|
In response to...
....a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...
On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. I see nothing in this letter which scientifically refutes the previous article. Besides - so what? |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God |
In response to...
On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. |
In response to...
On 1/3/15 5:53 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) |
In response to...
|
In response to...
On 1/3/2015 10:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God God is dead. - Harry Krause etc., etc. Harry will be rolling over in his grave trying to solve the mysteries of the universe. That's his curse. ;- -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?
Just curious... |
In response to...
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:39:06 AM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, he's shoving his dick down donnies throat. That's why he doesn't post much, thank god. |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... I have yet to see Harry put forth a persuasive argument of his own crafting. He doesn't have the skill to do so. When he shoves, folks shove back and he goes nowhere. That's just my casual observation. YMMV -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. |
In response to...
|
In response to...
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 10:22:24 AM UTC-5, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. People are guided in their choices by their beliefs, or lack thereof. When a person in a political office makes a choice guided by their religious beliefs, you don't like it. When a person in a political office makes a choice guided by their lack of religious beliefs, you have no problem with it. You do seem to have a problem with religious beliefs. |
In response to...
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:17:01 AM UTC-8, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. The measure of a man can't really be made without first coming to know the purpose of his acts and what he thinks as opposed to relying on hearsay or gossip. As a Christian I have come to know the convictions of those who draw their anti-faith conclusions from denominational Christianity and its failings or perhaps those who understand Christian beliefs via very simplified readings of the Bible. "If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." St Augustine The quote from St Augustine was used by the astronomer Galileo and rings true for many Christians in that the Bible,at least for some, doesn't represent dictates but a chart for stormy seas of daily life and the calm with which a genuine Christian deals with things - an acquired individual thing rather than a group ideology. |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/3/15 5:53 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal... On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Increasingly makes the case for God. Lawrence Krauss responded with the following letter disputing its specious science claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and misinformation. Lawrences letter corrects the record. By Lawrence Krauss To the editor: I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece Science Increasingly makes the case for God, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example: We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ. We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased. The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around. My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that the appearance of design is overwhelming, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection. Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers. Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. === God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) So is the anti-religion crap you're posting. |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 10:16 AM, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. That's fair. You don't knock on doors and I won't either. You have my blessing to practice your beliefs with your family in your home or cult gathering place or teaching facility. So that settles it. No more anti religious crap from you. Agreed? -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" -- I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off! Respectfully submitted by Justan |
In response to...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:16:58 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. Harry, you have loaded weapons all over your house, 'just in case'. How many folks here have knocked on your door asking you to sign up for their religious beliefs? Unless your goal is to cause arguing and bickering, you should just shy away from posting religious crap. |
In response to...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 07:55:31 -0800 (PST), Gerald Kelleher
wrote: On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:17:01 AM UTC-8, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. The measure of a man can't really be made without first coming to know the purpose of his acts and what he thinks as opposed to relying on hearsay or gossip. As a Christian I have come to know the convictions of those who draw their anti-faith conclusions from denominational Christianity and its failings or perhaps those who understand Christian beliefs via very simplified readings of the Bible. "If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." St Augustine The quote from St Augustine was used by the astronomer Galileo and rings true for many Christians in that the Bible,at least for some, doesn't represent dictates but a chart for stormy seas of daily life and the calm with which a genuine Christian deals with things - an acquired individual thing rather than a group ideology. Well said, but probably wasted on the intended audience. |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:01:35 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) But you hold your beliefs in the word of Nietzsche to hold more water than the word of Jesus. And you think you're the enlightened one. |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. Even more specious. We have for many generations assisted, propped up, and rescued nations around the globe with official state religions. |
In response to...
On 1/4/15 12:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:01:35 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) But you hold your beliefs in the word of Nietzsche to hold more water than the word of Jesus. And you think you're the enlightened one. Nietzche's words were his own. The words attributed to Jesus were written down by others and edited and amended to suit those attending the First Council of Nicaea, during which mortal men *decided* Jesus was divine. A college roommate who became a priest taught me this. |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:27:58 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: A college roommate who became a priest taught me this. === You should have followed his example. |
In response to...
