🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 4:52�am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 12, 11:53�pm, 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.
>
> >Your problem, Natural, is the same problem that all atheists have.
> >You never say anything.
>
> Just because you don't understand what somebody is saying doesn't mean
> he isn't saying anything.
>
Oh, well, by all means, go ahead and explain.
Robert B. Winn