage may vary... Sure, here in Europe, > we've got our share of nuts and cultmembers, Socialists? Then you've got quite a bit of them from what I hear! <G> but in general, if you were > to say that you believed Genesis was literally true, you'd get laughed > at by just about everyone. That's OK, we laugh at your socialists, too! <G> Aside from some Jehovah's Witnesses, not even > real Christians believe that over here. > Dunno much about the Jehovah's Witnesses, other than their birth among the Millerites in the late Nineteenth Century. It sounded like a clever plot to sell 'Asension Robes' to me... > These American Christians aren't helping the already not-so-great > American reputation... > That's OK. I decided long ago that the 'Jesus Freaks' were better neighbors than the socialists. And once the post-Maxists are done, they'll have warped your history, decimated your economy and economic studies, and in the end spread dissension, relative poverty and hate amongst what is to be a Federal superstate. Thus guaranteeing American Hegemony well into the next century...and we have the sinister Belgians to thank for it! <G> We're on the same side Nopel, if you figure your conspiracies the same as I do! <EG> Cordially, Robrey :-) -- "It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat" --Theodore Roosevelt, 1899

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Danny Johnson")


You missunderstood me. Once it has been repeated and observed enough to be 'proven', you don't have to retest it every time you use it. ExampleA: Mathematical proofs only need to be proven once. Then you use them for problems. ExampleB: Gunshots: Fire various firearms under various conditions and note the results. You now have observed (and hopefully repeated) an experiment. Now you can use the data in a "If A, then B" system. Landis D. Ragon wrote in message ... >"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > >>To a degree, yes. Unless it repeats *itself* (supernovae, for example), it >>cannot be repeated (by man). > >Interesting. Police departments worldwide will be agog at your claim >that forensics is not science. > > > >> >>Landis D. Ragon wrote in message ... >>>"Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >>> >>>>(yet another cross-post) >>>>If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is >>NOT >>>>science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. >>> >>>You have just removed astronomy from the realm of science. >>> >>> >>> >>>Landis Ragon >>>Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. >>> >>>dS = dq/T >> > > >Landis Ragon >Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. > >dS = dq/T >

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com>)


Frank Wustner wrote: > "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > > > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, > > I won't limit you) is not true. > > The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the > untruth of that part of the bible. You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological evidence to suggest it did happen. Jamei > > > -- > The Deadly Nightshade > http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ > http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ > > |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| > |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | > |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | > |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| > |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | > |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | > |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| > |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com>)


Nopel wrote: > Is this kind of theism really this widespread in America, or am I > getting an exaggerated view from this discussion? Sure, here in Europe, > we've got our share of nuts and cultmembers, but in general, if you were > to say that you believed Genesis was literally true, you'd get laughed > at by just about everyone. Aside from some Jehovah's Witnesses, not even > real Christians believe that over here. You make it sound like Christianity is a bad thing. Here in America, if someone said they believed Genesis was true, then most Americans have the decency not to laugh at them. Disagree, yes. But not ridicule and deride them. And maybe you didn't know, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and thus are not Christians. (see http://www.joyfulheart.com/cults/jw.htm). Jamie

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Captain <captquirk@yahoo.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:40:20 -0500, James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >Frank Wustner wrote: > >> "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >> >> > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, >> > I won't limit you) is not true. >> >> The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the >> untruth of that part of the bible. > >You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological >evidence to suggest it did happen. And what evidence would that be? --- Captain

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com>)


In article <Dlg+OKlqBErWnZAf9mKRRsNraC0F@4ax.com>, Therion Ware <tware@video2cd.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:36:02 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > I think you fundamentally misunderstand what faith is in the Christian > context. If you mean "belief" why not say "belief"? Maybe it's the English language. > >I can imagine a society where everyone tells only truth - but not one > >with no concept of sacred. > > Such societies have been envisioned. Try "The songs of distant earth" > by Clarke. -- Queen Ametica, "Totuus ei pala tulessakaan" - Finnish proverb Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


Brian Barjenbruch wrote: > > > > And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to > > > believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is > > > unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. > > > > And I find that offensive. I've been an atheist since > > I first found out what god was, and I have NEVER thought > > that religion should be banned. It's true that I think > > we would be better off without it, and I would be delighted > > if everybody shifted to the atheist/agnostic camp, but > > banned? Never. And this is an attitude shared by virtually > > every atheist I have ever met. > > Okay. I apologize for what I said above. Perhaps I should have > rephrased. Unfortunately, I can't think of another way to say it > without offending somebody else (maybe I should have said "some > atheists would, if they could, ban..." but if you yourself would not, > that is great, as I don't proselytize but neither do I want my own > beliefs threatened), so I think I will let that matter drop. :) Okay, fine. Apology accepted. > NOTE: Usually my sentences are not so thoroughly stuffed with > parentheses and commas and quotation marks. This is a direct result of > Thanksgiving stuffing with a "secret" recipe. Tonight I may well have > nightmares about pink pachyderms chewing on my brain or something like > that, but I suppose that'll be what I deserve.... Heh, I know the feeling all too well... -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (hrgruemm@my-deja.com)


In article <384aca16.91443241@news.mindspring.com>, sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man----->Few Christians say otherwise. Paul wrote his letters, > Moses wrote the Pentateuch, etc. What you miss because you refuse to > see is what the Bible says about itself - that it is inspired, which > means literally God-breathed. I'm afraid you will have to stay after classes and write a hundred times: "I shall not use a circular argument". BTW, the Qu'ran says as well that it is dictated by Allah. > At a minimum, the original autographs > bear the imprimatur of the Almighty. I hope His signature is certified by St. Peter. Attempts to forge it have been numerous throughout of human history. HRG. > You can deny that now, but the > day will come when it will be impossible to reject. > > On 23 Nov 99 16:02:07 GMT, czar@ecn.ab.ca () wrote: > > |Clue for the clueless: It's *all* written by man. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com>)


