At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast
*skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeliairstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...https://x.com/sentdefender/status/
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlWho cares? Is it not the current state of affairs?
It's really sad.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:rairstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...https://x.com/sentdefender/status/
*skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli
It's a high priority for all to deflect responsibility for this.
Sound analysis would suggest it's the Jews.
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1714399005399011406?t=eUu1uBNh_yTYEmuCNkWIAQ&s=19
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:rMinistry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health
So the issue became centered around the 400-500 that were in the hospital? But the thousands that got killed and wounded just in October don't matter?the borders.
Clearly Hamas didn't care about Palestinians when they did their operation, but Israel isn't acting great either and its influence is forcing all politicians and world forces to be blind when Israel is hammering the civilians and kicking them out to
I definitely get what JD keeps saying about religions, but this isn't religions. It's an unrestrained unmerciful application of a devastating one-sided military power on civilians.
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 5.26:> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas
We don't know who hit it yet
*skriptis kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 12.31:> We don't know who hit it yetNo, we know already...Hamas fired a rocket towards Tel Aviv, it misfunctioned and destroyed a parking lot with few cars in Gaza.That's what really happened.https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/1714535497958334678?s=20
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:rstatus/1714535497958334678?s=20
*skriptis kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 12.31:> We don't know who hit it yetNo, we know already...Hamas fired a rocket towards Tel Aviv, it misfunctioned and destroyed a parking lot with few cars in Gaza.That's what really happened.https://x.com/Nrg8000/
We know what happened because a guy named Nathan Ruser said:
I'm willing to share some PRELIMINARY thoughts on...
Nathan Ruser's preliminary thoughts = TT knows what happened
Clown
*skriptis kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 2.36:misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1714383923881373908?s=20https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446?s=20
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
*skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in
Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> >
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was
It's a high priority for all to deflect responsibility for this.
Sound analysis would suggest it's the Jews.
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1714399005399011406?t=eUu1uBNh_yTYEmuCNkWIAQ&s=19
BS
TT kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 11.51:misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1714383923881373908?s=20https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446?s=20
*skriptis kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 2.36:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
*skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in
Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> >
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was
It's a high priority for all to deflect responsibility for this.
Sound analysis would suggest it's the Jews.
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1714399005399011406?t=eUu1uBNh_yTYEmuCNkWIAQ&s=19
BS
Here's a nice comparison too...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8ulHjxXUAA-pV1?format=jpg&name=medium
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 5.26:> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> writes:>> Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?Let's start with religion..
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> writes:>> Did we become that
stupid believing anything we were told?Let's start with religion..
Sure, please start another dedicated thread. It will be interesting.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan, thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams, and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people who believe in
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this connection thereby proves we
need to base our conclusions on empirical evidence rather than
hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the damn hospital.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a hospital.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a hospital.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the damn hospital.
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 18.53:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 5.26:> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan, thus
rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams, and all
spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people who believe in
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this connection thereby proves we
need to base our conclusions on empirical evidence rather than
hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the damn
hospital.
And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.50:
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the damn hospital.Hospital parking area, rather.
Here's the best image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8s3tZ3XwAAg7cG?format=jpg&name=medium
Here's a good one too... https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/18/politics/us-intel-gaza-hospital-blast/index.html
...How the hell would that cause 500 dead?
This BBC article has interesting video: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061
... Pay attention to people arriving with ambulance. All seem fake
injuries, people walking holding their head etc.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:13:39 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.Don't assume I haven't become enlightened since our last discussion.
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,
thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,
and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people who
believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this connection
thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on empirical evidence
rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the
damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 18.53:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 5.26:> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:airstrike caused the blast, and that it killed some 500 people"Apparently fake news...Israel says it was misfired Hamas rocket.It's Hamas' word against Israel's, with couple vids which would seem to support the latter...https://x.com/sentdefender/status/
*skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo 21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:>> Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:>> >>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did webecome that stupid believing anything we were told?>>>>>>> Let's start with religion..>>>>>> Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,>>> thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,>>> and all spiritual
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.47:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
hospital.
The hospital appears to be a red herring...
Parking place of a hospital would be more accurate.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1714598373230088346?s=20
On 10/18/23 8:53 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 5.26:> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r>> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> *skriptis kirjoitti 17.10.2023 klo21.27:> At least 500 killed in Gaza City hospital blast | Euronews> > https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/at-least-500-killed-in-gaza-city-hospital-blast> "The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says an Israeli airstrike caused the blast, and that it
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:>>Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:>> >>> On Wednesday, October 18,
2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?>>>>>>> Let's start with
religion..>>>>>> Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,>>> thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all
religions shams,>>> and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus
perpetuated by people who>>> believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy. And this connection>>> thereby proves we need to base our
conclusions on empirical evidence>>> rather than hearsay. Thanks for
the reminder.>>>>>> But back to the issue at hand....none of us know
who blew up the>>> damn hospital.>> And Gracchus drops in to defend
religion, yet again.>> He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly
angry he seems toget if someone expresses doubt about organized
religious belief, or ifsomeone blames religion for religious
conflicts. He'd rather doubt thedoubter than question the faith of
the indoctrinated.
Atheism is childish.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,
thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,
and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people who
believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this connection
thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on empirical evidence
rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the
damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he seems to
get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious belief, or if someone blames religion for religious conflicts. He'd rather doubt the doubter than question the faith of the indoctrinated.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.50:
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the damn
hospital.
Hospital parking area, rather.
Here's the best image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8s3tZ3XwAAg7cG?format=jpg&name=medium
Here's a good one too... https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/18/politics/us-intel-gaza-hospital-blast/index.html
...How the hell would that cause 500 dead?
This BBC article has interesting video: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061
... Pay attention to people arriving with ambulance. All seem fake
injuries, people walking holding their head etc.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
hospital.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,
thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,
and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people
who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this
connection thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on
empirical evidence rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the
damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he seems
to get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious belief,
or if someone blames religion for religious conflicts. He'd rather
doubt the doubter than question the faith of the indoctrinated.
You see it as "defending religion" because you equate all spiritual traditions with monotheistic fundamentalism and characterize all
"religious people" as warmongering hypocrites because of a nominally religious subset who are. I'm just pointing out this is another form
of extremism and suggesting your family experiences have "radicalized"
you.
As to your other points, I'm not a morning person and it's way too
early in the day for me to be eye-poppingly angry. I merely wrote an
acerbic response to an acerbic post. And I think my history of
comments here on religion over the years shows that I very much do
question the faith of the indoctrinated as well. For example, I
recently said I believed a historical Jesus existed, but went on to
say I had doubts as to whether he was more than a human man and did
not accept on faith that he died for humanity's sins, and so
on. That's just one example among many others.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,
thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,
and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people
who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this
connection thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on
empirical evidence rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the
damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he seems
to get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious belief,
or if someone blames religion for religious conflicts. He'd rather
doubt the doubter than question the faith of the indoctrinated.
You see it as "defending religion" because you equate all spiritual traditions with monotheistic fundamentalism and characterize all "religious people" as warmongering hypocrites because of a nominally religious subset who are. I'm just pointing out this is another formA lot of assumptions about me there. The thing with my parents and the
of extremism and suggesting your family experiences have "radicalized" you.
zendo happened fairly recently, within the last 10-15 years. LONG after
I formed my beliefs. They were always spiritual to some degree, I was
not. They encouraged me to look at different religions including
judaism and christianity and I was never pressured to get into Zen or anything else. It never interested me. But I'm generally OK with
personal spirituality and belief systems.
As to your other points, I'm not a morning person and it's way tooOK.. fair enough. But it seems like wherever there is a religious
early in the day for me to be eye-poppingly angry. I merely wrote an acerbic response to an acerbic post. And I think my history of
comments here on religion over the years shows that I very much do question the faith of the indoctrinated as well. For example, I
recently said I believed a historical Jesus existed, but went on to
say I had doubts as to whether he was more than a human man and did
not accept on faith that he died for humanity's sins, and so
on. That's just one example among many others.
debate you're quick to defend people's beliefs because "maybe, we don't
know everything". I'm well aware we don't know everything, and I'm well aware that not everything can be confirmed through empirical evidence.
I'd argue most of the time religion has nothing to do with that though,
it's more like glorified sports team worship a la "My Bills", GOAT talk
with Fed/Djok, etc. except we kill each other over it.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities
flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define
any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism
and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:Okay the last two sentences sound like good start.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:A lot of assumptions about me there. The thing with my parents and the
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:You see it as "defending religion" because you equate all spiritual
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he seems
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan, >>>>>>> thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams, >>>>>>> and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?Let's start with religion..
who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this
connection thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on
empirical evidence rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder. >>>>>>>
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the >>>>>>> damn hospital.
to get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious belief,
or if someone blames religion for religious conflicts. He'd rather
doubt the doubter than question the faith of the indoctrinated.
traditions with monotheistic fundamentalism and characterize all
"religious people" as warmongering hypocrites because of a nominally
religious subset who are. I'm just pointing out this is another form
of extremism and suggesting your family experiences have "radicalized"
you.
zendo happened fairly recently, within the last 10-15 years. LONG after
I formed my beliefs. They were always spiritual to some degree, I was
not. They encouraged me to look at different religions including
judaism and christianity and I was never pressured to get into Zen or
anything else. It never interested me. But I'm generally OK with
personal spirituality and belief systems.
