W hen i was an atheist,  I found myself refusing to examine any
potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the entitlement
to living life the way i saw fit. This included such things as the
uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned phsyics
parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA molecule,  and
the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the sun shining
down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000 mile
away ...yet it feels just right .   How our Lungs are quite compatible
for the precise amount of gasses that make up our atmosphere and how
the atmoshperic pressure is just right.  How the tilt of the earth,
the rotation of the earth,  the magnetic pull of the Moon on the
earth,  and all the MANY other alleged 'accidents'  , were...just
right.  I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired,
to be so strong , that,  virtually nothing else mattered .  I had
placed mySELF at the center of the Universe being the most important
thing there is .  And, i believed i had the right to that liberty.
Now that several decades have passed,  how silly I was to think that I
was numero uno.  It is by the grace of God that he reaches us , and it
is by our cooperation that we invite him into our lives ;  first...a
little at a time...then....more and more as we learn to have humility
by making the Creator more important than ourselves. As ALL of our
modern science Founders can attest,  only a relationship with the
Creator offers deep meaning and true purpose to life ; otherwise,
everything is just superficial at best , and , short-lived.  We can
never get long lasting fulfillment from striving to make more money,
more prestige, acquiring material objects, nor even trying to find
satisfaction at every turn ; even Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones
admitted :' I cant get no....satisfaction'  .

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]
>
>...Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones
>admitted :' I cant get no....satisfaction'  .

He made a good attempt at finding it, though, having seven children
with four women. I guess some people just need a lot of satisfying!

Enuf said on that subject.

But here in AmeriKKK, another useless monument built for the
edification of religious bullocks

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10532925

The $190-million cathedral project took three years to complete.
Financing has come from donations solicited specifically for the
project. The cathedral will be the spiritual home for the Diocese of
Oakland, which includes 500,000 Catholics in Alameda and Contra Costa
counties who worship at 85 parishes. Serving the East Bay's diverse
community, the diocese celebrates Mass in 17 languages.
The center replaces St. Francis de Sales, fatally damaged by the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake.

Editorial comment.  If fundies consider earthquakes as being god's
handiwork, then perhaps a message was being sent that afternoon.....?

Ariel wrote:
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> ...Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones
>> admitted :' I cant get no....satisfaction'  .
> 
> He made a good attempt at finding it, though, having seven children
> with four women. I guess some people just need a lot of satisfying!

Being on tour takes a lot out of a relationship. It takes a really good 
woman.


Or, a lot of average ones.

wrote in message 
news:99e16e24-4bd3-4d15-9c0d-984c96d66287@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>W hen i was an atheist,  I found myself refusing to examine any
> potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the entitlement
> to living life the way i saw fit. This included such things as the
> uniqueness of our Planet,

You see Dave, that's the problem in a nutshell.  Religious people make 
claims to knowledge which they can not possibly have.  There is a video on 
Youtube showing a very prominent politician explaining that the building of 
an oil pipeline is God's will.  How can anyone know that?

How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not know 
that.

In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
 "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> 
> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not know 
> that. 

Given that the universe is finite, the chances of the earth having a 
doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely be 
a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only one 
Planet Earth.


Alwyn

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
> In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>
>> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not 
>> know
>> that.
>
> Given that the universe is finite,

So when you come to the end, what's in front of you?
Graham



the chances of the earth having a
> doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely be
> a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only one
> Planet Earth.
>
>
> Alwyn

"Alwyn"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
| In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
| "John Brockbank"  wrote:
| >
| > How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not know
| > that.
|
| Given that the universe is finite, the chances of the earth having a
| doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely be
| a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only one
| Planet Earth.

Ah, but who knows - we may one day discover a whole rash of universes out there, 
perhaps an infinite number of little bubble universes in a multiverse. Already 
in the visible universe alone there's an estimated 70 sextillion stars 
(70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Many, many more, that are beyond our ability 
to detect at this time. Most stars have at least one planet, it has been 
suggested. Multiply that by a potentially 'infinite' number of universes, and 
the probability of planets that are more than "vaguely similar" to Earth is 
actually quite high!