In article <383DD0E6.3F96B46C@adeadend.demon.co.uk>, Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Brian Barjenbruch wrote: > > > > > Of all that might be said about > > > atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned > > > objectivity - I find most offensive. > > > > And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to > > believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is > > unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. > > And I find that offensive. I've been an atheist since > I first found out what god was, Are you sure you don't mix god and some people's idea of god? I was 17 when I read about religions - all I could find information on - with the thought that how can anyone just pick one. There were similarities and differences - and I saw more similarities than differencens. I even tried to imagine a country/state where no religion had ever existed and could not. Thought of that a lot - even tried vegetarism - but gave it up. Still, it wasn't from any book I gained faith, nor from any human but in a forest where I seeked comfort of my grief after my grandfather died. I could accept death after that - including my own mortality- and I wasn't really expecting anything. -- Queen Ametica, "Totuus ei pala tulessakaan" - Finnish proverb Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Therion Ware <tware@video2cd.co.uk>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:36:02 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >In article <o289OIVnwccocrD1NqcCOKOJKHiL@4ax.com>, > raven1 <psychedelephant@erols.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. >> >> Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" >> in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. >> Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". > >No. I can listen to your arguements and anyone trying to say "it does >not exist..." and thus question the faith - but nothing has ever been >able to end it. Besides - there are many things you *must* take on >faith. That touching an object means to you it exists - but can you >really - objectively trust that sense? Do you not believe your eyes >despite optical illusions? Then there is emotional sense... I think you fundamentally misunderstand what faith is in the Christian context. If you mean "belief" why not say "belief"? >I can imagine a society where everyone tells only truth - but not one >with no concept of sacred. Such societies have been envisioned. Try "The songs of distant earth" by Clarke. -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - attrib: Pauline Reage. ------ <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html> ICQ: 29168081 --- Inexpensive Video 2 Mpeg conversion? <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net>)


Queen Ametica wrote: > > In article <o289OIVnwccocrD1NqcCOKOJKHiL@4ax.com>, > raven1 <psychedelephant@erols.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. > > > > Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" > > in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. > > Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". > > No. I can listen to your arguements and anyone trying to say "it does > not exist..." and thus question the faith - but nothing has ever been > able to end it. Besides - there are many things you *must* take on > faith. That touching an object means to you it exists - but can you > really - objectively trust that sense? Usually. Do you not believe your eyes > despite optical illusions? The very existence of my awareness of optical illusions means that I don't have faith in vision. Then there is emotional sense... Also known as "believing what you want to believe". > > I can imagine a society where everyone tells only truth - but not one > with no concept of sacred. Your imagination is strangely limited.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com>)


In article <o289OIVnwccocrD1NqcCOKOJKHiL@4ax.com>, raven1 <psychedelephant@erols.com> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:02:14 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > > >Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. > > Actually, they are diametrically opposed. To say that you have "faith" > in something is to accept it unquestioningly without adequate reason. > Such an approach is the antithesis of "thinking". No. I can listen to your arguements and anyone trying to say "it does not exist..." and thus question the faith - but nothing has ever been able to end it. Besides - there are many things you *must* take on faith. That touching an object means to you it exists - but can you really - objectively trust that sense? Do you not believe your eyes despite optical illusions? Then there is emotional sense... I can imagine a society where everyone tells only truth - but not one with no concept of sacred. -- Queen Ametica, "Totuus ei pala tulessakaan" - Finnish proverb Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:15:51 +0000, Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net> wrote: >Michelle Malkin wrote: > >> >> >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. >> >> >> >> Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this >> >> 'God' for us? >> > >> >Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all >> >mortal minds. >> > >> In other words, you have no idea what it is that you >> worship. >> >> > >> >> >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard >> >will leave >> >> >a fully operation 747 jet liner. >> >> >> >> Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right >> >> place and with the right conditions and ingredients. >> > >> >Good point, there. >> > >> >> >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current >> >level of >> >> >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many >> >seconds >> >> >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use >> >> >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I >> >don't >> >> >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. >> >> >> >> You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web >> >> pages and some non-creationist science books. >> >> You might learn something. >> >> >> > >> >Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles >> >Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing >> >against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is >> >correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once >> >sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you >> >think has a better chance to know the truth? >> >> The ones who study science, not the ones who blindly follow >> myths. >> > >> >> "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be >> >> the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and >> >> I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a >> >> religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." >> >> -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 > > >I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this >gives me pause to continue: >The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, >considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' >science classes. >I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on >the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. >Period. >The fundamentalists will never win this one. > >-Brian Matthews For the sakes of your and other children, I hope you are right. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("D.M.S." <dms@socal.rr.com>)


