"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

--
Vic

"Victor Faraday" wrote in message
. ..

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God.
Then he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he
has a PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way
that 'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things
on atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

That's nice, deary.

Now, **** off, you pompous piece of shit.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:55:21 -0400, "Victor Faraday"
wrote:


"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

Yet another theist lying through his teeth about atheists. What is it
with you assholes?

Victor Faraday wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

Oooooh... "far beyond." Over the rainbow, I presume.

(Sigh)

Hand-waving noted.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega.

Since when? This "Almighty alpha and omega" must then have an even
*more* "fantastic design" than that which he/she/it/they designed!

These atheist types are

Uh-oh, someone is picking up a clump of straw and giving it humanoid form...

trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

And differing aesthetic sensibilities apply exactly how?

655321

Victor Faraday wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

--
Vic


Then, who designed the designer?

--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz

A.A #1143 a=45, m=23, f=20

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
__________________________________________________ __________________

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:11:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
wrote:

Then, who designed the designer?

Good question and makes the point that there was no FIRST designer.
Everything comes directly from the previous moment of itself. In
Buddhists terms it's called Mind Stream, or Mental Continuum. It's
pure mind and encompasses everything. WE are the creators of our
world, each of our worlds.

Then, who designed the designer?

Good question and makes the point that there was no FIRST designer.
Everything comes directly from the previous moment of itself. In
Buddhists terms it's called Mind Stream, or Mental Continuum. It's
pure mind and encompasses everything. WE are the creators of our
world, each of our worlds.

Can you present any evidence that everything comes from the
previous moment of itself?
Can you present any evidence that we are creators of our world(s)?
Aren't you simply saying people imagine everything?

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:37:44 GMT, "Witziges Rätsel"
wrote:

Then, who designed the designer?

Good question and makes the point that there was no FIRST designer.
Everything comes directly from the previous moment of itself. In
Buddhists terms it's called Mind Stream, or Mental Continuum. It's
pure mind and encompasses everything. WE are the creators of our
world, each of our worlds.

Can you present any evidence that everything comes from the
previous moment of itself?
Can you present any evidence that we are creators of our world(s)?
Aren't you simply saying people imagine everything?

Well, you can prove it yourself. Aren't you now reading this, and
didn't a previous moment happen, now another, now another? Time/space
continuum. It's pretty popular among the quantum physicists.

In Buddhism, everything we see, do, things done to us, by us is all
based on previous lifetimes and how our karma ripens in this lifetime.
So, with each life, provided I have enough merit to take a human
rebirth, we come closer and closer to being able to reach an
enlightened state and no longer have karma, the karma is fully
purified after many lifetimes of practice, meditation, etc.

I am indeed saying that everything is void of independant arising.
Everything is dependant on previous moments of itself, and is empty.
Emptiness is a huge part of Buddhism's delight. I'll give an example
of something they did in the film "Little Buddha." A Lama was trying
to explain emptiness to a man. He filled the cup with tea then broke
the cup aka the vessel for the tea. After the cup is broken, it is no
longer a cup. But the tea is still tea. Contents and container. The
container changes, but the contents do not.

This is a basic belief and yes it does require a relative amount of
faith, but it's pretty much in line with quantum physics. If you wipe
the tea up off the floor with a towel, and then wring it out, you
still have tea.

How are things beginningless? Well, can you trace back your every
thought and every action you did in just one day? In one hour? I
mean every single thought, glimpse, notion, action, every snap of a
finger etc. Buddhists say there are 64 thoughts to snapping your
fingers.

So look at something inanimate. Those examples are also
beginningless. A simple one would be a rubber gasket. First, a
person has to become interested in growing rubber trees, then then
need the seeds or plants which are delivered by a truck, driven by a
driver, who needs gas, which comes from refineries, which comes from
oil wells, which have pipes built by people and the driver uses a
truck, how many people were responsible for the building of the truck,
each part, machinists, assemblers, engineers, designers, who makes the
glass, how is that delivered...and this is a HUGELY brief explanation
that everything is absolutely dependant on something else and the
previous moment of itself. Else, we'd all be here for a moment then
gone. By the time the two dollar gasket reaches its final
destination, one is baffled that it doesn't cost a million dollars!

Look at what goes into a simple pencil, trace it all back to the acorn
if you can. The pencil is 25 cents. How? Amazing.

So this theory is certainly more tangible than saying a man in the sky
called god created everything. This method come about by deep thought
and meditation, self exploration, etc.

Good question and makes the point that there was no FIRST designer.
Everything comes directly from the previous moment of itself. In
Buddhists terms it's called Mind Stream, or Mental Continuum. It's
pure mind and encompasses everything. WE are the creators of our
world, each of our worlds.

Can you present any evidence that everything comes from the
previous moment of itself?
Can you present any evidence that we are creators of our world(s)?
Aren't you simply saying people imagine everything?

Well, you can prove it yourself. Aren't you now reading this, and
didn't a previous moment happen, now another, now another? Time/space
continuum. It's pretty popular among the quantum physicists.

