Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

Corrie wrote:

How sad. Apathy and willful ignorance - what a combination. I hope
for your sake that you don't apply the same attitude toward flight
planning.

Personally I would think that some people in this group would hope
that you don't ram god down the throats of your children, family,
neighbours, etc., with the same ad naseum zeal that you are
continuing to do in this newsgroup.

On 22 Aug 2003 10:21:03 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

When asked what my religion is, I say I'm a "lapsed agnostic: I used to
wonder if there is a God, now I don't care if there is or isn't."

How sad. Apathy and willful ignorance - what a combination. I hope
for your sake that you don't apply the same attitude toward flight
planning.

Ah shoot, I was going to let this subject go, had created and deleted
several articles and was just backing away.

But this is just too assinine to leave alone. Corrie, he was talking
about GOD, not FLYING. Being a christian makes you a better flight
planner than agnostics?

Did this get typed a bit too quickly? Perhaps before it was thought
through all the way? Part of the way?

Is god doing your typing for you?

Corky Scott

(Corrie) wrote:

around the world, it became obvious that there's no escaping what
seems like mindless religion; in fact you see it all through recorded
history on every island, every out-of-the-way isolated space. It's
gotta be genetic.

PRECISELY my point. Humans are hard-coded to worship a Power greater
than themselves. That worship may be dreadfully misguided, but it is
ALWAYS there.

Maybe that's why Neanderthal (sp of my relative?) didn't make it. He
had no religion.


This was tongue-in-cheek, Cor. (I spell just like a Neanderthal, I
know) Guess I should've added a smiley here. But really, maybe his
religion didn't galvanize his buddies together as effectively as
Sapiens' did.



Neadertal. Most paleoanthropologists today think that they were
contemporaneous with early Homo Sapiens. May possibly have interbred
with them. IIRC there are genetic studies underway to see whether
that may have happened. (Of course, if they can interbreed, they're
not really separate species. At least that's one definition of
species. There are over a dozen others, several mutually exclusive.)
It's possible that that was the source of the "Nephilim" stories in
Genesis, as well as the "Titan" stories of Greco-Roman mythology. But
Neadertal were not ancestors of modern humans.

And I hate to correct you, but there is strong evidence that
Neandertal was aware of and interacted with the spiritual world. Grog
had religion.

By all means, correct me. Good one: Grog. :-) Guess his fertility
rock was no match for spear-chucking Zealots from afar.


No matter how hard you work at digging caves to hide from religious
morans, there's just no escaping the Crusades when they sweep through
your homeland.

Wow, you really ARE ignorant about history, aren't you? The Crusades
were, oh, a few TEN THOUSAND years after the last Neandertal died.
And the word is spelled, "moron" not "moran".

Pac sezs:

No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual
Crusades of the Middle Ages. If you were a true student of history,
you would know that "religious crusades" are in the thousands, and
spread all through recorded time. We find evidence of smashed-in
skulls and religious burials all through Eurasia, the middle East,
Asia, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Africa etc. My tongue-in-cheek hypo,
about what really happened to Grog was supposed to make you laugh.
But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger
Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is
entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion
is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who
say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and
Sapiens.)

Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a
spelling troll so quickly. But actually I'm glad you have attacked my
poor spelling. Here, Corrie, you illustrate exactly my point about
the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the
Bible so literally. If you where really knowledgeable about history,
you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's
1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find
the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster
John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular
basis.


Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons.

What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the
Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with
respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling
prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal
university.

Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.
Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the
governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray,
they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays
designed to pressure those of other faiths. If it's still too
upsetting to a Zealot parent, then you can put your kid in a private
monk school or something. It's about free choice. I don't want a
teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. It
used to be o.k. when a region was: all Puritan for example. It's
different now. Things had to change.

Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. This
country was founded on the principles of Free Masons who believed in
religious tolerance above any traditional religion, which is IMHO one
of the biggest reasons why we have been so successful as a truly free
people.

