On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:22:48 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On 23 Aug 2006 02:50:26 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:



There are no, objective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide
any evidence at all for reincarnation. There really is nothing there
but a belief based on nothing of substance.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does
NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is bullshit.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.

So, religion makes no sense.
Now we are getting somewhere!

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:22:50 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does
NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is bullshit.

But THAT IS your religion. Your religion is telling people that
religious confidence is bullshit. I support your right to believe
that.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.

So, religion makes no sense.
Now we are getting somewhere!

I didn't say it makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense to YOU.
What you say about religion makes sense to me, but it's your
interpretation and ours are different. It all doesn't matter. You're
entitled to your theories and I'm also entitled to mine.

I think the who faith based initiative is the bullshit, not the sects
which collect the money for their "community." In that we agree
fully.

Jangchub skrev:

On 23 Aug 2006 02:50:26 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:



There are no, objective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide
any evidence at all for reincarnation. There really is nothing there
but a belief based on nothing of substance.


There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.

Is the above supposed to have some meaning?


That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.


Right, it is make-believe.

Jangchub skrev:

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:22:50 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does
NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is bullshit.


But THAT IS your religion. Your religion is telling people that
religious confidence is bullshit.

That is utter nonsense. You make the word meaningless.

I support your right to believe
that.

Thank you very much. Coming to rational conclusions is not a religion.



Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.

So, religion makes no sense.
Now we are getting somewhere!


I didn't say it makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense to YOU.
What you say about religion makes sense to me, but it's your
interpretation and ours are different. It all doesn't matter. You're
entitled to your theories and I'm also entitled to mine.

Which are based on nothing of any substance.


I think the who faith based initiative is the bullshit, not the sects
which collect the money for their "community." In that we agree
fully.

Bill M wrote in alt.atheism

snip

Supposedly man after he dies lives on in gods eternal heaven in eternal
happiness.

That used to be right above the orbit of Saturn, in the so-called 7th
heaven. Through space exploration, we now know that there's no god
or souls floating around up there above Saturn, so the whole idea of
heaven should be discarded as an ancient fantasy and false science,
don't you think?

If this is true, why did he create sin and punishment on Earth? Why
did he create Hell? Why not create a world with men that are motivated
to be all caring and loving beings, just like him, with no desire to be selfish,
greedy and mean?

Why create two sexes and a predatory food chain as well?

A race of non-sexual solar-powered beings that didn't have to eat
anything but sunlight would seem to make more sense to me.

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

On 24 Aug 2006 04:19:55 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.

Is the above supposed to have some meaning?

Yes, it means there is no imperical evidence to support either the
existence or non existence of reincarnation.

That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.


Right, it is make-believe.

You think it's make believe. That doesn't mean it is. I am also not
saying it's real, only that as an atheist I find I can be Buddhist.
It's a lovely way to live, good moral conduct, mindfulness, benefit to
others, etc. It works for me. If it doesn't mean anything to you
that's fine also. It's your thing, do what you want to do.

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:22:50 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does
NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is bullshit.

But THAT IS your religion. Your religion is telling people that
religious confidence is bullshit. \

Sorry, but that's not a religion.

I support your right to believe
that.

That's nice.

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

Jangchub skrev:

On 24 Aug 2006 04:19:55 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.

Is the above supposed to have some meaning?


Yes, it means there is no imperical evidence to support either the
existence or non existence of reincarnation.

And, since the only rational conclusion to be drawn from such a fact is
that there is no objective reason to believe in reincarnation, or
leprechauns or magic spirits in lamps, what possible reason would you
have to make such an obvious statement?


That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.



Right, it is make-believe.


You think it's make believe. That doesn't mean it is.

No, the fact that there is no objective reason to believe in it makes
it make-believe when somebody believes anyway.


I am also not
saying it's real, only that as an atheist I find I can be Buddhist.
It's a lovely way to live, good moral conduct, mindfulness, benefit to
others, etc. It works for me. If it doesn't mean anything to you
that's fine also. It's your thing, do what you want to do.

Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned.
Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned.
You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have
no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially
when you present your beliefs in a public forum.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:30:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


I support your right to believe
that.

That's nice.

No, it's not nice at all. It's a right we all have in the United
States as written in the Constitution of Independance. We don't have
to agree, we do have to respect one another for a civilized world.

On 24 Aug 2006 09:35:17 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:

Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned.
Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned.
You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have
no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially
when you present your beliefs in a public forum.

You are very disrespectful. Do what you want, but to call something I
believe in a fairytale is just obnoxious and of NO use to anyone. It
sounds like you are a fanatic who has to prove something. You haven't
shaken anything out of me. I know who I am.

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:30:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


I support your right to believe
that.

That's nice.

No, it's not nice at all. It's a right we all have in the United
States as written in the Constitution of Independance. We don't have
to agree, we do have to respect one another for a civilized world.

The neo-Nazis have beliefs, too. I don't respect their beliefs either.

You're free to be an idiot if you like. There's generally no law against
that. But, unless you can make comprehensive, logical arguments for your
beliefs expect to have the flaws and poor logic of said beliefs pointed out
to you when you decide to post them for the world to see. And expect some
ridicule as well.

If I post "invisible pink unicorns are real!" and offer no evidence worthy
of consideration, I better expect to be called a dumbass no matter how many
times I scream "I can believe what I want!". If not, newsgroup isn't doing
it's job.

turk
--
What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When
has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not
obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?
Richard Dawkins

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:30:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


I support your right to believe
that.

That's nice.

No, it's not nice at all. It's a right we all have in the United
States as written in the Constitution of Independance. We don't have
to agree, we do have to respect one another for a civilized world.

Sorry, but we don't have to respect one another either. There are very few
people I do respect and I can assure you that I am quite civilized. It's
not a requirement.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2006 09:35:17 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:

Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned.
Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned.
You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have
no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially
when you present your beliefs in a public forum.

You are very disrespectful. Do what you want, but to call something I
believe in a fairytale is just obnoxious and of NO use to anyone. It
sounds like you are a fanatic who has to prove something. You haven't
shaken anything out of me. I know who I am.

Why are you getting your panties in a wad? Perhaps Usenet isn't for you.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:47:55 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:30:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
wrote:


I support your right to believe
that.

That's nice.

No, it's not nice at all. It's a right we all have in the United
States as written in the Constitution of Independance. We don't have
to agree, we do have to respect one another for a civilized world.

Tell that to your President and his untouchable theistic genocidal
murderers.
You really live in a fantasy world, don't you?

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:51:05 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On 24 Aug 2006 09:35:17 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:

Your behavior, moral or otherwise, is not what is being questioned.
Furthermore your right to believe in anything is not being questioned.
You have a right to believe in fairy tales if you want to, but you have
no right to be free from people pointing out the illogic; especially
when you present your beliefs in a public forum.

You are very disrespectful. Do what you want, but to call something I
believe in a fairytale is just obnoxious and of NO use to anyone. It
sounds like you are a fanatic who has to prove something. You haven't
shaken anything out of me. I know who I am.

Calling a fairy tale a "fairy tale" is in no way offensive.
These religious mind infections generate that reaction in their hosts
in order that they can propogate successfully.
The belief has manipulated your mind to generate this entirely false
reaction to the reality of your condition.