I disagree with those physicists; time is an illusion, not a place, a
thing, or a dimension. The past no longer exists. The future does not exist
yet. Humans think in terms of time only because we can remember the
past and deduce and evaluate evidence of past events.

In Buddhism, everything we see, do, things done to us, by us is all
based on previous lifetimes and how our karma ripens in this lifetime.
So, with each life, provided I have enough merit to take a human
rebirth, we come closer and closer to being able to reach an
enlightened state and no longer have karma, the karma is fully
purified after many lifetimes of practice, meditation, etc.

I think you've mixed Buddhism with Hinduism. But I guess
you're allowed.

I am indeed saying that everything is void of independant arising.
Everything is dependant on previous moments of itself, and is empty.
Emptiness is a huge part of Buddhism's delight. I'll give an example
of something they did in the film "Little Buddha." A Lama was trying
to explain emptiness to a man. He filled the cup with tea then broke
the cup aka the vessel for the tea. After the cup is broken, it is no
longer a cup. But the tea is still tea. Contents and container. The
container changes, but the contents do not.
This is a basic belief and yes it does require a relative amount of
faith, but it's pretty much in line with quantum physics. If you wipe
the tea up off the floor with a towel, and then wring it out, you
still have tea.

And the cup is still a cup, just broken. It can be repaired. Apparently
Buddhists think anecdotes about common things have some kind of profound
meaning and are explanations, but they're not.

How are things beginningless? Well, can you trace back your every
thought and every action you did in just one day? In one hour? I
mean every single thought, glimpse, notion, action, every snap of a
finger etc.

Again, time's an illusion. And memory, for whatever reason, is faulty.

Buddhists say there are 64 thoughts to snapping your
fingers.

People can say anything.

So look at something inanimate. Those examples are also
beginningless. A simple one would be a rubber gasket. First, a
person has to become interested in growing rubber trees, then then
need the seeds or plants which are delivered by a truck, driven by a
driver, who needs gas, which comes from refineries, which comes from
oil wells, which have pipes built by people and the driver uses a
truck, how many people were responsible for the building of the truck,
each part, machinists, assemblers, engineers, designers, who makes the
glass, how is that delivered...and this is a HUGELY brief explanation
that everything is absolutely dependant on something else and the
previous moment of itself. Else, we'd all be here for a moment then
gone.

Exactly my point: we are here for just a moment. Only "now"
really exists.

By the time the two dollar gasket reaches its final
destination, one is baffled that it doesn't cost a million dollars!
Look at what goes into a simple pencil, trace it all back to the acorn
if you can. The pencil is 25 cents. How? Amazing.
So this theory is certainly more tangible than saying a man in the sky
called god created everything. This method come about by deep thought
and meditation, self exploration, etc.

Deducing that things which happened in the past affect this
moment or the future is not very amazing. It's obvious; no meditation
and exploration is necessary.
And it's obvious there are no gods.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:52:11 GMT, "Witziges Rätsel"
wrote:


In Buddhism, everything we see, do, things done to us, by us is all
based on previous lifetimes and how our karma ripens in this lifetime.
So, with each life, provided I have enough merit to take a human
rebirth, we come closer and closer to being able to reach an
enlightened state and no longer have karma, the karma is fully
purified after many lifetimes of practice, meditation, etc.

I think you've mixed Buddhism with Hinduism. But I guess
you're allowed.

No I didn't. I am a student of Lama Zopa Rinpoche and Venerable
Robina for years now. I've been to His Holiness' teachings and I am a
practitioner. This is how we view things. Maybe you are not aware
that Buddha Shakyamuni (historical Buddha) is from India and was a
Hindu practitioner until he found The Middle Way.

I am indeed saying that everything is void of independant arising.
Everything is dependant on previous moments of itself, and is empty.
Emptiness is a huge part of Buddhism's delight. I'll give an example
of something they did in the film "Little Buddha." A Lama was trying
to explain emptiness to a man. He filled the cup with tea then broke
the cup aka the vessel for the tea. After the cup is broken, it is no
longer a cup. But the tea is still tea. Contents and container. The
container changes, but the contents do not.
This is a basic belief and yes it does require a relative amount of
faith, but it's pretty much in line with quantum physics. If you wipe
the tea up off the floor with a towel, and then wring it out, you
still have tea.

And the cup is still a cup, just broken. It can be repaired. Apparently
Buddhists think anecdotes about common things have some kind of profound
meaning and are explanations, but they're not.

No, it is no longer a cup because it must function as a cup to be one.
Because it is empty of inherent traits, it is now a bunch of pieces of
broken clay. It is no longer a cup, but the tea is still tea. Our
minds are the tea. It goes from vessel to vessel. Everyone dies, but
nobody is dead.

How are things beginningless? Well, can you trace back your every
thought and every action you did in just one day? In one hour? I
mean every single thought, glimpse, notion, action, every snap of a
finger etc.

Again, time's an illusion. And memory, for whatever reason, is faulty.

