Re: If god exists, what created god?
Rodney Wines (R_WINES@TRZCL1)
4 May 1995 07:21:07 GMT
In <622@landmark.iinet.net.au> gil@landmark.iinet.net.au writes:
> Now just why would anybody want you to take them seriously, that they
> must do as you might prefer?
Ask them.
> If you wannabe scientific, ...
I never claimed to "wannabe scientific". I'm not a "wannabe" anything.
I'm the "am" I've always wanted to be. I'm just a computer geek like
Carl. Also like Carl, I find the physical universe an endless source of
fascination. That's about as "scientific" as I'll ever get.
> ... what are you doing butting into this here religious thread?
Well, "this here religious thread" showed up in "alt.folklore.science", but
no matter. Anything posted to a public forum is fair game.
> I Seems to me none of your business at all, being way outside the realm
> of science to start with.
It's hard to argue with, "I Seems to me none of your business st all".
You seems to be not too bright to me, and that's about it.
As someone pointed out in another post, the methods and reasons people
create myths such as god is very much inside the realm of science, but
studying it seriously can get the religious zealots on your back in no
time. The experimental psych people have known about superstitious
behavior, and have demonstrated it in the laboratory even on lower animals,
for quite a few years. I personally believe that the mechanism for
creating religions, and the reasons for it, are already known. You don't
believe me? I won't lose any sleep or "rant" about it ...
> He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
You seem to lead the league in ranting here ...
===================================================================
| Internet: rodney.wines@alcatel.ch | "I always wanted roots, |
| X.400: c=CH a=arCom p=Alcatel | but if I can't have roots |
| s=Wines g=Rodney | I'll have wings." |
===================================================================
|