Hey Roger N

Give it a rest.

This is a metal working newsgroup and I am pretty sure that there are
no references to that in you collections of fables in you magic friend
book of nonsense.

You can believe any silly thing about any sort of hocus pocus, cult,
silly ****, magic friend that you want.

If you want to believe that the world is flat or monkeys will fly out
of your ass if you chant mantras I don't care.

Just take your drivel to a newsgroup that is more your style.

Perhaps you would be better off at

hillbillies.org
magicfriend.net
foolsinaroom.nut.box
youmotherliedtoyou.cult.com
shallowgenepool.nohope.fool.support.gov.ok

Or if you are up to the challenge get a library card and use it.


On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:19:36 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:

PUHLEEEEZE!

There are many things that men confess to, but being wrong is never one of
them.

Steve

"RogerN" wrote in message
...
Today I watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed". I
thought his interview with Richard Dawkins was interesting. A few years
back Dawkins had a book called "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of
Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." In the interview with Ben
Stein, Dawkins seemed to think that perhaps Aliens evolved to a very high
intelligence and designed the seed cell and planted it on Earth, and all
life on earth came from that. So, it sounds like one of the top evolution
scientist atheist author believes we may have been intelligently designed.
Maybe he didn't read his book about the "evidence of evolution revealing a
universe without design".

I thought the movie was interesting but Ben Stein should have interviewed
you because you seem to think you know more that Richard Dawkins or any of
the other evolutionary science professors and scientists that Ben
interviewed. Richard Dawkins said nobody knows how life began but I'll
bet you know, don't you? You were probably there and observed it
yourself, or at least your writings sound like you definately know exactly
what happened. If you let Richard Dawkins know that you have all the
answers, maybe he'll pay you to be the all knowing authority for his next
book.

RogerN


"Dave C" wrote in message
news
Wow you are seriously uninformed. You should take Al out dancing, you
should hit it off great. I think that you must be poster boy for your
local nut house. (fringe church)

If you can really read, have a look at the following web site. It is
just one of many but it is particularly well organized so even someone
that is terminally stunned could follow it and it covers just about
all the first century goop you spray about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

It does not preach anything but looks at each and EVERY silly concept
you espouse from a detached viewpoint.

It is strictly analytical and has all references to each and every
single one of your silly claims. It even includes your own special
collections of conflicting stories book. You know which one that is,
the one that is missing three quarters of the stories because they
were just too weird to be included.

Enough said, I hope you are not too disappointed that no magic friend
will show up to save you and float your silly ass into the great
whatever magic place you dream about.

I still place bets that you are a rural flatlander. Nothing to
challenge your vision there.

I think you place yourself up in the tree closer to your magic friend
so that when you look down you just see the faces of the poor masses
but from down here we look up and see nothing but ass holes.










On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:23:08 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Dave C" wrote in message
m...
It is pretty simple is you had gone past grade seven you would know
about plate tectonics. Live in the mountains and it is very obvious
how it uplifts and bends the crust on the collision zones. IE the
entire west coast of both Americas. You would know ifin ya had made
it past grade seven. Even the strict Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox
churches has figured this one out. Get with the program.

So, what are now mountains used to be under water, right? So, before the
mountains rose out of the water, what would it be called when the whole
earth was under water? A global flood, you're right! You win a lifetime
supply of rice-a-roni, just pay $24.95/box S&H.

Genesis Chapter1
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

See, as early a Genesis Chapter 1 verse 2 they knew the mountains were
under
the water.

Wait a minute, here comes the plate tectonics you mentioned

9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The soup of life (DNA etc) is fairly easy to create. You, in your
statement that all present forms of life come from parents is true. It
is fairly easy to use mitochondria DNA to trace most human life back
to the branch we took from the tree of life. Hate to break it to you
but eve was black and lived in Africa. She was under four feet tall
and not much to look at.

Wow, is this like the tooth that scientists formed an ancient man skull
for
and later found out it was a tooth from a pig? It's amazing how they can
make up, err, I mean figure out all that detail just from some DNA
evidence.
Does science also know the color of her shoes? Since she was the first
and
only one of this species, who did she reproduce with? I'm glad I didn't
get
any of that education. In my neck of the woods, we use that stuff you've
been fed as fertilizer. Since the soup if fairly easy to create, perhaps
you could create some and create a living cell from it? Or take a
complete
living cell and produce a more complicated life form without using a more
complicated life form after taking the complete living cell, DNA and all.
Can science make a frog using frog blood cells and the soup of life? I
didn't think so.

BTW, one of the top authors of evolution books in them libraries you
mention
is Richard Dawkins. Ben Stein made a move called "Expelled, No
Intelligence
Allowed" or something like that. He interviewed Richard Dawkins asking
questions and Richard Dawkins thought perhaps Aliens from another planet
came to earth and started life here. Then Ben asked him about the origin
of
those Aliens and Mr. Dawkins didn't like it very good. Seems them books
on
evolution in them libraries you refer to should be somewhere in the
Mother
Goose or Dr Seuss sections. If you research the facts, you'll learn that
them books on evolution are just fairy tales for adults made to sound
scientific.

RogerN

PUHLEEEEZE!

There are many things that men confess to, but being wrong is never one of
them.

Steve

"RogerN" wrote in message
...
Today I watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed". I
thought his interview with Richard Dawkins was interesting. A few years
back Dawkins had a book called "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of
Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." In the interview with Ben
Stein, Dawkins seemed to think that perhaps Aliens evolved to a very high
intelligence and designed the seed cell and planted it on Earth, and all
life on earth came from that. So, it sounds like one of the top evolution
scientist atheist author believes we may have been intelligently designed.
Maybe he didn't read his book about the "evidence of evolution revealing a
universe without design".

I thought the movie was interesting but Ben Stein should have interviewed
you because you seem to think you know more that Richard Dawkins or any of
the other evolutionary science professors and scientists that Ben
interviewed. Richard Dawkins said nobody knows how life began but I'll
bet you know, don't you? You were probably there and observed it
yourself, or at least your writings sound like you definately know exactly
what happened. If you let Richard Dawkins know that you have all the
answers, maybe he'll pay you to be the all knowing authority for his next
book.

RogerN


"Dave C" wrote in message
news
Wow you are seriously uninformed. You should take Al out dancing, you
should hit it off great. I think that you must be poster boy for your
local nut house. (fringe church)

If you can really read, have a look at the following web site. It is
just one of many but it is particularly well organized so even someone
that is terminally stunned could follow it and it covers just about
all the first century goop you spray about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

It does not preach anything but looks at each and EVERY silly concept
you espouse from a detached viewpoint.

It is strictly analytical and has all references to each and every
single one of your silly claims. It even includes your own special
collections of conflicting stories book. You know which one that is,
the one that is missing three quarters of the stories because they
were just too weird to be included.

Enough said, I hope you are not too disappointed that no magic friend
will show up to save you and float your silly ass into the great
whatever magic place you dream about.

I still place bets that you are a rural flatlander. Nothing to
challenge your vision there.

I think you place yourself up in the tree closer to your magic friend
so that when you look down you just see the faces of the poor masses
but from down here we look up and see nothing but ass holes.










