The best religion is ????

[Tom Potter]

Languages indicates a commonality among humans.

As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
they are based on the following hierarchy:

Nouns:
1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
2. Me
3. You
4. They
5. It
6. Those

Verbs:
2. Changes in time and space.

Other parts of speech,
attempts to hack language to fit reality.

The questions are:
1. What are the needs of mankind?
2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?

I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
and Buddhists does the job best.

( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)

The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,
far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.

The one God approach concentrates too much
culture onto one point,
and the atheist religion fragments culture into
individual units, every atheist being his own God.

A cohesive, long-lived, positive culture
NEEDS a "first principle" that is focused
BUT not too much.

The "I am" atheist "first principle"
eliminates a unifying "first principle"
and does not provide for a cohesive, long-lived,
positive, SOCIAL, culture.

The "One God" "first principle"
ends up creating self-centered religions
like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
that consider THEIR God the best,
and they become hostile to religions that
"have others Gods before them".

The best religion would feature
freedom of speech
AND
"freedom of Gods"

and as man is a social animal,
encourage sharing Gods with others
in a free and open market.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

[chibiabos]

In article <lpT7r.46990$Bp4....@newsfe14.iad>, Tom Potter

<tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.
>
> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those

#1 isn't necessary. It's wishful thinking made respectable by word
salad.

> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.

Fair enough. I'll buy those.

> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?

Light. Air. Water. Nourishment. Shelter. Affection. Reproductive
success.

> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?

Word salad provides no nourishment of any kind. It is mental
masturbation. Feels good. Leaves you wanting something more.

> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.

Suggestion noted.

Suggestion rejected.

Philosophy. It's not just for smart people any more.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Olrik]

Le 2012-03-13 22:18, Tom Potter a écrit :
> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.

Vous avez bien raison. Merci!

En passant, aimez-vous les biscuits? Moi j'aime bien les biscuits!

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:18:16 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.

< chuckle! > So does the fact that almost all humans have two arms, two
legs and one head.

> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)

LOL !! I doubt that the first cave men bashing rocks together were too
concerned about the Big Bang or "nothingness". Even the idea of gods would
have to wait for a certain amount of inquisitiveness: Where did it all come
from? What makes it all work? Is death the end of it all?

> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those

That is a list of pronouns, Shakespeare.

> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.

More likely, this an attempt to hack reality to fit your theory.

> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?

Survival.

> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?

Survival.

> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.

How odd that the "First Principle" that is best has failed to dominate. How
do you explain that, Einstein?


...

> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech
> AND
> "freedom of Gods"
>
> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.

Yaawwwnnn

Another case of New Age relativism.



Regards,

Josef


The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its
limits.

-- Albert Einstein

[NefeshBarYochai]

The best religion is Judaism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j1qkorFszY

[Olrik]

Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
> The best religion is Judaism.

It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.

You're a swine. Please FOAD.

BRAISE THE LARD!

[Uncle Vic]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:lpT7r.46990$Bp4.45576
@newsfe14.iad:

> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.

I want a new god
One that won't make me sick
One that won't make me crash my car
Or make me feel three feet thick

I want a new god
One that won't hurt my head
One that won't make my mouth too dry
Or make my eyes too red

One that won't make me nervous
Wonderin' what to do
One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you
When I'm alone with you

--
Uncle Vic

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Tom Potter]

"chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:130320122004306157%ch...@nospam.com...

Thanks to my pal "chibiabos" for demonstrating
how Atheists assume an attitude of superiority,

and fantasize themselves as the "First principle"

and cut the link between themselves
and the original "God/Goddess image", their fathers/mothers,

and from the "God/Goddess images"
used by they culture they inhabit.

It has been my observation,
that most (All?) Atheists I have observed,
tend to be egotists,

that reject the "Gods/Goddesses" that brought them into the world,

and the root, mean squared "Gods/Goddesses"
created by SOCIETIES of sentient beings
to provide efficient, peaceful, ways for groups to deal
with sickness, death, wars, dispair, etc.

As Thales of Miletus, the first Western philosopher, said:
"All things are full of Gods."

Philosophy. It's not just for smart people any more.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 13, 9:12 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>
> > The best religion is Judaism.
>
> It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.

Or shrimp. Or lobster. Or scallops.

>
> You're a swine. Please FOAD.

That's insulting to pigs, which are rather intelligent and sensitive
beings. Pigs taste good - that's where they went wrong.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:27:43 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 13, 9:12 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>>
>> > The best religion is Judaism.
>>
>> It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.
>
>Or shrimp. Or lobster. Or scallops.
>>
>> You're a swine. Please FOAD.
>
>That's insulting to pigs, which are rather intelligent and sensitive
>beings. Pigs taste good - that's where they went wrong.

If they weren't meant for us to eat, why did God make them out of
bacon?

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The best religion is *no* religion.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-03-14 00:27, SkyEyes a écrit :
> On Mar 13, 9:12 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>>
>>> The best religion is Judaism.
>>
>> It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.
>
> Or shrimp. Or lobster. Or scallops.
>>
>> You're a swine. Please FOAD.
>
> That's insulting to pigs, which are rather intelligent and sensitive
> beings. Pigs taste good - that's where they went wrong.

Sadly, I meet pigs while they're neatly packaged into yummy portions of
chops, roasts or fillets.

[Tom Potter]

"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jjp33e$vmo$2...@dont-email.me...

English translation:
"You are quite right. Thank you!
By the way, do you like cookies? Well I like biscuits!"

Thanks to my pal "Olrik" for demonstrating that
"Languages indicate a commonality among humans.",

as ALL languages feature nouns and verbs,
and an "I" hierarchy that flows through
God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..

Or course, atheist percieve the hierarchy as:
I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:24:21 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:130320122004306157%ch...@nospam.com...
>> In article <lpT7r.46990$Bp4....@newsfe14.iad>, Tom Potter
>> <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

> Thanks to my pal "chibiabos" for demonstrating
> how Atheists assume an attitude of superiority,

ROTFL !!

Oh, the irony! A relativist insisting that HE has the final answers !!



Regards,

Josef


Great minds are sceptical. Convictions are prisons.

-- Nietzsche

[Richo]

On Mar 14, 1:18 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.
>

So does DNA.
8-)

> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those
>

Eh?
How is this a hierarchy? How can you tell Me comes before You?
What does "before" or "higher" mean in this case??
Isn't it just an arbitrary ordering?

> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.
>
> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?
> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?
>
> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.
>
> ( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)
>
> The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
> the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
> and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,
> far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.
>

Two points:
(1) "The atheist religion" doesn't exist.
(2) If it did exist it wouldn't "provide too many gods"

<snip>

> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech
> AND
> "freedom of Gods"
>

In my opinion the best religion would tell us how to live in love and
harmony with each other and with nature and contain nothing but truth.

Why *must* religions contain superstitious bullshit?
Can we conceive of a religion that had no lies/nonsense in it at all?
It should be possible shouldn't it?
No such religion has ever existed - but why couldn't it?

> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.
>

If I am *free* to chose, then I chose none.
If I cant chose "none" then I am not free.

Mark.

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:18 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jjp33e$vmo$2...@dont-email.me...

...

> Thanks to my pal "Olrik" for demonstrating that

> "Languages indicate a commonality among humans.", ...


As does the need for food, water and air.



> ... as ALL languages feature nouns and verbs,

> and an "I" hierarchy that flows through
> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..

Silly twaddle. The first gods were impersonal so initially there would be a
disconnect between language and religion.



Regards,

Josef


The most common lie is that which one lies to himself.

-- Nietzsche

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:04:33 PM UTC+8, NefeshBarYochai wrote:
> The best religion is Judaism.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j1qkorFszY

Well, it belongs to a tiny segment of the jewish orthodox.
Not one else is stealing it from them.

[Androcles]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lpT7r.46990$Bp4....@newsfe14.iad...
> Languages

Wrong newsgroup, fuckwit.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Totally disagree...there is no bloody pixie/god.

Nature of the universe make us what we are !!

