🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 3:01�pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -