🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 4:58 pm, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> 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.
>

Bobby is demonstrably lying.  Something not easily proven you may
think.  But he clearly lies about what others post in alt.atheism
regularly, and that's transferable and transfered evidence.

AL