No, I don't "wish." I was talking about the TNG episode where the Enterprise is trapped by Negilum (sp). Watch the end of it, where the fake crew is trying to talk Picard out of self-destructing the ship. DMS Nopel wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:06:07 GMT, "D.M.S." <dms@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > >In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the > >amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher > >being that would have designed it. > > Ha! You wish :) He never said anything of the kind. The episode you're > probably thinking of, is 'Tapestry.' In it, Picard appears to die, and > finds himself in what appears to be heaven, with Q there to welcome him. > Picard says: 'You are not God! The universe is not so badly designed.' > This doesn't imply he believes in a god, or even that the universe _is_ > designed. > > In another episode ('Who Watches the Watchers?'), Picard explicitly > rejects religion. Through an accident, a native of a Bronze Age, > Vulcan-like people sees Picard and thinks he's a god. An anthropologist > tells Picard that, to minimise cultural interference and avoid Holy > Wars, Picard should pretend to be a god and give the people a code of > ethics. Picard is furious, and says he would rather die than to allow > the logical and intelligent people to revert to 'the Dark Ages.' He says > they'd given up 'those superstitions' millennia ago. In the end, he > breaks the Prime Directive and shows the people he's just an ordinary > being like them, and it's only his advanced technology that makes him > appear god-like. Ultimately, he allows himself to get shot and nearly > dies, proving he's mortal. > > Doesn't look like he believes in a higher being, and even if he does, he > doesn't seem to think of it as benign. > > >Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk > >replied something like "Our one God is enough." > > 'Who mourns for Adonais?' TC's given the exact quote. > > There was also another TOS episode: 'Bread and Circuses,' where the > Enterprise encounters a planet that developed similarly to Earth, only > the Roman Empire didn't fall. Throughout the episode, they follow a cult > that worships the 'sun'. In the end, they find out they were worshiping > 'the Son [of God],' and that there was a Jesus-like figure on the planet > who would soon lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire, like it did on > Earth. > > And in 'Return to Tomorrow,' the crew encounters a people that visited > Earth, Vulcan and a couple of other planets, and claims to have > 'created' or at least guided the evolution of those species. Uhura says > that what they claim doesn't jibe with any scientific theories or > religions of Earth. > > >But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot believe in > >both. > > And, more often than not, they get the science behind evolution > completely wrong... ;) > > These come to mind: > TNG's 'The Chase,' where they find evidence of a four-billion-year-old > humanoid species that seeded the galaxy with their DNA, and so guided > the evolution of Humans, Vulcans, Cardassians, Klingons, and every other > humanoid race in the galaxy to look like them. > > TNG's 'Genesis,' where a mutated virus 'de-evolves' the crew into > spiders, monkeys, neanderthals, etc. They actually used the word > 'de-evolve.' I guess 'devolve' would've sounded too intelligent. > > VOY's 'Threshold.' Everyone knows about this one. Even the good people > on alt.atheism should know about this one; it's legendary, just like > William Shatner's 'Tambourine Man.' > > >I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > >religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > > I'm reminded of the particularly bad Voyager episode 'Sacred Ground.' > They tried to do an episode focused on science vs religion, while still > remaining non-committed to either side. Kes walks through some people's > shrine and gets zapped. The Doctor tries to wake her, but can't. The > people tell Janeway that only a believer can walk through the shrine > unharmed and cure Kes. Janeway goes through the necessary rituals, and > the Doctor keeps examining Janeway to see if the rituals physically > change her. He finds some things, but still can't use them to revive > Kes. Janeway decides to just give in, and redo the rituals in earnest, > without trying to analyse them. Afterwards, she carries Kes through the > shrine, and it works: Janeway is unharmed, and Kes wakes up. In the end, > the Doctor reexamines Janeway and Kes, and finds some chemical imbalance > or what-have-you, and can explain what happened scientifically. Janeway, > the ultimate scientist, gets a look on her face that seems to say 'shut > up about science, it was my belief that revived her.' > > The writers wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They failed. > > If you want to see an example of 'science vs religion' done well on Star > Trek, look at DS9's 'Accession.' Sisko has always been revered as an > Emissary to the Bajoran gods, the Prophets, but in this episode, another > man claims to be the true Emissary. Sisko, who never liked the role > anyway, agrees, and the entire Bajoran people now see the new guy as > their Emissary. > > There's a conversation between Odo and Kira that goes something like > this (from memory): > > <quote> > Odo: 'You used to believe Sisko was the Emissary and now Akorem Laan is > the Emissary. Does that mean Sisko never was the Emissary?' > > Kira: (hesitating): 'No, it doesn't.' > > Odo: 'It seems your religion has lead you to some kind of contradiction. > I don't understand. ' > > Kira: 'What do you want me to say, Odo? I can't explain. That's the > thing about faith: when you don't have it, no one can explain it to you. > And when you do, no explanation is necessary.' > </quote> > > Or the conversation between Dax and O'Brien (non-believers) and Kira and > Worf (believers, albeit in different things) in 'The Reckoning.' Sisko's > son is in danger, but Sisko doesn't want to help him, because he > believes the Prophets will save him. Kira agrees, and tries to explain > this to Dax and O'Brien. They say that faith alone isn't much to rely > on. Worf steps in and says 'You're wrong. It's everything.' Even though > Worf believes in Klingon religion and not in Bajoran religion, he agrees > with Kira, the Bajoran. > > In fact, if you want to see 'science vs religion' done well in Star > Trek, look at most of DS9. They remain non-committal about the Prophets > being either gods or just another bunch of aliens, and show a seven-year > character arc of Sisko, he began as a complete atheist, but by the end > is a devout believer of Bajoran religion. > > Nopel > -- > The Memory Alpha Database: http://get.to/memoryalpha/ > > - Proud like a god - -- Freelance 3D Animator Web Designer Graphic Designer Multimedia Designer All Around Nice Guy --- (remove nospam to reply) ---

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (hrgruemm@my-deja.com)


In article <81ejm6$o6r$1@sooner.brightok.net>, "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: > (yet another cross-post) > If you want to get really technical, the origins of the universe/life is NOT > science. Science deals with that which is observed and repeatable. This is a frequent misunderstanding. The event studied need not be repeatable (else the study of a supernova would not be scientific); the *observation* must be repeatable, so that it can be checked by other scientists. HRG. <snip> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (hrgruemm@my-deja.com)


Piggybacking ... In article <bL89OHfnlSqAyYjQVi0Q3bt0vC6G@4ax.com>, Landis D. Ragon <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net> wrote: > kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: > > >Masked Man----->The difference between a forensic scientist and a > >cosmologist is one of degree, not of kind. It is a wonderfully > >tempting argument to reason that because a forensic scientist can > >solve crimes by examining evidence, a cosmologist can deduce how the > >Universe came to be by the same method, but the universe is manifestly > >a phenomenon whose origins defy explanation. > > You state this, but make no effort to back it up. Why? > > > > >Then, too, there is the principle in scientific method - and God help > >me, I wish I could come up with specific attribution - that science is > >not concerned with truth in an absolute sense, Several disciplines claim that they are concerned with "truth in an absolute sense". Unfortunately, they are only talking about it. > but with a model that > >satisfactorily explains observable phenomena. But so is the existence of the Sun: it is a model that satisfactorily explains observable phenomena .... like the big yellow light in the sky, day and night, summer and winter etc. Come to think of it, the existence of an external world (including the existence of usenet posters) is a model that satisfactorily explains *my* sensual perceptions ;-) IOW, it is all a matter of degree. Some inference chains between our perceptions and a "model" or "theory" are simply longer than others. I agree that a longer chain of inferences has a higher probability that one of the links may be faulty; but the difference between the Sun (where this probability is negligible) and the Big Bang is still only quantitative. Hey, that works for me. > >Let's call the Big Bang Theory what it is - a figment of somebody's > >imagination which explains certain astronomical phenomena, and stop > >trying to dogmatically assert it as some sort of philosophical truth. And how can we determine if some proposition is "philosophical truth"? > >It is not, and never can be, because of the rules established by the > >men who formed it, not those outside the scientific community who > >criticize it. > > Then the same description should apply to "Germ Theory" and "Atomic > Theory" and "Cellular Theory" and... ... "Sun Theory", "External World Theory" .... :-) HRG. > Landis Ragon > Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. > > dS = dq/T All hail Maculate Entropia ... > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - what a can of worms... - ("D.M.S." <dms@socal.rr.com>)


