Prev: How to Answer the Census.
Next:  Slavery. Urban Legend vs. United States law.
From: Smiler on 27 Mar 2010 01:24
Jahnu wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:55 am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever heard of scientist child molesters?
>
>> Child misuse is an inherent feature of all religions.
>
> And in general society as well.
>
> Krishna says:
>

Squawk, squawk, squawk, squawk, squawk, squawk, squawk.

--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer


From: Smiler on 27 Mar 2010 01:27
Xan Du wrote:
> Smiler wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction
>>>>>>>>> in religion.
>>>>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very
>>>>>>>> honest since probably the 60s.
>>>>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up?
>>>>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things.
>>>>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of
>>>>> ability.
>>>> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim.
>>> In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that
>>> there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for
>>> half a century or more.
>>>
>>> That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing
>>> to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do
>>> with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is
>>> incredibly difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts.
>>>
>>> And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge
>>> or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll
>>> never get to hear about them. And the secret to successful
>>> dishonesty is when even the sceptical can look around and be unable
>>> to put their finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always
>>> how the powerful successfully manipulate information and ideology.
>>
>> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well.
>> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific
>> knowledge' exist?
>>> That is logical,
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> and
>>> yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its
>>> "honesty" and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and
>>> always have done.
>>
>> Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity?
>>
> In the book his diety gave to man through some human intermediary,
> silly. Don't you read???
>

Yep. Reading <> believing.

--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer


From: Xan Du on 27 Mar 2010 02:04
Smiler wrote:
> Xan Du wrote:
>> Smiler wrote:
>>> Ste wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction
>>>>>>>>>> in religion.
>>>>>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very
>>>>>>>>> honest since probably the 60s.
>>>>>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up?
>>>>>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things.
>>>>>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of
>>>>>> ability.
>>>>> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim.
>>>> In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that
>>>> there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for
>>>> half a century or more.
>>>>
>>>> That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing
>>>> to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do
>>>> with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is
>>>> incredibly difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts.
>>>>
>>>> And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge
>>>> or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll
>>>> never get to hear about them. And the secret to successful
>>>> dishonesty is when even the sceptical can look around and be unable
>>>> to put their finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always
>>>> how the powerful successfully manipulate information and ideology.
>>> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well.
>>> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific
>>> knowledge' exist?
>>>> That is logical,
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> and
>>>> yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its
>>>> "honesty" and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and
>>>> always have done.
>>> Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity?
>>>
>> In the book his diety gave to man through some human intermediary,
>> silly. Don't you read???
>>
>
> Yep. Reading <> believing.
>
Reading doesn't necessarily equal believing. Not believing is a choice.

But do not infer from that that I believe everything I read.

-Xan
From: Smiler on 27 Mar 2010 22:22
Xan Du wrote:
> Smiler wrote:
>> Xan Du wrote:
>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>>>>>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such
>>>>>>>>>>> restriction in religion.
>>>>>>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been
>>>>>>>>>> very honest since probably the 60s.
>>>>>>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up?
>>>>>>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things.
>>>>>>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of
>>>>>>> ability.
>>>>>> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim.
>>>>> In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that
>>>>> there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for
>>>>> half a century or more.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, the differences between science and religion have
>>>>> nothing to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has
>>>>> nothing to do with total honesty - moreover, even defining these
>>>>> words is incredibly difficult, and they are certainly not
>>>>> objective concepts. And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of
>>>>> scientific
>>>>> knowledge or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty,
>>>>> but we'll never get to hear about them. And the secret to
>>>>> successful dishonesty is when even the sceptical can look around
>>>>> and be unable to put their finger on any instance of dishonesty -
>>>>> that is always how the powerful successfully manipulate
>>>>> information and ideology.
>>>> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well.
>>>> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific
>>>> knowledge' exist?
>>>>> That is logical,
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>> yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its
>>>>> "honesty" and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do
>>>>> and always have done.
>>>> Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity?
>>>>
>>> In the book his diety gave to man through some human intermediary,
>>> silly. Don't you read???
>>>
>>
>> Yep. Reading <> believing.
>>
> Reading doesn't necessarily equal believing. Not believing is a
> choice.

Agreed. But some theists believe that my reading their 'holy' book will
magically make me believe.
Hocus Pocus! Abracadabra! Snake oil!

> But do not infer from that that I believe everything I read.
>

You mean that you don't believe Harry Potter can fly on a broomstick?!?!
HERETIC!

--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: How to Answer the Census.
Next:  Slavery. Urban Legend vs. United States law.