Phil Cook wrote:
> You seemed to be implying the possibilty of a universe-model without 
> self-conciousness that was all.

Oh, I see. Hrm.  Well, I suppose it's possible. Haven't really thoguht 
about it.

>> Yep. You didn't ask me if it was the same soul the preachers talk 
>> about. You just wondered if there is such a thing as a soul.
> 
> Well I didn't, but I think preachers have got Soul™ as their own 
> personal domain so talking about soul as self-conciousness and thus the 
> extension as above would tick them off.

And I should be bothered by that exactly why?  ;-)

-- 
   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

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message 
news:MPG.21ce122bcb8826ec98a0c8@news.povray.org...
In article <476422c9$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
> >> So, when God told Moses to commit genocide, killing everyone in an 
> >> entire
> >> city except the virgin girls, which he should rape, that was by 
> >> definition
> >> good?
>
> > In that age every society/race/group had to fight to survive. A lot like 
> > the
> > Darwinists'"Survival of the fittest". It was not just the jews that
> > destroyed whole cities, lots of other groups did exactly the same thing.
>
> So I take that to mean your answer is "Yes, God told Moses to commit
> genocide, and it was good."
> >
>You missed, or just failed to point out, that there is a difference

My appologies to the Darwinist for my incorrect assumptions.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:476422c9$1@news.povray.org...
> So I take that to mean your answer is "Yes, God told Moses to commit 
> genocide, and it was good."
>
>> God never told anyone to rape - your imagination is running away with 
>> you.
>
> Numbers 31:18 - Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept 
> with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep 
> them for yourselves.
>
> Duteronomy 20:10 or so - When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill 
> every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, 
> children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your 
> enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
>
> Exodus 21:7 - When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be 
> freed at the end of six years as the men are.
>
> Zecharaih 14 -  Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be 
> divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against 
> Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women 
> ravished;
>

I do not see the term rape here. Ravished could be interpreted as rape but 
that was Zechariah prophesying what would happen to Jerusalem: Jerusalems 
women would be ravished, not "Jerusalems men would ravish 'women from other 
cities"

>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you let someone live in your house that you know has bad 
>>>> intentions toward you?
>>> If I was omnipotent and all-loving, sure.
I agree.

>>Why not?  Why wouldn't you,

God doesn't want to force anyone. They have to make the choice for 
themselves.

>>> other than fear?  Are you saying God doesn't *like* people who don't 
>>> worship him?
>>>
>> God doesn't want anyone to perish, he has an open invitation to everyone.
>
> Yet only under his terms. Doesn't sound too generous. You're changing your 
> story again, btw.
>
?

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

In article <476760ce@news.povray.org>, nek### [at] gmailcom says...
> 
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.21ce122bcb8826ec98a0c8@news.povray.org...
> In article <476422c9$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > Nekar Xenos wrote:
> > >> So, when God told Moses to commit genocide, killing everyone in an
 
> > >> entire
> > >> city except the virgin girls, which he should rape, that was by 
> > >> definition
> > >> good?
> >
> > > In that age every society/race/group had to fight to survive. A lot l
ike 
> > > the
> > > Darwinists'"Survival of the fittest". It was not just the jews that
> > > destroyed whole cities, lots of other groups did exactly the same thi
ng.
> >
> > So I take that to mean your answer is "Yes, God told Moses to commit
> > genocide, and it was good."
> > >
> >You missed, or just failed to point out, that there is a difference
> 
> My appologies to the Darwinist for my incorrect assumptions.
> 
Ok, then how about another one, since we made such progress in fixing 
your incorrect assumptions... Darwinist implies we look up to Darwin as 
some sort of unshakable leader. That is why some groups where called 
Stalinists, Moaists, etc. Because those people defined an ideology and 
dogma, which they insisted was 100% right, and denied all possible 
modifications to it. No scientist *any place* calls themselves a 
Darwinist. It would make about as much sense as calling oneself a 
Newtonist, a Galeleoist, or a Mendelist. Darwin was about 30% right. He 
was also 40% wrong, and completely failed to even imagine the other 25%
+- that we now know. There is probably about 5% that we are still not 
sure of, but its mostly arguments over how big a factor certain types of 
evolution are in the over all picture, and an incomplete understanding 
of all of the interactions between DNA and RNA, which is both a result 
of not knowing what some genes do, and not knowing 100% of all of the 
rules that make them do those things. He isn't revered as some sort of 
prophet, no one builds alters to him, and while his books and work is an 
interesting starting point, no real scientist would treat it as anything 
"but" a starting point.