On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:23:08 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Dave C" wrote in message
...
It is pretty simple is you had gone past grade seven you would know
about plate tectonics. Live in the mountains and it is very obvious
how it uplifts and bends the crust on the collision zones. IE the
entire west coast of both Americas. You would know ifin ya had made
it past grade seven. Even the strict Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox
churches has figured this one out. Get with the program.

So, what are now mountains used to be under water, right? So, before the
mountains rose out of the water, what would it be called when the whole
earth was under water? A global flood, you're right! You win a lifetime
supply of rice-a-roni, just pay $24.95/box S&H.

Genesis Chapter1
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

See, as early a Genesis Chapter 1 verse 2 they knew the mountains were
under
the water.

Wait a minute, here comes the plate tectonics you mentioned

9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The soup of life (DNA etc) is fairly easy to create. You, in your
statement that all present forms of life come from parents is true. It
is fairly easy to use mitochondria DNA to trace most human life back
to the branch we took from the tree of life. Hate to break it to you
but eve was black and lived in Africa. She was under four feet tall
and not much to look at.

Wow, is this like the tooth that scientists formed an ancient man skull
for
and later found out it was a tooth from a pig? It's amazing how they can
make up, err, I mean figure out all that detail just from some DNA
evidence.
Does science also know the color of her shoes? Since she was the first
and
only one of this species, who did she reproduce with? I'm glad I didn't
get
any of that education. In my neck of the woods, we use that stuff you've
been fed as fertilizer. Since the soup if fairly easy to create, perhaps
you could create some and create a living cell from it? Or take a
complete
living cell and produce a more complicated life form without using a more
complicated life form after taking the complete living cell, DNA and all.
Can science make a frog using frog blood cells and the soup of life? I
didn't think so.

BTW, one of the top authors of evolution books in them libraries you
mention
is Richard Dawkins. Ben Stein made a move called "Expelled, No
Intelligence
Allowed" or something like that. He interviewed Richard Dawkins asking
questions and Richard Dawkins thought perhaps Aliens from another planet
came to earth and started life here. Then Ben asked him about the origin
of
those Aliens and Mr. Dawkins didn't like it very good. Seems them books
on
evolution in them libraries you refer to should be somewhere in the
Mother
Goose or Dr Seuss sections. If you research the facts, you'll learn that
them books on evolution are just fairy tales for adults made to sound
scientific.

RogerN

In article , Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:04:30 -0500, Ignoramus3071
wrote:

On 2008-10-26, RogerN wrote:
that wouldn't run out, etc. A new testament example is Jesus feeding 5000
men plus women and children with only a few fish and loaves. Yes, I know

Linux is the modern equivalent of that, giving goodness to millions
for free.

I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Since many people today have some knowledge of science and the scientific
method, the meaning of the word has become more strict than it used to be. A
lot of people don't believe in gods for the same reason they don't believe
that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated -- not because they
*believe* it can't be, nor because they think they *know* it can't be, but
because they have seen no affirmative evidence that it *can* be. They are
without belief, in other words, but not necessarily possessed of the
opposite belief. My own experience is that this approach to belief is more
common today than the positive belief that no gods exist.

It means nothing more than a lack of belief, as Frank says. Of course, a lot
of atheists are also antitheists (Christopher Hitchens describes himself
that way), but that's not quite what you're getting at, either. Hitchens is
*opposed* to belief in any gods. And, of course, it's not the same as
agnosticism, which is uncertainty about what to believe. The difference may
seem subtle but it's philosophically important.

So you have to qualify what kind of atheist you're talking about. As Frank
has indicated, all you can be sure of is that the person in question is not
aware of positive evidence that God or gods exist.

--
Ed Huntress

Never mind what I believe or why I believe it, what do you think about
Richard Dawkins, the author of "The God Delusion", not having a problem with
Intelligent Design? (as long as the intelligent designer is not God) Some
want to do the research and let the research lead where it may, others want
to guide it so no one can dare question traditional evolution theory.

I noticed your email address trainman, are you into live steam?

RogerN


"Dave C" wrote in message
...
Hey Roger N

Give it a rest.

This is a metal working newsgroup and I am pretty sure that there are
no references to that in you collections of fables in you magic friend
book of nonsense.

You can believe any silly thing about any sort of hocus pocus, cult,
silly ****, magic friend that you want.

If you want to believe that the world is flat or monkeys will fly out
of your ass if you chant mantras I don't care.

snip

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip--

all you can be sure of is that the person in question is not aware of
positive evidence that God or gods exist.



Yep! You know that, and I know that, but have you tried to convince a god
freak that he has no proof? They absolutely refuse to listen to reason,
having been firmly brainwashed and sold on their particular belief. It's
as if logic has no value, nor does any and all scientific evidence that can
be provided. I had one of those morons tell me that the earth is only a
few thousand years old, and fossils were planted by God to confuse us. Sad
thing is, he believed it.

sigh

very heavy sigh, if fact.

Harold

In article , "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

Yep! You know that, and I know that, but have you tried to convince a god
freak that he has no proof? They absolutely refuse to listen to reason,
having been firmly brainwashed and sold on their particular belief. It's
as if logic has no value, nor does any and all scientific evidence that can
be provided.

Be charitable, Harold, we're not all like that. :-) I freely admit that I have
no proof that God exists, but I'm convinced of it all the same. It's rather a
long story, and quite personal besides, so I won't get into it here, but I had
a "conversion experience" about twelve years ago -- following more than 20
years of vigorously articulate atheism -- for which I found the hand of God to
be a more persuasive explanation than anything else I could imagine. However,
I certainly can't, and don't, expect *you* to be convinced by *my* personal
experience.

My grandfather was fond of saying that "a man convinced against his will is of
the same opinion still." Nowhere is this more true than in matters of
religion: belief, or non-belief, is intensely personal, and not readily
altered by mere words.

I had one of those morons tell me that the earth is only a
few thousand years old, and fossils were planted by God to confuse us. Sad
thing is, he believed it.

snort Yes, I've run into a few of those too, and don't have much higher an
opinion of their thought processes than you seem to; they don't seem to
realize that they're casting God in the role of the Supreme Cosmic Practical
Joker. I have a rather higher regard for Him than that.

The other thing they don't realize is that the Bible is not a science
textbook.

Too many folks at your end of the spectrum, though, don't realize that not
everyone at *my* end of the spectrum thinks like those guys. A large number of
us see science and religion as two separate and non-overlapping spheres:
science teaches us about the natural world, how it came to be, and how it
operates, while religion teaches us about our relationships with each other
and with our Creator. As long as neither one tries to meddle in the other's
domain, I see no reason why science and religion cannot peacefully coexist.

Frank Warner wrote:

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

Or is it (as I think he believes) that it is a belief in the lack of
god(s).



a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

No that is the belief in the use of the word "thee"
as opposed to the chinese version of "Thouisim" pronounced (for some
reason) with a hard (D like) T and a silent h = T'ouism.




-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

jk

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Since many people today have some knowledge of science and the scientific
method, the meaning of the word has become more strict than it used to be. A
lot of people don't believe in gods for the same reason they don't believe
that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated -- not because they
*believe* it can't be, nor because they think they *know* it can't be, but
because they have seen no affirmative evidence that it *can* be. They are
without belief, in other words, but not necessarily possessed of the
opposite belief. My own experience is that this approach to belief is more
common today than the positive belief that no gods exist.