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:28:02 PM UTC-5, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:01:35 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being.. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) But you hold your beliefs in the word of Nietzsche to hold more water than the word of Jesus. And you think you're the enlightened one. Nietzche's words were his own. The words attributed to Jesus were written down by others and edited and amended to suit those attending the First Council of Nicaea, during which mortal men *decided* Jesus was divine. A college roommate who became a priest taught me this. Is there scientific evidence of this, or just the words of a 20 year old room-mate? |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:27:58 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/4/15 12:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:01:35 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) But you hold your beliefs in the word of Nietzsche to hold more water than the word of Jesus. And you think you're the enlightened one. Nietzche's words were his own. The words attributed to Jesus were written down by others and edited and amended to suit those attending the First Council of Nicaea, during which mortal men *decided* Jesus was divine. A college roommate who became a priest taught me this. Well, college roommates are omniscient, you know. |
In response to...
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:27:58 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 12:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:01:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 11:55 AM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 21:20:50 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/3/15 8:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: God is dead. - Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. - God Ahh, but *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and writings were *his* . :) How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him? Prove, scientifically, that he existed. That's just silly. :) Why? There are more people who have claimed they have talked to god than claim they have talked to, or even seen Nietzsche. Pretty soon this could evolve into whether there was ever a Shakespeare or if Francis Bacon wrote it all. Ah, yes, but the contemporaries of Nietzsche who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, and there is no more evidence to support modern man's idea of the reality of god then there was for the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. If you believe in god, it is a belief based on faith alone. The contemporaries of Jesus who met him, spoke with him, and wrote or discussed it with other were not delusional. There is plenty of scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Jesus. You have no scientifically acceptable evidence to support the existence of Nietzsche, and you have no scientific evidence to support the Nietzsche's idea of reality or his ideas of God. Is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' your driving force? It is possible there was a Jewish prophet who is called Jesus (not his real name). My comment was about the existence of a supreme being. There is no evidence Jesus was a supreme being or the son of a supreme being. He wasn't even considered "divine" until a dying pagan Roman emperor said he was. Your comments about the existence of Nietzsche are just silly. :) But you hold your beliefs in the word of Nietzsche to hold more water than the word of Jesus. And you think you're the enlightened one. Nietzche's words were his own. The words attributed to Jesus were written down by others and edited and amended to suit those attending the First Council of Nicaea, during which mortal men *decided* Jesus was divine. A college roommate who became a priest taught me this. Well, college roommates are omniscient, you know. The Council of Nicaea and what it did is well documented. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:11:51 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: On 1/4/15 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. Even more specious. We have for many generations assisted, propped up, and rescued nations around the globe with official state religions. A bit of innapropriate perseverating with a new word? |
In response to...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote:
On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. Harry proclaimed Israel to be a Jewish nation. |
In response to...
On 1/4/2015 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? It is a church masquerading as a state, Interesting opinion. similar to the Vatican except the Vatican is not expanding it's borders throughout Italy with military force. (using US tax dollars to do it) we are establishing religion with our tax dollars. Why is that not a problem for you? I guarantee that if there was an evangelical group, funded by the US tax payer, taking over a country, promoting christianity at the point of a gun, you would be outraged. |
In response to...
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:42:38 -0500, KC wrote: On 1/4/2015 12:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:22:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. I am glad you warned us that your statement was going to be "Specious" before you started writing it. If the US is paying $6 Billion a year to prop up the zionists, Who said we are supporting "Zionists"? Israel is a Nation or a State isn't it? It is a church masquerading as a state... Now that is funny! -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
In response to...
Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. |
In response to...
Califbill wrote:
Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
In response to...
On 4 Jan 2015 20:14:11 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote:
Califbill wrote: Justan Olphart wrote: On 1/4/2015 10:22 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 1/4/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 21:39:05 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... Harry is against religion everywhere except Israel where he thinks a direct connection between church and state is acceptable and it is OK to impose their religious beliefs on the people living there. Specious. Israel was established as a Jewish nation. The United States was not established as a Christian nation. I am not against religion. I am against religion/religious beliefs dictating laws, regulations, what is taught in public schools, et cetera. "One nation under God" But did not say a Christian God. Actually the founders stated there would not be a State Religion, ala Church of England. Not that there would be no religious expression. The phrase "one nation..." had nothing to do with the founding fathers, the Declaration, or the Constitution. It was shoved into the "pledge" during the middle of the last century because of right-wing pressure. Harry, are you just *trying* to promote friction? |
In response to...
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:17:01 AM UTC-8, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote: Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats? Just curious... No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like similar courtesies from the religious. How lazy of your, Krause. Of course you wouldn't dare walk door-to-door to spew your hate of religion, (That involves work!) when you can do so on a computer from the comfort of your...dwelling[?] |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com