Merry Christmas

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message

If there is a God...the most amazing aspect would indeed be just that, as
in: Why would he even give a crap? What would it matter to him if we
live or die like any other bacteria on this or any other planet? I don't
know, other than what I believe about the nature of God's character. It
will always sound ridiculous, because we are nothing in the vast scheme of
the universe.

There's an interesting verse in the Bible that speaks of God and says, "He
remembers that we are dust." That is a direct reflection on a similar
thought to your own. Why would he give a crap about us? -We are, after
all, as insignificant as dust. The answer is what defines the nature of
God. If that remains forever obsurd to you, you are in good company,
since most people don't believe we could ever be anything more than that
to any supreme being. Why would he care? I really don't know other than
to say that it is in his character to care. Can I explain that?
Absolutely not. Does that make me a kook? Perhaps. In your eyes?
Surely.
I can live with that. Just remember, William, that there are thinking,
logical people who...sane though they are...can still leave a bit of room
for something which flies in face of logic, human nature, and an otherwise
rock-solid belief in the power and value of science. I'm an example of
that irony. I'm not an idiot. I'm a person who has left a door open to
the absurd concept that they may actually be a deity who gives a crap.

All of which goes straight to the crux of my atheism....If there is a God,
and he has nothing to do with the affairs of men, then what would it matter
whether I believe in him or not? - IOW, the Christian god at least has some
use for the Christians. They believe he is still hovering around doing them
some good from time to time. In my case, I don't believe that......I believe
that any creator of the whole universe would/should have no time for that,
so of what good would it do for me to believe he exists at all? - Absolutely
none, that's what.....And that's another reason why I don't believe....What
would be the use? Why waste my time?
It's sort of like believing that life didn't start here on this earth,
but came from somewhere else, either on a spaceship or a meteor......Who
cares? - What's the difference where it first developed? It doesn't matter
in the least, so why not believe it started here, where it has obviously
flourished? And, we can amuse ourselves trying to recreate it in
environmental chambers in our laboratories.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more
people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003
than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article , j ` f
wrote:

In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

In addition to it's, we can have hi's, her's and their's!!!

"It is", "Hi is", and "Their is"?

Uhm, I think that if you re-read the thread, he's listing some of the
bad useages that people do, not listing those as correct. :^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , j ` f
wrote:

In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

In addition to it's, we can have hi's, her's and their's!!!

"It is", "Hi is", and "Their is"?

Uhm, I think that if you re-read the thread, he's listing some of
the
bad useages that people do, not listing those as correct. :^)

I think "Hi is" is a subtle reference to _Raising Arizona_.

--
Frank ess
Very dry, with a twist

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more
people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003
than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'

"Could have." He also "could have" launched an attack on Ireland. But he
didn't, and he didn't, and our war has been responsible for over half a
million additional deaths.

"Cynicor" wrote in message
t...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000
more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in
March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'

"Could have." He also "could have" launched an attack on Ireland. But
he didn't, and he didn't, and our war has been responsible for over
half a million additional deaths.

It seems to me that most of the killing is being done by Saddam Hussein
supporters, and not by British or American troops. The British and
American troops might have upset those who had a comfortable living
before the invasion, but that is not enough reason for those same Saddam
Hussein supporters to slaughter their neighbours because they have now
had their nose put out of joint. Put the blame where it belongs, on
those that are doing the killing, and not on those that went there to
try and prevent it, no matter how misguided this now appears to have
been with the benefit of hindsight.

Harry Stottle wrote:

It seems to me that most of the killing is being done by Saddam Hussein
supporters, and not by British or American troops.

Er..."most of" the killing? So Shi'ites have done a minority of the
killing? At least it's not being blamed on al-Qaeda.

The British and
American troops might have upset those who had a comfortable living
before the invasion,

"You forgot Poland."

but that is not enough reason for those same Saddam
Hussein supporters to slaughter their neighbours because they have now
had their nose put out of joint.

Put the blame where it belongs, on
those that are doing the killing, and not on those that went there to
try and prevent it, no matter how misguided this now appears to have
been with the benefit of hindsight.

So the reason for the invasion was to try and prevent sectarian violence?

"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
Harry Stottle wrote:

It seems to me that most of the killing is being done by Saddam
Hussein supporters, and not by British or American troops.

Er..."most of" the killing? So Shi'ites have done a minority of the
killing? At least it's not being blamed on al-Qaeda.

The British and American troops might have upset those who had a
comfortable living before the invasion,

"You forgot Poland."

but that is not enough reason for those same Saddam Hussein
supporters to slaughter their neighbours because they have now had
their nose put out of joint.

Put the blame where it belongs, on
those that are doing the killing, and not on those that went there to
try and prevent it, no matter how misguided this now appears to have
been with the benefit of hindsight.

So the reason for the invasion was to try and prevent sectarian
violence?

If you listen carefully to what Blair said before the invasion, I
believe that the oppression and sectarian violence carried out by Saddam
Hussein and his supporters was part of the reason for him agreeing with
the invasion. He was happy to go along with the 'weapons of mass
destruction' theory because it fitted in with his ideals against that
oppression.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:00:24 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Harry Stottle wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

In the future it's a near certainty that nobody will ever wish
others to have a Very Merry Minneøttimas.

Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukkah, Ramadan Kareem, Happy Kwanzaa,
Cool Yule, Blessed Be and Happy Trails to You, until we meet again!



What about us Atheists?
Possibly the only sane group of any society, and we never get a mention.

The LA times is talking all about you: http://tinyurl.com/vls3h

Cheers,
Alan


An excellent post!

They forgot one thing - atheists have never started a war, or crashed an
airliner into a building, or did the Spanish inquisition!

Believers all!

Lets hope that this year, not too many depressed believers murder their young
children to send them to a 'better place'...


And to you Alan, happy Saturnalia!

Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.
--
Gator Bait

Bill K wrote:
Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.

The United States has no state religion.