Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by
Lawrence Krauss, to the effect that god has no place
in science; "God did it" is not an acceptable theory
or explanation. It made no statement regarding religion
in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html


What do they all have in common?
hint: who was the first character Dorothy
met on the Yellow Brick Road?


--
Rich

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational.
The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is
fundamental to science.

What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a
god.

What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing
conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. The atheist seem to not
understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
I can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.

Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.

There are some things science can't do.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
I can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
Which is utterly irrelevant.

It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.

Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
measure it, you can't detect it.

Hint : we can play with it with drugs.

You ignore it, but we can all observe
our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.

There are some things science can't do.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
can't prove scientifically that God exists.

We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"!

(Although I'm not going to wait...)

Olrik

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational.
The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is
fundamental to science.

What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a
god.

What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing
conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. The atheist seem to not
understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
I can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.

Well?

Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.

Where did I say it was, imbecile?

And it's not my problem.

What has it got to do with anything that was being discussed

Or was it a red herring because you couldn't address mey point?

If you had demonstrated this hypothetical god of yours to the same
level as consciousness you might have had a point.

But you didn't, and you haven't.

There are some things science can't do.

There is nothing that religion can do apart from making people
incapable of dealing with reality.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:50:20 -0400, Olrik wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss,
to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not
an acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
Which is utterly irrelevant.

It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.

Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
measure it, you can't detect it.

Hint : we can play with it with drugs.

And it shows up on a voltmeter? No it doesn't There is no scientific way
to measure it. And your method of evading the question is a fallacy. You
can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can not be
detected except as a personal experience remains.

There are some things that science can't do.

Since 'god' cannot be disproved, and humans need it, if god didn't exist
we'd have to invent him. So, the point is moot. The Science of
anthropology has shown that those without science are damned to
extinction.

So, welcome to Darwin's dustbin! You do believe in evolution and science,
don't you?

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0400, Olrik wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
can't prove scientifically that God exists.

There is no evidence for it whatsoever.

It is merely somebody else's religious belief.

We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"!

I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside
their religion.

Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its
deity-belief if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion?

Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove
it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer?

(Although I'm not going to wait...)

Olrik

However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.

Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational.
The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is
fundamental to science.

What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a
god.

What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing
conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. The atheist seem to not
understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0400, Olrik wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:

Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
religion in the wider society.

Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

snip snide comment

True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.

IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
I can't prove scientifically that God exists.

We don't have to prove anything.

If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the position
of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To believe in
something that you cannot prove is a religious belief.

As long as we're going to be religious, may as well pick a religion that
has been validated by natural selection and Darwin's principles.

Since science started in the western culture, and science has enabled the
population to expand by a factor of a thousand and is thus wildly
successful, the rational choice would be to start with a basis of
Christianity as practiced. I'm not talking about "Christianity" of the
modern era where they depend upon the teachings of Jesus; oh no! This was
tried 2000 years ago and those people became extinct. Any philosophy that
leads to the extinction of the people who practice it is a philosophy to
be rejected.

I'm talking about the Roman Religion of enlightenment, based on the old
Greek/Roman gods and perverted to a monotheistic religion. The work
ethic, the development of rational thought, a culture that valued the
scientific method.

The atheist belief has lead them to a negative growth rate; these people
and their degenerate culture are already in Darwin's dust bin. It is
foolish to take advice on how to live from a people who are already
doomed.