So your answer is no. You cannot. Time is a measure. Eventually
when people become fully awake, time is absolutely an illusion. In
life as a lay person, someone who is not enlightened still have a
measure of time even if it is illusionary. Actually, the term Buddha
used is delusion. We delude ourselves. This is all the pollution we
are cleaning out when we meditate.

Does water look clear? It's H2O, right? Not really. All water has
a lot more in it that hydrogen and oxygen but we don't call the
pollution H2OP45. We're still deluded and believe it is water, clear
and without any other element.

Buddhists say there are 64 thoughts to snapping your
fingers.

People can say anything.

I guess you are just cranky and unwilling to believe anything nor are
you willing to consider another way of thinking or experiencing.
..
So look at something inanimate. Those examples are also
beginningless. A simple one would be a rubber gasket. First, a
person has to become interested in growing rubber trees, then then
need the seeds or plants which are delivered by a truck, driven by a
driver, who needs gas, which comes from refineries, which comes from
oil wells, which have pipes built by people and the driver uses a
truck, how many people were responsible for the building of the truck,
each part, machinists, assemblers, engineers, designers, who makes the
glass, how is that delivered...and this is a HUGELY brief explanation
that everything is absolutely dependant on something else and the
previous moment of itself. Else, we'd all be here for a moment then
gone.

Exactly my point: we are here for just a moment. Only "now"
really exists.

Nothing I said is in opposition to your contention. Each moment
coming from must then come from a prior moment in order for it to be
thrust into this moment. I agree there is no past, no present.

By the time the two dollar gasket reaches its final
destination, one is baffled that it doesn't cost a million dollars!
Look at what goes into a simple pencil, trace it all back to the acorn
if you can. The pencil is 25 cents. How? Amazing.
So this theory is certainly more tangible than saying a man in the sky
called god created everything. This method come about by deep thought
and meditation, self exploration, etc.


Deducing that things which happened in the past affect this
moment or the future is not very amazing. It's obvious; no meditation
and exploration is necessary.
And it's obvious there are no gods.

So you are saying you are enlightened? No exploration is necessary?
How about someone who never saw a television or read a book. How do
they draw a conclusion? Self exploration is always necessary for
growth. But, I am coming from a different component than you are.
Mine is spirituality, yours is scientific (or so it seems). I am an
atheist, no doubt about it. That doesn't make me void of beliefs or
faith.

Victor Faraday wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways,

Too bad you wouldn't answer the replies. Again: assuming a designer,
how do you derive Christian theology?

but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

Acknowledging paintings as smearings on canvas does not detract from
their beauty.

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Victor Faraday
) made the light shine upon us with this:

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

One must believe something is a design before he can designate a designer.
Take the human body, for example. Perfect in every way. Or is it? If we
were designed, why did the designer build in a self-destruct module known
as the appendix, which serves no purpose other than to become inflamed and
destroy us? And what can be said of a designer whose design fails during
the critical stage of reproduction? A designer (described by worshipers as
perfect in every way) that allows horrible birth defects to happen is
either a monster, or a figment of your imagination.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:55:21 -0400, "Victor Faraday"
wrote:


"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself,

From "Patriot University?"

and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

Science is based on facts as far as we can know them. Religion is
based on superstition and wishful thinking.


They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega.

Your lack of comprehension is not evidence for a god.

These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

And you remind me of gullible marks who can be fooled into seeing
miscellaneous smearings of paint on canvas (Jackson Pollock, anyone?)
as "priceless works of art."

Idiot.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:55:21 -0400, "Victor Faraday"
wrote:


I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

Again I will bring up my own religious belief; I am a Buddhist
practitioner in the Gelugpa tradition, Mahayana sect, the Greater
Scope. Much of Buddhism is scientific. You cannot have the first
thing. It's nice to think god created the original chicken, but
atheists do not believe in that.


Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

It's a harder thing to buy for YOU, but for me it makes perfect sense.
I don't like being called "these atheist types" because I don't go off
saying a harsh word about your beliefs. I assure you, I grew up in
NYC, I am by no stretch of the imagination a hayseed, and I've stood
in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and thought, look at that
miscellaneous smearing of paint on a canvas. It doesn't make me
ignorant to see art the way I see it. It's way too subjective, so
this is just another generalization you are making.

Victor Faraday wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

My dad, who is a chemical engineer, had a hard time believing in God. Then
he started studying quantum physics, and other complex sciences (he has a
PhD). He has turned extremely religious. Claims there is no way that
'accidents' created the things that he studies - especially things on
atomic levels. As a matter of fact, this is not so uncommon amongst
scientists.

I've got an undergrad degree in physics myself, and I concur. Religion
is not science and never will be. It is far beyond that.

They somehow get a lot more religious the deeper in science they get.

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega.

For you - you don't get to speak for anyone else.
Which is a very good thing.

These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways

Actually some of us find it quite easy and naural.
I think I smell jelousy.

but they remind me
of hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous
smearing of paint on a canvas.

If only you had the brains evolution gave a spider...

Mark.