🚀 go-pugleaf

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,

As I said before, your Ho whack posts were your best ones.
Robert B. Winn