[Tom Potter]

"Richo" <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c2b02fda-24c4-479e...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

Thanks to my pal Mark
for calling attention to the fact
that although Humans and primates
share 99.44% of their DNA,
they share little of their languages and grammars.

Regarding Mark's question:

"How is this a hierarchy? How can you tell Me comes before You?"

1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
2. Me
3. You
4. They
5. It
6. Those

I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:

1. Perception of self.

2. Perception of others. (Parents)

3. Identification of self and others
and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".

4. Perception of time
because the hippocampus in response to pleasure and pain,
triggers the production of secretions that fix the sensory
input and lays down a sort of an calendar,
( The brain's cross correlator.)

5. In time, sentient beings order objects and events
along an external calendar marked off using convenient ticks,
from heart beats, days, moons, years, etc.
and begin to comprehend that future is related to the past.

6. At some point, sentient beings begin to extend
the calendar to the past, and beyond the beginning of "I".

7. As humans are social animals, they share their
perceptions with others, and form a concept of
a God or Gods that unify them.

Regarding Mark's comment:
"If <atheism> did exist it wouldn't "provide too many gods"

When someone rejects his culture's God and Gods
he either has "other Gods before him"
such as a science God, or the "Rejector"
considers himself the top of the order,
a God in his own mind.

For an examination of birth and evolution
of the science God, visit the URL below.

http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/god.html


--
Tom Potter
http://tom-potter.tel

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:g24jxc64oj43$.g71nj5vit19w$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:18 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jjp33e$vmo$2...@dont-email.me...
>

>> Thanks to my pal "Olrik" for demonstrating that
>> "Languages indicate a commonality among humans.", ...
>
> As does the need for food, water and air.
>
>> ... as ALL languages feature nouns and verbs,
>> and an "I" hierarchy that flows through
>> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..
>
> Silly twaddle. The first gods were impersonal so initially there would be
> a
> disconnect between language and religion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef

As my pal Josef points out,
humans differ from plants and animals
in that they have a complex language

that starts with "I"
extends linearily as

God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation

adds sentient orthogonals "you" and "they"

and none-sentient orthogonals "it" and bit,

and uses them to generate secondary orthogonals
such as x, y, z, t, charge, baryon number, hyper charge, action..

And thanks to my pal Josef for pointing out
that as far as we know,
although plants and animals have a "need for food, water and air",
they have no need for nouns, verbs, and Gods.

[Tom Potter]

"???" <scotp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bd945e4-3ba6-4be2...@ge5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> All religion is crap. The most accurate religion we have now is
> science or atheism. All the rest is crap that deserves to be thrown
> into the urban sewer, where it belongs.
>
> Science will be able to explain our world eventually and why everthing
> happens. We just need to give it time but it will happen.
>
> Religion is just a tool used to fool people in order to keep them line
> and do what their masters tell them to do but there is zero truth
> behind any religion.

Thanks to my pal "???"
for pointing out that science is a religion.

The following URL features a poem
that describes the birth, evolution and future
of the science God.

http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/god.html

And here is an interesting post
made by B Jacoby in sci.physics today.

"Naw. You don't get it. He who controls the present, controls the past...
AND the laws of physics. If all physics "authorities" suddenly declare
up is down, black is white, CO2 is "pollution" or any other
pronoucements, it becomes "true" because it's "established" science.
Going against "established science" will end your career in physics, so
the purity of "established science" is maintained by force. All debate
over issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And what those
in power say is true, becomes true. Period."

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:qnt6sxzto7ky$.1slnf1yakewvs$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:24:21 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>> "chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:130320122004306157%ch...@nospam.com...
>>> In article <lpT7r.46990$Bp4....@newsfe14.iad>, Tom Potter
>>> <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Thanks to my pal "chibiabos" for demonstrating
>> how Atheists assume an attitude of superiority,
>
> ROTFL !!
>
> Oh, the irony! A relativist insisting that HE has the final answers !!

relativistism:
"the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment
are relative to the individuals and situations involved"

Straw man logical fallacy:
"This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of
somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often
this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've
made arguments they haven't actually made"

[Don Martin]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:12 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>>
>>> The best religion is Judaism.
>>
>> It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.
>
> Or shrimp. Or lobster. Or scallops.
>>
>> You're a swine. Please FOAD.
>
> That's insulting to pigs, which are rather intelligent and sensitive
> beings. Pigs taste good - that's where they went wrong.