As to your other points, I'm not a morning person and it's way tooOK.. fair enough. But it seems like wherever there is a religious
early in the day for me to be eye-poppingly angry. I merely wrote an
acerbic response to an acerbic post. And I think my history of
comments here on religion over the years shows that I very much do
question the faith of the indoctrinated as well. For example, I
recently said I believed a historical Jesus existed, but went on to
say I had doubts as to whether he was more than a human man and did
not accept on faith that he died for humanity's sins, and so
on. That's just one example among many others.
debate you're quick to defend people's beliefs because "maybe, we don't
know everything". I'm well aware we don't know everything, and I'm well
aware that not everything can be confirmed through empirical evidence.
I'd argue most of the time religion has nothing to do with that though,Again, you undid the good promising start we hoped for :)
it's more like glorified sports team worship a la "My Bills", GOAT talk
with Fed/Djok, etc. except we kill each other over it.It's clear it makes you angry that others believe in something you don't. Let people believe and practice what makes them feel good in their lives.
I honestly respect all religions, and respect people that practice them until any of them jump in my face to tell me I'm doing something wrong or want to dictate something on me.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:A lot of assumptions about me there. The thing with my parents and
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >> >>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen
charlatan, thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all
religions shams, and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus
perpetuated by people who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy. And this connection thereby proves we need to base our
conclusions on empirical evidence rather than hearsay. Thanks
for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up
the damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he
seems to get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious
belief, or if someone blames religion for religious
conflicts. He'd rather doubt the doubter than question the faith
of the indoctrinated.
You see it as "defending religion" because you equate all spiritual
traditions with monotheistic fundamentalism and characterize all
"religious people" as warmongering hypocrites because of a
nominally religious subset who are. I'm just pointing out this is
another form of extremism and suggesting your family experiences
have "radicalized" you.
the zendo happened fairly recently, within the last 10-15 years. LONG
after I formed my beliefs. They were always spiritual to some degree,
I was not. They encouraged me to look at different religions
including judaism and christianity and I was never pressured to get
into Zen or anything else. It never interested me. But I'm generally
OK with personal spirituality and belief systems.
OK.. fair enough. But it seems like wherever there is a religious
As to your other points, I'm not a morning person and it's way too
early in the day for me to be eye-poppingly angry. I merely wrote
an acerbic response to an acerbic post. And I think my history of
comments here on religion over the years shows that I very much do
question the faith of the indoctrinated as well. For example, I
recently said I believed a historical Jesus existed, but went on to
say I had doubts as to whether he was more than a human man and did
not accept on faith that he died for humanity's sins, and so
on. That's just one example among many others.
debate you're quick to defend people's beliefs because "maybe, we
don't know everything". I'm well aware we don't know everything, and
I'm well aware that not everything can be confirmed through empirical
evidence.
Okay the last two sentences sound like good start.
I'd argue most of the time religion has nothing to do with that
though, it's more like glorified sports team worship a la "My Bills",
GOAT talk
Again, you undid the good promising start we hoped for :)
with Fed/Djok, etc. except we kill each other over it.
It's clear it makes you angry that others believe in something you
don't. Let people believe and practice what makes them feel good in
their lives. I honestly respect all religions, and respect people
that practice them until any of them jump in my face to tell me I'm
doing something wrong or want to dictate something on me.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen charlatan,
thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all religions shams,
and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus perpetuated by people who
believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. And this connection
thereby proves we need to base our conclusions on empirical evidence
rather than hearsay. Thanks for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up the
damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he seems to
get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious belief, or if someone blames religion for religious conflicts. He'd rather doubt the doubter than question the faith of the indoctrinated.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities
flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define
any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about AtheismI've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that
and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:believe all this nonsense"."
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then takea stand one way or another.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:05:14 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >> >> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:A lot of assumptions about me there. The thing with my parents and
jdeluise kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 19.52:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:14:26 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:And Gracchus drops in to defend religion, yet again.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?
Let's start with religion..
Oh, yes--your parents had a bad experience with a Zen
charlatan, thus rendering all religious leaders frauds, all
religions shams, and all spiritual traditions hocus pocus
perpetuated by people who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy. And this connection thereby proves we need to base our
conclusions on empirical evidence rather than hearsay. Thanks
for the reminder.
But back to the issue at hand....none of us know who blew up
the damn hospital.
He's keeping all doors open to his upcoming enlightenment.
You're probably right. It's bizarre how eye-poppingly angry he
seems to get if someone expresses doubt about organized religious
belief, or if someone blames religion for religious
conflicts. He'd rather doubt the doubter than question the faith
of the indoctrinated.
You see it as "defending religion" because you equate all spiritual
traditions with monotheistic fundamentalism and characterize all
"religious people" as warmongering hypocrites because of a
nominally religious subset who are. I'm just pointing out this is
another form of extremism and suggesting your family experiences
have "radicalized" you.
the zendo happened fairly recently, within the last 10-15 years. LONG
after I formed my beliefs. They were always spiritual to some degree,
I was not. They encouraged me to look at different religions
including judaism and christianity and I was never pressured to get
into Zen or anything else. It never interested me. But I'm generally
OK with personal spirituality and belief systems.
OK.. fair enough. But it seems like wherever there is a religious
As to your other points, I'm not a morning person and it's way too
early in the day for me to be eye-poppingly angry. I merely wrote
an acerbic response to an acerbic post. And I think my history of
comments here on religion over the years shows that I very much do
question the faith of the indoctrinated as well. For example, I
recently said I believed a historical Jesus existed, but went on to
say I had doubts as to whether he was more than a human man and did
not accept on faith that he died for humanity's sins, and so
on. That's just one example among many others.
debate you're quick to defend people's beliefs because "maybe, we
don't know everything". I'm well aware we don't know everything, and
I'm well aware that not everything can be confirmed through empirical
evidence.
Okay the last two sentences sound like good start.
I'd argue most of the time religion has nothing to do with that
though, it's more like glorified sports team worship a la "My Bills",
GOAT talk
Again, you undid the good promising start we hoped for :)
with Fed/Djok, etc. except we kill each other over it.
It's clear it makes you angry that others believe in something you
don't. Let people believe and practice what makes them feel good in
their lives. I honestly respect all religions, and respect people
that practice them until any of them jump in my face to tell me I'm
doing something wrong or want to dictate something on me.
Not angry, I'm just embarrassed for your stupidity. You just admonished
TT for believing a video. You admonished all of us for believing COVID
stats a couple years ago. But you're totally fine believing in
something written in a book thousands of years ago and translated
multiple times since then, or because mommy told you so when you were in your crib, or because some "authority" at your place of worship told you you're going to hell (or some other similar threat) if you didn't
believe them. You didn't get any of these beliefs on your own, I'd be willing to bet Whisper's house on it.
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities
flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define
any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it,
something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that
actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:believe all this nonsense"."
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then takea stand one way or another.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years oldSo pathetic it is hilarious! Hah hah!
br,
KK
On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:The first time you hear thunder while out of doors, you will believe in *something*...
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism >>> and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, >>> something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities
flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define >>>> any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that
actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
Prior to that, one's parents are close to god-like.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The world's truth constitutes a vision so terrifying as to beggar the prophecies of the bleakest seer who ever walked it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:believe all this nonsense"."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any >> specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
take a stand one way or another.Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then
Agnostic approach is a copout.
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed it without thinking. This is not so.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc...
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:believe all this nonsense"."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any >> specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
take a stand one way or another.Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then
Agnostic approach is a copout.
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed it without thinking. This is not so.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc...
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:35:13 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:> On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: > >> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> OnWednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: > >>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities > >>>>> flipped. > >>>> That depends a lot on if you're
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:35:13 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:AS a five years old child, remember sitting in the balcony at night, looking at the stars and the universe, wondering how it all existed, how it holds itself together, etc.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:The first time you hear thunder while out of doors, you will believe in
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism >>>>> and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, >>>>> something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
flipped.
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define >>>>>> any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, >>>>>> but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that
actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
*something*...
Prior to that, one's parents are close to god-like.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "The world's truth constitutes a vision so terrifying as to beggar the prophecies of the bleakest seer who ever walked it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, I would reach a conclusion there must be a creator that created all of this, and this is when my brain would tell me okay, it was all created but what was there before creation?
Empty space, vacuum, null, what? but empty space or vacuum is a creation by itself, how was it created or what is it exactly, and my brain keeps going from one level to another.
But I would always conclude that I can't keep thinking beyond the first levels that I don't have answers for.
This is when I was five years old.
On the funny side, sometimes I honestly feel this entire thing called life is all virtual, a game or a program and we are just what is happening in the program.
But again, who is the coder? :)
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>> That depends a lot on ifyou're talking about explicit atheists or>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any>>
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:believe all this nonsense"."
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any >>>> specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but >>>> that doesn't make atheism a religion.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
take a stand one way or another.
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then
Agnostic approach is a copout.Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current scientific instruments and theories.
It is hardcore Atheism that is a copout because it dismisses something it cannot measure, right from the get-go.It is like claiming to have *all* the devices to examine the
Like I said, there are actual experiments (and measurements) done on some well-known spiritual leaders. A balanced approach would be to read them before claiming that all spiritual practices are hocus-pocus etc.genuine experiences.
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed itThinking is fine for Theology or Philosophy. But, for something that is experiential (like all spiritual practices), thinking will not cut it. Either you experience it yourself, or you could conduct scientific studies on people who are known to have
without thinking. This is not so.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... butThis is all true if you go with a man-made idea of "God". An idea from those who don't have any direct experiences.