It means nothing more than a lack of belief, as Frank says. Of course, a lot
of atheists are also antitheists (Christopher Hitchens describes himself
that way), but that's not quite what you're getting at, either. Hitchens is
*opposed* to belief in any gods. And, of course, it's not the same as
agnosticism, which is uncertainty about what to believe. The difference may
seem subtle but it's philosophically important.

So you have to qualify what kind of atheist you're talking about. As Frank
has indicated, all you can be sure of is that the person in question is not
aware of positive evidence that God or gods exist.

Your definition of atheist is much more in keeping with the more
common definitions of agnostic -- someone who does not know. You're
right that the difference is important, and I suspect based on my
experience that most who regard themselves as atheists would, if
pressed, redefine themselves as agnostic.

(for the record, I am a theist -- in fact a Christian, and a Roman
Catholic).

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Since many people today have some knowledge of science and the scientific
method, the meaning of the word has become more strict than it used to
be. A
lot of people don't believe in gods for the same reason they don't
believe
that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated -- not because they
*believe* it can't be, nor because they think they *know* it can't be,
but
because they have seen no affirmative evidence that it *can* be. They are
without belief, in other words, but not necessarily possessed of the
opposite belief. My own experience is that this approach to belief is
more
common today than the positive belief that no gods exist.

It means nothing more than a lack of belief, as Frank says. Of course, a
lot
of atheists are also antitheists (Christopher Hitchens describes himself
that way), but that's not quite what you're getting at, either. Hitchens
is
*opposed* to belief in any gods. And, of course, it's not the same as
agnosticism, which is uncertainty about what to believe. The difference
may
seem subtle but it's philosophically important.

So you have to qualify what kind of atheist you're talking about. As
Frank
has indicated, all you can be sure of is that the person in question is
not
aware of positive evidence that God or gods exist.

Your definition of atheist is much more in keeping with the more
common definitions of agnostic -- someone who does not know. You're
right that the difference is important, and I suspect based on my
experience that most who regard themselves as atheists would, if
pressed, redefine themselves as agnostic.

Again, my experience is that people who approach the question scientifically
would divide non-believers clearly into those who have no positive knowledge
on which to believe -- atheists -- and those who fit into one of the two
definitions of agnostic, which is (1) those who believe that the truth value
of the existence of gods is unknown, and (2) those who believe it is
inherently unknowable. Type (1) does not necessarily agree with type (2),
although type (2)'s are always type (1)'s.

Those are the etymological definitions. Since the issue is subject to some
very subtle distinctions to educated minds, it's often important to clarify
what flavor of belief or non-belief one is dealing with. Otherwise,
arguments that progress beyond "I dunno" versus "but I do know" degenerate
into meaninglessness.

Atheists who dismiss agnosticism do so because they believe the agnostic is
asking an unscientific question. Agnostics think that atheists are asking
the question too narrowly, because, they say, atheists try to reduce all of
propositional epistemology to evidentiary science. Agnostics like a more
complicated world of truth and knowledge. It keeps them busy and out of pool
halls. g A lot of people today would argue that evidentiary science is the
only real substance of epistemology, that all the rest is sophistry or
noise. Philosophical epistemologists, many of whom are religious
intellectuals, say that is the problem with science -- that it's closed to
the larger question of what knowledge is, and thus is a crabbed and
degenerative form of epistemological thought..

The term that Hitchens has tried to popularize -- antitheist -- is more like
what most believers think of, when they think of atheists. Antitheists not
only don't believe; they also think their arguments for non-belief have
truth value of their own. Or, more simply, they're sure there are no gods.
They are atheists, but also antitheists. Antitheists, such as Hitchens, make
complex arguments for the non-existence of gods, something like the
scholastics' arguments for God's existence. Dawkins does something similar
although, in the end, he proves to be an atheist rather than an antitheist.
His arguments lead to the idea that there is no positive evidence on which
to believe.


(for the record, I am a theist -- in fact a Christian, and a Roman
Catholic).

For the record, your beliefs are your own business -- as are mine.

--
Ed Huntress

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip--

all you can be sure of is that the person in question is not aware of
positive evidence that God or gods exist.



Yep! You know that, and I know that, but have you tried to convince a god
freak that he has no proof? They absolutely refuse to listen to reason,
having been firmly brainwashed and sold on their particular belief.
It's as if logic has no value, nor does any and all scientific evidence
that can be provided. I had one of those morons tell me that the earth
is only a few thousand years old, and fossils were planted by God to
confuse us. Sad thing is, he believed it.

sigh

very heavy sigh, if fact.

Relax. Nobody has resolved it to everyone's perfect satisfaction for several
thousand years. Don't get frustrated because you can't make them agree with
you. You never will -- and the problem has nothing to do with scientific
evidence.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harold and
Susan Vordos" wrote:

Yep! You know that, and I know that, but have you tried to convince a god
freak that he has no proof? They absolutely refuse to listen to reason,
having been firmly brainwashed and sold on their particular belief.
It's
as if logic has no value, nor does any and all scientific evidence that
can
be provided.

Be charitable, Harold, we're not all like that. :-) I freely admit that I
have
no proof that God exists, but I'm convinced of it all the same. It's
rather a
long story, and quite personal besides, so I won't get into it here, but I
had
a "conversion experience" about twelve years ago -- following more than 20
years of vigorously articulate atheism -- for which I found the hand of
God to
be a more persuasive explanation than anything else I could imagine.
However,
I certainly can't, and don't, expect *you* to be convinced by *my*
personal
experience.

I can dig that. I've never had a problem with a person's chosen
belief----it's the guy that "knows" he has the answers that irritate me no
end. I've always been able to allow the other guy his beliefs, *so long as
he reciprocates*. Imagine, however, having missionaries knock on your door
and tell you in plain English how wrong you are with what you choose to
believe (I was raised Greek Orthodox, although I am not religious). A
real happening-----when I was a young lad, still living in Utah. The most
intolerant of all I have experienced-----but then I've never been to any of
the Arab countries. :-)


My grandfather was fond of saying that "a man convinced against his will
is of
the same opinion still." Nowhere is this more true than in matters of
religion: belief, or non-belief, is intensely personal, and not readily
altered by mere words.

Agreed. And----no amount of tangible evidence will sway one that has a
firm conviction, regardless of the basis of such. Most folks do what I
do---dismiss the evidence. I do that with the Bible. I have no clue how
or why it was written, but I can clearly see how it can be used the wrong
way----and often is. To me, it's the hammer clever thugs use to beat
others out of their possessions and their minds. No offense
intended----it's just my belief. I also see and realize that many religious
groups perform good and charitable services for the right reasons.

The other thing they don't realize is that the Bible is not a science
textbook.

I am of the opinion that it is nothing more than a compilation of thoughts
and accepted, or not, beliefs of a given period of time, and has been used
eternally to control man and strip him of his possessions, as I stated,
above. Many of the stories of the Bible have been proven to have
happened, but can easily be explained in scientific terms. The great flood
is likely one of them, and very likely was nothing more than a regional
flood----although to those that experienced the happening, their entire
world did, indeed, get flooded.