Psssst! So do we. It is our best-kept secret. DON'T pass it on.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The best religion is *no* religion.

A condition called "sanity."

[Josef Balluch]

In order to recognize a straw man you would first need to know your own

argument. You wrote:


> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech AND "freedom of Gods"
>
> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.

Ie: relativism.


Your welcome.

Josef


Out of passions grow opinions; mental sloth lets these rigidify into
convictions.

-- Nietzsche

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:40:27 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:g24jxc64oj43$.g71nj5vit19w$.dlg@40tude.net...

>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:18 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

>>> Thanks to my pal "Olrik" for demonstrating that
>>> "Languages indicate a commonality among humans.", ...
>>
>> As does the need for food, water and air.
>>
>>> ... as ALL languages feature nouns and verbs,
>>> and an "I" hierarchy that flows through
>>> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..
>>
>> Silly twaddle. The first gods were impersonal so initially there would be
>> a
>> disconnect between language and religion.

> As my pal Josef points out,
> humans differ from plants and animals
> in that they have a complex language

Plants and animals are capable of communication as well. They do not
necessarily use audible means. Furthermore, some animals appear to use a
complex series of sounds to communicate.

> that starts with "I"
> extends linearily as
> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation

That is your twaddle. Read what you said in another post about putting
words in other's mouths.

[ snip some more twaddle ]

> And thanks to my pal Josef for pointing out
> that as far as we know,
> although plants and animals have a "need for food, water and air",
> they have no need for nouns, verbs, and Gods.

Pure speculation on your part.



Regards,

Josef


Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.

-- Mark Twain

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Mar 13, 9:18 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.
>

> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those
>

> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.
>
> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?
> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?
>
> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.
>
> ( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)
>
> The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
> the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
> and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,
> far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.
>

> The one God approach concentrates too much
> culture onto one point,
> and the atheist religion fragments culture into
> individual units, every atheist being his own God.
>
> A cohesive, long-lived, positive culture
> NEEDS a "first principle" that is focused
> BUT not too much.
>
> The "I am" atheist "first principle"
> eliminates a unifying "first principle"
> and does not provide for a cohesive, long-lived,
> positive, SOCIAL, culture.
>
> The "One God" "first principle"
> ends up  creating self-centered religions
> like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
> that consider THEIR God the best,
> and they become hostile to religions that
> "have others Gods before them".
>

> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech
> AND
> "freedom of Gods"
>
> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.
>

> --
> Tom Potter
> -----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

The best religion is the one that is TOTALLY true and based on
something that no other religious leader in the past has ever
done : Fulfilled 200 very narrow prophecies , lived a sinless life
by eye witnesses, said he was the actual Creator, and who predicted
his own death, burial, and ressurecting from the dead...then
accomplished it by showing himself again to over 500 local
townspeople which is grounded in historical evidence from both
christian and secular historians alike. THAT is the correct one to
follow and the person to surrender your life to.

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:37:41 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


...

> I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:
>
> 1. Perception of self.
>
> 2. Perception of others. (Parents)
>
> 3. Identification of self and others
> and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".

Wrong. Immanuel Kant pointed out that we have to become aware of an
external reality in order to become aware of self.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#SelCon

[ snip some more twaddle ]



Regards,

Josef


The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes
or fears or wishes rather than with their minds.

-- Will Durant

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:59:41 -0400, Josef Balluch
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:37:41 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>> I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:
>>
>> 1. Perception of self.
>>
>> 2. Perception of others. (Parents)
>>
>> 3. Identification of self and others
>> and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".
>
>
>Wrong. Immanuel Kant pointed out that we have to become aware of an
>external reality in order to become aware of self.
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#SelCon

But Kant was wrong and Hairy Potter is right.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Tom Potter <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.

There's lots of similarities between cultures. You'd expect
this. We're all one species, and it makes sense that all
of us would like similar things.

> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)

Means nothing; the fact that there are words like "God" in
a language doesn't mean that there ARE Gods. There are words
for "Balrog", "Sarlaak", "Unicorn". Doesn't mean they exist
either.

> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those
>
> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.
>
> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?

The basics for survival; after the needs are provided, mankind
can devote its time to the "wants"; art, hobbies, leisure, etc.

> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?

What actually happened in the beginning, i.e. the truth. Physiscists
and cosmologists are looking into it.

> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.

Why? Why would something that has no evidence for existing be "best"?

> ( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)
>
> The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
> the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
> and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,

1) There's no "atheist religion"
2) Atheists don't believe in Gods.

> far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.
>
> The one God approach concentrates too much
> culture onto one point,
> and the atheist religion fragments culture into
> individual units, every atheist being his own God.

I'm not a God, nor do I claim to be. I know of no atheist
who does. Where are you getting this from?

> A cohesive, long-lived, positive culture
> NEEDS a "first principle" that is focused
> BUT not too much.

Why? What evidence do you have for this assertion? Why couldn't
a culture be happy with the truth?

> The "I am" atheist "first principle"
> eliminates a unifying "first principle"

How so? We're all humans; doesn't this suffice for a unifying
idea? Why do I need something else? What *exactly* is it that
having some kind of panoply of Gods provide me that acknowledging
that we're all humans and all want to be happy does not?

> and does not provide for a cohesive, long-lived,
> positive, SOCIAL, culture.

Again, an unsupported assertion.

> The "One God" "first principle"
> ends up creating self-centered religions
> like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
> that consider THEIR God the best,
> and they become hostile to religions that
> "have others Gods before them".
>
> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech
> AND
> "freedom of Gods"

So, in other words, identical to the constitutions of a lot of
countries?

> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.

Why do we have to share Gods in an open market? Aren't goods good
enough?

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:12:53 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>> The best religion is Judaism.
>
>It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.

Amen to that!

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[linuxgal]

Allahu Oinkbar!

[Smiler]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:48:44 -0700, wrote:

> All religion is crap. The most accurate religion we have now is
> science or atheism.

Atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sex position.

> All the rest is crap.
>
> Science will be able to explain [more of]our world eventually. We just
> need to give it time.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[NefeshBarYochai]

LOL

[ala]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.03.15...@JoeKing.com...

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:48:44 -0700, wrote:
>
>> All religion is crap. The most accurate religion we have now is
>> science or atheism.
>
> Atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sex position.

so do you make the first move or do make the lady chase you

[Olrik]

Don't you have a kernel to recompile?

[David Canzi]

One that doesn't induce its followers to cross-post to a bunch
of unrelated newsgroups?

Tom Potter <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[blah blah blah]

--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 14, 6:22 am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:

> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 9:12 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Le 2012-03-14 00:04, NefeshBarYochai a écrit :
>
> >>> The best religion is Judaism.
>
> >> It can't be the best "anything" if you can't eat bacon.
>
> > Or shrimp.  Or lobster.  Or scallops.
>
> >> You're a swine. Please FOAD.
>
> > That's insulting to pigs, which are rather intelligent and sensitive
> > beings.  Pigs taste good - that's where they went wrong.
>
> Psssst!  So do we.  It is our best-kept secret.  DON'T pass it on.

That, I believe, is the reason human meat is known as "long pig," no?

Brenda

[linuxgal]

There's a kernel of truth to that.

[תום‎]

On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks to my pal "???"
> for pointing out that  science is a religion.

Science is not a religion. Science describes our world quite
accurately while religion cannot explain or account for these
phenomena. Are you saying that the theory of gravity is also a
religion?

What science can't explain now it surely will be able to explain in
the future, the only problem is that both you and me will be dead
already.

The God-of-the-gaps argument never worked for theists and never will
work.

[pyotr filipivich]

??? <scotp...@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.religion the following:

>On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to my pal "???"
>> for pointing out that  science is a religion.
>
>Science is not a religion. Science describes our world quite
>accurately while religion cannot explain or account for these
>phenomena. Are you saying that the theory of gravity is also a
>religion?