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and
wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why
does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc... >>
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the sky
with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting like a
human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be nothing at
all! No wonder you find it so easy to decide all the universe amounts
to.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:37:18 PM UTC-4, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years oldSo pathetic it is hilarious! Hah hah!
br,
KK
Insults don't affect me really, it just reflects the person
behind the writing, specially when we discuss topics like
this one.
Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they acquired or developed on their own...
On 10/18/23 1:10 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:35:13 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:AS a five years old child, remember sitting in the balcony at night, looking at the stars and the universe, wondering how it all existed, how it holds itself together, etc.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:The first time you hear thunder while out of doors, you will believe in >> *something*...
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that >>>> you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism >>>>> and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, >>>>> something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted >>>>>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define >>>>>> any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
flipped.
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, >>>>>> but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that >>>> actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
Prior to that, one's parents are close to god-like.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The world's truth constitutes a vision so terrifying as to beggar the prophecies of the bleakest seer who ever walked it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, I would reach a conclusion there must be a creator that created all of this, and this is when my brain would tell me okay, it was all created but what was there before creation?
Empty space, vacuum, null, what? but empty space or vacuum is a creation by itself, how was it created or what is it exactly, and my brain keeps going from one level to another.
But I would always conclude that I can't keep thinking beyond the first levels that I don't have answers for.
This is when I was five years old.
On the funny side, sometimes I honestly feel this entire thing called life is all virtual, a game or a program and we are just what is happening in the program.
But again, who is the coder? :)This is really an interesting thing to talk about.
Thinking about it, I was much less "cosmically" curious. Literally, I
DID NOT expect to understand the mechanics of the cosmos; I was
more-or-less content to try to understand physical realty on this
planet. I cared little about extra-terrestrial phenomenon.
There was very little cosmic "gee whiz" in me.
Later, when I heard/read about the late 19th/early 20th C physicists and mathematicians theorizing, I became tangentially interested in the
cosmos, but more interested in their methodologies--as I understood them--for developing their theories. It seemed to me that they were attempting to characterize the cosmos by eliminating that which could
not be verified by lab experiment and/or mathematical modeling.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway.
I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time for lunch.
--Sawfish
Those fucking delusions of the deluded minds... :-)
You are angry, obviously, calling me names.
Clearly I can do the same
but religious people don't act this way :)
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
You are angry, obviously, calling me names.Not angry, just stating facts.
Clearly I can do the sameYou're not so unflappable, just get you in a room with Courty and the
but religious people don't act this way :)
claws come out :)
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they
acquired or developed on their own...
That's heresy.
Even tennis players are taught how to hit ball from an early age,
mastering technique, they're not left on their own to "acquire their
own technique".
How can you be so arrogant?
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they acquired or developed on their own...
That's heresy.
Even tennis players are taught how to hit ball from an early age, mastering technique, they're not left on their own to "acquire their own technique".
How can you be so arrogant?
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess
there was no default state for me. Before all religions came, people
created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:02:05 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they acquired or developed on their own... > > > That's heresy. > >
Even tennis players are taught how to hit ball from an early age, mastering technique, they're not left on their own to "acquire their own technique". > > > How can you be so arrogant?https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_arrogance
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:02:05 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they
acquired or developed on their own...
That's heresy.
Even tennis players are taught how to hit ball from an early age,
mastering technique, they're not left on their own to "acquire their
own technique".
How can you be so arrogant?
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_arrogance
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:07:11 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Not angry, just stating facts.
You are angry, obviously, calling me names.
It's a fact for you, but this does not make it a universal fact.
Clearly I can do the same but religious people don't act this wayYou're not so unflappable, just get you in a room with Courty and the
:)
claws come out :)
I have been here in rst for maybe 20 years, I got the durability
stamp.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:believe all this nonsense"."
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any >>>> specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but >>>> that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
take a stand one way or another.
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed it
without thinking. This is not so.
Many have thought about it. Many haven't. Atheists aren't a monolithic bloc of singular thinking any more than non-atheists are.
decide all the universe amounts to.As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and
wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why
does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc...
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be nothing at all! No wonder you find it so easy to
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped. >>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orimplicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define
any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but >>>>> that doesn't make atheism a religion.
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just
as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to
paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me
instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
scientific instruments and theories.
Yes. This is how I see it, too.
Before the advent of the microscope, there was no awareness of
paramecia. We are currently further along than that, but it is
inconceivable to me that we now possess the equipment to detect the
entire physical universe.
Think dark matter, e.g.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:>> Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,>>>> but even then
to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this nonsense".">>>>>> Further therethat doesn't make atheism a religion.>>>>>> I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.>>>>>> A truly agnostic approach would be akin
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:believe all this nonsense"."
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any >>>> specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but >>>> that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
take a stand one way or another.
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then
Agnostic approach is a copout.
Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current scientific instruments and theories.
It is hardcore Atheism that is a copout because it dismisses something it cannot measure, right from the get-go.
Like I said, there are actual experiments (and measurements) done on some well-known spiritual leaders. A balanced approach would be to read them before claiming that all spiritual practices are hocus-pocus etc.
genuine experiences.You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed it
without thinking. This is not so.
Thinking is fine for Theology or Philosophy. But, for something that is experiential (like all spiritual practices), thinking will not cut it. Either you experience it yourself, or you could conduct scientific studies on people who are known to have
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and
wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why
does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc... >>
This is all true if you go with a man-made idea of "God". An idea from those who don't have any direct experiences.
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to
coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to
the morals that bible teaches. Why are children born with
sickesses. Why is there an insect that plants eggs in butterfly
larvae, then the larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful
butterfly... but is eaten alive by the insect. Disgusting and
extremely cruel. So that counts out intelligent design as well.
Sawfish kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.57:
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Yes. This is how I see it, too. Before the advent of the microscope,
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists
flipped.
or implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit
atheists, but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly
accepted practices and rituals. No figures that set the
boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill
Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or
fanaticism, but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's
just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW,
to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes
me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
scientific instruments and theories.
there was no awareness of paramecia. We are currently further along
than that, but it is inconceivable to me that we now possess the
equipment to detect the entire physical universe. Think dark matter,
e.g.
Yes, we haven't figured out everything. Not sure if we ever can - or
even need to.
But before the microscope we thought that diseases were punishment
from god etc. Replacing what we know with same ages old superstition
is still no answer.
Why would there need to be a living being that created universe in
first place.
Five is plenty of time to become indoctrinated into religion.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 4:46:17 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:know yet that could fail these formulas in different cases, and still it's only about describing what we observe instead of explaining it.
On 10/18/23 1:10 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:35:13 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:This is really an interesting thing to talk about.
On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:AS a five years old child, remember sitting in the balcony at night, looking at the stars and the universe, wondering how it all existed, how it holds itself together, etc.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:The first time you hear thunder while out of doors, you will believe in >>>> *something*...
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that >>>>>> you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism >>>>>>> and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, >>>>>>> something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted >>>>>>>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define >>>>>>>> any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
flipped.
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, >>>>>>>> but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that >>>>>> actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
Prior to that, one's parents are close to god-like.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The world's truth constitutes a vision so terrifying as to beggar the prophecies of the bleakest seer who ever walked it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, I would reach a conclusion there must be a creator that created all of this, and this is when my brain would tell me okay, it was all created but what was there before creation?
Empty space, vacuum, null, what? but empty space or vacuum is a creation by itself, how was it created or what is it exactly, and my brain keeps going from one level to another.
But I would always conclude that I can't keep thinking beyond the first levels that I don't have answers for.
This is when I was five years old.
On the funny side, sometimes I honestly feel this entire thing called life is all virtual, a game or a program and we are just what is happening in the program.
But again, who is the coder? :)
Thinking about it, I was much less "cosmically" curious. Literally, I
DID NOT expect to understand the mechanics of the cosmos; I was
more-or-less content to try to understand physical realty on this
planet. I cared little about extra-terrestrial phenomenon.
There was very little cosmic "gee whiz" in me.
Later, when I heard/read about the late 19th/early 20th C physicists and
mathematicians theorizing, I became tangentially interested in the
cosmos, but more interested in their methodologies--as I understood
them--for developing their theories. It seemed to me that they were
attempting to characterize the cosmos by eliminating that which could
not be verified by lab experiment and/or mathematical modeling.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway. >>
I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time for lunch.
--Sawfish
Science in general tries to describe the observed behavior using math, and of course the captured variables that are used in these formulas are the ones we only know about or have been observing, but there could be many other variables that we don't
For example, gravity and masses' attraction, Newton just put a law for it, Einstein came with the valley and distortion of space/time theory, then now we have masses emitting gravitons.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
Five is plenty of time to become indoctrinated into religion.
Yes, indeed.
The fucking priests, kings, presidents, politicians etc.
absolutely love religion. Using their "holy" texts they
make common people their brainslaves and obedient servants.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to
coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to
the morals that bible teaches. Why are children born with
sickesses. Why is there an insect that plants eggs in butterfly
larvae, then the larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful
butterfly... but is eaten alive by the insect. Disgusting and
extremely cruel. So that counts out intelligent design as well.
God put us here so we could eventually invent the medical technology necessary for us to all change our genders. I mean, why not? We don't
know everything.
Sawfish kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.57:
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped. >>>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly acceptedpractices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, >>>>>> but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just
as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW,
to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes
me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
scientific instruments and theories.
Yes. This is how I see it, too.
Before the advent of the microscope, there was no awareness of
paramecia. We are currently further along than that, but it is
inconceivable to me that we now possess the equipment to detect the
entire physical universe.
