Re: Definition of God

[Dan Wood]

"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-959AE9.09120731082006@news.west.earthlink.net...
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
> > > > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula.
> > > > Does that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The
> > > > existance of microscopic organisms was not recognized for
> > > > centuries before the invention of the microscope. Does that
> > > > mean they did not exist before they were discovered?
> > >
> > > These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
> > > organisms until after they were discovered.
> > >
> > They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless,
> > they were very real.
>
> Right.
>
> > > Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural?
> >
> > A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by
> > supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye
> > etc. But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye)
> > microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has changed
> > except our understanding and our ability to incorporate our
> > knowledge into prevention and cures.
> >
> > An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time might see
> > this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent Americans have
> > absolutely no idea how TVs works, but would feel highly superior to
> > the superstitious primitive who might think it works by magic, but
> > has only a slightly better understanding of its workings. The fact
> > that science doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could
> > possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present time.
>
> Exactly. So many times, things that we thought were supernatural turned
> out to have natural explanations. Are you sure you want to assert that
> the things you currently think are supernatural will never have any sort
> of natural explanation? Are you like that "out of touch" TV watcher?
>
No! If it turns out to have a natural explanation I will have no choice,
but to accept it for what it is.
>
> > > > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which
> > > > come true.
> > >
> > > People win the lottery too.
> >
> > Sure, but this proves only good luck.
>
> That's all intuition is...

 

[thepossibilities]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> And we didn't "approach you", moron.
>
> You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude.

yep that's me, already got a good label for me don't yah, glad you've
already judged me by this post. tells me a little bit about what kinda
person you are for sure.

there is an old saying you react how your reacted too.

 

[thepossibilities]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>
> You meant to ask "what are the latest conclusions?". If you're
> serious, which you obviously aren't, go to your nearest Barnes & Noble
> and pick up a copy of the Scientific American's latest special
> "Becoming Human".
>
> And then if you want to ask questions, ask on talk.origins because it
> is (a) nothing to do with atheism or vice versa, (b) not
> controversial, and (c) where they will educate you.
>
> But if you were serious you wouldn't have asked stupid questions based
> on invalid premises, that were intended to make a point but instead
> told us you were both deliberately ignorant and uninterested it the
> answers.

questions may be stupid to you but not me, if anybody had you for a
teacher they'd probably hang themselves after the first few days.
because you'd probably have them all labeled as ignorant morons or some
such.

i don't have as much time as I would like to devote to research,
however i will make time to get a copy and see what it explains.

 

[thepossibilities]

Robibnikoff wrote:
>
> Um, approached you? Hardly, it would seem that YOU approached us. I'm
> sorry you didn't care for your reception, but did it ever cross your mind
> that we've heard this all before and aren't interested?
>

yah it did, i sorta fell into arguing but didn't mean too. thanks for
all your patience i have a better understanding of atheism and that
it's not an all incompassing term for a person. i am young but I am
learning. that's why I am out here on this site.

 

[thepossibilities]

stoney wrote:
>
> 'God' shouldn't have created evil in the first place. Nothing fails
> like 'God.'
>

movies would be a heck of a lot more boring without it.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 31 Aug 2006 09:35:34 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> And we didn't "approach you", moron.
>>
>> You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude.
>
>yep that's me, already got a good label for me don't yah, glad you've
>already judged me by this post. tells me a little bit about what kinda
>person you are for sure.

Add liar to that. You're a sanctimonious hypocrite who can't grasp
that the negative reaction he engenders wouldnt even happen if he had
the inteligence to keep his BS to himself.

>there is an old saying you react how your reacted too.

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZEDJg.39926$j8.21640@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4locfgF2svmnU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4CnJg.20088$y7.8735@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> > news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
>> >> >> <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>> > something
>> >> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> >> >I could never deny him.
>> >>
>> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>> >>
>> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
>> > real to me!
>>
>> Why should anyone give a **** about what you'd do?
>>
> And this is concern to you - why?

Guess my question was too difficult for you to answer. Shall I type slower
next time? Maybe use smaller words?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vFDJg.39927$j8.14404@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4locecF2t5gkU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:qAnJg.20085$y7.3829@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4llrgpF2gpnvU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
>> >> >> <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>> > something
>> >> > wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> >> > I could never deny him.
>> >>
>> >> So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do?
>> >>
>> > This wasn't addressed to you!
>>
>> Who gives a ****? Welcome to Usenet, idiot.
>>
> Thank you - fool!

You're welcome, retarded mother****er and eater of dog ****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157042133.960739.38080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> And we didn't "approach you", moron.
>>
>> You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude.
>
> yep that's me, already got a good label for me don't yah, glad you've
> already judged me by this post. tells me a little bit about what kinda
> person you are for sure.
>
> there is an old saying you react how your reacted too.

Failed basic grammar, did we?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157042827.358437.79130@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>>
>> Um, approached you? Hardly, it would seem that YOU approached us. I'm
>> sorry you didn't care for your reception, but did it ever cross your mind
>> that we've heard this all before and aren't interested?
>>
>
> yah it did, i sorta fell into arguing but didn't mean too. thanks for
> all your patience i have a better understanding of atheism and that
> it's not an all incompassing term for a person. i am young but I am
> learning. that's why I am out here on this site.

