lllasure{at}aol.com wrote:
> James wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:56:49 -0500, Skinner1{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:05:26 -0000, "Phil"

>
> wrote:
>
>>>>"Mxsmanic"  wrote in message
>>>>news:nabq319aeboh8l4hi1vc601a266l19tmb2{at}4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>People believe what they want to believe.  If you tell them
>
> something
>
>>>>>they want to hear, they will never question the reliability of
>
> what you
>
>>>>>say, but if you tell them something they don't want to hear, then
>>>>>they'll call you a liar no matter how much objective proof you
>
> have.
>
>>>>How true. Kind of like those who try to disprove evolution because
>
> they've
>
>>>>been told different.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or those who try to prove evolution because they can't believe in
>>>anything intangiable.
>>
>>Or those who lack enough sense to ONLY believe that which is
>
> tangible.
>
>>You're not one of these creationist, 4000 year old Universe types are
>>you Skinner?   What else - does the Sun revolve around us too?  Are
>
> we
>
>>the centre of the Universe?  Are you a flat-Earther too, maybe?   Was
>>the entire Universe put up soley for our, sorry, Christian's benefit?
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that some of that Monkey-boy sarcasm ?  Never stops amazing me how
> so many people want to be identified with apes rather than angels. Of
> course then I watch the news and darn if I don't see evidence that apes
> have better manners.
>

The evidence for the earth being on the order of
4.5 BILLION years old is overwhelming; we have
some very old lumps of rock in Scotland (a lot
older that 4000 years); the evidence for the
earth going around the sun is irrefutable
(though aggy will perhaps ask if I have been
into space to take a look for myself); the
evidence for the relationship between man and
the other species is irrefutable. And so it goes on.

The difference is whether there is reasonable
evidence to support a thesis or whether there is
zilch as with this god character.

================================

Exuse me! Why doesn't someone stop and think
about this god thing.

If I were to come along and say; hey guys, guess
what? I've been having a chat with god and he
has asked me to bring you his word to save you
from yourselves. Now, how would you react? Yeah!
Thought so; ambulance on the way is it?

So if some guy comes lolopping down a hill
clutching a couple of lumps of rock and claiming
that god appeared to him as a burning bush; and
asked him to bring His word to you all to save
you from yourselves, we have three major world
religions: judaism, Islam, and Christianity
based upon it.

A modern psychiatric diagnosis of Moses might
well be paranoid schizophrenia. In reality he
was probably - no more than delusional -
suffering from heat stroke. But the whole thing
has no credibility to any sane person in the
modern era.

In fact, we have three major world religions
based on the rantings of a deluded fruitcake.
And we are expected to take this crap seriously!

About 25 years ago in England there was a serial
killer called Peter Sutcliffe who claimed to
have been hearing voices urging him to kill all
prostitutes. Some reports said that he claimed
to be hearing the voice of god. Whether
Sutcliffe did or not think he was hearng the
voice of god, there are plenty who do say that.

So why don't we have a religion in which we go
around killing whores. We could develop it into
a sophisticated sacrificial process in which the
whores are brought to a sacred place to be
offered up to appease the mighty deity.

This is no more sound or absurd than judaism,
Islam and Christianity.

D.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 8:59:12 PM ---