For "Pollsters" who may be lurking, I do not desire to discuss this
with earthbound morANs over at alt.religion. So Corrie, Corky,
Oldcop, Bernie, others, feel free to comment here, or change my mind
about anything.

Enjoyed the banter,

pacplyer

"OldCop" wrote in message news:DDo1b.172489$Oz4.45263@rwcrnsc54...
Sometimes I fell like I'm back in the 7th grade.

You all should know that the only way to solve the problems of the world is
over alcohol. That way you can't remember what the answers were and have to
do it again.


7th grade? Gosh, I was a sophomore in college before I got into the
boozy "if I ran the world" 2 AM hallway sessions.

(Corky Scott) wrote in message ...
On 22 Aug 2003 10:21:03 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

When asked what my religion is, I say I'm a "lapsed agnostic: I used to
wonder if there is a God, now I don't care if there is or isn't."

How sad. Apathy and willful ignorance - what a combination. I hope
for your sake that you don't apply the same attitude toward flight
planning.

Ah shoot, I was going to let this subject go, had created and deleted
several articles and was just backing away.
But this is just too assinine to leave alone. Corrie, he was talking
about GOD, not FLYING. Being a christian makes you a better flight
planner than agnostics?

C'mon, Corky. This is an aviation board, so I'm trying to use
aviation analogies. [pounds head on wall] You're missing the point.
Sheesh. Why do people have to be so bloody literal? sigh. ok, I'll
try to spell it out.

If you don't bother to check enroute winds and weather, TFRs, and
runway conditions at your destination, you run the risk of some nasty
surprises, right? But if you don't know and don't care where you're
going to spend *eternity*, why would you bother to check SIGMETS?
That's my point. The danger of an attitude of "I don't know and I
don't care."

Now, I already can guess how you're going to respond: "I don't
believe in an afterlife - this is all we get. So of course I
preflight carefully." And that makes perfect sense, from your point
of view. From my point of view, though, you're launching a Cub into a
squall line. You don't see the clouds, that's all.

Advice from you about bandwidth wasted on unwinnable matters? Now
that is funny.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You want a binary now or later?
Barnayrd BOb --


Somehow I imagined you offering a single digit.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, pac plyer wrote:

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.

Wow. So much for your concerned-about-scientific-truth facade. I've seen
some real misguided religious zeal in my time, but you're right up there
with the best of them. Betcha don't think of yourself as a religious
zealot, do you? Well, I don't know any other term for hanging
dogmatically to a viewpoint while knee-jerk ridiculing anything you think
might be opposed to it, without even bothering to make sure you understand
what it is you're ridiculing.

I haven't got time to waste on the things you mention either, they have
absolutely nothing to do with me or Hugh Ross, and I have no interest in
discussing them. Sorry.

I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,

(I assume you mean Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time?) Isn't he an
atheist? As such, how is he going to write anything objective about God's
existence or lack thereof? Or do you think he's objective _because_ he's
an atheist? What an objective, scientific paradigm _that_ would be.

-Dan

P.S. I am now out of this discussion. I only got into it in the first
place because I thought I saw some interest in the scientific aspect of
the question at hand. Clearly I was mistaken.

(Corrie) wrote in message . com...
(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.


IOW, don't confuse you with facts; your mind is made up.
Whassamatter, are you scared of a scientific worldview that allows for
the possibility that the universe didn't just happen by accident? Or
is your entire self-worth bound up in believing that you are merely
the product of random molecular collisons? But that's ok, go ahead
and keep your Foggles on. Just keep a watch out for a vacuum failure.

Corrie, Corrie, Corrie,
Nope, in fact, if you'll re-read I said quite the opposite. I said it
appears to me the universe is part of a greater grand design. See?
You're so sucked into this bianary view of an argument you can't
comprehend what's being said. Pac's not a biblethumper huh? O.K.
that means he's one of them then! Get out the holy water and exercize
his ass!

Now it's true I can't spell "pseudo." But my comprehension of history
is concentrated on accepted science, not mythology which you keep
using for reference.