Think dark matter, e.g.
Yes, we haven't figured out everything. Not sure if we ever can - or
even need to.
But before the microscope we thought that diseases were punishment from
god etc. Replacing what we know with same ages old superstition is still
no answer.
Why would there need to be a living being that created universe in first place.
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 0.04:know yet that could fail these formulas in different cases, and still it's only about describing what we observe instead of explaining it.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 4:46:17?PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 1:10 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 3:35:13?PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:This is really an interesting thing to talk about.
On 10/18/23 12:22 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:AS a five years old child, remember sitting in the balcony at night, looking at the stars and the universe, wondering how it all existed, how it holds itself together, etc.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28?PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:The first time you hear thunder while out of doors, you will believe in >>>>> *something*...
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40?PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that >>>>>>> you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism >>>>>>>> and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, >>>>>>>> something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities >>>>>>>>>> flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted >>>>>>>>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define >>>>>>>>> any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, >>>>>>>>> but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that >>>>>>> actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
Prior to that, one's parents are close to god-like.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The world's truth constitutes a vision so terrifying as to beggar the prophecies of the bleakest seer who ever walked it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, I would reach a conclusion there must be a creator that created all of this, and this is when my brain would tell me okay, it was all created but what was there before creation?
Empty space, vacuum, null, what? but empty space or vacuum is a creation by itself, how was it created or what is it exactly, and my brain keeps going from one level to another.
But I would always conclude that I can't keep thinking beyond the first levels that I don't have answers for.
This is when I was five years old.
On the funny side, sometimes I honestly feel this entire thing called life is all virtual, a game or a program and we are just what is happening in the program.
But again, who is the coder? :)
Thinking about it, I was much less "cosmically" curious. Literally, I
DID NOT expect to understand the mechanics of the cosmos; I was
more-or-less content to try to understand physical realty on this
planet. I cared little about extra-terrestrial phenomenon.
There was very little cosmic "gee whiz" in me.
Later, when I heard/read about the late 19th/early 20th C physicists and >>> mathematicians theorizing, I became tangentially interested in the
cosmos, but more interested in their methodologies--as I understood
them--for developing their theories. It seemed to me that they were
attempting to characterize the cosmos by eliminating that which could
not be verified by lab experiment and/or mathematical modeling.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway. >>>
I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time for lunch.
--Sawfish
Science in general tries to describe the observed behavior using math, and of course the captured variables that are used in these formulas are the ones we only know about or have been observing, but there could be many other variables that we don't
For example, gravity and masses' attraction, Newton just put a law for it, Einstein came with the valley and distortion of space/time theory, then now we have masses emitting gravitons.
Physical phenomenons are probably best explained by physics - even
flawed physics - than theology.
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be nothing at
all! No wonder you find it so easy to decide all the universe amounts
to.
I'd say the VAST majority of religious thinking is exactly along these
lines though. Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems
that they acquired or developed on their own, or that don't involve some kind of super-powered deity who is also human-like.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09PM UTC-7, TT wrote:>> Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,>>>> but even then
to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this nonsense".">>>>>> Further therethat doesn't make atheism a religion.>>>>>> I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.>>>>>> A truly agnostic approach would be akin
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
decide all the universe amounts to.You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but dismissed it >> without thinking. This is not so.
Many have thought about it. Many haven't. Atheists aren't a monolithic bloc of singular thinking any more than non-atheists are.
Pretty sure that everyone has thought about religion to some degree.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in something... be >> it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's >> *my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be allowed. >>
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will >> go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear >> to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and >> wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity? Why >> does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer? etc...
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be nothing at all! No wonder you find it so easy to
Not easy at all. On the contrary, isn't "God" the easy way out... the primitive way.
And how do you figure I was talking only about the 'bearded sky guy'?
...Those examples on useless planets, deadly radiation etc refer to god which 'just created universe' - andthen let it develop without
interference.
BUT... what the hell is the POINT believing in such god?
And what would be the point with a god which creates beginning of
universe, and then does nothing to it. Yet sends Jesus here to tell us
that he exists and we must believe in him. Then leaves again. No point
at all. Absurd idea.
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to the morals
that bible teaches. Why are children born with sickesses. Why is there
an insect that plants eggs in butterfly larvae, then the larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful butterfly... but is eaten alive by the
insect. Disgusting and extremely cruel. So that counts out intelligent design as well.
Forcing our paths or to be given free will? Which one would you
choose?
It's free will. Living our lives thinking about the stuff we are
discussing now, taking things by reasons, understanding consequences
and harvesting the fruit of what we do, is what we were given in this
life.
We were given the option to build and shape our lives, come with
science and medics, invent weapons, wipe out each other, or live in
peace, it's all up to us to decide.
It seems the more advanced we get, and more we think we invented, the
more arrogant we get assuming we know everything, and we are too good
to have a creator :)
You wake up in the morning, you find a nice made breakfast, you never
say wow, I love evolution that made me this breakfast.
You never question there is a maker of every object in your life,
phone, car, bread, etc, but when it has to do with us humans, animals, everything in our lives, we deny there is a creator, and we contribute
all of this to evolution.
Sickness and poverty is something we are supposed to address ourselves
but you are blaming God for it instead of saying why we are ignoring
it
Isn't free will interesting?
No one said it's supposed to be heaven, but if you want to talk about heavens, it's detailed in religions.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped. >>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orimplicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just
as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW,
to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes
me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's
extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because
you "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by
evolution, except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger.
Agnostic?
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but
dismissed it
without thinking. This is not so.
Many have thought about it. Many haven't. Atheists aren't a
monolithic bloc of singular thinking any more than non-atheists are.
Pretty sure that everyone has thought about religion to some degree.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in
something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be
allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and
wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity?
Why
does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer?
etc...
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the
sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting
like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be
nothing at all! No wonder you find it so easy to decide all the
universe amounts to.
Not easy at all. On the contrary, isn't "God" the easy way out... the primitive way.
And how do you figure I was talking only about the 'bearded sky guy'? ...Those examples on useless planets, deadly radiation etc refer to
god which 'just created universe' - and then let it develop without interference.
BUT... what the hell is the POINT believing in such god?
And what would be the point with a god which creates beginning of
universe, and then does nothing to it. Yet sends Jesus here to tell us
that he exists and we must believe in him. Then leaves again. No point
at all. Absurd idea.
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to
coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to
the morals that bible teaches. Why are children born with sickesses.
Why is there an insect that plants eggs in butterfly larvae, then the
larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful butterfly... but is eaten
alive by the insect. Disgusting and extremely cruel. So that counts
out intelligent design as well.
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped. >>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orimplicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just
as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW,
to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes
me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's
extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because
you "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by
evolution, except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger.
Agnostic?
You sound like atheists have not thought about religion but
dismissed it
without thinking. This is not so.
Many have thought about it. Many haven't. Atheists aren't a
monolithic bloc of singular thinking any more than non-atheists are.
Pretty sure that everyone has thought about religion to some degree.
As for religion... I guess it's ok if it makes you feel better... but
it's still self-deceit. No, gods do not exist, and if they did which
one(s). It comes from primitive human will to believe in
something... be
it Christian god, Allah, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or whatever. But yeah, it's
*my* God that is the right one... it's the other gods that are just
primitive superstition - not mine!
If religion includes stuff like Jihad, then it shouldn't even be
allowed.
As for Christianity, what twisted and cruel idea that if you don't
BELIEVE in something of which you don't have evidence of, then you will
go and burn in hell for eternity. Clearly this religion, too, has been
invented by rather primitive people.
If that is so, why this God of ours doesn't make it unequivocally clear
to modern man that he indeed exists and can do wonders? Is he cruel and
wants least gullible / smartest of humankind to suffer for eternity?
Why
does the bastard watch what we do and using what sort of system? If he
watches why does he not do anything?
Why did he create mosquitoes? Why animals kill and eat each other? Why
sicknesses? Why all useless planets? Why background radiation? What's
the need for black holes, supernovas etc. Why sun gives skin cancer?
etc...
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the
sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting
like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be
nothing at all! No wonder you find it so easy to decide all the
universe amounts to.
Not easy at all. On the contrary, isn't "God" the easy way out... the primitive way.
And how do you figure I was talking only about the 'bearded sky guy'? ...Those examples on useless planets, deadly radiation etc refer to
god which 'just created universe' - and then let it develop without interference.
BUT... what the hell is the POINT believing in such god?
And what would be the point with a god which creates beginning of
universe, and then does nothing to it. Yet sends Jesus here to tell us
that he exists and we must believe in him. Then leaves again. No point
at all. Absurd idea.
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to
coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to
the morals that bible teaches. Why are children born with sickesses.
Why is there an insect that plants eggs in butterfly larvae, then the
larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful butterfly... but is eaten
alive by the insect. Disgusting and extremely cruel. So that counts
out intelligent design as well.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:58:16 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
It always comes back to the anthropomorphic old bearded guy in the
sky with you, doesn't it? There's either "him" sitting there acting
like a human imbued with cosmic powers--or if not, there must be
nothing at all! No wonder you find it so easy to decide all the
universe amounts to.
I'd say the VAST majority of religious thinking is exactly along
these lines though. Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief
systems that they acquired or developed on their own, or that don't
involve some kind of super-powered deity who is also human-like.
The majority who call themselves members of the major monotheistic
religions may think that way or something too close to it. But I don't believe less conventional religious or spiritual thought is as rare as
you are saying.