(For the record, the episode I was talking about was the TNG episode where the Enterprise is trapped by Negilum (sp). Watch the end of it, where the fake crew is trying to talk Picard out of self-destructing the ship. All of you that were so "witty" with your remarks that I was wrong about Picard saying that should go watch the episode.) Why did so many people blow this all out of proportion? I was trying to be tactful by pointing to the fact that Star Trek, whether it's right or wrong, tries to appeal to all of us. I admit, some of the plotlines with evolution involved were very interesting. That doesn't mean I believe in it, but it also doesn't mean I'm going to burn the tape it's on either. I simply enjoy the intrigue and characters. I don't watch it to learn about religion or science. I wasn't trying to "prove" what Star Trek goes by (as many of these posts were), I was trying to give a neutral opinion so as to avoid all this. As for my "you can't believe both" statement. That is what I believe. I am not going to try to force that upon anyone else. It's unfortunate, though, that many of you- not all- can't state your beliefs without purposefully insulting others'. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss it. Cheers, DMS "D.M.S." wrote: > I've wondered this a lot. > > In one TNG episode, Picard said what he thought on this. He mentioned how the > amazing precision and clockwork of the universe points itself towards a higher > being that would have designed it. > Also, in a TOS episode, a being was wanting the crew to worship him, and Kirk > replied something like "Our one God is enough." > But, there are also numerous references to evolution, and you cannot believe in > both. > I think this is all Star Trek's way of tip-toeing around the subject of > religion, and simply encouraging people to think about it. > > DMS > > _ > Freelance 3D Animator > Web Designer > Graphic Designer > Multimedia Designer > All Around Nice Guy -- Freelance 3D Animator Web Designer Graphic Designer Multimedia Designer All Around Nice Guy --- (remove nospam to reply) ---

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->It is a great deal more than that. Let us set aside issues of prophecy or theology or even inspiration. The Bible qualifies as a history of Israel, unsurpassed in its depth and breadth. Its poetry (Psalms), drama (Job), wisdom (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) are likewise unmatched, having stood the test of time for thousands of years. As a code of conduct that governs the relations of men to men, to say nothing of the relations of men to their Creator, it also has no equal. Abraham Lincoln has said that the Bible is the best gift God ever gave to man. Life without those words would be intolerable. On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:54:33 -0500, Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: |The Bible is a book of myths and proves nothing - except |that you believe in myths.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->Sure, they count, and they are all that do. Just because you dismiss them as irrelevant does not mean that I do. Nor do the rules of logic or debate require me to eschew them. You are simply baiting me into a trap - forcing me to reach my conclusions from your premises, and it aint gonna happen. One of the singularly important issues in resolving the differences that divide us is we reason from different premises. In such circumstances, common ground is difficult, if not impossible. So, we spend our time talking at each other, not to each other. On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:58:50 -0500, Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com> wrote: |We noticed. We also noticed that you didn't provide anything |to back up your assertion. Bible quotes don't count.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->This is getting out of hand, so I'm going to bail on this thread right now. Some closing thoughts before I go. I do not subscribe to the alt.atheism newsgroup. This "Yes and No" thread showed up in the alt.tv.startrek.voyager newsgroup, and I responded.

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->Here is atheist intellectual honesty for all to see. Mr. Simoneaux's defense against my criticism is to say, "Oh, yeah? And you're another one!" Linking me with Bill Clinton is a feeble attempt at guilt by association. I'm gonna bail on this thread, and request of you atheists that you forego any further off topic posts into the startrek newsgroups. If you will, you will neither see nor hear from me again. On 25 Nov 1999 18:57:21 -0600, noaj@yournet.com (Noah Simoneaux) wrote: |In article <3849c819.90934148@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net |says... |> |>Masked Man----->Problem is, you thought that, and then went about |>trying to prove it to others. Of all that might be said about |>atheists, it is their intellectual dishonesty - this patina of feigned |>objectivity - I find most offensive. | |And you think people who claim god exists and also claim it's proven because |they believe it are being honest? Is that Bill Clinton's definition of honest? | |Noah Simoneaux | | | | -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- | http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! |------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>)


Michelle Malkin wrote: > >> >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. > >> > >> Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this > >> 'God' for us? > > > >Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all > >mortal minds. > > > In other words, you have no idea what it is that you > worship. > >> > > >> >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard > >will leave > >> >a fully operation 747 jet liner. > >> > >> Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right > >> place and with the right conditions and ingredients. > > > >Good point, there. > > > >> >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current > >level of > >> >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many > >seconds > >> >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use > >> >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I > >don't > >> >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. > >> > >> You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web > >> pages and some non-creationist science books. > >> You might learn something. > >> > > > >Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles > >Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing > >against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is > >correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once > >sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you > >think has a better chance to know the truth? > > The ones who study science, not the ones who blindly follow > myths. > > > >> "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be > >> the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and > >> I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a > >> religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." > >> -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this gives me pause to continue: The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' science classes. I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. Period. The fundamentalists will never win this one. -Brian Matthews

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>)


Michelle Malkin wrote: > >> >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. > >> > >> Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this > >> 'God' for us? > > > >Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all > >mortal minds. > > > In other words, you have no idea what it is that you > worship. > >> > > >> >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard > >will leave > >> >a fully operation 747 jet liner. > >> > >> Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right > >> place and with the right conditions and ingredients. > > > >Good point, there. > > > >> >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current > >level of > >> >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many > >seconds > >> >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use > >> >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I > >don't > >> >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. > >> > >> You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web > >> pages and some non-creationist science books. > >> You might learn something. > >> > > > >Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles > >Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing > >against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is > >correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once > >sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you > >think has a better chance to know the truth? > > The ones who study science, not the ones who blindly follow > myths. > > > >> "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be > >> the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and > >> I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a > >> religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." > >> -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this gives me pause to continue: The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' science classes. Period. I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The fundamentalists will never win this one. Again. -Brian Matthews

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>)


