🚀 go-pugleaf

John Baker wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:53:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> wrote:
> 
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 11, 5:18?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a...@b.c> wrote in messagenews:1215765710.4836.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 5:20?am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>>> Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:08134c4b-46c5-454f-9a5f-47756eddfd59@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> Without religion to oppose, atheists would do nothing at all.
>>>>>>> Thats not true. They just would walk away from any discussion on the
>>>>>>> subject thankfully, and get on with living, and in some case, trying to
>>>>>>> understand the extraordinary universe we seem to find ourselves in.
>>>>>>> Really the transition fom a Gaia type animism picture of the universe,
>>>>>>> to a personalised supernatural creator and law giver, to an impersonal
>>>>>>> set of amoral laws..is not as abrupt as the fanboys would like to think.
>>>>>>> What is unusual, historically, is the fanatical faith needed to maintain
>>>>>>> the concept of a personal and moral God, in the face of Reason.
>>>>>>> Mediaevally speaking, no one questioned that the world and events moved
>>>>>>> according to some vast and ineffable and mysterious pattern, and the
>>>>>>> concept of a supernatural intelligence and a plan, was pretty
>>>>>>> reasonable..until science started uncovering the rules, which turned out
>>>>>>> to be mindlessly simple, totally impersonal and implacable, and
>>>>>>> impervious to personal appeal. And no evidence of intelligence at all.
>>>>>>> Note that none of this necessarily negates the proposition that faith,
>>>>>>> belief, prayer, and a live lived AS IF there were an afterlife,is not a
>>>>>>> Good Thing for people and civilisations.
>>>>>>> But none of these even indicate that what is believed in must of
>>>>>>> necessity be true.
>>>>>>> Archers were able to hit targets long before Newton identified the Force
>>>>>>> of Gravity.
>>>>>>> Understanding of the presumed science behind phenonmena is no
>>>>>>> pre-requisite for learning to deal with them. Any ad-hoc theory that has
>>>>>>> pragmatic use will do.
>>>>>>> If you look at religion in that light, it makes a lot of sense.
>>>>>>> Mired in dogma however, the fanatical Theist simply persists in the
>>>>>>> useless, long past its sell-by date.
>>>>>>>> ==========
>>>>>>>> ..... other than get on with our lives ....- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> If atheists want to believe that they are not intelligent, I see no
>>>>>> problem with that.
>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>> And how is that in any way relevant to what I posted?
>>>> You expect relevance from this moron?
>>>> He can't even manage coherence, logic or truth.
>>>>
>>>> Smiler,
>>>> The godless one
>>>> a.a.# 2279- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Atheists believe that intelligence is nothing more than electrical
>>> impulses.
>> No, they do not. Another lie from the Prince of Lies.
> 
> 
> I don't think Bobby is actually lying. I think he really is that
> stupid.
> 
I did not comment on whether his lies were from utter ignorance, or 
deliberate deception.

They are lies, that's all.

He neither understands his own religion, nor the views of others who do 
not share it.


> 
> 
>>> Robert B. Winn