Sawfish kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.57:
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
flipped.
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or
fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's
just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said
about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW,
to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes
me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal
people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a
stand one way or another.
of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
scientific instruments and theories.
Yes. This is how I see it, too.
Before the advent of the microscope, there was no awareness of
paramecia. We are currently further along than that, but it is
inconceivable to me that we now possess the equipment to detect the
entire physical universe.
Think dark matter, e.g.
Yes, we haven't figured out everything. Not sure if we ever can - or
even need to.
But before the microscope we thought that diseases were punishment
from god etc. Replacing what we know with same ages old superstition
is still no answer.
Why would there need to be a living being that created universe in
first place.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
Did we become that stupid believing anything we were told?Let's start with religion..
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a hospital.Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
My brain told me there is a God when I was five years oldSo pathetic it is hilarious! Hah hah!
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
believe all this nonsense"."Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism, but that doesn't make atheism a religion.I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly scientific approach would be to read those studies and then takea stand one way or another.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:40:28 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:
That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists orAtheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities
flipped.
implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,
but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted
practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or define
any specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or fanaticism,
but that doesn't make atheism a religion.
Now you don't like the absolute statement that was made about Atheism and you started to get into the different details and varieties of it, something you failed to do when you keep attacking religions.I've never heard of an "implicit Christian" though. The concepts that
you learn in the bible aren't anything you'd see, think of, or
experience on your own without being "taught". At least not in
totality.
On the other hand, do you have to "learn" to be an atheist or is that actually our default state before the indoctrination begins?My brain told me there is a God when I was five years old, so I guess there was no default state for me.
Before all religions came, people created their own God figures/symbols and worshipped them.
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Only rare outliers have unique beliefs or belief systems that they
acquired or developed on their own...
That's heresy.
Even tennis players are taught how to hit ball from an early age, mastering technique, they're not left on their own to "acquire their
own technique".
How can you be so arrogant?But the point stands. Most people DO believe in super-powered deities
in human form, or just buy in to whatever mommy said or whatever the preacher bullied them into accepting. Others use church as some kind of social club or a place where they can drum up business from other churchgoers.
No, the vast majority of the religious people didn't follow some long, thoughtful, personal journey to arrive at their faith. Their faith WAS
the path of least resistance. Why should I treat such beliefs with any deference?
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Five is plenty of time to become indoctrinated into religion.Yes, indeed.
The fucking priests, kings, presidents, politicians etc.
absolutely love religion. Using their "holy" texts they
make common people their brainslaves and obedient servants.
Don't believe me, no?
Just look at fucking Putlerlandia. The fucking Russian
Orthodox priests praise Putler and Putler praises them.
They piss in the eyes of the common people. So disgusting.
jdeluise kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.01:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:
...So clearly only point in believing to this god is that he guides
universe and our existence. Hence I listed his incapability to
coherent evolution, why have those planets without purpose etc. Or to
the morals that bible teaches. Why are children born with
sickesses. Why is there an insect that plants eggs in butterfly
larvae, then the larvae makes a cocoon to become a beautiful
butterfly... but is eaten alive by the insect. Disgusting and
extremely cruel. So that counts out intelligent design as well.
God put us here so we could eventually invent the medical technology necessary for us to all change our genders. I mean, why not? We don'tNow there's an argument to mess up with heads of woke believers.
know everything.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean KIND design. :) When thinking about > these things, I barely take the Bible into account.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:rwrites:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>>>> That depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists,>>>> but even then
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:>> Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
to what Gracchus once said about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this nonsense".">>>>>> Further therethat doesn't make atheism a religion.>>>>>> I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's just as dogmatic in its approach.>>>>>> A truly agnostic approach would be akin
Forcing our paths or to be given free will? Which one would you choose?
It's free will. Living our lives thinking about the stuff we are discussing now, taking things by reasons, understanding consequences and harvesting the fruit of what we do, is what we were given in this life.
We were given the option to build and shape our lives, come with science and medics, invent weapons, wipe out each other, or live in peace, it's all up to us to decide.
It seems the more advanced we get, and more we think we invented, the more arrogant we get assuming we know everything, and we are too good to have a creator :)
You wake up in the morning, you find a nice made breakfast, you never say wow, I love evolution that made me this breakfast.
You never question there is a maker of every object in your life, phone, car, bread, etc, but when it has to do with us humans, animals, everything in our lives, we deny there is a creator, and we contribute all of this to evolution.
Sickness and poverty is something we are supposed to address ourselves but you are blaming God for it instead of saying why we are ignoring it
Isn't free will interesting?
No one said it's supposed to be heaven, but if you want to talk about heavens, it's detailed in religions.
Evolution is wholly a physical, not moral or spiritual, phenomenon.
If one really needs to be threatened by damnation to act like a decent
human being, I'd argue that they're not really decent, at all. Just
fearful opportunists.
On 10/18/23 3:01 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.57:
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted >>>>>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
flipped.
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or
fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's
just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said >>>>> about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, >>>>> to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes >>>>> me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal >>>>> people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a >>>>> stand one way or another.
of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
scientific instruments and theories.
Yes. This is how I see it, too.
Before the advent of the microscope, there was no awareness of
paramecia. We are currently further along than that, but it is
inconceivable to me that we now possess the equipment to detect the
entire physical universe.
Think dark matter, e.g.
Yes, we haven't figured out everything. Not sure if we ever can - or
even need to.
But before the microscope we thought that diseases were punishment
from god etc. Replacing what we know with same ages old superstition
is still no answer.
Why would there need to be a living being that created universe inOne thing that seems to be hard for anti-evolutionists to conceive of is
first place.
the timescale on which evolution, *on earth*, has played out. In a
sense, we're 4 B years into the "room full of monkeys with typewriters", pounding out endless reams of gibberish, some of which is the complete
works of Shakespeare.
And guess what? They finished Shakespeare sometime in the early
Mesozoic, and there's no sign that they're stopping. Shakespeare is meaningless to them.
And is evolution strictly confined to life? One might argue that the
course of water, as it flows over landscapes of varied terrain, wearing
away limestone more rapidly than granite, it the same mechanism as
animate evolution.
Evolution is wholly a physical, not moral or spiritual, phenomenon.
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 01:20:01 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:couldn't evolve a single thing better no, zero, not over X MILLIONS of
On 10/18/23 3:01 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.57:One thing that seems to be hard for anti-evolutionists to conceive of is
On 10/18/23 1:43 PM, Shakes wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:Why so ? I believe it is the most balanced approach considering most >>>>> of us agree that not everything can be measured or known by current
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:Agnostic approach is a copout.
I think Atheism is a religion in the sense that it very strongly >>>>>>> disbelieves anything that is not perceived by the senses. It's
Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polaritiesThat depends a lot on if you're talking about explicit atheists or >>>>>>>> implicit atheists. I'd guess you're talking about explicit atheists, >>>>>>>> but even then there are no "holy books" or any commonly accepted >>>>>>>> practices and rituals. No figures that set the boundaries or
flipped.
define any
specific belief system. (Sorry Bill Maher).
Tt is true that atheists can be accused of zealotry or
fanaticism, but
that doesn't make atheism a religion.
just as dogmatic in its approach.
A truly agnostic approach would be akin to what Gracchus once said >>>>>>> about reincarnation: I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. IOW, >>>>>>> to paraphrase it, "I am open to going wherever the evidence takes >>>>>>> me instead of coming from an angle of "I don't believe all this
nonsense"."
Further there have been studies done on people who are on the
spiritual path and acquired rare abilities that are beyond normal >>>>>>> people. It's just that they are never highlighted. A truly
scientific approach would be to read those studies and then take a >>>>>>> stand one way or another.
scientific instruments and theories.
Yes. This is how I see it, too.
Before the advent of the microscope, there was no awareness of
paramecia. We are currently further along than that, but it is
inconceivable to me that we now possess the equipment to detect the
entire physical universe.
Think dark matter, e.g.
Yes, we haven't figured out everything. Not sure if we ever can - or
even need to.
But before the microscope we thought that diseases were punishment
from god etc. Replacing what we know with same ages old superstition
is still no answer.
Why would there need to be a living being that created universe in
first place.
the timescale on which evolution, *on earth*, has played out. In a
sense, we're 4 B years into the "room full of monkeys with typewriters",
pounding out endless reams of gibberish, some of which is the complete
works of Shakespeare.
And guess what? They finished Shakespeare sometime in the early
Mesozoic, and there's no sign that they're stopping. Shakespeare is
meaningless to them.
And is evolution strictly confined to life? One might argue that the
course of water, as it flows over landscapes of varied terrain, wearing
away limestone more rapidly than granite, it the same mechanism as
animate evolution.
Evolution is wholly a physical, not moral or spiritual, phenomenon.
this is evolution that came from literally nothing, yes. The same evolution that over 4billion years produced the ultra-complex DNS double-helix yet still has endless flaws and has these weird "dead ends" like crocodiles cos of course a crocodile
years LOL
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 23:04:40 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Five is plenty of time to become indoctrinated into religion.Yes, indeed.
The fucking priests, kings, presidents, politicians etc.
absolutely love religion. Using their "holy" texts they
make common people their brainslaves and obedient servants.
Don't believe me, no?
hey you're the sicko who wants to do gender bending mutilation trans surgery on 5 year olds without telling parents!
Just look at fucking Putlerlandia. The fucking Russian
Orthodox priests praise Putler and Putler praises them.
They piss in the eyes of the common people. So disgusting.
