🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3@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.


>Robert B. Winn