GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:16:19 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"smb" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:29:32 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
wrote:

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" writes:

And who created "waht was there before"? The uncaused caused. There
is
a
point you can go back to to where something had to be created. The
entire
universe did not appear out of nothing, that is against the laws of
nature.

If the universe was created, then who created the creator? Why would the
creator have appeared out of nothing?

The answer to that valid and very deep question is that nobody created
the creator. He just *is* . Our finite minds require a cause for
everything, but that is just coming from our limited perspective in
the world we live in. The finite cannot ever hope to understand the
infinite.

But if that is true, then we don;t need anyone to create the universe
either.....That is to say, if God just always was, and didn;t need to be
created, then it is just as possible for the universe to have always been,
and never in need of creation, either.

So, by interjecting God into the equation, you don't solve anything. All
you
do is add a level of complexity that is totally unnecessary. - Don't get
me
wrong....That extra level may very well exist. - It's just that its
existence can't be proved by the way things are....They could very well be
this way without God.......



What you say is logical, of course, from a certain point of view. What
you say isn't just the product of modern thought, as men have doubted
the existence of God just as long as men have believed in God. But to
quote from the book of Proverbs, written thousands of years ago, "A
fool says in his heart there is no God." I don't mean that in a
personal way, but just to illustrate that this isn't the first era
these points have been made. The fact is that those who doubt God
will rarely find Him, but to those who seek Him, He will reveal
Himself.


Steve

Quoting a thousand year old book just doesn't carry too much impact with
me....I can show you discrepancies in modern books that were written by much
smarter people...And contradictions in your thousand old one, too....Check
out Ecclesiastes 10, 19 for example.....

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:54:01 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
news:dpEti.3 Any study of these religions would show that there are vast
differences
between them. Raising a child in a faith is no more brainwashing than
raising a child to obey the law and perform well in school. Guess
that's
brainwashing too.

I disagree. Raising a child to believe in anything supernatural, whose
existence can't be proved, is brainwashing....The only difference between
Christianity and radical Muslimism is a matter of degree. In the former
case, their belief, while ridiculous, is basically harmless, and is able
to
co-exist with the rest of society.....In the latter case, their belief is
malevolent and totally unable to co-exist with anyone else....They can't
even co-exist with each other, since they believe you are doing them a
favor
by killing them and sending them to Allah prematurely.......



Actually, the difference is not one of degree, but rather a major
difference in the foundation of each belief system. There is very
little in common between Christianity and Islam other than the latter
claims to worship the same God. That is why the latter cannot coexist
with anyone else. As Jesus said, "By their fruit you will know
them."

Regarding the supernatural, you've said that it must be
mathematically possible for the universe to have come into existence
out of nothing. Therefore you believe that it is mathematically
possible for the supernatural to occur, doesn't it?

Perhaps what you consider to be supernatural is merely natural on a
level that you don't yet understand?


Steve


Of course, every non scientific thinker first attributes everything they do
not understand to the supernatural...
Then, as reason comes into their being, they begin to see that more and more
of life's mysteries yield to logical thought and scientific
discovery....After a while, any true scientist comes to believe that all
mysteries will so yield.....At that point, belief in the supernatural ceases
to exist.
I passed that point a long time ago.....Before I was 10 years old.......

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:56:31 -0500, Allen wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:

William Graham wrote:

Rant off, flame suit on.
Not just yet....You forgot to mention that we down here in the US are
the
ones whose huge military machine kept the Nazi's and Tojo's troops away
from
your shores in the 40's. We were able to do that because of our huge
capitalistic war machine, where every housewife in the country was
working
in a munitions plant somewhere, and every man between 18 and 35 in our
whole
country joined the military and went to war

I like the Canadian response to both that disagreement and the current
ones.

Canada went to deal with the real issue injustice and did something in
the war
long before it was attacked the country was committed. The Canadian
casualties (1937 - 45) in WW2 was 92,000 with a 11M population. At one
point about 15% of our population was on the battlefields of Europe and
Southeast asia. That was commitment to our friends. There were no
civilian
casualties from the 6 Japanese balloons that attacked our shores.

It was the US that was attacked on 911 but it is Canada that is now in
Afghanistan long after the US lost interest and went after a dictator
they
had in a cage. Canada has been cleaning up messes like that for decades.


w..