I recall there was a program on TV years ago that explored the events of the
Bible, having concluded that things considered as miracles were easily
explained, and that the time intervals were often well off the mark. What
else might one expect when the stories were handed down, word of mouth, for
ages. Yes, I do agree, many of them agree with the dead sea scrolls, but
that doesn't make either of them factual. I firmly believe that much of
religion is based on ignorance and superstition, something well confirmed by
my exposure to many of the aged old country Greeks of my youth. Religion,
then, was very powerful and controlled their lives from cradle to grave.


Too many folks at your end of the spectrum, though, don't realize that not
everyone at *my* end of the spectrum thinks like those guys. A large
number of
us see science and religion as two separate and non-overlapping spheres:
science teaches us about the natural world, how it came to be, and how it
operates, while religion teaches us about our relationships with each
other
and with our Creator. As long as neither one tries to meddle in the
other's
domain, I see no reason why science and religion cannot peacefully
coexist.

The problem lies in the insistence that there is no evolution, at least for
me. The two, unfortunately, do overlap, and create considerable friction.
It's all in what an individual chooses to believe. I have no problem
imagining that humans evolved, even from the ape, which appears to be so
insulting to most folks. Frankly, considering the nature of many of the
people I've met in my years, it's the apes that should take offense.

I find it more than strange that evolution is so impossible to such people,
yet the idea of a man being created spontaneously is reasonable. Adam and
Eve! Can't buy it-----no way. How then would one explain the links
discovered thus far? We know a great deal from discoveries of recent
years. How can anyone be so convinced that the mechanism that was used by
this God wasn't evolution?

Harold

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

I recall there was a program on TV years ago that explored the events of the
Bible, having concluded that things considered as miracles were easily
explained,
Harold


One of the great Science fiction writers (I forget which)
once wrote something like:
Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Or something to the same effect. Anyway all you have to do
is think about it. A person from even the early Americian
history confronted with a television set or a jumbo jet
let alone a "cell phone" . :-)
...lew...

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:55:14 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

There's two kinds of atheists. There is the "natural" sort, who
lack a belief in gods or spirits or other metaphysical entities. The
question never came up, and they have other priorities. Might as well
ask them about the political structure of 16th century Timbuktu, it
makes no difference, and has no interest.
Then there are the militant sort, who believe there is no God, and
are quite willing to tell you at great length why your belief is
wrong, and their's is correct. Interestingly enough, a lot of the
later usually come from a very rigid religious background that was
unable to accommodate the real world. I'm not saying that they were
raise in a rigid religion, but that whether they went to church or
not, their god was "too small." They went through a paradigm shift
without a clutch, and it caused a form of religious experience in
them. Just like some become Baptists, or Buddhists, or Adventists,
they "converted" to Atheism.

You can not reason someone from a position they did not arrive at
by reasoning.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:27:58 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:55:14 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

There's two kinds of atheists. There is the "natural" sort, who
lack a belief in gods or spirits or other metaphysical entities. The
question never came up, and they have other priorities. Might as well
ask them about the political structure of 16th century Timbuktu, it
makes no difference, and has no interest.


Then there are the militant sort, who believe there is no God, and
are quite willing to tell you at great length why your belief is
wrong, and their's is correct. Interestingly enough, a lot of the
later usually come from a very rigid religious background that was
unable to accommodate the real world. I'm not saying that they were
raise in a rigid religion, but that whether they went to church or
not, their god was "too small." They went through a paradigm shift
without a clutch, and it caused a form of religious experience in
them. Just like some become Baptists, or Buddhists, or Adventists,
they "converted" to Atheism.

You can not reason someone from a position they did not arrive at
by reasoning.


tschus
pyotr


Its group #2 that we encounter here on Usenet. Group #1 pays no
attention to what anyone believes.

And its Group #2 that is simply another "Faith Based Belief System"

Well written btw. Kudos !

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

In article , Lew
Hartswick wrote:

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

I recall there was a program on TV years ago that explored the events of
the
Bible, having concluded that things considered as miracles were easily
explained,
Harold


One of the great Science fiction writers (I forget which)
once wrote something like:
Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."


Or something to the same effect. Anyway all you have to do
is think about it. A person from even the early Americian
history confronted with a television set or a jumbo jet
let alone a "cell phone" . :-)
...lew...

You can still frighten a few people on Earth today with mirrors,
matches, or magnets.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

In article , Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

It's not that cut and dried, Gunner. As others have pointed out, there
are at least two distinct strains of atheism. The classic one is as
I've defined, one who lacks belief in god(s). You were born this kind
of atheist and were later indoctrinated into theism. The other is
sometimes called "strong atheism," and is the positive assertion (not
belief) that no god(s) exist. You weren't born this kind of atheist
because it presumes knowledge of others' belief in gods and a
subsequent rejection of that belief, but it's still a lack of belief in
the existence of god or gods. Words have meanings, and to use them
incorrectly because it threatens your view of things is dangerous.

I've hear it said rather accurately that atheism is a belief system in
the same sense as not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair
color.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Since many people today have some knowledge of science and the scientific
method, the meaning of the word has become more strict than it used to
be. A
lot of people don't believe in gods for the same reason they don't
believe
that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated -- not because they
*believe* it can't be, nor because they think they *know* it can't be,
but
because they have seen no affirmative evidence that it *can* be. They are
without belief, in other words, but not necessarily possessed of the
opposite belief. My own experience is that this approach to belief is
more
common today than the positive belief that no gods exist.

It means nothing more than a lack of belief, as Frank says. Of course, a
lot
of atheists are also antitheists (Christopher Hitchens describes himself
that way), but that's not quite what you're getting at, either. Hitchens
is
*opposed* to belief in any gods. And, of course, it's not the same as
agnosticism, which is uncertainty about what to believe. The difference
may
seem subtle but it's philosophically important.

So you have to qualify what kind of atheist you're talking about. As
Frank
has indicated, all you can be sure of is that the person in question is
not
aware of positive evidence that God or gods exist.

Your definition of atheist is much more in keeping with the more
common definitions of agnostic -- someone who does not know. You're
right that the difference is important, and I suspect based on my
experience that most who regard themselves as atheists would, if
pressed, redefine themselves as agnostic.

Again, my experience is that people who approach the question scientifically
would divide non-believers clearly into those who have no positive knowledge
on which to believe -- atheists -- and those who fit into one of the two
definitions of agnostic, which is (1) those who believe that the truth value
of the existence of gods is unknown, and (2) those who believe it is
inherently unknowable. Type (1) does not necessarily agree with type (2),
although type (2)'s are always type (1)'s.

Those are the etymological definitions. Since the issue is subject to some
very subtle distinctions to educated minds, it's often important to clarify
what flavor of belief or non-belief one is dealing with. Otherwise,
arguments that progress beyond "I dunno" versus "but I do know" degenerate
into meaninglessness.