Putler is a proven great humanitarian, he is even trying
to solve the Middle East Arab-Israel problem cos the West
are so useless at it, like when he had to step in and
solve Syria cos Obama was so useless there.
The Iceberg kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 13.20:> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 00:04:39 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7, TTwrote:>> Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>>>> That
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you >> "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean KIND design. :) When thinking about > these things, I barely take the Bible into account.
That's another copout...
Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 3.05:
If one really needs to be threatened by damnation to act like a
decent human being, I'd argue that they're not really decent, at all.
Just fearful opportunists.
Yup.
And the idea that god is not human centric would be against the bible
I think. Why do we believe in god... because of the bible.
So if you take away the bible and make your own "god exists but it's
not same as in bible & Jesus wasn't son of god" religion... Then what
are you left with?
You're left with a religion which you just made up. There must god
because I say so.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:rTT wrote:>> Shakes kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 22.08:>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is simply an organized religion with the polarities flipped.>>>> That
The Iceberg kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 13.20:> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 00:04:39 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-7,
Sure, that amazing big bang created the dinosaurs and every living creature, lol :)
And humans and apes came from apes :)
This is an example of scientists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>> hospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is >> probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically >> rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide >> in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
To me, it's an essential skill for the last 100 years or so, and
becoming increasing valuable for individuals in society.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>>>> hospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is >>>> probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically >>>> rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide >>>> in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
To me, it's an essential skill for the last 100 years or so, and
becoming increasing valuable for individuals in society.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>>>> hospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is >>>> probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically >>>> rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide >>>> in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
To me, it's an essential skill for the last 100 years or so, and
becoming increasing valuable for individuals in society.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if >> they see value in it.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this. >> Important point.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>>>> hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind >> with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do >> not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
Sound OK?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think thisOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think thisOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:And BTW, I would also question the "sanity" of the Israeli youth who put on a rave 3 miles from the Gaza border.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to >>> convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
But what is their goal, and is it realistic?On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if >>>>> they see value in it.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this. >>>>> Important point.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>>>>>>> hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >>>>>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>>>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>>>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>>>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>>>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>>>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >>>>> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind >>>>> with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >>>>> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both >>> territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do >>>>> not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
Sound OK?
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this or not.OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On 10/19/23 9:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:It's this sort of nonsense that I wish to divorce myself from, and since it's halfway around the globe, and over which I have no control, and it does not yet have any significant effect on my life, it's pretty easy to do.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:And BTW, I would also question the "sanity" of the Israeli youth who put on a rave 3 miles from the Gaza border.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to >>> convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you >>> intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
But what is their goal, and is it realistic?On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. >>>>>>>
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>>>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>>>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >>>>> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet >>> we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long >>> time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love. >>>
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both >>> territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this >>> or not.
Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and >>> probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control. >>>> Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
Sound OK?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:And BTW, I would also question the "sanity" of the Israeli youth who put on a rave 3 miles from the Gaza border.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to >>> convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
But what is their goal, and is it realistic?On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if >>>>> they see value in it.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this. >>>>> Important point.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a >>>>>>>>> hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel >>>>>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>>>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>>>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>>>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>>>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>>>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >>>>> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind >>>>> with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >>>>> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both >>> territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do >>>>> not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
Sound OK?
On 10/19/23 9:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:It's this sort of nonsense that I wish to divorce myself from, and since
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:And BTW, I would also question the "sanity" of the Israeli youth who put on a rave 3 miles from the Gaza border.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to >>> convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you >>> intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
But what is their goal, and is it realistic?On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. >>>>>>>
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>>>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>>>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >>>>> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet >>> we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long >>> time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love. >>>
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both >>> territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this >>> or not.
Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and >>> probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control. >>>> Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
Sound OK?
it's halfway around the globe, and over which I have no control, and it
does not yet have any significant effect on my life, it's pretty easy to do.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you >>>> "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you >>>> "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:03:34 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:46 AM, bmoore wrote:No significant effect on my life either. Just having a conversation.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:39:20 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:It's this sort of nonsense that I wish to divorce myself from, and since
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:And BTW, I would also question the "sanity" of the Israeli youth who put on a rave 3 miles from the Gaza border.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:OK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to >>>>> convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you >>>>> intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
But what is their goal, and is it realistic?On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillhospital.
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>>>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. >>>>>>>>>
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>>>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for >>>>>>>>> Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>>>>>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>>>>>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in >>>>>>> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal >>>>>>> considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet >>>>> we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long >>>>> time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love. >>>>>
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both >>>>> territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this >>>>> or not.
Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, and >>>>> probably we'll not have much to talk about.I find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that do
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control. >>>>>> Judging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
Sound OK?
it's halfway around the globe, and over which I have no control, and it
does not yet have any significant effect on my life, it's pretty easy to do.
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Important point.
#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed byOn Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: >>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hmmm...
Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillattack a
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas. >>>>>>> PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare
hospital.
be more of the same.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased
it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are
basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a >>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that
Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever >>>>> increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty >>>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a
slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the >>>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer >>>>> to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in >>>>> the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
this.
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say,It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if >>> they see value in it.
this is huge.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane inI'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
their aim to destroy Israel.
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind >>> with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed both territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7,Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still>>>>>>>> standing.
hope to gain?>>>>>>>>>> They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.>>>>>>>>>> However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that >>>>> Israel>>>>>Hmmm...>>>>>>>>>> Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased >>>>> it is>>>>> probably on the money.>>>>>>>>>> Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are >>>>> basically>>>>> rational (I do) what do they
Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18AM UTC-7, Sawfishwrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still>>>>>>>> standing. There's a
Very few would do it gladly
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you >>>> "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution, >>>> except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
Strawman.
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18,2023 at 10:49:18AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?>>>>>>>>>> They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.>>>>>>>>>> However, there is increasing popular perception inbe more of the same.>>>>> Hmmm...>>>>>>>>>> Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased >>>>> it is>>>>> probably on the money.>>>>>>>>>> Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are >>>>> basically>>>>>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is stillPWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. >>>>
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed bothOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
See? Like clockwork, one of the usual gang of idiots chimes in with something irrelevant, stupid and false. I hope somebody gets what I'm saying.according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?>>>>>>>>>> They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a>>>>> given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.>>>>>>>>>> However, there is increasing popular perception inbe more of the same.>>>>> Hmmm...>>>>>>>>>> Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased >>>>> it is>>>>> probably on the money.>>>>>>>>>> Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are >>>>> basically>>>>>
They claim kamikaze were locked inside their cockpits mostly?
Asians might be yellow and a big different but they're still humans who want to live.
I believe a tiny minority did it willingly.
It's one thing to stand your ground and fight until the bitter end on some island and bunkers, even knowing you'll mostly die, but suicide mission is a different matter.
Very few would do it gladly.
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 19:36:06 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday,October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 18:02:01 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still >>>>>>> standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. >>>>
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied >>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed bothOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
no it's just you're too dumb to realise it was very relevant, as you keep hypocritically bandying around the term "insane" for your own politically-motivated enemies such as Hamas (ever since yesterday when the MSM told you to dislike them).See? Like clockwork, one of the usual gang of idiots chimes in with something irrelevant, stupid and false. I hope somebody gets what I'm saying.according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r>> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM,bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the>>>>> Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer>>>>> to the Hamas movement.>>>>>>>>>> A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in>>>>> theHamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty>>>>> brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied>>>>> territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a >>>>> slide>>>>> in their
On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still>>>>>>>> standing. There's a
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish
I am not sure Hamas cares much about Palestinians, but regarding the suicide bombing, I remember the Japanese and their Kamikaze attacks, and other cases in different conflicts. Clearly killing civilians is unacceptable and it should go both ways.
Do you think you have the courage to be one of those that give their lives for a cause like these Japanese pilots or others in combat?
I think it has to do with emotional and psychological state of the person at the time.The kamikaze thing is interesting.
I read a lot about it, about some pilots who would go out and return claiming mechanical problems, sometimes many, many times.
The usual reason was that there is a strong culture value for sacrifice
of the self for the benefit of the whole. You combine this with the idea
of personal shame for not contributing when needed, and I think you had
lots and lots of individuals who allowed themselves to incrementally get nearer and nearer life-ending dangerm right up to the point that they
were more fearful of social disgrace than they were of dying quickly.
I think that there was very little political, religious, or moral
motivation for the WWII kamikazes. It was almost 100% social.
I'm unsure how this aligns with the motivation of the Palistinian
suicide bombers.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r > >> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday,October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:rOctober 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r > >> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday,
It shows why they're immune to western culture that offers used up sluts to men.
They dream about virgins, not women who are promiscuous.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:56:51 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r > >> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday,
It shows why they're immune to western culture that offers used up sluts to men.
They dream about virgins, not women who are promiscuous.So Skrip, you only sleep with virgins? :-)
On 10/19/23 11:54 AM, bmoore wrote:Sawfish wrote:>>>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:>>>>>>> TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still>>>>>>>> standing. There'
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7,
...or so we're told.The Islamic suicide bombers think that they have 72 virgins waiting for them.I am not sure Hamas cares much about Palestinians, but regarding the suicide bombing, I remember the Japanese and their Kamikaze attacks, and other cases in different conflicts. Clearly killing civilians is unacceptable and it should go both ways.The kamikaze thing is interesting.
Do you think you have the courage to be one of those that give their lives for a cause like these Japanese pilots or others in combat?
I think it has to do with emotional and psychological state of the person at the time.
