Doug Weller wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:16:15 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Roy Jose Lorr
> wrote:
>
>
>>Doug Weller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:36:21 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Roy Jose Lorr
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>cormac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The concept of a god is not necessary in Buddism either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying that Con****ians and Buddhists are incapable of
>>>>>>contemplating the abstract?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want to contemplate he brain fart of silly,
>>>>>superstitious people?
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant non answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Excusing God from one's religion does not deter the mind from
>>>>>>asserting him. Even denial of God's existence asserts Him. There
is
>>>>>>no way to rid the mind of the concept.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The mind asserts witches, black magic, alien abductions, unicorns,
>>>>>and so many thousand other things it is likely impossible to produce
an
>>>>>inclusive list.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What does that have to do with reality?
>>>>
>>>>The reality is that the concept of God in each and every
>>>>mind is natural and indelible.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or gods? Interesting that this idiot uses the word 'God' when you
might
>>>think he'd say 'god' or 'supernatural being' or plural, etc.
>>
>>Moron, the word "God" is merely one human way of naming [THE
>>ONE], the only omnipotent singularity, that state beyond
>>which no thing is reducible.
>
>
> Ah, you mean The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now I understand! You know The
> Truth and facts are irrelevant.
When you show one thing in the universe that is reducible to
a singularity we can discuss your evolution fantasies.
|