Atheists who dismiss agnosticism do so because they believe the agnostic is
asking an unscientific question. Agnostics think that atheists are asking
the question too narrowly, because, they say, atheists try to reduce all of
propositional epistemology to evidentiary science. Agnostics like a more
complicated world of truth and knowledge. It keeps them busy and out of pool
halls. g A lot of people today would argue that evidentiary science is the
only real substance of epistemology, that all the rest is sophistry or
noise. Philosophical epistemologists, many of whom are religious
intellectuals, say that is the problem with science -- that it's closed to
the larger question of what knowledge is, and thus is a crabbed and
degenerative form of epistemological thought..

The term that Hitchens has tried to popularize -- antitheist -- is more like
what most believers think of, when they think of atheists. Antitheists not
only don't believe; they also think their arguments for non-belief have
truth value of their own. Or, more simply, they're sure there are no gods.
They are atheists, but also antitheists. Antitheists, such as Hitchens, make
complex arguments for the non-existence of gods, something like the
scholastics' arguments for God's existence. Dawkins does something similar
although, in the end, he proves to be an atheist rather than an antitheist.
His arguments lead to the idea that there is no positive evidence on which
to believe.

Excellent explanation, Ed. I would add that the only defining
characteristic of an atheist is his or her lack of belief in god or
gods. You can't judge the goodness or badness of a person based on that
fact alone. Atheists come in all stripes, from liberal to conservative,
from those who accept only the scientific method to those who swear by
crystal magic, from someone you can trust with the key to your
daughter's chastity belt to someone you have to lock up and throw away
the key on. It isn't wise to ascribe any other feature to someone who
calls himself an atheist without first knowing a whole lot more about
them.

In spite of that, in several opinion polls, atheists are the most
reviled group in America today, and it's partly out of ignorance and
partly because, historically, the most visible atheists (from Madalyn
Murray O'Hair to Christopher Hitchens) haven't always presented their
arguments in the best possible light.

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

In article , "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
[major snippo]
Too many folks at your end of the spectrum, though, don't realize that not
everyone at *my* end of the spectrum thinks like those guys. A large number of
us see science and religion as two separate and non-overlapping spheres:
science teaches us about the natural world, how it came to be, and how it
operates, while religion teaches us about our relationships with each other
and with our Creator. As long as neither one tries to meddle in the other's
domain, I see no reason why science and religion cannot peacefully coexist.

The problem lies in the insistence that there is no evolution, at least for
me.

That, of course, is an example of religion trying to meddle in the domain of
science. And of course it looks stupid.

The two, unfortunately, do overlap, and create considerable friction.

I think the friction comes when people try to force them to overlap, when, in
fact, they don't.

It's all in what an individual chooses to believe. I have no problem
imagining that humans evolved, even from the ape, which appears to be so
insulting to most folks. Frankly, considering the nature of many of the
people I've met in my years, it's the apes that should take offense.

g No argument there...

I find it more than strange that evolution is so impossible to such people,
yet the idea of a man being created spontaneously is reasonable. Adam and
Eve! Can't buy it-----no way. How then would one explain the links
discovered thus far? We know a great deal from discoveries of recent
years. How can anyone be so convinced that the mechanism that was used by
this God wasn't evolution?

For my part -- I'm convinced that it *was*. Nothing in the Bible contradicts
the theory of evolution. The Bible tells us that God created us; it doesn't
say how. The accounts of creation in Genesis are clearly allegorical, and not
meant to be taken literally.

You know, it is funny that you "intellictuals" want to claim your own smarts
as reasoning against God.

From 1 Corinthians
14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes
judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's
judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"

You think my reasoning is foolishness (as you clearly have demonstrated
here). Your reply was already in the Bible thousands of years before you
wrote it. You don't understand the things of God, neither does Richard
Dawkins or any other athiest.

The problem is that you think I need more understanding to agree with you
when actually you are the one that has not risen to my level of
understanding. I know more about Science than you know about God or the
Bible but since you are dumb, you think I should learn to be dumb like you.
The problem is that I already know about them books in the library and know
where they are wrong. I cut to the chase with the latest that science has
to offer and kick the crap out of it with God's word from thousands of years
ago. God delights in exceeding your highest level of education and
confounding you with things that are simple for God but you choose to be
ignorant by your own will.

RogerN


"Dave C" wrote in message
...
Hey Roger N

Give it a rest.

This is a metal working newsgroup and I am pretty sure that there are
no references to that in you collections of fables in you magic friend
book of nonsense.

You can believe any silly thing about any sort of hocus pocus, cult,
silly ****, magic friend that you want.

If you want to believe that the world is flat or monkeys will fly out
of your ass if you chant mantras I don't care.

Just take your drivel to a newsgroup that is more your style.

Perhaps you would be better off at

hillbillies.org
magicfriend.net
foolsinaroom.nut.box
youmotherliedtoyou.cult.com
shallowgenepool.nohope.fool.support.gov.ok

Or if you are up to the challenge get a library card and use it.


On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:19:36 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:

PUHLEEEEZE!

There are many things that men confess to, but being wrong is never one of
them.

Steve

"RogerN" wrote in message
...
Today I watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed". I
thought his interview with Richard Dawkins was interesting. A few years
back Dawkins had a book called "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence
of
Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design." In the interview with Ben
Stein, Dawkins seemed to think that perhaps Aliens evolved to a very
high
intelligence and designed the seed cell and planted it on Earth, and all
life on earth came from that. So, it sounds like one of the top
evolution
scientist atheist author believes we may have been intelligently
designed.
Maybe he didn't read his book about the "evidence of evolution revealing
a
universe without design".

I thought the movie was interesting but Ben Stein should have
interviewed
you because you seem to think you know more that Richard Dawkins or any
of
the other evolutionary science professors and scientists that Ben
interviewed. Richard Dawkins said nobody knows how life began but I'll
bet you know, don't you? You were probably there and observed it
yourself, or at least your writings sound like you definately know
exactly
what happened. If you let Richard Dawkins know that you have all the
answers, maybe he'll pay you to be the all knowing authority for his
next
book.

RogerN


"Dave C" wrote in message
news Wow you are seriously uninformed. You should take Al out dancing, you
should hit it off great. I think that you must be poster boy for your
local nut house. (fringe church)

If you can really read, have a look at the following web site. It is
just one of many but it is particularly well organized so even someone
that is terminally stunned could follow it and it covers just about
all the first century goop you spray about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

It does not preach anything but looks at each and EVERY silly concept
you espouse from a detached viewpoint.

It is strictly analytical and has all references to each and every
single one of your silly claims. It even includes your own special
collections of conflicting stories book. You know which one that is,
the one that is missing three quarters of the stories because they
were just too weird to be included.

Enough said, I hope you are not too disappointed that no magic friend
will show up to save you and float your silly ass into the great
whatever magic place you dream about.

I still place bets that you are a rural flatlander. Nothing to
challenge your vision there.

I think you place yourself up in the tree closer to your magic friend
so that when you look down you just see the faces of the poor masses
but from down here we look up and see nothing but ass holes.










On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:23:08 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"Dave C" wrote in message
om...
It is pretty simple is you had gone past grade seven you would know
about plate tectonics. Live in the mountains and it is very obvious
how it uplifts and bends the crust on the collision zones. IE the
entire west coast of both Americas. You would know ifin ya had made
it past grade seven. Even the strict Catholic, Anglican and
Orthodox
churches has figured this one out. Get with the program.