Michelle Malkin wrote: > >> >TRASCRIBED by men, DICTATED or INSPIRED by God. > >> > >> Your 'God' only exists in your mind. Can you describe this > >> 'God' for us? > > > >Don't know about his God but my Deity is too great to fit into all > >mortal minds. > > > In other words, you have no idea what it is that you > worship. > >> > > >> >Evolution is akin to saying a tornado ripping through a junk yard > >will leave > >> >a fully operation 747 jet liner. > >> > >> Only if the tornado lasts for millions of years in the right > >> place and with the right conditions and ingredients. > > > >Good point, there. > > > >> >DO THE MATH. How many 'evolutions' are needed to reach our current > >level of > >> >'development'? Now, how fast can you do them? Finally, how many > >seconds > >> >have there been in the WHOLE existance of the universe (go ahead, use > >> >'evolution's highest number yet. It changes every week or so, so I > >don't > >> >know what it is now). The numbers don't lie. > >> > >> You are very silly. Try reading some of the talk.origins web > >> pages and some non-creationist science books. > >> You might learn something. > >> > > > >Yes- I wonder if *any* of these creationists has ever read Charles > >Darwin's theory of Evolution. Just to know what they're arguing > >against. I'm pretty sure that most of those saying evolution theory is > >correct have read Genesis in Bible and probably other at least once > >sacred books/poetry on explanation on how life begun. Which do you > >think has a better chance to know the truth? > > The ones who study science, not the ones who blindly follow > myths. > > > >> "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be > >> the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and > >> I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a > >> religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." > >> -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this gives me reason to continue: The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' science classes. Period. I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The fundamentalists will never win this one. Again. -Brian Matthews

1999-11-26 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net>)


Masked Man wrote: > > Masked Man----->Not really. The branch of science removed is > cosmology - the assumption that by observation one can demonstrate how > the universe came to be. > > Some scientists will - in lucid moments admit as much. Noted > astronomer George Abell: "Science can say nothing about the moment > before the Big Bang." > There was no 'moment' before the Big Bang. 'Moment' refers to time. Time did not exist before the Big Bang. > The theologian can: "In the beginning, God..." ...did what? Create what fundamentalists call a perfect world and allow it to decay and fall apart, when he had the supposed absolute power to keep something he obviously didn't want to happen from happening? A flawed Gawd is no god. -Brian Matthews

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: The Double Standard and the Myth of "Christian Persecution" - (Bud <spamfree@no.spam>)


yang hu wrote in message <81ofs1$mt2@news.service.uci.edu>... > >Finally, for all their invectives about Clinton, he is not an >"adulterer" according to Jesus: he is still married to his first wife >(as according to the Synoptic Gospels). Meanwhile the defenders of >"family values" - Ronald Reagan, Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limabuagh >have all conveniently ditched their first wives for greener pastures. > Actually, Barr is on his 3rd marriage. Rush is on either his 3rd or his 4th marriage. And If Newt marries his current mistress, it will be his 3rd marriage. You got to love these "family values."

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:27:33 GMT, elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote: >Nekkid Lunch <smell_of_fearNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message > >>> Masked Man---->A perceptive observation, my friend. Sad, but true, >>> too, there is no place in Usenet where Christians can go to fellowship >>> as Christians without the mean-spirited atheists/agnostics following >>> where they arent wanted, and spreading their venom and vitriol. > >> I thought you worshippers of the dead guy on a stick THRIVED on feeling >> persecuted. > >They do! That's why I don't understand why they complain so much. >Instead of trying to convert people, they should welcome all the scoffing >that they can imagine, being that it means the end of times, and their >Jesus buddy will whisk them away up into heaven, away from all the scoffing >and persecution. > >I think a Star Trek episode is in order here. Remember the episode about >Apollo, and him wanting the people to worship him? He ended up crying >like a baby because nobody wanted to worship him, and he threw temper >tantrums, just like the Hebrew war god. You know, I've always kind of looked down on "Who Mourns For Adonais". Now, I'm having second thoughts about it, especially in view of Roddenberry being as atheist. This is one he managed to get by the religion censors because they were too dense to see what he was doing. (Me, too. Sigh.) Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Michelle Malkin <malkinb7@mindspring.com>)


On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 07:01:19 GMT, Zabana Brandon <prolix68@telusplanet.net> wrote: >Steve C. wrote: > >> On behalf of all Americans, however, I *would* like >> to apologize for DS9.... > >HEY!! > >[POKE] > I LIKE DS9, you traitor!. Michelle Malkin (Mickey) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1 High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "I'm an atheist, and Christianity appears to me to be the most absurd imposture of all the religions, and I'm puzzled that so many people can't see through a religion that encourages irresponsibility and bigotry." -Butterfly McQueen, Charleston Gazette, 1/11/96 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


Nopel <nopel.this@email.is.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:24:34 -0500, Steve C wrote: >> We have a very vocal religious right here, yes. It's decidedly in the >> minority, but it's very well-funded and politically active. They have >> considerable, and I find frightening, influence over the agenda of the >> Republican Party. > Didn't Bush once say (when he was still president) that he considered > atheists to be bad Americans? Or something like that? Yeah, when asked if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists, he replied: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: > Masked Man---->A perceptive observation, my friend. Sad, but true, > too, there is no place in Usenet where Christians can go to fellowship > as Christians without the mean-spirited atheists/agnostics following > where they arent wanted, and spreading their venom and vitriol. Somebody's gotta scoff at 'em, otherwise the end of times will never come and it's another prophecy down the drain. -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net>)


On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:21:58 +0000, Brian <mattone@bhip.infi.net> wrote: [>Michelle Malkin wrote: [>> [>> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:15:51 +0000, Brian [>> <mattone@bhip.infi.net> wrote: [> [>> >I've already posted something on another thread about this, but this [>> >gives me pause to continue: [>> >The school board in my county is, according to the local paper, [>> >considering yet again a creationism curriculum in our school systems' [>> >science classes. [>> >I am preparing a minute long statement for the next public hearing on [>> >the matter to remind them that it is against the law to do so. [>> >Period. [>> >The fundamentalists will never win this one. [>> [>> For the sakes of your and other children, I hope you are [>> right. [> [>Oh, I'm right. [>I have all the precedents before me, I've done all the research. [>It's cut-and-dried. Not really. Honesty and integrity is not high on the theist list- especially with people going after control freak positions. [>-Brian Matthews Stoney

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->An atheist/agnostic with a sense of humor. My death is at hand, for now I have surely seen it all! On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 19:38:11 GMT, elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote: |Somebody's gotta scoff at 'em, otherwise the end of times will |never come and it's another prophecy down the drain.

