Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe
in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually
swung down from the trees.”
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection, perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

Poet , they dont do common sense , nor logic ..


BTW

My welder has NOT be repaired .

Longevity-inc.com promised to sell me a working , functiong

welder . They lied .

They wont /cant repair nor redesign it to work .


Simon K is a JEW .

These welders arernt for welding , they're for selling ...

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:56:10 -0600, RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...9/11/palin-on-
darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
€œdidnt believe in the theory that human beings €” thinking, loving
beings €” originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the
sea€� or from €œmonkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.€�
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal
that the reality she lives in is not related in any serious way to the
world she actually inhabits. Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

Clearly the part of 'science' that you don't understand is that _nothing_
is considered proven -- _everything_ is taken as theory, and only after
there has been some evidence to let it graduate from 'hypothesis'. So
there can be theory with lots of evidence behind it, or theory without
much evidence, but _nothing_ in science goes beyond theory, because
scientists understand that the human mind is finite and we can never,
ever, understand everything, nor even any one thing completely.

We have _less_ solid evidence behind any theory of gravity than we do
behind the theory of evolution. So do you believe that God personally
holds his thumb on your head to keep you from floating off into space?

God made the universe _first_ and then we came along and hired Jimmy
Swaggart, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson to write the Bible
for us. That makes the physical evidence of the world we live in the
first Word of God, and the Bible is a poor second. _Anyone_ who wants to
take a document written by people and claim from it absolute knowledge of
_anything_ (much less everything) is an arrogant so-and-so who's trying
to displace God.

Clearly you, in your arrogance, are doing so, and want us to believe a
book written by people -- greedy, fallen, self-centered and power hungry
people -- before we believe the first word of God. You're only
comfortable with something called 'God' when you've put him into a box
that's just the size and shape that you want, and you've stomped the lid
shut and you've locked the box.

Of course, when you do so you neglect the fact that God is infinite, and
simply won't fit into any box that a human can make...

--
www.wescottdesign.com

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe
in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually
swung down from the trees.”
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection, perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings - originated
from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE is
incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Buerste wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE is
incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Another pathetic superstitions micro mind heard from. So sad you can't
comprehend science so you have to make up fairy tales to shield yourself
from the real world...

"Pete C." wrote in
er.com:


Buerste wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ish/2009/11/pa
lin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying
she "didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from
"monkeys who eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural
selection, perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal
that the reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she
actually inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution
has since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of
various superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying
have yet to find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify
it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically
that the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to
_believe_ it with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram
that belief -- with all your own personal ramifications about what
I must and must not do -- down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal
interpretation of the bible is about as likely as the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But if he's out there, I refuse to
believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a lot more ready to believe
that Darwin is right and the rocks are right, which means that the
authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is a dangerous
lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE
is incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can
understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Another pathetic superstitions micro mind heard from. So sad you can't
comprehend science so you have to make up fairy tales to shield
yourself from the real world...


Science attempts to explain HOW while Religion attempts to explain WHO -
thus, there isn't any conflict... grin

I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

Ignoramus28865 wrote in
:


I have seen zero evidence that God exists.



Because you see only that which you wish to see, hear what you wish to
hear, feel what you wish to feel. GRIN

On 2009-11-17, Eregon wrote:
Ignoramus28865 wrote in
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because you see only that which you wish to see, hear what you wish to
hear, feel what you wish to feel. GRIN

I did look at some point.

i

"Pete C." wrote in message
er.com...

Buerste wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys
who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that
the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she
actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically
that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not
do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation
of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO.
But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson
is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE is
incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Another pathetic superstitions micro mind heard from. So sad you can't
comprehend science so you have to make up fairy tales to shield yourself
from the real world...

How arrogant. Your glass is full to the brim I see. A very small glass,
but it's full.

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:21:12 -0500, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
m...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.

As have I. On a number of occasions.

Some really strange stuff.

But then..I also believe in the existance of alien races as well..not
from Sol III, Terra.

It never ceases to amaze me just how many Soviet State beliefs Iggy
brought over with him.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On 2009-11-18, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.



I would consider them seriously.

i

"Ignoramus30503" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-18, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever
be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's
existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.



I would consider them seriously.

i

Yep, I'm sure you would. You never know when a life-changing event occur,
but you'll know when it happens.

On 2009-11-19, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus30503" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-18, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever
be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's
existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.



I would consider them seriously.

i

Yep, I'm sure you would. You never know when a life-changing event occur,
but you'll know when it happens.



I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

i

Ignoramus30503 wrote:

On 2009-11-19, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus30503" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-18, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever
be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's
existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.



I would consider them seriously.

i

Yep, I'm sure you would. You never know when a life-changing event occur,
but you'll know when it happens.



I will definitely keep an open mind about it.


That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

On 2009-11-19, Pete C. wrote:
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever
beexplained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's
existence, but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.
I would consider them seriously.
Yep, I'm sure you would. You never know when a life-changing event occur,
but you'll know when it happens.