There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system. Because
it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
are not part of their jurisdiction.
OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
"Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".

Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[plainolamerican]

On Mar 13, 9:18 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.
>

> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>
> Nouns:
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)

> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those
>
> Verbs:
> 2. Changes in time and space.
>
> Other parts of speech,
> attempts to hack language to fit reality.
>
> The questions are:
> 1. What are the needs of mankind?

> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?
>

> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
> and Buddhists does the job best.
>

> ( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)
>
> The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
> the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
> and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,

> far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.
>
> The one God approach concentrates too much
> culture onto one point,
> and the atheist religion fragments culture into
> individual units, every atheist being his own God.
>

> A cohesive, long-lived, positive culture
> NEEDS a "first principle" that is focused
> BUT not too much.
>

> The "I am" atheist "first principle"
> eliminates a unifying "first principle"

> and does not provide for a cohesive, long-lived,
> positive, SOCIAL, culture.
>

> The "One God" "first principle"
> ends up  creating self-centered religions
> like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
> that consider THEIR God the best,
> and they become hostile to religions that
> "have others Gods before them".
>
> The best religion would feature
> freedom of speech
> AND
> "freedom of Gods"
>

> and as man is a social animal,
> encourage sharing Gods with others
> in a free and open market.
>

> --
> Tom Potter
> -----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
and the atheist religion provides too many Gods

---
believing in myths is insanity

[תום‎]

On Mar 15, 7:46 pm, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>         There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system.  Because
> it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
> are not part of their jurisdiction.

Not true. Science does answer the "Why" on many questions. For example
science can the "why" to the question "why is there gravity"? It's
because spacetime is curved so the "why" to the question is answered.

In the future science will be able to answer more such "whys".

>         OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
> "Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".

See my answer above.

> Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
> your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
> that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

But religion can't really explain it either.

[תום‎]

On Mar 15, 8:18 pm, תום <scotpres...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
> > your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
> > that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

There may be a biological explanation for this but religion can't
really explain it better either.

Religion also cannot account for the problem of evil or why there is
evil in the world while science can provide some explanation for why
evil things happen to people.

[Don Martin]

That was the term applied by those doing the taste-testing, yes . . . .

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:46:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>??? <scotp...@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
>typed in alt.religion the following:
>>On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to my pal "???"
>>> for pointing out that  science is a religion.
>>
>>Science is not a religion. Science describes our world quite
>>accurately while religion cannot explain or account for these
>>phenomena. Are you saying that the theory of gravity is also a
>>religion?
>
> There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system. Because
>it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
>are not part of their jurisdiction.
> OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
>"Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".
>
> Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
>your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
>that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

So what? Most of us learned our morality, most unscientifically, from our
parents and rarely change our minds on the matter. Actions we thought unjust as
children still curl our lips in disgust decades later.

[pyotr filipivich]

??? <scotp...@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT)

typed in alt.religion the following:

>On Mar 15, 7:46 pm, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>         There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system.  Because
>> it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
>> are not part of their jurisdiction.
>
>Not true. Science does answer the "Why" on many questions. For example
>science can the "why" to the question "why is there gravity"? It's
>because spacetime is curved so the "why" to the question is answered.
>
>In the future science will be able to answer more such "whys".

So, having explained how there comes to be gravity, the question
unresolved remains "Why is there a Space Time Continuum in the first
place?"

>
>>         OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
>> "Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".
>
>See my answer above.
>
>> Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
>> your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
>> that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".
>
>But religion can't really explain it either.

So it would seem that you believe.

But religion is part of philosophy, not natural studies. And vice
versa.

So, who do you favor in the March madness?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:31:08 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>??? <scotp...@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
>typed in alt.religion the following:
>>On Mar 15, 7:46 pm, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>         There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system.  Because
>>> it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
>>> are not part of their jurisdiction.
>>
>>Not true. Science does answer the "Why" on many questions. For example
>>science can the "why" to the question "why is there gravity"? It's
>>because spacetime is curved so the "why" to the question is answered.
>>
>>In the future science will be able to answer more such "whys".
>
> So, having explained how there comes to be gravity, the question
>unresolved remains "Why is there a Space Time Continuum in the first
>place?"