"Graham"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
4xzDk.2447$J63.1333@newsfe08.iad...
|
| "Alwyn"  wrote in message
| news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
| > In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
| > "John Brockbank"  wrote:
| >>
| >> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not
| >> know
| >> that.
| >
| > Given that the universe is finite,
|
| So when you come to the end, what's in front of you?
| Graham

In the curved space model, perhaps you arrive back at where you started.

Or as Einstein put it: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human 
stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former."

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
> In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>
>> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not 
>> know
>> that.
>
> Given that the universe is finite, the chances of the earth having a
> doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely be
> a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only one
> Planet Earth.
>
>
> Alwyn

Now then, you know very well that what was meant was 'unique' in the sense 
that the Earth supports life and is unique in so doing.  There is nothing 
wrong at all with you saying that there are probably a large number of 
planets similar to Earth in that respect, but it is extremely important to 
stress when you do so that it it is an extremely interesting and difficult 
topic and probably does not mean that it is so.

"Graham"  wrote in message 
news:4xzDk.2447$J63.1333@newsfe08.iad...
>
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
>> In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not 
>>> know
>>> that.
>>
>> Given that the universe is finite,
>
> So when you come to the end, what's in front of you?
> Graham
>

There are problems in answering that question.  Imagine that you are on the 
surface of a sphere that is expanding, and you move about everywhere.  You 
might never get to the same place twice and you could never see it all.

However, wherever you were on the sphere it would look approximately the 
same.  Of course the immediate landscape would vary a bit but wherever you 
were would look pretty much like the rest of it.

The furthest reaches of the universe are moving away faster than we could 
ever travel, so that it is at least 75 billion light years across and 
increasing faster than by a light year per year.  Plus, it also seems to be 
accelerating but more work is needed on that.

In article <48dfbe12$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
 "John Brockbank"  wrote:

> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
> > In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> > "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> >>
> >> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do not 
> >> know
> >> that.
> >
> > Given that the universe is finite, the chances of the earth having a
> > doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely be
> > a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only one
> > Planet Earth.
> 
> Now then, you know very well that what was meant was 'unique' in the sense 
> that the Earth supports life and is unique in so doing.

I did not know that. I suspect you read this 'between the lines' of 
Dave's posting. I took 'unique' to mean unique as you and I are unique.

Would you be one of those religious people by any chance? :-)

> There is nothing 
> wrong at all with you saying that there are probably a large number of 
> planets similar to Earth in that respect, but it is extremely important to 
> stress when you do so that it it is an extremely interesting and difficult 
> topic and probably does not mean that it is so. 

'Probably' does not mean that it is so. But it probably is. :-)


Alwyn

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-122197.19253228092008@unknown.hwng.net...
> In article <48dfbe12$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
>> "Alwyn"  wrote in message
>> news:alwyn-59474C.00321628092008@unknown.hwng.net...
>> > In article <48de7467$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> > "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How do you know that the Earth is unique?  The truth is that you do 
>> >> not
>> >> know
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > Given that the universe is finite, the chances of the earth having a
>> > doppelgaenger are very, very small. Of course, there will most likely 
>> > be
>> > a whole host of planets which are vaguely similar, but there is only 
>> > one
>> > Planet Earth.
>>
>> Now then, you know very well that what was meant was 'unique' in the 
>> sense
>> that the Earth supports life and is unique in so doing.
>
> I did not know that. I suspect you read this 'between the lines' of
> Dave's posting. I took 'unique' to mean unique as you and I are unique.

That can not be correct.  If that was the meaning, then the statement that 
the Earth is unique is a meaningless statement, because of course every 
single object in the whole universe is unique.  The fact that one particular 
obeject is unique in that sense is of course no argument for God at all.

Since the person was arguing precisely that because the Earth is unique that 
shows that God exists, he must have not meant unique in the sense that 
everything is unique but unique because of some of Earth's attributes and I 
am fairly sure that he was referring to the attributes that result in life 
being present.

>
> Would you be one of those religious people by any chance? :-)
>

Obviously you will know that I am certainly not religious.  Your remark does 
not seem to follow logically from anything I have said.

>> There is nothing
>> wrong at all with you saying that there are probably a large number of
>> planets similar to Earth in that respect, but it is extremely important 
>> to
>> stress when you do so that it it is an extremely interesting and 
>> difficult
>> topic and probably does not mean that it is so.
>
> 'Probably' does not mean that it is so. But it probably is. :-)
>
>
> Alwyn