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The cited survey was conducted by George Barna, himself a conservative
evangelical Christian. What Barna found is that the more
"conservative" is the denomination, the higher is the divorce rate.

The interesting question is why exactly the effect of religion on
divorce rates is what it is.

i

"Ignoramus30893" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-19, Pete C. wrote:
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never,
ever
beexplained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's
existence, but I wonder what you would think if you witness
something similar.
I would consider them seriously.
Yep, I'm sure you would. You never know when a life-changing event
occur,
but you'll know when it happens.

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The cited survey was conducted by George Barna, himself a conservative
evangelical Christian. What Barna found is that the more
"conservative" is the denomination, the higher is the divorce rate.

The interesting question is why exactly the effect of religion on
divorce rates is what it is.

i

You're likely to find that it's a third factor. Divorce rates go down as
income and education go up. The demographics of evangelicals is complex,
with many more joining upper brackets of income and education today, but I
think you'll find that they traditionally have been in lower strata of both
categories.

You'd have to take a very careful look to get the correlations right, but I
doubt if "religiosity," as a variable in itself, shows a correlation
anything like the other two factors.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:53:13 -0600, Ignoramus30893
wrote:

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.


Of course it is. The trend for atheists is to simply shack up, without
marraige, and to simply split when they find they cant deal with each
other.

No divorce needed.

The religious use marraige..and split up at the same rate, but only a
divorce is required.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On 2009-11-19, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:53:13 -0600, Ignoramus30893
wrote:

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.


Of course it is. The trend for atheists is to simply shack up, without
marraige, and to simply split when they find they cant deal with each
other.

Very smart.

No divorce needed.

The religious use marraige..and split up at the same rate, but only a
divorce is required.

And kids would be more likely to be involved.

i

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:50:57 -0600, Ignoramus30893
wrote:

On 2009-11-19, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:53:13 -0600, Ignoramus30893
wrote:

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.


Of course it is. The trend for atheists is to simply shack up, without
marraige, and to simply split when they find they cant deal with each
other.

Very smart.

If you are an atheist.

No divorce needed.

The religious use marraige..and split up at the same rate, but only a
divorce is required.

And kids would be more likely to be involved.

i

Of course. Atheists tend to murder their their babies early on while
still in the womb.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Nov 19, 4:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:53:13 -0600, Ignoramus30893

wrote:
I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.

Of course it is. *The trend for atheists is to simply shack up, without
marraige, and to simply split when they find they cant deal with each
other.

No divorce needed.

* The religious use marraige..and split up at the same rate, but only a
divorce is required.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Keyton

And of course you have plenty of data to back up those claims.

On Nov 19, 6:06*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:50:57 -0600, Ignoramus30893



wrote:
On 2009-11-19, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:53:13 -0600, Ignoramus30893
wrote:

I will definitely keep an open mind about it.

That's the difference between those of us who live in the real world and
those who live in their fantasy worlds - we have open minds to consider
other possibilities should we find supporting evidence, while those in
their fantasy worlds are terrified to consider the possibility that
their fairy tales are wrong and violently attack anything that
contradicts them.

Also, oddly enough, despite the supposed "moral superiority" of
religion, divorce rates among atheists are lower than among
Christians.

Of course it is. *The trend for atheists is to simply shack up, without
marraige, and to simply split when they find they cant deal with each
other.

Very smart.

If you are an atheist.



No divorce needed.

The religious use marraige..and split up at the same rate, but only a
divorce is required.

And kids would be more likely to be involved.

i

Of course. Atheists tend to murder their their babies early on while
still in the womb.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Keyton

And you are a moron.
Get a job, you useless piece of ****.

Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus28865" wrote in message
...
I have seen zero evidence that God exists.

Because of this fact, naturally, I cannot believe that God exists,
since I have seen no evidence of God.

Religious prozelytizers turn this simple logical conclusion on its
head and say "but your lack of belief on God is a belief, so we are
just as good as you". This could not be any less true: I require
evidence to believe something (reality based approach), and they
believe in something without any evidence (fantasy based approach).

Realizing weakness of a fantasy based approach, religion creates FUD
(fear, uncertainty and doubt), trying to scare us by suggesting that
if God might exist, there might be hell, so might end up in hell upon
death if we do not believe in God just in case.

That FUD is certainly unsettling to weak minds, as no one wants to
burn in hell. But it does not change the reality of the fact that
God's existence remains a pure fantasy that is not corroborated.

Relizing weakness of the FUD based approach, religion further states
that regardless of whether God exists, feeble minded people act better
if they are within a religious social network. That may possibly be
true, and it may also be untrue, but it is not really a basis for
establishing a fact of God's existence.

I used to consider myself an agnostic, in the sense that I considered
a possibility that God might exist. Eventually, I realized that there
is nothing whatsoever that should make me entertain such a
possibility, besides the above mentioned FUD.


i

On the other hand, I HAVE seen absolute miracles that could never, ever be
explained with any science. I certainly won't argue about God's existence,
but I wonder what you would think if you witness something similar.


How much he could sell it for.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!