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net>)


Masked Man wrote: > > Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to > believe Genesis literally than any other account offered. I'm not > saying there arent problems with it. I am dissenting from a rather > popular view that science provides more meaningful answers to the > origins of the universe and life within it than does theology. It > does not, and cannot. That's true. After all every true believer knows that the world was licked out of a giant block of salt by this really big cow.

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Nekkid Lunch <smell_of_fearNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:384826d0.246276652@news.mindspring.com... > Masked Man---->A perceptive observation, my friend. Sad, but true, > too, there is no place in Usenet where Christians can go to fellowship > as Christians without the mean-spirited atheists/agnostics following > where they arent wanted, and spreading their venom and vitriol. I thought you worshippers of the dead guy on a stick THRIVED on feeling persecuted. -- Nekkid Lunch EAC Coordinator of Youth Corruption Activities ICQ#26667824 aa#1554 ULC Minister there is an obvious spamblock in my address

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Nekkid Lunch <smell_of_fearNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:384a3399.249550547@news.mindspring.com... > Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to > believe Genesis literally than any other account offered Only if you're retarded. -- Nekkid Lunch EAC Coordinator of Youth Corruption Activities ICQ#26667824 aa#1554 ULC Minister there is an obvious spamblock in my address

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


Masked Man wrote: > elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote: >> Somebody's gotta scoff at 'em, otherwise the end of times will >> never come and it's another prophecy down the drain. > Masked Man----->An atheist/agnostic with a sense of humor. My death > is at hand, for now I have surely seen it all! What's the matter? You don't like us unbelievers helping your prophecies along? You should actually be thanking us you know. :) Each new scoffer is another link in the chain to the end of times, right? -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: > Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to > believe Genesis literally than any other account offered. Baloney. The Genesis story is a load of hogwash. > I'm not saying there arent problems with it. Well, at least you admit it's full of problems and holes. Perhaps you'd like to pick it apart? -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: The Double Standard and the Myth of "Christian Persecution" - (see-sig@for.email.org)


yangh@***uci***.edu. wrote: (snippola) > So who's persecuting who? I still like the Skeptic X nomination from the AQOTM contest a few months ago: "As the status quo for the vast majority of two millennia in the Western World, Christianity has enjoyed unquestionable preeminence, cultural universality, and at times even the merciless state- enforced oppression of dissenters. Christians have become so used to a climate of social dominance and impunity many of them seem to think their civil liberties are being violated when they are encouraged to stop infringing upon the civil liberties of others. Just like a bully who's outraged because the position of someone else's nose has become a messy *imposition* upon his right to freely swing his fist." -- The Deadly Nightshade http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/ |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------| |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 | |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! | |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------| |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL | |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. | |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------|

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (Therion Ware <tware@eac.video2cd.co.uk>)


On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 19:42:17 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote in alt.atheism: >Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to >believe Genesis literally than any other account offered. I'm not >saying there arent problems with it. I am dissenting from a rather >popular view that science provides more meaningful answers to the >origins of the universe and life within it than does theology. It >does not, and cannot. Cute. Truth is "what is meaningful," as opposed to that which is true. Right. >On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:47:45 GMT, elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) >wrote: > >|Exactly. Anybody who believes that the Genesis story is literally >|true is an idiot in that regard. There's no need to pretend otherwise, >|just to protect their feelings. After they learn the truth, they'll get >|over it. -- "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage. ....... HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html> Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


Nekkid Lunch <smell_of_fearNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message >> Masked Man---->A perceptive observation, my friend. Sad, but true, >> too, there is no place in Usenet where Christians can go to fellowship >> as Christians without the mean-spirited atheists/agnostics following >> where they arent wanted, and spreading their venom and vitriol. > I thought you worshippers of the dead guy on a stick THRIVED on feeling > persecuted. They do! That's why I don't understand why they complain so much. Instead of trying to convert people, they should welcome all the scoffing that they can imagine, being that it means the end of times, and their Jesus buddy will whisk them away up into heaven, away from all the scoffing and persecution. I think a Star Trek episode is in order here. Remember the episode about Apollo, and him wanting the people to worship him? He ended up crying like a baby because nobody wanted to worship him, and he threw temper tantrums, just like the Hebrew war god. -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (czar@ecn.ab.ca)


Al Klein (nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.com) wrote: : On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:26:51 GMT, Queen Ametica <ametica@my-deja.com> : wrote: : >No... empathy. Sense of presence. I feel when someone I know is hurt - : >via emotional sense - when I have no idea until I find out later who : >and how was hurt. Sometimes I can't tell difference between my own : >emotions and those of others. : Then you're different than almost everyone else. Almost no one can : tell, except if they're present or (sometimes) in the case of : identical twins, when someone else gets hurt. Even then, the "evidence" of such happenings is anecdotal. -- ************************************************************* In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould *************************************************************

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->I dont think the phenomenon is all that rare, but it is subtle. Some are too obtuse too feel, but that's not because they lack the capacity... On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:43:04 -0500, Al Klein <nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.com> wrote: |And almost no one can feel another person's emotions.

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->Not a universally held view, and certainly one our Founding Fathers wouldnt have recognized. Two quotes from many possible: Whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens. Daniel Webster. The glory of the revolution is it united in one indissoluble bond the principles of Christianity and the principles of civil government. John Quincy Adams. This was not a universally held view in the days of the founding fathers, anymore than it is universally held tofay. One could argue persuasively that it was the prevailing one, however, and that the prevailing one today is to dissent from it. No clearer proof for the ruin of this country could be drawn. On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:53:38 -0800, stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net> wrote: |If a person is religious, that is their private business. | It becomes other when the person brings it into | a public venue and asserts that others need to | pay attention to it, follow it, or the follower attempts | to codify their superstition into secular law.

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man---->A perceptive observation, my friend. Sad, but true, too, there is no place in Usenet where Christians can go to fellowship as Christians without the mean-spirited atheists/agnostics following where they arent wanted, and spreading their venom and vitriol. On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:24:34 -0500, Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote: |I used to read alt.fan.jesus-christ but any kind of meaningful |discussion rapidly deteriorated. I've also seen alot of religion threads |on the Xena NG (because of the Wiccan and other non-Xtian attraction |some fans of the show have). Two kinds of Usenet posters inevitably |dominate these threads: |(1) "Believe now or burn in hell you pagan f*ck!" |(2) "All religion is sophistic bullshit you Falwellite camp follower, |quit oppressing me and all [insert name of minority or other sect of |society]!"