By comparison, Lemark, who ID is ironically both constantly whining 
about, and claiming was Darwin's, while at the same time hailing as the 
central theme of their entire world view (the idea that species have a 
destiny and some force is "guiding" them there), was 95% **wrong**. The 
only thing he sort of got right is that there may be some limited cases 
where mechanisms can react to environmental changes, by selecting for 
*existing* traits. But, the key factor in that is "existing". Lemark 
thought that, among other things, species just magically develop a 
trait, because they need it. I.e., that if suddenly humans need to fly, 
we would just spontaneously grow wings. If a species **at one time** had 
wings, then those traits might reappear, if relatively undamaged, maybe, 
due to pressure that make them useful again. For anything else, they 
have to go through the *entire* process of primitive gliding, then sort 
of, but not quite, flying, then flying for real, etc. There is no magic, 
"Poof! Let there be wings!", like Lemark thought would happen.

Point is, there are no "Darwinists". Its a word made up by people that 
don't have the first bloody clue what they are talking about, to make it 
seem like evolutionary theory hasn't changed at all in 150 years, and 
which they *constantly* confuse with everything from eugenics (which 
existed *before* Darwin, and fundamentally misunderstands it), to 
Lemarkian theories, to several dozen other alternatives. There is a 
term, "Darwinian", which means, "Derived from Darwin". "Darwinist" 
implies, "Entirely based on, and identical to Darwin's views". Evolution 
hasn't been identical to Darwin's views since about a month after other 
people got a hold of it and started pointing out where he made mistakes. 
Today, claiming that anyone follows his views in any significant 
fashion, is about as dishonest, or clueless, as claiming that electric 
car manufacturers are basing their designs and theories on Greek 
hydrolic and steam systems. I am sure the air conditioning system in 
such a vehicle probably still uses "some" things that they did, but the 
rest of it bears no resemblance what so ever.

That you fail to grasp, understand, and/or acknowledge this, is 
precisely why you don't comprehend the theory at all, and why you keep 
making lame insults (which don't mean anything), misrepresenting facts 
(since you don't know any to present them right), and making statements 
about the subject that only make sense in the company of other people 
that have a total and complete lack of comprehensions of the subject.

-- 
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

Fun thing about Darwin, even he knew that his hypotheses had gaps, and 
afaik himself changed specifics of his theories as he got new data and 
conversed with other scientists.  Darwin wasn't all "huah!  here's 
evolution, this is how things are, the end".

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I do not see the term rape here.

No. They simply got to "enjoy the spoils of the young virgin women." WTF 
do you *think* that's talking about?  "The young virgins - you may keep 
them for yourself."  What do you think they're going to do with the 
young virgins?

>>>>> Would you let someone live in your house that you know has bad 
>>>>> intentions toward you?
>>>> If I was omnipotent and all-loving, sure.
> I agree.
> 
>>> Why not?  Why wouldn't you,
> 
> God doesn't want to force anyone. They have to make the choice for 
> themselves.

You said he wouldn't let them in, yes? You're not even making sense any 
more.

Reality Distortion Field .... Engage!

-- 
   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

In article <47678cb6$1@news.povray.org>, z99### [at] bellsouthnet says...
> Fun thing about Darwin, even he knew that his hypotheses had gaps, and 
> afaik himself changed specifics of his theories as he got new data and 
> conversed with other scientists.  Darwin wasn't all "huah!  here's 
> evolution, this is how things are, the end".
> 
Yeah. Its amazing how some people completely fail to grasp that concept. 
Here is another good one, some moron from Times New Republic (I think 
that is what TNR is) basically stated yesterday that he thought it was 
undemocratic and illiberal of the "New Atheists", what ever the frack 
that is, to a) challenge religion, b) suggest alternate view points, or 
c) try to write books about their views and/or argue with people. He 
then proceeded to claim that all us horrible people, who, in the case of 
Dawkins especially, have said time and again that we don't think making 
stupidity illegal would do any good, would be possible, or that robbing 
people of the right to make that choice would be a moral thing to do, we 
are never the less, according to this nitwit, planning to make religion 
illegal and shove all 2.5 billion of the fools that believe it into 
gulags... WTF?