But why don't you educate yourself on this one:
Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

You're a little behind the times. Most evolutionary scientists have
moved beyond Darwin's simplistic "survival of the fittest" model,
seeing as it fails to adequately explain the evidence. Stephen Jay
Gould had to invent the concept of "punctuated equilibria," but
recently that's come under fire, too.

You simply don't know what your talking about Corrie. Darwin was and
is considered a giant today not because of the details of the new the
embryonic science which he gave birth to, but because: in the face of
Christian intolerance, he dared to print his observations about
finches in particular and his conclusions about natural selection to
the rest of the fanatical and ignorant world. I can tell you have not
read this great work.


But evolution is beside the point. Whether or not species
spontaneously transform into other species (and there's precious
little hard evidence to support the notion)

Let's just say God transforms species then, O.K? Oh Ye of little
faith! Do you own a cat or a dog? Those weren't around till man
started selectively breeding coyotes and wildcats. Send me one of
their puppies and I will cross-breed it with my little Dahshound (sp?)
You will witness a micro example of natural selection in action.
Pigeon breeders in England invent new forms of life all the time.
Birds with feathers on their feet etc. Evolution, my good Christian
is all around you, but you are bound and determined to convince us
that it is a simple tree you are embracing and not the first leg of a
much much more complex giant elephant. ;-)

pac "rather be related to a monkey" plyer

(Corky Scott) wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:52:30 -0500, Russell Kent
wrote:

"Rich S." wrote:

Who was that who said, "Son, don't be an agnostic - be *something*!"

Robert Frost is alleged to have said that.

When asked what my religion is, I say I'm a "lapsed agnostic: I used to
wonder if there is a God, now I don't care if there is or isn't." That
usually shuts up the questioner (or would-be proselytizer)...

Russell Kent

Is that original Russell? That's really good!

I heard someone say the other day: "I feel like I'm a citizen of the
world and my religion is to do good."

Corky Scott

LOL! You guys are funny. :-D When I moved to the P.I. the gov there
required we fill out entry/visa forms that had a blank for religion;
so I just left it blank. They gave them back to me and said "you have
to be something, you must put down your religion." So I put down
"Aviation." ;-) They knew I was a pilot and that got a pretty good
laugh out of all of them. I wished I'd put down Russell's "lapsed
agnostic."

pac

No matter how hard you work at digging caves to hide from religious
morans, there's just no escaping the Crusades when they sweep through
your homeland.
corrie says:
Wow, you really ARE ignorant about history, aren't you? The Crusades
were, oh, a few TEN THOUSAND years after the last Neandertal died.
And the word is spelled, "moron" not "moran".

Pac sezs:

No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual
Crusades of the Middle Ages. If you were a true student of history,
you would know that "religious crusades" are in the thousands, and
spread all through recorded time. We find evidence of smashed-in
skulls and religious burials all through Eurasia, the middle East,
Asia, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Africa etc. My tongue-in-cheek hypo,
about what really happened to Grog was supposed to make you laugh.
But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger
Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is
entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion
is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who
say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and
Sapiens.)

Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a
spelling troll so quickly. But actually I'm glad you have attacked my
poor spelling. Here, Corrie, you illustrate exactly my point about
the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the
Bible so literally. If you where really knowledgeable about history,
you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's
1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find
the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster
John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular
basis.


Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons.

What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the
Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with
respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling
prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal
university.

Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.
Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the
governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray,
they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays
designed to pressure those of other faiths. If it's still too
upsetting to a Zealot parent, then you can put your kid in a private
monk school or something. It's about free choice. I don't want a
teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. It
used to be o.k. when a region was: all Puritan for example. It's
different now. Things had to change.

Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. This
country was founded on the principles of Free Masons who believed in
religious tolerance above any traditional religion, which is IMHO one
of the biggest reasons why we have been so successful as a truly free
people.

For "Pollsters" who may be lurking, I do not desire to discuss this
with earthbound morANs over at alt.religion. So Corrie, Corky,
Oldcop, Bernie, others, feel free to comment here, or change my mind
about anything.

Enjoyed the banter,

pacplyer