 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475cd38c$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] san rrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > As for using Asterisks... I think you need to look around at some of th
e
> > websites and emails people that think as you do produce.
>
> You're going downhill, Patrick. :-)
>
You, I managed to completely fail to use any. It must be sign, according
to our resident woo expert, of impending insanity, or something. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475d7493922777ebf48316a30@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > you can't open a church without
> > attracting pedophiles, lunatics and crazy people like flies to a corpse
.
>
> Jesus preached for humble people, fishers, prostitutes and the mentally o
r
> bodily ill. Those people have every bit as much right to salvation as yo
u.
> maybe even more so...
>
Dude. I am a 36 year old virgin, living with my parents, and working as
a grocery bagger for Safeway. Short of becoming a drug addict and
selling my body for spare change on the street, while sleeping under the
local bridge, I have a damn hard time figuring how the heck you think I
could be more humble. But, I suppose your right, I hate fishing. I am
sure that must be a *huge* mark against me.
Don't #@$##$ presume you know how humble people are. Its usually a sign
that you are about as far from humble yourself as Bill Gates would be to
passing into heaven (if you believe that particular parable). I have
done my humblest, and often insufficient, best to try to explain why I
think you are a fool for believing what you do, and have made it very
clear that I think my own skill in arguing about it is vastly inadequate
by the standards of nearly anyone else I know (though, being slightly
less humble, I think I have gotten marginally better over time). You...
You profess to have absolute truth on your side, to know with certainty
you are right, to know that I will pay for my sins, and a whole host of
other things which, by your own supposed belief, you should not have any
right to claim, and none of which you have been able to defend with
anything but more assertions of how much better *your* understanding of
the world is than every other person arguing against you. If you where
an less humble, I might accuse you of being the twin brother/sister of
fracking Paris Hilton.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475e186d922777ebd8f74b370@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > require, at
> > bare minimum, that even one tiny fragment of evidence could be applied
> > to at least on "god", for the idea that any such god exists, or more to
> > the point, that *their* god exists? lol
>
> the evidence is out there everytime I open my eyes: the sky, the stars,
the
> sea, life...
>
None of which constitute evidence of your specific god, or any god in
general, **unless** you first can show positive evidence to suggest that
a god was needed to make any of them, let alone all of them. You haven't
done so. All you are doing is making the same stupid, "I don't
understand how all of it happened without god, therefor it must have
happened because of god!". The classic, "argument from incredulity".
That its been used some the days when someone proposed Thor as the cause
of thunder doesn't phase you in the least. Nor the fact that every
instance of history, from the first time some shaman told someone that
spirits made X happen, and someone else later found out that spirits
where not needed to do it at all, people like you have been wrong in
100% of all cases where someone figured out how to ask the right
question, and thus found a non-supernatural explanation for it.
Let me guess, your next moronic comment will be something along the
lines of, "Without god you can't feel the joy of seeing a sunset!"?
Logically absurd, in that you would have a damn hard time proving in
didn't feel something similar to what you do in such case, even if I
don't feel the need to insert God in as an explanation (which imho
cheapens the experience, in that it removes a huge part of the wonder
such things inspire), but it still wouldn't prove a damn thing if you
meant it in some more nebulous sense. After all, you are asserting that
the existence of something would be implied by the fact thats its
existence "causes" something else. But, you still haven't proven that
the first thing exists, so, until you do, you can't claim that **it**
caused the result in any way shape or form.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475e24f8922777ebd8f74b370@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > Its almost a sign
> > of fundamental insanity for someone to suggest that this *hasn't*
> > distorted both the interpretation of historical facts that *are* in
> > evidence, and to strongly imply why some people would much rather
> > imagine ones that have *never* been in evidence, rather than admit that
,
> > once again, the churches interpretation is the one that is badly out of
> > sync of reality.
>
> are all atheists really this boring? That last sentence was pretty long,
just
> as the hundreds of them before. I had to skip and lost track. sorry...
>
> you sound like Fox Mulder. you know: "I want to believe". Because you'
re
> obsessed in trying to find physical proofs of Jesus existence.
>
Man, you just don't get it do you. I have no reason to believe. I see no
reason to believe. I find god not only a useless and pointless concept,
but completely redundant. And, even if you proved that Jesus did exist
in some fashion, that wouldn't automatically prove the rest of the BS
anyway. Some Christians now a days figure he was kind of like Buddha.
Not a god, not enlightened, not in any way shape or form divine, but
just some guy with a lot of interesting and perhaps mostly useful ideas.
You are the one insisting that he did exist, demanding that such a
belief be respected and insisting that if he does, he is what *you*
claim him to be. All I am asking is for you to provide me something
other than a bunch of stuff written half a century after the fact, and
your own rhetoric, as evidence. I don't think that is too damn big of a
thing to ask of someone, anyone, that insists I should believe that
their stories are based on real events, in any useful sense, especially
if they insist that all the miracles in it are supposed to be real too.
You would require the same evidence if I claimed to know for *certain*
that Big Foot existed and I had personally seen it from a distance. Yet,
you want me to just take you at your word for it, without evidence, and
believe all of it? You are the one acting like Fox Mulder, wandering
around and insisting that, every time something slightly odd happens,
there is some huge conspiracy to subvert the truth, and that *you*
personally know what the truth really is.
> forget it: he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in po
wer,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too s
habby
> to figure in official records...
>
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary ab
out
> Jesus tomb...
>
Why the hell would I mention that idiotic nonsense. I watched it. Its
about as credible as everything else the moron does and calls
archeology. It didn't take a genius, given his past failures and gung ho
charge into shear gibberish, that what he found would turn out to be
complete bunk. We where calling it, "Jesus' vault", and joking about how
it should have been hosted by Gheraldo Revera instead before it even
aired, because we know the guy doing it was a credulous nimrod that made
archeology look like a three ring circus.