I don't see Graham's posts directly, as I killfiled him long ago, but he
needs a history lesson:

In WWII the US basically put the capitalistic ideal on the skids for the
duration with such moves as: rationing shoes, butter, coffee, meats,
canned goods, gasoline, tires and many other things too numerous to
mention; setting up a tax structure that made it very difficult to
retain more than $25,000 earning per year; eliminating the manufacture
of some consumer goods, e.g., cars; setting a highway speed limit of 35
mph. Another thing that the radical right forgets: THE US WAS ATTACKED
BY JAPAN. Next December 7, check for something like "what happened in
history on this date". Also, the claim that "every man between 18 and 35
in our whole country joined the military and went to war": among those
who didn't as one John "let's you and him fight" Wayne, the patriot
saint of Republican draft dodgers; when Viet Nam came along, Wayne was
joined in the list by, among many others, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld.

Allen


So exactly what is the radical right, and who among them doesn't
understand that the US was attacked by Japan?

And before you keep ranting about "Republican draft dodgers," don't
forget about Bill Clinton. How about yourself? I didn't wait to
get drafted, I enlisted. What did you do?


Steve


I did too.....But it was between two wars, (1956) so it didn't count.....:^)

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:23:57 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:

smb wrote:
And no, I don't think that 9/11 is justification for tossing out the
Constitution out of fear.

Exactly what has he done to toss out the Constitution? Please be
specific and show how it has done so.

Sure. I'm sure you remember the federal court ruling the NSA spying
activities unconstitutional last year. But in case you don't here's
quick list for starters. The Bush Administration has...

Provided special funding with religious test ("faith-based" initiatives)

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent giving funding to
religious groups. If you try to say, "separation of church and
state," look again. It just isn't there.



Monitored conversations of Americans without a warrant or court
oversight (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5665192)

That was the ruling of one federal judge, but you'll notice it was
never enforced. The monitoring program is still going on. Where
in the Constitution does it say that the government cannot monitor
telephone conversations between people in this country and suspected
enemies of our country living abroad?

Also, if you can search American citizens entering the country at her ports
of entry, then why can't you monitor their conversations with people in
other countries? Common sense says you can.....And we do.

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:07:15 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"smb" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:58:26 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
news:r4qdnSXBmZH5fTLbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast. com...
The religious aren't strong on logic........

So true, which helps explain the problem with so many American
fundamentalists.

Surely you aren't serious.

But then again, maybe you've seen devout Christians strapping bombs to
themselves and blowing up dozens of people at a time. I must have
missed that.

Well, there are always a few bipolar Christian fundamentalists who commit
suicide, but I can't say its a common problem....


Well, if that happens it is because they are bipolar, not because they
are Christian fundamentalists.


Steve



I agree.....And the Radical Muslims are teaching bi-polarism to their
children.........:^)

I can put up with a lot of things in the name of religion, and have for most
of my life, but when it comes to going to heaven via strapping a bomb to
your person, and taking me with you, then that's where I draw the
line......You may go to your Allah any way you want, but I'll stick around
here for my three score and seven, thanks......

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:59:49 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

smb wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:20:11 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"smb" wrote in message
...
You are a fool if you think that is what we actually do.
Of course not. You call it collateral damage, so that makes it alright
then.

Ah, so you think we deliberately kill women and children and then call
it collateral damage to make ourselves feel good?


Who feels what is irrelevant; "collateral damage" is an effective
euphemism that has less emotional impact than "civilian deaths." It's
very important for propagandists to precisely control language,
intensifying emotion and dialing it back at will to achieve consent.

For example, "providing appropriate tools for law enforcement" is a bit
less inflammatory than "ass-raping the Constitution."


C.


You're avoiding the question, which is do you believe that we
deliberately target civilians?


Steve

I don't understand why he even brought it up. - It was before George Bush,
so he is wasting his hatred for no good reason.........:^)

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:35:38 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

William Graham wrote in part:

There were a huge number of, "civilian deaths" during WW-II
too.......Would
you have liked it better had we stayed at home then? Perhaps you should
sit
down and write out a little essay explaining just what incentives you
would
need to go to war, and how you would conduct it so only the bad guys
die.
Like, suppose your enemy holed up in a church or orphanage....What would
you
do then, coach? I'm sure Bush and his generals would be overjoyed to
hear
your solution to the problem....I know I sure would......



Perhaps you should blow me.


Once again we see the liberal/leftie response to things they can't or
won't respond to... And they wonder why they keep losing the big
elections?

It's a perfectly valid point....You can't carry out a war without collateral
damage, especially when the enemy billets their troops in schools and
churches and places like that..... Besides, the attacks on the twin towers
on 9/11 intentionally targeted innocent civilians. You'd think that they
would be bitching about that, and not about accidental civilian deaths that
occur when you are forced to fight on city streets like in Baghdad.
How war has changed....We were all shook up about the Japanese attack on
pearl harbor, but they only attacked our naval installations, and tried to
avoid hitting any civilian targets.....