So, what are now mountains used to be under water, right? So, before
the
mountains rose out of the water, what would it be called when the whole
earth was under water? A global flood, you're right! You win a
lifetime
supply of rice-a-roni, just pay $24.95/box S&H.

Genesis Chapter1
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

See, as early a Genesis Chapter 1 verse 2 they knew the mountains were
under
the water.

Wait a minute, here comes the plate tectonics you mentioned

9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The soup of life (DNA etc) is fairly easy to create. You, in your
statement that all present forms of life come from parents is true.
It
is fairly easy to use mitochondria DNA to trace most human life back
to the branch we took from the tree of life. Hate to break it to you
but eve was black and lived in Africa. She was under four feet tall
and not much to look at.

Wow, is this like the tooth that scientists formed an ancient man skull
for
and later found out it was a tooth from a pig? It's amazing how they
can
make up, err, I mean figure out all that detail just from some DNA
evidence.
Does science also know the color of her shoes? Since she was the first
and
only one of this species, who did she reproduce with? I'm glad I
didn't
get
any of that education. In my neck of the woods, we use that stuff
you've
been fed as fertilizer. Since the soup if fairly easy to create,
perhaps
you could create some and create a living cell from it? Or take a
complete
living cell and produce a more complicated life form without using a
more
complicated life form after taking the complete living cell, DNA and
all.
Can science make a frog using frog blood cells and the soup of life? I
didn't think so.

BTW, one of the top authors of evolution books in them libraries you
mention
is Richard Dawkins. Ben Stein made a move called "Expelled, No
Intelligence
Allowed" or something like that. He interviewed Richard Dawkins asking
questions and Richard Dawkins thought perhaps Aliens from another
planet
came to earth and started life here. Then Ben asked him about the
origin
of
those Aliens and Mr. Dawkins didn't like it very good. Seems them
books
on
evolution in them libraries you refer to should be somewhere in the
Mother
Goose or Dr Seuss sections. If you research the facts, you'll learn
that
them books on evolution are just fairy tales for adults made to sound
scientific.

RogerN

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:11:25 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

It's not that cut and dried, Gunner. As others have pointed out, there
are at least two distinct strains of atheism. The classic one is as
I've defined, one who lacks belief in god(s). You were born this kind
of atheist and were later indoctrinated into theism.


Not really. I was born worshipping the Titty God.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

The term that Hitchens has tried to popularize -- antitheist -- is more like
what most believers think of, when they think of atheists. Antitheists not
only don't believe; they also think their arguments for non-belief have
truth value of their own. Or, more simply, they're sure there are no gods.


A fancy way of saying :just another faith based belief system.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:52 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:

In spite of that, in several opinion polls, atheists are the most
reviled group in America today, and it's partly out of ignorance and
partly because, historically, the most visible atheists (from Madalyn
Murray O'Hair to Christopher Hitchens) haven't always presented their
arguments in the best possible light.

-Frank


Frankly.. most were/are pains in the ass and outright kooks.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harold and
Susan Vordos" wrote:
snip-

I find it more than strange that evolution is so impossible to such
people,
yet the idea of a man being created spontaneously is reasonable. Adam
and
Eve! Can't buy it-----no way. How then would one explain the links
discovered thus far? We know a great deal from discoveries of recent
years. How can anyone be so convinced that the mechanism that was used
by
this God wasn't evolution?

For my part -- I'm convinced that it *was*. Nothing in the Bible
contradicts
the theory of evolution. The Bible tells us that God created us; it
doesn't
say how. The accounts of creation in Genesis are clearly allegorical, and
not
meant to be taken literally.


My hat is off to you, Sir. I rarely encounter anyone that can see the
possibility if they are dedicated Bible thumpers. It's as if they would be
betraying their God. I don't see it that way, either. So many insist
that it was a magic moment. Instant human. I would have to question the
wisdom of anyone that would assume that suddenly there was man.

He's no longer on RCM, but perhaps you recall Ted Edwards. We were enjoying
a conversation a few years back, when I commented how astonishing it was
that the ancients accomplished so much. He replied that humans have
always been intelligent----which, to me, is a shocking revelation, but hard
to dispute. To think that man, without previous knowledge, learned to
work metals and fashion tools from stone. Few critters in nature have the
necessary skills to make even the most primitive of tools. I agree, humans
most certainly have always been intelligent, although I know many that do
their best to disprove the theory. :-)

Harold

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:52 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:

In spite of that, in several opinion polls, atheists are the most
reviled group in America today, and it's partly out of ignorance and
partly because, historically, the most visible atheists (from Madalyn
Murray O'Hair to Christopher Hitchens) haven't always presented their
arguments in the best possible light.

-Frank


Frankly.. most were/are pains in the ass and outright kooks.

Gunner


Perhaps so, but one of the finest human beings I had the pleasure to know
was an avowed atheist. He was one of the kindest and most considerate of
people I knew. He died quietly in the mid 80's, well advanced in years. I
still have the fondest of memories of Aldo Gabardi.

I agree----to judge any person by their beliefs is a mistake. I have known
more than my share of "good Christians" that wouldn't hesitate to give me,
or anyone else, the screwing of their life-time, and justify the action by
claiming to be a "good Christian".

I have also known some outstanding individuals that were dedicated to their
chosen faith, and didn't make an issue of the fact, nor make others
uncomfortable because of their choice.

You can't judge a book by the cover.

Harold

In article , "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Harold and
Susan Vordos" wrote:
snip-

I find it more than strange that evolution is so impossible to such people,
yet the idea of a man being created spontaneously is reasonable. Adam and
Eve! Can't buy it-----no way. How then would one explain the links
discovered thus far? We know a great deal from discoveries of recent
years. How can anyone be so convinced that the mechanism that was used by
this God wasn't evolution?

For my part -- I'm convinced that it *was*. Nothing in the Bible contradicts
the theory of evolution. The Bible tells us that God created us; it doesn't
say how. The accounts of creation in Genesis are clearly allegorical, and not
meant to be taken literally.

My hat is off to you, Sir. I rarely encounter anyone that can see the
possibility if they are dedicated Bible thumpers. It's as if they would be
betraying their God. I don't see it that way, either. So many insist
that it was a magic moment. Instant human. I would have to question the
wisdom of anyone that would assume that suddenly there was man.

As would I.

A literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis is logically impossible; for
starters, it refers to events that took place on the first and second "days"
and yet the Earth wasn't created until the third day, and the Sun on the
fourth. Since a day is defined by the Earth's revolution, and morning and
evening by the rising and setting of the Sun, it's completely impossible that
the "days" and "mornings" and "evenings" referred to are literal days,
mornings, and evenings as we understand them in common usage. Those terms
*must* mean something else.

The Bible says elsewhere that to God, a single day is as a thousand years. And
the term "thousand years" was used in the speech of that era as an idiom for
"a really really long time" and should not be understood literally, either.

Again: it's not a science textbook. The Bible tells us frequently that God's
time is not our time, and God's ways are not our ways. I'm quite comfortable
with the notion that the "days" referred to in Genesis may represent many
millions of years.