But, it would have been interesting if he had actually found something
for once, given that such a tomb would have been damn hard to explain
within the framework of the whole resurrection story.
If I was going to talk about anything like that, I might mention some
vague speculation about certain forms of epilepsy that, instead of
causing physical seizures, cause people to hallucinate and think god is
talking to them, and the well documented state of near death coma, and
slow nuero degeneration, until death, which certain chemicals where
found to cause. Chemicals present in the herbs often mixed into water,
as a means to stop bleeding from wounds in Roman times. Or, the studies
done that indicate that wrists, no matter "how" you secure the legs, are
not strong enough to support someone's body on a nail, without the nail
being ripped straight up through the hands and out. Or any number of
other questions that arise when trying to explain how "anything" in it
could have either happened as described, but not as believed, or simply
couldn't have happened at all.
And while I find quite a few of those things interesting, they are
meaningless until you first establish that such an event took place.
Then you have to establish if the claims where accurate, with respect to
any of it, if, in the case of the drugs, they where actually used, and a
whole host of other things.
No, truth is, other than her belief in religion, I have far more in
common with Scully than Mulder. You on the other hand...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:36:05 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I do?
My point was that none of does. My interpretation abilities aren't
significantly different from yours. However, I do believe in what
the Bible tells us about God, and this makes me believe that God's
reasoning abilities are significantly higher than that of any of us.
> How come when Joel tells me that I don't understand, I don't get to
> point out the parts of the Bible where God says yes, I *do* understand.
> Isn't that logical?
If I understand correctly, you are referring to the "tree of good and evil"
and interpreting that the tree gave the human powers of understanding good
and evil equalling that of God.
Genesis 3:22 (KJV) says:
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever".
This does not unambiguously imply that we now understand everything
(or even good and evil) as God does. It only says that we've got some
understanding.
Let's assume you don't know computer programming. If you now study computer
programming, go through a basic course, I may say that you are now like me,
you know programming. But that doesn't make you as proficient as I am with
it; you may have no idea about most of the things I consider when developing
programs. You would have *some* understanding only.
--
Joel Yliluoma - http://iki.fi/bisqwit/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:07:09 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> FangleMork, the god of blue tomatoes
I couldn't resist
http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/12/fanglemork-god-of-blue-tomatoes.html
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 00:49:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Its almost a sign
>> of fundamental insanity for someone to suggest that this *hasn't*
>> distorted both the interpretation of historical facts that *are* in
>> evidence, and to strongly imply why some people would much rather
>> imagine ones that have *never* been in evidence, rather than admit that,
>> once again, the churches interpretation is the one that is badly out of
>> sync of reality.
>
> are all atheists really this boring? That last sentence was pretty long, just
> as the hundreds of them before. I had to skip and lost track. sorry...
>
> you sound like Fox Mulder. you know: "I want to believe". Because you're
> obsessed in trying to find physical proofs of Jesus existence.
>
> forget it: he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in power,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too shabby
> to figure in official records...
>
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary about
> Jesus tomb...
>
>
Put it simply:
Humans are curious.
Humans want to know why and how things appens.
When humans don't know, he's unconfortable.
When humans don't know, he seeks answers.
When he can't find an answer, he ultimately make one: Spirits, Gods and Religions.
So, all religions are attempts to explain a world that humans still don't
understand. He don't understand because he don't, yet, have the tools he need to
understand.
Now, make a distinction betwee dogma and theory:
A dogma proclaim something as "The Truth".
A theory propose something as an explanation of observable things and facts.
If you don't accept, or question, a dogma, then you are wrong by definition.
Iy you don't accept, or question, a theory, you are welcome do discus why you
disagree or question it.
You are not allowed to try to disprove a dogma, you are only allowed to prove it.
You are ASKED to try to disprove a theory, as well as prove it.
When you propose a theory, you tell peoples:
I've made some observations, or conducted some experiments, or performed some
studies. Here are my results, and how I got them. Now, here is my attempt at
explaning my results. I invite you to evaluate my results and explanation. I
invite you to remake my work and see if I made any mistake. Try to prove or
disprove it with every tools at your disposal. If you disprove it, to bad, but
please show me, and everybody, where I erred. If you prove it, tell that you
did, and how you did it.
When you proclaim a dogma, you tell peoples:
This IS The TRUTH! That Truth is absolute and immuable. Nobody can question The
Truth. If you don't agree with The Truth, you are an heretic, or just plain
wrong in the best of cases.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as
a kind of divining rod to locate expensive bike parts not far from the object we
are trying to hit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:07:09 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> FangleMork, the god of blue tomatoes
>
> I couldn't resist
> http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/12/fanglemork-god-of-blue-tomatoes.html
(Covering face with hands) What have I done?!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> forget it: he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in power,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too shabby
> to figure in official records...
Yet, oddly, there were no records of his miracles, either.
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary about
> Jesus tomb...
That's still up in the air as to whether it was the same Jesus, ya know.
Note that James Cameron is a movie producer, not a historian.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:475e18c4$1@news.povray.org...
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> You know, number 11, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior? Didn't that
>>>> get slipped in there a bit back?
>>> Jesus is God in flesh. Rule number 1.
>> Then what are the other 9? I thought you were talking about Moses' laws.
>>
>
> Accepting Jesus as your Saviour is the only thing that will get you into
> heaven.
I was asking nemesis, actually, as he was the one that listed 10 rules.
> No good deed can get you into heaven because we are all sinfull. If
> you accept Jesus as your saviour you won't want to do the wrong things.
And this is not evil? To drag off two thirds of the human population and
burn them forever? Damn, I must have missed my bit of original sin.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