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man---->Not a universally held view, and certainly one our >Founding Fathers wouldnt have recognized. Two quotes from many >possible: > >Whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens. Daniel >Webster. > >The glory of the revolution is it united in one indissoluble bond the >principles of Christianity and the principles of civil government. >John Quincy Adams. Ummm.. Could you provide sources for the above two quotes? > >This was not a universally held view in the days of the founding >fathers, anymore than it is universally held tofay. One could argue >persuasively that it was the prevailing one, however, and that the >prevailing one today is to dissent from it. > >No clearer proof for the ruin of this country could be drawn. > >On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:53:38 -0800, stoney <stoney@stoneynet.net> >wrote: > >|If a person is religious, that is their private business. >| It becomes other when the person brings it into >| a public venue and asserts that others need to >| pay attention to it, follow it, or the follower attempts >| to codify their superstition into secular law. Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


haji@u.washington.edu (H. McDaniel) wrote: > elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) writes: >> James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: >>> Nopel wrote: >>>> Is this kind of theism really this widespread in America, or am I >>>> getting an exaggerated view from this discussion? Sure, here in Europe, >>>> we've got our share of nuts and cultmembers, but in general, if you were >>>> to say that you believed Genesis was literally true, you'd get laughed >>>> at by just about everyone. Aside from some Jehovah's Witnesses, not even >>>> real Christians believe that over here. >>> You make it sound like Christianity is a bad thing. >> In the wrong hands and minds, it can be. >>> Here in America, if someone said they believed Genesis was true, then >>> most Americans have the decency not to laugh at them. >> I think a "You must be joking, right", or "You can't be serious?" are >> appropriate, or maybe "So do you think the moon is made of green >> cheese too?". > Those would all be silly and insulting comments. Exactly. Anybody who believes that the Genesis story is literally true is an idiot in that regard. There's no need to pretend otherwise, just to protect their feelings. After they learn the truth, they'll get over it. > If someone says his mother is the best looking woman there is, you > don't say something rude in response. Well, that's not a very good comparison, is it? > Now a question like, "why do you believe that?" is perfectly reasonable > but to have a real discussion with someone you have to actually listen > and consider what they say otherwise you're putting yourself in the > position of an instructor and you're really wasting your time unless the > other person wants to be instructed by you. Well, you have a point there. > Guess what? They won't if you're rude and insulting. The above is > true regardless of what you believe. There's nothing wrong with a little sarcasm or satire to spark up a good debate. :) -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to believe Genesis literally than any other account offered. I'm not saying there arent problems with it. I am dissenting from a rather popular view that science provides more meaningful answers to the origins of the universe and life within it than does theology. It does not, and cannot. On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:47:45 GMT, elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) wrote: |Exactly. Anybody who believes that the Genesis story is literally |true is an idiot in that regard. There's no need to pretend otherwise, |just to protect their feelings. After they learn the truth, they'll get |over it.

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Graham Kennedy <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk>)


Al Klein wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:35:52 +0000, Graham Kennedy > <graham@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >James Pittman wrote: > > >> Can't tell you right now, because I don't have my sources. But I know that I've > >> heard about evidence for a world-wide flood. Sorry, can't be more specific. > > >If you heard evidence for a flood which covered the world, > >you heard wrongly. There isn't enough water for it. > > And that's only ONE problem with the story. It seemed the most fundamental. How long did the rain last for, anyway? Forty days and nights, was it? Covering Everest in that time would mean thirty feet of rain per hour! -- Graham Kennedy

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - ("yang hu")


H. McDaniel wrote: > Those would all be silly and insulting comments. If someone says his > mother is the best looking woman there is, you don't say something > rude in response. Unless that person has decided to put up a picture of his mother in schools and demand that everyone else agree with him. -- Yang a.a.#28 EAC mole and other furry creatures rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin ``Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness.'' Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the New Millennium"

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - The Double Standard and the Myth of "Christian Persecution" - ("yang hu")


Robert Hutchinson wrote: > Brian Barjenbruch wrote: > > And their attempts to dictate to me, what *I* might be allowed to > > believe. Atheists would, if they could, ban all religion. That is > > unacceptable. That's what *I* find offensive. > > Speaking as a Christian, you both are stereotyping atheists. I know > several atheists who wouldn't dream of impeding religion. And if it makes you feel better, I do not follow any religion, and I would not have any one of them banned. But let's look at this supposed "persecution" shall we? While not all Christians do this, a fairly sizable number of Christians commit the following hypocrisy: claiming that they are somhow oppressed while at the same time doing the persecution themselves. When Kevin Smith, who *happened* to be a Catholic (who, according to the fundamentalists, are not "true" Christians), made his movie "Dogma", the Christian right screamed persecution, and clamored for the so-called "Religious liberty" legislation: apparently mocking Christainity somhow impedes their freedom to worship as they please. Where is this "persecution"? Are you forced to listen to Muslm prayers before football games? Are you forced to learn about how the Universe began according to Buddhist theology in your science classes? On the other hand, when Bob Barr (R. Georgia) tried to make Wiccan ceremonie illiegal in army camps, where were these Christians fighting for their "religious freedom"? This insidous double standard speaks volume about their intellectual honesty, or lack thereof. Why do these Christians support the "religious" right of Christians parents to spank their kids but not the religious rites of American Indians that involve peyotes? Nor are these an isolated incidents. Pat Robertson's Kristian Koalition would peridodically pull up news about how some Christian cannot worship the way she wants to worship in a company while at the same time conveniently ignore the fact that Robertson had stated in his own semi-autobiography "New World Order" that had he become the US president he would not have appointed *any* Muslims or Hindus because of their supposed inferiority. And in the end, Christians only have themselves to blame for the decline of Christianity as a serious form of dialogue in the US. The Extreme Right is destroying the credibility of Christianity by consistently abusing its name while Liberal Christians are too cowed by these pious cretins to do anything about it. Finally, for all their invectives about Clinton, he is not an "adulterer" according to Jesus: he is still married to his first wife (as according to the Synoptic Gospels). Meanwhile the defenders of "family values" - Ronald Reagan, Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limabuagh have all conveniently ditched their first wives for greener pastures. So who's persecuting who? -- Yang a.a.#28 EAC mole and other furry creatures rev #-273.15, high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin ``Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness.'' Dalai Lama, "Ethics for the New Millennium"