Any chance you could work on your grammar? You might be taken a bit more
seriously.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[stoney]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:34:26 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism

>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:04:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:32:12 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>>wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>>
>>>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9916f25gnc8922ah1j9fisua3925r7fe9d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>>>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com...
>>>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >newsiq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com...
>>>> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>>> >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just
>>>sent
>>>> >me
>>>> >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth,
>>>signed
>>>> >> >> >> Dan Wood.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we
>>>> >have
>>>> >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming
>>>pools
>>>> >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers,
>>>> >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these
>>>computers.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Here's the message, with your signature.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >It doesn't matter what you think.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>>> >>
>>>> >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up
>>>> >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access
>>>> >to these facilities including these computers.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and
>>>> stuff.
>>>>
>>>In order to actually create my own account I need information not
>>>available to me, such as passwords given by the provider (bellsouth)
>>>and a secret password i.e. mother's maiden name etc. Maybe you
>>>know a way to get around this; I do not. I was always intimidated by
>>>computers, but I always hired office personnel who had good computer
>>>skills. I never receive emails. I was always intimidated by the computer
>>>and I just never saw the need to have more than a basic familarity with
>>>them. Or maybe I'm too old to learn. I do not believe these computers
>>>were intended
>>
>>Ah. Totally unsecured computers. You don't believe these computers
>>were intended for what?
>
>More than that. He must be able to read everybody else's email who
>uses that machine and vice versa.

I know. I wasn't going to mention that and see what he came up with
next.

>Frankly, I don't believe him.

I don't either.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:04:35 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:5eabf2d8qj4v1tgq5vee956dbtp70o4h9j@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:09 +0100, "Agnes" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in
>> alt.atheism
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Dan Wood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>>>>> something
>>>>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>>>>> I could never deny him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
>>>> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
>>>> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
>>>> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
>>>> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
>>>> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
>>>> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
>>>
>>>Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again
>>>to
>>>finish the job.
>>>We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and
>>>now
>>>they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The
>>>Rapture"
>>>Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it?
>>>At least, in their minds it does.
>>>The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze
>>>themselves through have always fascinated me.
>>
>> Hi Agnes! Guess you ate Steve......
>>
>> Mental toddlers, ya know.
>
>Oh ****!

>VEG!>


>Agnes is a pseudonym I use posting to the cranks over in rec.uk.psychic.

No worries.

>Agnes is a nice old dear who really pisses off the true believers in that
>newsgroup because she insists she is in communication with the dead, but in
>her case she's a little choosy, and only gets messages from famous
>celebrities who have passed to the "other side"
>Drives the kooks crazy, especially when she talks about having Frank Sinatra
>singing to her at night.

Dynamiteing fish in a barrel comes to mind.

>Now I've been rumbled!
>All because I forgot to change the name back!
>Oh well, it wasn't that funny any more anyway!



--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >>
>> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>something
>> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> >I could never deny him.
>>
>> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>>
> I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
>real to me!

Take your meds, Dan.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:17:00 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1157042133.960739.38080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> And we didn't "approach you", moron.
>>>
>>> You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude.
>>
>> yep that's me, already got a good label for me don't yah, glad you've
>> already judged me by this post. tells me a little bit about what kinda
>> person you are for sure.
>>
>> there is an old saying you react how your reacted too.
>
>Failed basic grammar, did we?

and the Turing Test.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[chazwin]

> >
> > The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a
> > perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a
> > belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i
> > don't know": agnostic.
> > "A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that
> > those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some
> > kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably
> > reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist
> > position.
> >
> > Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought
> > whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me
> > to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I
> > become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I
> > think the god idea is utterly incoherant.
> > But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism.
> > If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to
> > argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist".
> >
>
> Well I enjoy the way you put things! ;-)
>
> and I do take the point about a-theist/anti-theist that you are making, and
> that's how you do see it, and am willing to say that without any reactive
> clap trap.
>
> Let me be clear that I am not arguing the point, or saying you are wrong
> about your views on atheism/god/creator, and how you arrive at those. They
> are valid, for you. and I accept that without any problems at all. I am not
> insisting on anything either.
>
> My distinction could be explained by saying that I am not claiming a "system
> of belief" as such .... maybe have another look at this part of what I said
> to the other chap and I'll highlight a few keys words
>
> then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
> >> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or
> >> isn't.
> >> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs.
>
> and i'll clarify that again by saying a " whole pile of personal beliefs
> ...."
>
> You should notice that I didn;t use the word "atheist" just above. I am
> speaking to a deeper level than just a non-belief or rejection of others
> religious beliefs. Can you see what I mean?
>
> as a rough analogy, I'd call athesism an F18 fighter jet. I am speaking
> about the aircraft carrier that supports the fighter jet. I thinks that
> fair, given ur "Apurplewheatist". hehehe

Understood.
Thanks..