No.

It simply follows where the evidence leads.

Why do you want there to be a metaphysical "why"?

>>>         OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
>>> "Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".
>>
>>See my answer above.
>>
>>> Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
>>> your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
>>> that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".
>>
>>But religion can't really explain it either.
>
> So it would seem that you believe.

Fact.

Religion doesn't ecplain anything.

It invents "facts" that have no basis in reality.

> But religion is part of philosophy, not natural studies. And vice
>versa.

So what?

It is up to people like you to demonstrate its validity ionstead of
just asserting it.

Until you do that, yours is merely one of hundreds of diffeerebt
religions, each with its own god or gods.

All of which remain merely beliefs until demonstrated otherwise.

[ala]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:h4SdnWmOgKpp1fzS...@giganews.com...

rastafarianism

lurry of conflicting rulings on medical marijuana sets up landmark Calif.
review
Stay Connected

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/12/141616/flurry-of-conflicting-rulings.html#storylink=cpy
Peter Hecht | McClatchy Newspapers
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - When it comes to rulings on medical marijuana,
California courts have a case of multiple personality disorder.

A flurry of recent, conflicting decisions by state appellate courts on
whether cities can ban marijuana stores or be forced to allow them is
setting up a landmark review by the California Supreme Court.

The state's high court recently agreed to accept four cases involving
marijuana dispensaries. Two more cases may be on the way, including the
appeal of a Feb. 29 ruling in Orange County that said cities can't ban
cannabis stores but that such stores have to grow all of their pot on site -
a requirement dispensaries say is impossible to satisfy.

[ala]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ds%7r.93870$jU1....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> Thanks to my pal Mark
> for calling attention to the fact
> that although Humans and primates
> share 99.44% of their DNA,
> they share little of their languages and grammars.
>
> Regarding Mark's question:
> "How is this a hierarchy? How can you tell Me comes before You?"

>
> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
> 2. Me
> 3. You
> 4. They
> 5. It
> 6. Those
>

> I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:
>
> 1. Perception of self.
>
> 2. Perception of others. (Parents)
>
> 3. Identification of self and others
> and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".
>

> 4. Perception of time
> because the hippocampus in response to pleasure and pain,
> triggers the production of secretions that fix the sensory
> input and lays down a sort of an calendar,
> ( The brain's cross correlator.)
>
> 5. In time, sentient beings order objects and events
> along an external calendar marked off using convenient ticks,
> from heart beats, days, moons, years, etc.
> and begin to comprehend that future is related to the past.
>
> 6. At some point, sentient beings begin to extend
> the calendar to the past, and beyond the beginning of "I".
>
> 7. As humans are social animals, they share their
> perceptions with others, and form a concept of
> a God or Gods that unify them.
>
> Regarding Mark's comment:
> "If <atheism> did exist it wouldn't "provide too many gods"
>
> When someone rejects his culture's God and Gods
> he either has "other Gods before him"
> such as a science God, or the "Rejector"
> considers himself the top of the order,
> a God in his own mind.
>
> For an examination of birth and evolution
> of the science God, visit the URL below.
>
> http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/god.html
>


http://beabetterbusiness.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/question-marks.jpg

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:1a7ddahssc9vu.1...@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:40:27 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>> news:g24jxc64oj43$.g71nj5vit19w$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:46:18 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks to my pal "Olrik" for demonstrating that
>>>> "Languages indicate a commonality among humans.", ...
>>>
>>> As does the need for food, water and air.
>>>
>>>> ... as ALL languages feature nouns and verbs,
>>>> and an "I" hierarchy that flows through
>>>> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation..
>>>
>>> Silly twaddle. The first gods were impersonal so initially there would
>>> be
>>> a
>>> disconnect between language and religion.
>
>
>
>> As my pal Josef points out,
>> humans differ from plants and animals
>> in that they have a complex language
>
>
> Plants and animals are capable of communication as well. They do not
> necessarily use audible means. Furthermore, some animals appear to use a
> complex series of sounds to communicate.
>
>
>
>> that starts with "I"
>> extends linearily as
>> God, ....., father, I, son, grandson.....DNA...mutation
>
>
> That is your twaddle. Read what you said in another post about putting
> words in other's mouths.
>
> [ snip some more twaddle ]
>
>
>> And thanks to my pal Josef for pointing out
>> that as far as we know,
>> although plants and animals have a "need for food, water and air",
>> they have no need for nouns, verbs, and Gods.
>
>
> Pure speculation on your part.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>
> Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.
>
> -- Mark Twain

Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
"excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.