Lets be real clear here. We have no problem if you want to believe in 
Allah, Jesus, the Great Pumpkin, or the FSM, just so long as you don't 
**demand** that your view, and only your view, be the central foundation 
of everything in the universe. They just need to force their crazier 
ideas on someplace else, like their local, Fundie only, gated community 
or something. Yet, the moment any of us suggests that tolerance doesn't 
mean, "Ok, you get what ever the hell you want, and we have no say in 
any of it.", and no matter how ***clear*** we are about what we will 
tolerate, the first thing fundigelicals all scream is how we are a) 
unpatriotic, b) too liberal/not liberal enough (make up your minds 
people...), c) planning to make their beliefs illegal, d) trying to 
force ours on them, etc. And they react by...:

1. Sending people to jail without trials, because they "look" like they 
might be terrorists and came from the wrong nationality
2. Undermining civil liberties right and left.
3. Trying to force their religion into even places it previous was 
absent from before, including trying to drive a wedge into science, so 
they can replace *all of it* with, I don't know, Tarot cards, entrails 
reading and tea leaves or something?
4. Threatening, in some cases, to deport us to some place.
5. Calling us various unimaginative names.
6. Misrepresenting what we say at every opportunity (and often in total 
contradiction to each other or anything we did write or say).
7. And blaming us for everything from hang nails to world wars, while 
generally doing everything they can **legally** manage to do to people 
with a different opinion to theirs as possible, then, as in the case of 
some of Bush's people, giving each other pardons for stuff that would in 
any other time of war gotten them shot (and not by liberal atheists, but 
by their own fellow conservatives).

In other words, they can't imagine anyone else not wanted to do this 
sort of crap to other people, because after all, its **exactly** the 
shit they pull the moment they have political power, so like... 
obviously everyone is just as amoral, unethical and machievalian as they 
are. Its starting to piss a lot of people off, including liberal 
Christians, which is why so many books are getting published, and why 
they have resorted to calling Christians that don't agree with all their 
BS "liberal atheists" and "not real Christians" as well. Mind you, the 
best one is how atheists, who have no priests, no churches, no vast 
organizations, no central dogmas, no mythology to enforce, or anything 
else needed to form a conspiracy, and who don't conduct huge million 
people tent revivals, run huge networks dedicated to praising their 
beliefs, or any of the other insane excesses used to convert people to 
religion, are all out to convert people to atheism. How exactly? Via 
Telepathy, which we don't believe in? If one guy writing a book that 
calls religious people kooks is enough to *convert* 2.5 billion people 
to atheism, let along a few thousand, then by Zod, someone's belief 
system has some ***serious*** problems. lol If faith in Christianity is 
that fragile, I should be able to put on a T-Shirt of the new scarlet A 
atheism symbol and by the end of the block have half the town following 
me around like dogs following a bitch in heat.

For any of the conspiracies they claim, the power they suggest we have, 
or the intent we supposedly hide about what to do with them to be true, 
there would have to be entire landfills with dead bodies in them, an 
organization like the Magesterium in the Dark Materials series some 
place, and entire armies marching across the planet to wipe them out. 
Hell, some of them insist that us publishing our views on the web, and 
writing books, **might** be more dangerous to the western world than a 
dozen countries filled with Islamic Fundamentalists that like to fly 
planes into the sides of buildings. One doesn't have to be paranoid to 
believe this idiotic nonsense, they have to be so far past insane that 
trying to treat them would send their psychologists to the rubber room, 
to keep them from killing hurting themselves from shear incomprehension, 
horror and despair. We don't need to look for alien life forms that 
think so different from us that its impossible to communicate with them. 
They are already living among us. 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

Darren New wrote:
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> I do not see the term rape here.
> 
> No. They simply got to "enjoy the spoils of the young virgin women." WTF 
> do you *think* that's talking about?  "The young virgins - you may keep 
> them for yourself."  What do you think they're going to do with the 
> young virgins?
> 

Seal them in a plastic case and hang them on the wall? :)

Post a reply to this message

In article <47690fb1@news.povray.org>, mra### [at] hotmailcom says...
> Darren New wrote:
> > Nekar Xenos wrote:
> >> I do not see the term rape here.
> > 
> > No. They simply got to "enjoy the spoils of the young virgin women." WT
F 
> > do you *think* that's talking about?  "The young virgins - you may keep
 
> > them for yourself."  What do you think they're going to do with the 
> > young virgins?
> > 
> 
> Seal them in a plastic case and hang them on the wall? :)
> 
Yeah, everyone knows they are worth more in their original packaging 
right? 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, everyone knows they are worth more in their original packaging 
> right? lol

Oh, absolutely! Break the "tamper evident" seal, and the value drops 
sharply ...

Post a reply to this message