in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world. That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity. Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world.

Well, not just yet, anyhow.

That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety.

Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding
advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God
is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world.

Well, not just yet, anyhow.

That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity.

Well, not necessarily. It depends on the diety.

Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.

Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were
dinosaurs.

KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote:
And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.


Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were
dinosaurs.

Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"...

http://www.flat-earth.org/

Guess where it's based... :-)


--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
...


KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote:
And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe
that
science cannot explain.


Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there
were dinosaurs.

Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"...

http://www.flat-earth.org/

Guess where it's based... :-)

Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is a
factual document.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Satire I enjoy...but there are people who really believe that the bible is
a factual document.

There are a lot of accurate factual statements in "The
Bible".........whichever version one happens to peruse.

Wolfgang
who has read several and finds all of them.......begats and
all.......considerably less tedious than this interminable competition
between idiots on one side and morons on the other, whose only purpose
appears to be to determine which group is stupider.