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:42:58 -0500, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
smb wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:20:11 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"smb" wrote in message
...
You are a fool if you think that is what we actually do.
Of course not. You call it collateral damage, so that makes it
alright then.

Ah, so you think we deliberately kill women and children and then call
it collateral damage to make ourselves feel good?


Who feels what is irrelevant; "collateral damage" is an effective
euphemism that has less emotional impact than "civilian deaths." It's
very important for propagandists to precisely control language,
intensifying emotion and dialing it back at will to achieve consent.

For example, "providing appropriate tools for law enforcement" is a bit
less inflammatory than "ass-raping the Constitution."


C.



I've said my piece on these topics and it's time to let it go. If the
other parties want to crow about how they won the debate, fine. I can
live with my views on the subjects discussed, and I hope they can too,
though I'm not sure how.

The only defeat on USENET comes when one of these Keyboard Commandos
gets under my skin.


We're simply waiting for you to say your piece, unless your piece is
nothing more than the slogan-based accusations and name calling you've
presented.

This, "keyboard commando" isn't trying to win any debate....I am only
speaking what I believe to be true, and I am very worried about a bunch of
people who are teaching their children that their only path to heaven is by
killing infidels, and I happen to be one of those infidels.....I want to
make sure that my side wins.....I'm sorry if that offends people like
"Unclaimed Mysteries". - If he can show me why I shouldn't worry, then I
will be eternally grateful to him......I have spent hours and reams of paper
discussing things with people who are much less able to express themselves
than he is....That doesn't matter to me....What matters is the thought
process....Why don't you think that we are in danger from these people? And
why do you insist that we have to "play fair" when they are killing our
women and children off by the thousands whenever they can, in any way they
can?

"smb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:09:10 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Brother Freebyrd" wrote in message
newshQti.1446$mw4.291@trndny09...

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...

It's a matter of faith, either you believe it or you don't.

....but when you die it WILL become a reality :-)

Only for the believers. - They envision themselves, after death, looking
down on the rest of us from their perch up in heaven. A great advantage,
to
be sure, since I will not be looking at anyone or anything after I am
dead.
But you have to wonder why they can't send us some message from their
lofty
perch, don't you? - After all, if they are immersed in all that magic,
surely they could tip us off in some way? But no one....Not even Harry
Houdini, has ever been able to send us even the simplest of messages from
the "other side"....Doesn't that seem strange to you? Maybe the great God
who created us all has nothing better to do than police their message
center
to make sure that no contraband messages get through.......It would not
surprise me. After all, he buried all those bones in my back yard trying
to
trick me into believing the earth is billions of years old instead of the
3
or 4 thousand years that the bible says it is.
Why did he bother to do that, anyway? - If he wants me to go to hell, then
why doesn't he just send me there? - Because that wouldn't be "fair"?
Fair,
shmear. Why does he have to be fair.....Does he have a bunch of peers
looking over his shoulder? - What "rules" does he think he has to play by,
anyway. First he raises me to be a logical, scientific person, and then he
uses that acquired logic to trick me into his hell? - I don't think
so.....
Even the Henry Parker books are more logical than that....Or is it Henry
Potter, or something......


God doesn't trick anyone into going to hell. It sounds to me like
you have a very distorted view of Christianity.

There have been many people just as logical and scientific as you who
have come to quite different conclusions about the reality of it all.


Steve


This is one of the few arguments that I don't buy....The fact that there are
others with more prestigious degrees than mine, who disagree with
me.....No. - I am only convinced by logic. And, it has to be logic that I
understand.....Dick Feynman said, "Religion is mostly just wishful
thinking." And he was about as clear and logical a thinker as I'll ever
need.......

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 8/6/07 10:35 PM, in article ,
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

William Graham wrote in part:

There were a huge number of, "civilian deaths" during WW-II
too.......Would
you have liked it better had we stayed at home then? Perhaps you should
sit
down and write out a little essay explaining just what incentives you
would
need to go to war, and how you would conduct it so only the bad guys
die.
Like, suppose your enemy holed up in a church or orphanage....What would
you
do then, coach? I'm sure Bush and his generals would be overjoyed to
hear
your solution to the problem....I know I sure would......



Perhaps you should blow me.

C.
Now THAT'S a truly brilliant and cognitive response!

That's why I didn't bother to answer it....I felt it should stand on its own
merits....:^)