I read a lot about it, about some pilots who would go out and return
claiming mechanical problems, sometimes many, many times.
The usual reason was that there is a strong culture value for sacrifice >> of the self for the benefit of the whole. You combine this with the idea >> of personal shame for not contributing when needed, and I think you had >> lots and lots of individuals who allowed themselves to incrementally get >> nearer and nearer life-ending dangerm right up to the point that they
were more fearful of social disgrace than they were of dying quickly.
I think that there was very little political, religious, or moral
motivation for the WWII kamikazes. It was almost 100% social.
I'm unsure how this aligns with the motivation of the Palistinian
suicide bombers.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you >>>>>> "can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution, >>>>>> except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic religions.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 21.35:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Agnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution, >>>>>> except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic?
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules. >>>
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic religions.
What's your reasoning behind existence of such being?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:56:51 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 10/19/23 11:06 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote: > > TT <T...@dprk.kp>Wrote in message:r > >> Sawfish kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 19.23:> On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:>>> On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:
There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by >>>> this.>>> Important point.>>>> Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, >>>> this is huge.>>> It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategicIsraelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer>>>>> to the Hamas movement.>>>>>>>>>> A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in>>>>> the region, and beyond.>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?>>>> #2.
I read a lot about it, about some pilots who would go out and return > claiming mechanical problems, sometimes many, many times. > > The usual reason was that there is a strong culture value for sacrifice > of the self for the benefit of the whole. Youcombine this with the idea > of personal shame for not contributing when needed, and I think you had > lots and lots of individuals who allowed themselves to incrementally get > nearer and nearer life-ending dangerm right up to the point that they > were
https://dailystormer.in/sexual-education-is-a-cancer-on-society/
Here's something from you from Andre Anglin, he's just written it.
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
https://dailystormer.in/sexual-education-is-a-cancer-on-society/
Here's something from you from Andre Anglin, he's just written it.Isn't Andre himself a virgin?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:52:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:time. Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 21.35:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of theirAgnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic? >>>
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this
religions. Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic
individual judgment.What's your reasoning behind existence of such being?I just proved that an ineffable force is behind the formation of the universe and all existing life as we know it! Who said anything about a "being"?
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by ahigher intelligence.
Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural selection.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
What a cop-out.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:33:41 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 18:02:01 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still >>>>>>> standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?), Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed bothOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
I live rent-free in your head. If I disappear you will seek another tenant.no it's just you're too dumb to realise it was very relevant, as you keep hypocritically bandying around the term "insane" for your own politically-motivated enemies such as Hamas (ever since yesterday when the MSM told you to dislike them).See? Like clockwork, one of the usual gang of idiots chimes in with something irrelevant, stupid and false. I hope somebody gets what I'm saying.according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 19:51:13 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:33:41 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 18:02:01 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still >>>>>>> standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed bothOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
is this what Donald Trump says to you on a daily basis? LOL (P.S. thanks for using my quote)I live rent-free in your head. If I disappear you will seek another tenant.no it's just you're too dumb to realise it was very relevant, as you keep hypocritically bandying around the term "insane" for your own politically-motivated enemies such as Hamas (ever since yesterday when the MSM told you to dislike them).See? Like clockwork, one of the usual gang of idiots chimes in with something irrelevant, stupid and false. I hope somebody gets what I'm saying.according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: > > On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: > > >> On10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: > > >>>> On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote: > > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote: > > >>>>>> TT <T...@
do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel. > > >>>> > > >>>> However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel > > >>>> is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever > > >>>> increasing, too--that is anti-hospital. > > >>>>> Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same. > > >>>> Hmmm... > > >>>> > > >>>> Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is > > >>>> probably on the money. >
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically > > >>>> rational (I do) what do they hope to gain? > > >>>> > > >>>> They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a > > >>>> given, so they
be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel. > > >> I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in > > >> nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind > > >> with theImportant point. > > >>> Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge. > > >> It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if > > >> they see value in it. > > >>> The Hamas leaders may
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 23:30:26 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:not by the sounds of it, but it a Marxist culture thing, mostly promoted to destabilize society cos it wrecks the family unit, so no wonder jdeluise, bmoore saying they prefer this kind of chick! Sawfish was just tricked by the Hippy Marxists LOL
https://dailystormer.in/sexual-education-is-a-cancer-on-society/Isn't Andre himself a virgin?
Here's something from you from Andre Anglin, he's just written it.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/17/i-slept-with-300-people-in-a-year-haters-say-im-disgusting-but-i-feel-empowered/
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 2:22:49 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 19:51:13 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:33:41 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 18:02:01 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 17:39:20 UTC+1, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:28:41 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/19/23 9:01 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:35:48 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Now we're talking about rationality, not sanity, b. Like I was trying to
On 10/18/23 11:07 AM, bmoore wrote:But what is their goal, and is it realistic?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:49:18 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:Important point.
On 10/18/23 9:54 AM, bmoore wrote:#2. There is a Saudi-Iraeli peace plan that is getting derailed by this.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 9:47:34 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:Hmmm...
TT <T...@dprk.kp> writes:Hamas attacked Israel in order to provoke a response. This could be more of the same.
There are 2-3 videos and many pics. Hospital is still >>>>>>> standing. There's a small hole in the ground according to Hamas.PWL wants to believe a pack of suicide bombers wouldn't dare attack a
hospital.
Let's consider this for a minute. I think that the way you phrased it is
probably on the money.
Hamas wanted to provoke an Israeli response. Assuming they are basically
rational (I do) what do they hope to gain?
They must know that all western leadership will back Israel. That's a
given, so they do not hope to undercut western aid for Israel.
However, there is increasing popular perception in the west that Israel
is a sort of a bully. So this would provoke a popular response--ever
increasing, too--that is anti-Israeli.
There is another possible direction that is much less positive for
Hamas, and that is that they provoked what they knew would be a pretty
brutal Israeli response in order to unify all Arabs in occupied
territories. This might indicate that Hamas leadership perceived a slide
in their influence. maybe towards moderation. So they would invite the
Israelis to massively retaliate so as to weld the Arab populace closer
to the Hamas movement.
A side effect would be to appeal emotionally to all Islamic states in
the region, and beyond.
What do you think?
Hamas has no regard for dead Palestinans. No matter what haters say, this is huge.It's clear to me that they have no problem with a strategic sacrifice if
they see value in it.
The Hamas leaders may be rational tactically, but they are insane in their aim to destroy Israel.I'm always wary about assigning a lack of sanity to those who may be in
nominal opposition. The Hamas leadership has an existential axe to grind
with the state of Israel, and because of this they suspend all normal
considerations as unaffordable luxuries.
convey, the use of "insane" carries propaganda baggage that I doubt you
intended. The Allies used it for Hitler, later both Qaddafi (sp?),
Hussein, and even Idi Amin, were accused of insanity and worse, and yet
we have to recognize that most of them were in power for quite a long
time, which implies a degree of popular support, if not popular love.
So to answer directly, I think that Hamas thinks that they are owed bothOK, let's not use the word insane then. But they are quite unrealistic and look at all the death it is causing.
territory and vengeance, whether ore not it is realistic to think this
or not.
I can see that you are much more deeply affected by this than I am, andI find life much easier to bear if I do not take sides in issues that doJudging someone as insane need not involve taking sides.
not directly affect me and/or over which I have no material control.
probably we'll not have much to talk about.
Ann Landers coined it.is this what Donald Trump says to you on a daily basis? LOL (P.S. thanks for using my quote)I live rent-free in your head. If I disappear you will seek another tenant.no it's just you're too dumb to realise it was very relevant, as you keep hypocritically bandying around the term "insane" for your own politically-motivated enemies such as Hamas (ever since yesterday when the MSM told you to dislike them).See? Like clockwork, one of the usual gang of idiots chimes in with something irrelevant, stupid and false. I hope somebody gets what I'm saying.according to you a biological man who "thinks" he's a woman is not insane and we should all do what he says.Sound OK?Sure. I don't want to get too involved in discussion lest the usual gang of idiots chime in (not you).
https://slang.net/meaning/rent_free_in_my_head
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:21:21 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:individual judgment.
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
higher intelligence.Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by a
selection.Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
What a cop-out.
Bard is wrong, he missing out that you live longer if you believe in God, around 7 years extra, so there is definitely a right answer.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:52:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:time. Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 21.35:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of theirAgnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution,
except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic? >>>
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this
religions. Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules.
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic
What's your reasoning behind existence of such being?I just proved that an ineffable force is behind the formation of the universe and all existing life as we know it! Who said anything about a "being"?
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...individual judgment.
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by ahigher intelligence.
Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural selection.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
What a cop-out.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 2:21:21 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:time. Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:52:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 21.35:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the >>>>>>> universe was created by god. Rrrright.
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because youAgnostic approach is a copout.If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution, >>>>>>>>> except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic? >>>>>>>> Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of their
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this
Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic religions.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules. >>>>>>
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
individual judgment.Yes, God need not be a being.What's your reasoning behind existence of such being?I just proved that an ineffable force is behind the formation of the universe and all existing life as we know it! Who said anything about a "being"?
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
higher intelligence.
Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by a
Polls may matter in politics, but not in the nature of existence.
Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural selection.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.It is both essential and private.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."Agreed. What is Bard, AI?
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?:-)
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
What a cop-out.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:52:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:Let there be light! Hmm....should there be creatures in this universe to make things fun? Sure--why not? I'll call them man and woman. Hey, why not test their faith and throw in some giant lizard skeletons.....yeah, sounds good.