Our distant progenitors were mere beasts; we are not. A transition occurred
somewhere. Logically, there *must* have been some moment when proto-man became
Man, aware of himself and his own mortality. This surely was a gradual
process, not a sudden event, but still a transition occurred at some point.
"And Man became a living soul." I see no conflict.

But then, I'm not trying to force science to fit my religious beliefs, either.

He's no longer on RCM, but perhaps you recall Ted Edwards.

Before my time, I'm afraid -- I've been here less than two years.

We were enjoying
a conversation a few years back, when I commented how astonishing it was
that the ancients accomplished so much. He replied that humans have
always been intelligent----which, to me, is a shocking revelation, but hard
to dispute. To think that man, without previous knowledge, learned to
work metals and fashion tools from stone. Few critters in nature have the
necessary skills to make even the most primitive of tools. I agree, humans
most certainly have always been intelligent, although I know many that do
their best to disprove the theory. :-)

Erich von Daniken really ****es me off, with his insistence that various
marvels of the ancient world "must" be the work of extraterrestrials, because
the ancients "couldn't possibly" have made them themselves. Dumbass.

Ever wonder how the ancient Egyptians managed to move those enormous
stones that they used to build the pyramids? Some years ago, I read a short
article by an analytical chemist who happened to visit the Great Pyramid on
vacation. He wrote that as he was examining the stonework it suddenly dawned
on him that he wasn't looking at quarried, natural stones at all: he claims
they're a primitive concrete, cast in place.

That's speculation, of course, but this is fact: the ancient Romans developed
a hydraulic cement, a concrete that would harden under water. When Rome fell,
the secret of making it was lost. Care to guess when it was rediscovered?

Somewhere around 1790.

The Romans built bridges out of nothing but stone on stone that have
outlasted, by a factor of fifty or so, a certain highway bridge in
Minneapolis.

My home city, Indianapolis, has already demolished one sports arena that was
only 25 years old, and is preparing to demolish another one of similar age.
Three nearly identical baseball stadiums (Busch, Riverfront, and Three Rivers)
were constructed in about 1970, all seating around 55 to 60 thousand people.
None still stands. The Colosseum was completed 1928 years ago, seated 80,000
people, and not only still stands -- it's still IN USE.

We tend to forget that the only thing separating us from the ancients is our
technology. Not our intelligence.

And not always the technology, either: to this day, nobody knows how "Greek
Fire" was made.

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:20:25 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:27:58 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:55:14 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0800, Frank Warner
wrote:


I used to be an agnostic, but by now I made up my mind and am an
atheist.

i

Atheism, just another faith based belief system.

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in god(s).


Wrong. It is the belief that there is no god(s) nor can there be any.

There's two kinds of atheists. There is the "natural" sort, who
lack a belief in gods or spirits or other metaphysical entities. The
question never came up, and they have other priorities. Might as well
ask them about the political structure of 16th century Timbuktu, it
makes no difference, and has no interest.


Then there are the militant sort, who believe there is no God, and
are quite willing to tell you at great length why your belief is
wrong, and their's is correct. Interestingly enough, a lot of the
later usually come from a very rigid religious background that was
unable to accommodate the real world. I'm not saying that they were
raise in a rigid religion, but that whether they went to church or
not, their god was "too small." They went through a paradigm shift
without a clutch, and it caused a form of religious experience in
them. Just like some become Baptists, or Buddhists, or Adventists,
they "converted" to Atheism.

You can not reason someone from a position they did not arrive at
by reasoning.


tschus
pyotr


Its group #2 that we encounter here on Usenet. Group #1 pays no
attention to what anyone believes.

I had a girlfriend in this group. Press the button "Religion" and
you get back "Null Program." We had some very interesting
conversations.

And its Group #2 that is simply another "Faith Based Belief System"

Like I say, the second group knows exactly which God they do not
believe in. "Three are many gods, tell me which one you don't
believe in, and I'll probably not believe in that one too."

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"The Democrats smell blood and don't want to be told that it's their own."
~ Mark Steyn

Dave C wrote:

Hey Roger N

Give it a rest.

This is a metal working newsgroup and I am pretty sure that there are
no references to that in you collections of fables in you magic friend
book of nonsense.


Exodus 28:15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with
cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold,
of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt
thou make it.

Exodus 31:4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver,
and in brass,

Exodus 39:3 And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it
into wires, to work it in the blue, and in the purple, and in the
scarlet, and in the fine linen, with cunning work.

1 Kings 7:14 He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his
father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with
wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And
he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.

2 Chronicles 2:7 Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold,
and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson,
and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are with
me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide.

2 Chronicles 2:14 The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his
father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold, and in silver, in
brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine
linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, and to find
out every device which shall be put to him, with thy cunning men, and
with the cunning men of my lord David thy father.

Jeremiah 10:9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and
gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the
founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of
cunning men.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...


The term that Hitchens has tried to popularize -- antitheist -- is more
like
what most believers think of, when they think of atheists. Antitheists
not
only don't believe; they also think their arguments for non-belief have
truth value of their own. Or, more simply, they're sure there are no
gods.


A fancy way of saying :just another faith based belief system.

Gunner

Yeah, antitheism may tip over the line into belief. Atheism, in its basic
and fairly common form, does not.

--
Ed Huntress

I know you rebutted his argument that the Bible doesn't deal with metal working. But for
those who may envision other things with the use of the word "cunning" I add the following.

References to "cunning" in these verses simply mean "skilled" or skilled workmen, or
skilled craftsmen. The KJV which many people "swear" by, still uses some words whose
meaning have changed. It hasn't been many decades since "gay" meant happy. Remember?
Languages are living things. Words change.

Just didn't want some to think that the Bible endorses witchcraft and the use of "curious
arts" as they are referred to in Acts 19:19 when the converted folks brought their books
and burned them -- as expensive as they were.

Al

=================


Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Dave C wrote:
Hey Roger N

Give it a rest.

This is a metal working newsgroup and I am pretty sure that there are
no references to that in you collections of fables in you magic friend
book of nonsense.


Exodus 28:15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with
cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold,
of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt
thou make it.

Exodus 31:4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver,
and in brass,

Exodus 39:3 And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it
into wires, to work it in the blue, and in the purple, and in the
scarlet, and in the fine linen, with cunning work.

1 Kings 7:14 He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his
father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with
wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And
he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.

2 Chronicles 2:7 Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold,
and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson,
and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are with
me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide.

2 Chronicles 2:14 The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his
father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold, and in silver, in
brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine
linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, and to find
out every device which shall be put to him, with thy cunning men, and
with the cunning men of my lord David thy father.

Jeremiah 10:9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and
gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the
founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of
cunning men.

"Frank Warner" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
Frank Warner writes:

By definition, atheism is the lack of belief, specifically in
god(s).

a = "without"

theism = "belief in the existence of god or gods"

Note that etymology != definition. A more common (and accurate)
definition would be a belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Since many people today have some knowledge of science and the
scientific
method, the meaning of the word has become more strict than it used to
be. A
lot of people don't believe in gods for the same reason they don't
believe
that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated -- not because
they
*believe* it can't be, nor because they think they *know* it can't be,
but
because they have seen no affirmative evidence that it *can* be. They
are
without belief, in other words, but not necessarily possessed of the
opposite belief. My own experience is that this approach to belief is
more
common today than the positive belief that no gods exist.

