🚀 go-pugleaf

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.



>
>> Robert B. Winn