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 21.35:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:24:05 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 18.38:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:26:45 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 19.10.2023 klo 1.53:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 2:39:52 PM UTC-7, TT wrote: >>>>>>>> Gracchus kirjoitti 18.10.2023 klo 23.43:
Classic strawman. I said I kept my mind open to possibilities, which is not the same as "believing in." Many things which "rationalists" or scientists of theirAgnostic approach is a copout.
If it's a cop-out to keep one's mind open in light of of humanity's extreme limitations, count me in.
So basically you believe in anything imaginary supernatural because you
"can't know". My theory is that everything was created by evolution, >>>>>>>> except rats were created by a tooth fairy called Roger. Agnostic? >>>>>
time once ridiculed were later validated by science.
So you're expecting that science will some day conclude that the
universe was created by god. Rrrright.
You're still thinking in monotheistic, anthropomorphic terms--that's the guy in the sky with the beard, no matter what you call it.
See, there's 's this omnipotent GUY sitting there with a mind that happens to be remarkably like that of the average human brain. He ponders, "What shall I do today? Create a universe? Should I start with light or darkness? Let's do light this time.
Consequently, there can't be any "my" version of that god.Strawman.
And our choice is either that goofball "god" or ZERO. Them's the rules. >>>>>
So what's your god like? Where did you get the idea that it exists?
Any force or forces responsible for the universe and life as we know it would something unfathomable and as far beyond us as we are to an amoeba. I don't even use the word "god" because it is a constraining concept fostered by monotheistic religions.
What's your reasoning behind existence of such being?
I just proved that an ineffable force is behind the formation of the universe and all existing life as we know it! Who said anything about a "being"?
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...individual judgment.
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by ahigher intelligence.
Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural selection.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
What a cop-out.
It is both essential and private.
Gracchus kirjoitti 20.10.2023 klo 0.21:individual judgment.
I just proved that an ineffable force is behind the formation of the universe and all existing life as we know it! Who said anything about a "being"?
Ummm...
But if you still stubbornly resist that, let's ask Bard again...
"The likelihood that a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of faith and personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, so the answer ultimately comes down to
Likelihood is not about faith.
higher intelligence.Some people believe that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a creator. They point to the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, as well as the existence of complex life, as evidence that the universe was designed by a
While others debunk that pointing to flawed / nonsensical design.
selection.Others believe that the universe can be explained by natural processes, such as the Big Bang and evolution. They argue that the complexity and order of the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, and that life arose through natural
Yes
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it. It is a matter of personal belief.
No
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion in people's lives.
Uh-huh
Some people believe in a personal God who intervenes in the world, while others believe in a more impersonal force or energy. Some people believe that religion is essential to their lives, while others believe that it is a private matter.
Song for Gracchus:
https://youtu.be/cNd4eocq2K0?si=8WueYAopBRQVi-_r
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a higher power created the universe and life as we know it is a matter of personal faith."
No
Pretty good answer, Bard.....
A bit woke... or perhaps more accurately put "politically correct"
answer. Like something you'd find on a US website...
Now, what does Claude have to say about it....?
"I do not have a strong opinion on the origins of the universe or life. There are differing perspectives on this philosophical question that reasonable people can debate."
I kinda like this better.
Claude sounds like a honest frenchman.
What a cop-out.
Ummm-uh...
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
It is both essential and private.Yet it's neither essential nor private. If it were essential I'd be
dead or doing very poorly in life.
If it were private, we wouldn't see
thousands of years of wars, death, destruction and poverty in its wake.
Religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:29:38 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.It is both essential and private.Yet it's neither essential nor private. If it were essential I'd be
dead or doing very poorly in life.
If it were private, we wouldn't seeThat's not religion. It's the tragedy of humanity.
thousands of years of wars, death, destruction and poverty in its wake.
Religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 11:29:38 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:...or, alternatively, it's just the animal we call "human" chopping its
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.
It is both essential and private.Yet it's neither essential nor private. If it were essential I'd be
dead or doing very poorly in life.
If it were private, we wouldn't seeThat's not religion. It's the tragedy of humanity.
thousands of years of wars, death, destruction and poverty in its wake.
Religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
On 10/20/23 10:00 AM, bmoore wrote:
Polls may matter in politics, but not in the nature of existence.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans
believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of
variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of religion
in people's lives.
The main problem with polls is that people lie all the time, and
especially to themselves.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
It is both essential and private.Yet it's neither essential nor private. If it were essential I'd be
dead or doing very poorly in life. If it were private, we wouldn't see thousands of years of wars, death, destruction and poverty in its wake.
Religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
On 21/10/2023 4:42 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/20/23 10:00 AM, bmoore wrote:
Polls may matter in politics, but not in the nature of existence.
According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of Americans
believe in God or a higher power. However, there is a great deal of
variation in beliefs about the nature of God and the role of
religion in people's lives.
The main problem with polls is that people lie all the time, and
especially to themselves.
Yes, when I voted in the recent Indigenous recognition referendum I
took the instruction sheet for the Yes campaign so I wouldn't come
across as a racist, and voted no in the booth.
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to evangelize.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
evangelize.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
On 10/21/23 8:32 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:I don't know if you have kids, but there are two main ways to raise a
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
evangelize.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
kid to absorb what you see as worthy values. One way is by telling them directly, either as a statement or folded into a story, or at the other pole, you basically model the behaviors and values you think are
positive for them in life. In short, for the latter, you live the values rather than state the values.
In actual practice you use both methods, but in my opinion consistent modeling is the most effective, and also the "deepest".
So evangelizing is basically the former method, and living a decent life
in public is the latter method.
Does this conclusion seem to make any sense to you?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 18:04:13 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:good citizen, anyone can do that.
On 10/21/23 8:32 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:I don't know if you have kids, but there are two main ways to raise a
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.What tenets are you referring to?
But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
evangelize.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
kid to absorb what you see as worthy values. One way is by telling them directly, either as a statement or folded into a story, or at the other pole, you basically model the behaviors and values you think are
positive for them in life. In short, for the latter, you live the values rather than state the values.
In actual practice you use both methods, but in my opinion consistent modeling is the most effective, and also the "deepest".
So evangelizing is basically the former method, and living a decent life in public is the latter method.
Does this conclusion seem to make any sense to you?yes agree this is the case for kids, but this definitely isn't the case with Christianity, nobody says I became a Christian cos that bloke was such a good citizen to others. The reason is you have to accept Jesus Christ, it's not just about being a
On 10/21/23 8:32 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:I don't know if you have kids, but there are two main ways to raise a
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
evangelize.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
kid to absorb what you see as worthy values. One way is by telling them directly, either as a statement or folded into a story, or at the other pole, you basically model the behaviors and values you think are
positive for them in life. In short, for the latter, you live the values rather than state the values.
In actual practice you use both methods, but in my opinion consistent modeling is the most effective, and also the "deepest".
So evangelizing is basically the former method, and living a decent life
in public is the latter method.
Does this conclusion seem to make any sense to you?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?What tenets are you referring to?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:55:26 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
What tenets are you referring to?
Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
I meant pretty much what Iceberg said in his reply to my post - that
religion being a private/individual thing is not what a true Christian
who adheres to the letter of the Bible believes. The effect or
offshoot of that is Proselytization and Evangelism that Saw has
referred to.
On 10/21/23 8:32 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:I don't know if you have kids, but there are two main ways to raise a
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:What tenets are you referring to?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.
evangelize.
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
kid to absorb what you see as worthy values. One way is by telling them directly, either as a statement or folded into a story, or at the other pole, you basically model the behaviors and values you think are
positive for them in life. In short, for the latter, you live the values rather than state the values.
In actual practice you use both methods, but in my opinion consistent modeling is the most effective, and also the "deepest".
So evangelizing is basically the former method, and living a decent life
in public is the latter method.
Does this conclusion seem to make any sense to you?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Give me Dadaism, or give me nothing!"
--Sawfish
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:38:13 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:good citizen, anyone can do that.
On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 18:04:13 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 10/21/23 8:32 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:06:06 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:I don't know if you have kids, but there are two main ways to raise a kid to absorb what you see as worthy values. One way is by telling them directly, either as a statement or folded into a story, or at the other pole, you basically model the behaviors and values you think are positive for them in life. In short, for the latter, you live the values rather than state the values.
On 10/21/23 5:55 AM, bmoore wrote:Not all Christians are meant to be evangelists via preaching words. I think the best way to spread the word is via actions, such as how you treat others.That's why hypocritical Christians are so offensive.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:40:26 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote: >>>> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>>>> OK, I'll back off on essential... for this life.Shakes can answer for himself, but what came to mind is the urge to >> evangelize.
What tenets are you referring to?But also, I am not a judgemental Christian, because I don't know what you believe in your heart. Dunno if that makes sense to you, but it's all about private spirituality. Thus I have little else to say here.Isn't that against the tenets of Christianity though ?
I'm open to any explanation or interpretation.
In actual practice you use both methods, but in my opinion consistent modeling is the most effective, and also the "deepest".
So evangelizing is basically the former method, and living a decent life in public is the latter method.
Does this conclusion seem to make any sense to you?yes agree this is the case for kids, but this definitely isn't the case with Christianity, nobody says I became a Christian cos that bloke was such a good citizen to others. The reason is you have to accept Jesus Christ, it's not just about being a
But if you're "not a good bloke to others", your commitment to your fellow man is in question.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 115:58:57 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,395 |
| Messages: | 6,016,442 |