 

[Sean]

"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157067936.185403.90930@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > The point about "atheist" is that it implies a negative. There is a
>> > perfectly good word for someone who positively rejects the notion of a
>> > belief in god: antitheist, and another one who has declared for "i
>> > don't know": agnostic.
>> > "A - theist" means NO belief in god. It is most bizzarre, I find, that
>> > those that insist there is a god usually insist that "atheist" is some
>> > kind of faith belief system - this I find utterly strange, but probably
>> > reflective of the type of thought processes that form the theist
>> > position.
>> >
>> > Generally I classify myself as atheist, and normally give no thought
>> > whatsoever to the topic. That is, until I read a thread which causes me
>> > to think about why I have rejected the god notion. At this point I
>> > become antitheist and prepare myself to produce arguments as to why I
>> > think the god idea is utterly incoherant.
>> > But I insist that I have no "system of belief" which comprises atheism.
>> > If someone tries to convince me that "wheat is purple" and I attempt to
>> > argue against it, I do not say that i am an "Apurplewheatist".
>> >
>>
>> Well I enjoy the way you put things! ;-)
>>
>> and I do take the point about a-theist/anti-theist that you are making,
>> and
>> that's how you do see it, and am willing to say that without any reactive
>> clap trap.
>>
>> Let me be clear that I am not arguing the point, or saying you are wrong
>> about your views on atheism/god/creator, and how you arrive at those.
>> They
>> are valid, for you. and I accept that without any problems at all. I am
>> not
>> insisting on anything either.
>>
>> My distinction could be explained by saying that I am not claiming a
>> "system
>> of belief" as such .... maybe have another look at this part of what I
>> said
>> to the other chap and I'll highlight a few keys words
>>
>> then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
>> >> how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or
>> >> isn't.
>> >> Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs.
>>
>> and i'll clarify that again by saying a " whole pile of personal
>> beliefs
>> ...."
>>
>> You should notice that I didn;t use the word "atheist" just above. I am
>> speaking to a deeper level than just a non-belief or rejection of others
>> religious beliefs. Can you see what I mean?
>>
>> as a rough analogy, I'd call athesism an F18 fighter jet. I am speaking
>> about the aircraft carrier that supports the fighter jet. I thinks that
>> fair, given ur "Apurplewheatist". hehehe
>
> Understood.
> Thanks..
>

You're welcome, Winner Of Chaz.

anyway, if you can accept the analogy, you'd see that I have the same
approach with religious fundamentalists who think their so called superior
aircraft carriers and F18 jets can shoot down your F18 jet, or that if they
scream loud enough then by some miracle your aircraft carrier will be sunk
like the Egyptians in the Red Sea.

Me, I'm more interested in the Ocean Itself. And I think Einstien was as
well. He seemed to have a an open mind about everything. [ except quantum
physics maybe ]

My religion consists of a humble
admiration of the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself in the
slight details we are able to perceive
with our frail and feeble mind.

- Albert Einstein

Then again, maybe I just enjoy rocking people's boats occasionally? Sure
ain't into flying planes into tall buildings. That hurts too much. <smile>

 

[Sean]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157042827.358437.79130@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>>
>> Um, approached you? Hardly, it would seem that YOU approached us. I'm
>> sorry you didn't care for your reception, but did it ever cross your mind
>> that we've heard this all before and aren't interested?
>>
>
> yah it did, i sorta fell into arguing but didn't mean too. thanks for
> all your patience i have a better understanding of atheism and that
> it's not an all incompassing term for a person. i am young but I am
> learning. that's why I am out here on this site.
>

Good for you!!! Be persistent with that desire to learn. ;-)

 

[Sean]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157042398.402035.232280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> You meant to ask "what are the latest conclusions?". If you're
>> serious, which you obviously aren't, go to your nearest Barnes & Noble
>> and pick up a copy of the Scientific American's latest special
>> "Becoming Human".
>>
>> And then if you want to ask questions, ask on talk.origins because it
>> is (a) nothing to do with atheism or vice versa, (b) not
>> controversial, and (c) where they will educate you.
>>
>> But if you were serious you wouldn't have asked stupid questions based
>> on invalid premises, that were intended to make a point but instead
>> told us you were both deliberately ignorant and uninterested it the
>> answers.
>
> questions may be stupid to you but not me, if anybody had you for a
> teacher they'd probably hang themselves after the first few days.

Nah, maybe they'd go fishing and enjoy a pleasant day.

> because you'd probably have them all labeled as ignorant morons or some
> such.
>
> i don't have as much time as I would like to devote to research,
> however i will make time to get a copy and see what it explains.
>

Some folks, seem to think that if another doesn;t already know what they
know, then that makes them automatically dysfunctional and inferior. I think
that's a dysfunctional way of thinking. But it's still very popular. ;-))

 

[Sean]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is
this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
(Albert Einstein)


The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the
mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as
dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting
itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull
faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge,
this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

 

[Dan Wood]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f7ae1c@news.eftel.com...
> A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
> manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it
is
> this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
> attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
> (Albert Einstein)
>
>
> The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the
> mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is
a
> stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as
> dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting
> itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull
> faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge,
> this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
> ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
>
Einstein did not not believe in a personal God.

Dan
>
>