It means nothing more than a lack of belief, as Frank says. Of course,
a
lot
of atheists are also antitheists (Christopher Hitchens describes
himself
that way), but that's not quite what you're getting at, either.
Hitchens
is
*opposed* to belief in any gods. And, of course, it's not the same as
agnosticism, which is uncertainty about what to believe. The
difference
may
seem subtle but it's philosophically important.

So you have to qualify what kind of atheist you're talking about. As
Frank
has indicated, all you can be sure of is that the person in question
is
not
aware of positive evidence that God or gods exist.

Your definition of atheist is much more in keeping with the more
common definitions of agnostic -- someone who does not know. You're
right that the difference is important, and I suspect based on my
experience that most who regard themselves as atheists would, if
pressed, redefine themselves as agnostic.

Again, my experience is that people who approach the question
scientifically
would divide non-believers clearly into those who have no positive
knowledge
on which to believe -- atheists -- and those who fit into one of the two
definitions of agnostic, which is (1) those who believe that the truth
value
of the existence of gods is unknown, and (2) those who believe it is
inherently unknowable. Type (1) does not necessarily agree with type (2),
although type (2)'s are always type (1)'s.

Those are the etymological definitions. Since the issue is subject to
some
very subtle distinctions to educated minds, it's often important to
clarify
what flavor of belief or non-belief one is dealing with. Otherwise,
arguments that progress beyond "I dunno" versus "but I do know"
degenerate
into meaninglessness.

Atheists who dismiss agnosticism do so because they believe the agnostic
is
asking an unscientific question. Agnostics think that atheists are asking
the question too narrowly, because, they say, atheists try to reduce all
of
propositional epistemology to evidentiary science. Agnostics like a more
complicated world of truth and knowledge. It keeps them busy and out of
pool
halls. g A lot of people today would argue that evidentiary science is
the
only real substance of epistemology, that all the rest is sophistry or
noise. Philosophical epistemologists, many of whom are religious
intellectuals, say that is the problem with science -- that it's closed
to
the larger question of what knowledge is, and thus is a crabbed and
degenerative form of epistemological thought..

The term that Hitchens has tried to popularize -- antitheist -- is more
like
what most believers think of, when they think of atheists. Antitheists
not
only don't believe; they also think their arguments for non-belief have
truth value of their own. Or, more simply, they're sure there are no
gods.
They are atheists, but also antitheists. Antitheists, such as Hitchens,
make
complex arguments for the non-existence of gods, something like the
scholastics' arguments for God's existence. Dawkins does something
similar
although, in the end, he proves to be an atheist rather than an
antitheist.
His arguments lead to the idea that there is no positive evidence on
which
to believe.

Excellent explanation, Ed. I would add that the only defining
characteristic of an atheist is his or her lack of belief in god or
gods. You can't judge the goodness or badness of a person based on that
fact alone. Atheists come in all stripes, from liberal to conservative,
from those who accept only the scientific method to those who swear by
crystal magic, from someone you can trust with the key to your
daughter's chastity belt to someone you have to lock up and throw away
the key on. It isn't wise to ascribe any other feature to someone who
calls himself an atheist without first knowing a whole lot more about
them.

I certainly agree with that. Some of my best friends are atheists. g


In spite of that, in several opinion polls, atheists are the most
reviled group in America today, and it's partly out of ignorance and
partly because, historically, the most visible atheists (from Madalyn
Murray O'Hair to Christopher Hitchens) haven't always presented their
arguments in the best possible light.

Well, I'd go farther than that. Some religious people revile atheists for
the same reason that some of the righties here revile liberals, and vice
versa. It's partly ignorance, to be sure, but mostly it's because those
"others" represent a threat to their own beliefs.

Most religious people recognize that their beliefs are a personal thing and
don't worry about the fact that their beliefs are not something that can be,
or need to be, defended by logical debate. They realize that logical debate
is beside the point. In the US, that's the basis of our posture of
tolerance.

But some people are anxious and insecure in their beliefs, often because
they recognize that logical arguments have a priviledged position in a
secular society such as ours. If they feel personally threatened by that,
they defend their self-image by demonizing the other side.

As long as it doesn't become obnoxious, we just have to shrug it off.
Demonizing people who disagree with oneself is a personal weakness about
which we can do very little. The best thing to do, IMO, is just to keep a
lid on it and make sure it doesn't lead to some kind of unfair
discrimination, socially or legally. Unfortunately, the politics of it has
indeed led to discrimination for public office.

--
Ed Huntress

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
I agree, humans
most certainly have always been intelligent, although I know many that do
their best to disprove the theory. :-)

Harold

Including not just a few on this news group. :-)
...lew...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, I'd go farther than that. Some religious people revile atheists for
the same reason that some of the righties here revile liberals, and vice
versa. It's partly ignorance, to be sure, but mostly it's because those
"others" represent a threat to their own beliefs.
Ed Huntress


In the case of the conservatives vs. the liberals it's not a threat
to their "beliefs" is more like a threat to their way of life. :-)
...lew...

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

(A whole lot of quotes about metal working and other stuff)

Including working some things called "Blue" and "Crimson"
and "Purple" . I wonder if we have "lost" the knowledge
of those materials. They sure don't show up on the periodic
table. :-)
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, I'd go farther than that. Some religious people revile atheists for
the same reason that some of the righties here revile liberals, and vice
versa. It's partly ignorance, to be sure, but mostly it's because those
"others" represent a threat to their own beliefs.
Ed Huntress

In the case of the conservatives vs. the liberals it's not a threat
to their "beliefs" is more like a threat to their way of life. :-)
...lew...

And their concerns are completely misplaced. Nobody is going to take away
their long johns, Spike Jones records or fuzzy dice. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Lew Hartswick wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, I'd go farther than that. Some religious people revile atheists for
the same reason that some of the righties here revile liberals, and vice
versa. It's partly ignorance, to be sure, but mostly it's because those
"others" represent a threat to their own beliefs.
Ed Huntress


In the case of the conservatives vs. the liberals it's not a threat
to their "beliefs" is more like a threat to their way of life. :-)

In both directions...

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:01:46 -0700, the infamous Lew Hartswick
scrawled the following:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

(A whole lot of quotes about metal working and other stuff)

Including working some things called "Blue" and "Crimson"
and "Purple" . I wonder if we have "lost" the knowledge
of those materials. They sure don't show up on the periodic
table. :-)

No, they're not in the PTOE, but Blue Oyster Cult, King Crimson, and
Deep Purple were all extraordinarily good hard rock bands. Does that
count? At least _some_ of us know what those labels mean, wot?

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren

Larry Jaques wrote:

No, they're not in the PTOE, but Blue Oyster Cult, King Crimson, and
Deep Purple were all extraordinarily good hard rock bands. Does that
count? At least _some_ of us know what those labels mean, wot?


A "good hard rock band" is not possible. Bands make music and
anything with the prefix "Hard Rock" just cant be a band. :-)
There hasen't been any music, to speak of, written since roughly
1900 maybe even earlier. There are a few exceptions.
What's PTOE ?
...lew...