|
|
 | | From: | uvcceet at juno.com | | Subject: | Re: What Is God? | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:14:03 -0700 |
|
|
 | In , on 01/21/05
at 12:25 PM, Mark Fergerson said:
>uvcceet@juno.com wrote:
>> That doesn't change the facts, or mean that government is right to do so.
> Governments _define_ "right and wrong".
No, not at all. Governments enforce right and wrong.
> So, will you try to pray away the next natural disaster headed your
>way, or will you assume it's sent by your deity-of-choice to punish you,
>and sit still for it?
I am not aware of the fact that the tsunami was sent by anyone. I think it
was a scientificly accepted reaction to the earthquake beneath the sea.
What makes you think you can speak for God?
>> You point of view is warped by the fact that you think of rights as
>> something like being able to get a driver's license, or own a business.
>> Those are PRIVILEGES granted to you by someone, who, for some reason, you
>> have elevated to the status of your king, when in fact, those people are
>> just the same monkey droppings as you, so why are they in charge?
> Ah, the old "Darwin-hate" speech.
No, just a fact which you are unable to refute, due to your hands being
covered with monkey shit.
>> Monkeys don't have government.
> You are a complete ignoramus; monkeys and apes have exactly the same
>kind of government humans do; rule by the strong interleaved with rule
>in the majority's best interests.
Majority's best interest? You call me an ignoramus. When the hell was the
last time you saw monkees holding and election? When was the last time you
saw monkeys standing in line with their hands out begging for their
leaders to give them some cheese? How often do monkees change this
government, which is so much like ours? How often to you get to see
monkeys lining up for abortions???
|
|
| | From: | Mark Fergerson | | Subject: | Re: What Is God? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:13:55 -0700 |
|
|
| uvcceet@juno.com wrote:
> In , on 01/21/05
> at 12:25 PM, Mark Fergerson said:
>>uvcceet@juno.com wrote:
>>>That doesn't change the facts, or mean that government is right to do so.
>> Governments _define_ "right and wrong".
> No, not at all. Governments enforce right and wrong.
As they define it. If they didn't, and right and wrong were defined
universally, all laws and the penalties for breaking them would be the
same everywhere. You'll note that they aren't.
>> So, will you try to pray away the next natural disaster headed your
>>way, or will you assume it's sent by your deity-of-choice to punish you,
>>and sit still for it?
> I am not aware of the fact that the tsunami was sent by anyone. I think it
> was a scientificly accepted reaction to the earthquake beneath the sea.
Tell that to the Muslim nutcases that claim the US and Israel caused
it to kill all the Muslims there.
> What makes you think you can speak for God?
Being an atheist, I made no such claims but offered you your choice
of interpretations. I note you failed to state yours.
What makes you think _you_ can speak for your deity-of-choice?
>>>You point of view is warped by the fact that you think of rights as
>>>something like being able to get a driver's license, or own a business.
>>>Those are PRIVILEGES granted to you by someone, who, for some reason, you
>>>have elevated to the status of your king, when in fact, those people are
>>>just the same monkey droppings as you, so why are they in charge?
>> Ah, the old "Darwin-hate" speech.
> No, just a fact which you are unable to refute,
A "fact"? The US Constitution in particular asserts that certain
rights are God-given (because it was written by men who believed that),
but presents no proof. Do you have any? If not, I see no reason to
bother trying to refute an unsupported assertion.
> due to your hands being
> covered with monkey shit.
Ooh, more Xtian hate speech!
>>>Monkeys don't have government.
>> You are a complete ignoramus; monkeys and apes have exactly the same
>>kind of government humans do; rule by the strong interleaved with rule
>>in the majority's best interests.
> Majority's best interest? You call me an ignoramus. When the hell was the
> last time you saw monkees holding and election?
Have you ever watched social monkeys or apes do their version of
elections? They don't use ballots, but they sure do recruit to back up
their individual claims to raise their status. If they get enough
backing, they "de-elect" the old leader (as below) and take his place.
> When was the last time you
> saw monkeys standing in line with their hands out begging for their
> leaders to give them some cheese?
Monkeys generally don't eat cheese in the wild. They will indeed beg
other treats from high-ranking monkeys to reinforce their status.
> How often do monkees change this
> government, which is so much like ours?
Their usual method of changing their government is to defeat in
ritual battle, run off, or in some cases kill the old leader, which just
makes room for a similar leader, indeed so much like ours.
> How often to you get to see
> monkeys lining up for abortions???
See, this is where nutcases like you have trouble. You automatically
assign to me all the characteristics of your favorite "hated" group,
merely because I'm not one of you. Problem is, I do not defend
abortions; in fact, I think of them as plain old murder.
But back to your question; in many species of monkey, the dominant
male will indeed force females carrying other males' fetuses to abort,
often killing the female in the process. Failing that, he'll kill the
newborn, sometimes while it's being born (sound familiar?).
Mark L. Fergerson
|
|
| | From: | ParaXerxes | | Subject: | Re: What Is God? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:05:24 GMT |
|
|
| Mark Fergerson wrote:
> A "fact"? The US Constitution in particular asserts that certain
> rights are God-given (because it was written by men who believed that),
> but presents no proof. Do you have any? If not, I see no reason to
> bother trying to refute an unsupported assertion.
Atheists fall into the same trap that they accuse religionists of falling
prey to. You have offered no proof of your assertions. Claims a many you
and your cohorts make, but no real proof is offered. So-called scientific
proof is no proof at all, it's but an argument based on human concepts,
human interpretations, human speculation, human preconceptions and human
nonsense in accepting the authority of science as the supreme determinator
and authority. Should we bow down to science as the God of the Universe?
Atheism in such a context is based purely on speculation and assumption.
Dogma reigns in atheism as it reigns in religion and science.
I see no reassonable cause for me to waste my precious time in refuting your
irrational preconceptions.
Incidentally, I am not a religionist.
|
|
|