1999-11-27 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (Nekkid Lunch <smell_of_fearNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


Frank Wustner <see-sig@for.email.org> wrote in message Say what > you want, there are at least four good pieces of evidence that > show quite clearly that the flood did not happen: > > 1) There is not enough water for it. Melt every bit of ice in > the world, and parts of mountain ranges would *still* stick up > quite far above the water's surface. The bible claims that the > flood covered *every* bit of dry land. > > 2) It is literally impossible for someone from the bronze age > to have built a wooden boat big enough to hold two (or seven, > which did the bible say, again?) of every single animal in the > world, particularly considering that the boat-maker would have > to deal with all the food needed to feed them for more than a > month and all the shit they would excrete. Not to mention, the > boat-maker could never have found two (or was it seven?) of > every single animal in the first place, given that some animals, > such as marsupials, are not found anywhere near the middle-east. > > 3) Such a flood would have scarred up the surface of the Earth > something fierce, and yet there is *no* such scarring within > the Earth's geologic column. > > 4) All the water was either salty or fresh. If salty, the > fresh-water fish and other creatures would not have survived the > flood. If fresh, then salt-water creatures would have all been > killed. Strange that they are both all still here. Or at least, > strange if you believe that there really was a flood. But "GAWDDIDIT" -- Nekkid Lunch EAC Coordinator of Youth Corruption Activities ICQ#26667824 aa#1554 ULC Minister there is an obvious spamblock in my address

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


Masked Man----->It is here where the differences between you and me are most profound. I maintain that life has a meaning beyond any definition I might bring; indeed, that is beyond my ability to comprehend. I have no need to overlay empirical evidence with my own pre-existing agendas. The facts, quite simply, speak for themselves. On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:50:44 GMT, hrgruemm@my-deja.com wrote: |I personally prefer more *valid* answers (those supported by objective |evidence), as I can myself define their meaning for me, if needed.

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (elo@cyberramp.net)


kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >Masked Man----->Your attempt to discredit the Genesis account of >creation by associating it with this nonsense is itself nonsense, and >patently obvious to any thoughtful observer. If the Genesis story is true, your god is the biggest deceiver of them all, and we know what that means, don't we? Your god is Satan, the biggest deceiver of them all. >On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:01:33 GMT, hrgruemm@my-deja.com wrote: >|Let's not forget, while we're at it, to rebut geology by the Flat Earth >|Theory or by Scientific Poseidonism, meteorology by the Thor Lightning >|Theory ..... ;-) -- Elroy Willis BAAWA (Undercover News Division) http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - ("Landis D. Ragon" <Landis.Ragon@ibm.net>)


James Pittman <jlp@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote: <posted and mailed> >Frank Wustner wrote: > >> "Danny Johnson" <P.r.o.g.m.a.n.2.0.0.0.@.u.s.a...n.e.t> wrote: >> >> > Please present your proof/argument that ONE part of the Bible (any part, >> > I won't limit you) is not true. >> >> The great global flood never happened. Proof positive of the >> untruth of that part of the bible. > >You have no proof it never happened. On the contrary, there is archeological >evidence to suggest it did happen. > In the late 18th and early 19th century, Christian geologists searched for evidence of a world-wide flood and failed to find it. They found evidence of large local floods, of extinctions, of catastrophes, but no evidence of a singe world-wide flood that would have killed all air-breathing animals. Now, you say that there is archeological evidence that suggests that such a global flood actually occurred. Can you provide any references to this evidence? Note that "the Bible says" is not evidence. Landis Ragon Chief Elf in the Toy Factory. dS = dq/T

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Yes and no. - (castle-brooks <cbc@dcwi.com>)


Skeptic wrote in message ... > >Queen Ametica: >> >> Thinking and Faith are not exclusive. >> > >Yes, they are. > > > No, They aren't

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (hrgruemm@my-deja.com)


In article <384a3399.249550547@news.mindspring.com>, sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man------>The exact opposite is true. There is more reason to > believe Genesis literally than any other account offered. I'm not > saying there arent problems with it. I am dissenting from a rather > popular view that science provides more meaningful answers to the > origins of the universe and life within it than does theology. It > does not, and cannot. It is not the business of science to give *meaningful* answers (whatever this means .... no pun intended! :-)). I personally prefer more *valid* answers (those supported by objective evidence), as I can myself define their meaning for me, if needed. If I was just looking for *answers*, I'd ask my cat. He purrs for "yes" and moves h���s tail for "no". HRG. > On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:47:45 GMT, elo@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis) > wrote: > > |Exactly. Anybody who believes that the Genesis story is literally > |true is an idiot in that regard. There's no need to pretend otherwise, > |just to protect their feelings. After they learn the truth, they'll get > |over it. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

1999-11-28 00:00:00 - Re: Theism in America (was: Re: Yes and no.) - (hrgruemm@my-deja.com)


In article <38481237.175457272@news.mindspring.com>, sonofmoog@go.com wrote: > Masked Man----->I dont agree with everything written here, but what a > magnificent post! Thank you, Robrey, for some of the most thoughtful > discussion of these subjects I have ever read.... This thoughtful discussion, however, carefully omits to mention that there is no *theory* of creationism to be taught, but quite a handful of mutually inconsistent creation myths. > On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:58:53 -0600, Robrey <robrey@mailbag.com> wrote: > | > | Not really exaggerated. There is a significant portion of the > |population, particularly in the South, as well as and Utah and > |surrounding areas that is likely to accept what they see as the Word of > |God over secular science. > | > | However, their 'danger' is often overblown. In regard to teaching > |evolution in school, their main concern is that almost any religious > |references were removed from public schools several decades before by > |the Supreme Court, making schooling solely an atheist and secular > |experience in their eyes. > | > | They interpret the First Amendment as meaning the avoidance of a > |government religion, such as in many European countries, not the removal > |of religion itself from public institutions. Many European countries have "recognized religions" (usually several versions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and religious instructions in school. None, however, teaches a religious story as an alternative to a scientific theory. > So most of the arguments > |for prayer in schools and the teaching of creationism are attempts to > |allow both to be taught, and children to make up their own minds, as > |opposed to only one theory being presented without rebuttal. > | Let's not forget, while we're at it, to rebut geology by the Flat Earth Theory or by Scientific Poseidonism, meteorology by the Thor Lightning Theory ..... ;-) HRG. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.