Perhaps this is why Jews have come into conflict
with all of their neighbors throughout history.

Jews made a great advancement in their capacity to "excite" people,
after Pulitzer, a lazy, Jewish liar, con man, cheat, and instigator
took money two times from the Union to fight for the North,
and after the defeat of the South,

and became a "Carpetbagger" who went to a southern state
and got elected to the state legislature at the age of 22,

In less than three years in the state legislature
this lazy, penniless, 22 year old Jew
acquired enough money to buy a share in a St. Louis newspaper,
and within seven more years he had acquired enough money
to buy the St. Louis Dispatch, and the St. Louis Post news papers.

America's demise began when Pulitzer,
using Cobb as his front man, got Wilson elected president,
and got Wilson to get America involved in the foreign wars
that Washington warned and all previous presidents
had warned about and avoided.

As can be seen,
Jews also used their dominance in the Mass Media
to get America to side with the Jews that had massacred
the Russian Family and co-opted the Russian government,
and were using Russia as a base from where to
instigate the Class Wars of the 1900's
that caused the Great Depression, WWII
and all the little Class Wars.

And they are still at it,
they got the Bushes to wage the wars against Iraqi
that put America into moral and economic freefall,

and they are aggressively trying to get America
to wage war against the Iranian people.

Judaism seems to have morphed into a cultural cancer
that invades rich host, feeds off of the host,
and destroys it.

Many Jews came to America during the Civil War
to profit from it, but Pulitzer was the cancerous seed
responsible for most of America's problems,
including the trashing of traditional American
morals and culture and getting America
involved in foreign wars that Jews could profit from.

Before Pulitzer began stirring the pot,
"The sun always shined on the British Empire"
and America was the richest, most powerful, most dynamic,
most moral, and most admired nation on the planet.

--
Physics Tutorial
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/menu.html

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:ku7ibsoaf556.3...@40tude.net...

In order to appease my pal "Josef Balluch",

I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:

1. Perception of external things and events.

2. Perception of self.

3. Perception of others. (Parents)

4. Identification of self and others

and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


...

> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.

Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.



Regards,

Josef


A man always has two reasons for doing anything - a good
reason and the real reason.

-- J. P. Morgan

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:02:01 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:ku7ibsoaf556.3...@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:37:41 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:



>>> I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:
>>>
>>> 1. Perception of self.
>>>
>>> 2. Perception of others. (Parents)
>>>
>>> 3. Identification of self and others
>>> and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Immanuel Kant pointed out that we have to become aware of an
>> external reality in order to become aware of self.
>>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#SelCon

...

> In order to appease my pal "Josef Balluch",
> I suggest that all science, philosophy and religion start with:
>
> 1. Perception of external things and events.
>
> 2. Perception of self.
>
> 3. Perception of others. (Parents)
>
> 4. Identification of self and others
> and perception of "They" and "It"/"Those".

That's better, Tommy, but you still haven't got the hang of it. Wanna roll
the dice again?



Regards,

Josef


We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we
used when we created them.

-- Albert Einstein

[Tom Potter]

"plainolamerican" <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2867f8b3-3645-4f33...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
>the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
>and the atheist religion provides too many Gods
>---
>believing in myths is insanity

Maybe my pal "plainolamerican" is right!

Maybe Jews are "insane" for believing
that the world was created in seven days,
that Noah build a boat and saved his family and
all the animals on the planet,
that Moses parted the Red Sea, etc.,

and Christians and Muslims are "insane"
because they allowed themselves to be
brainwashed by these myths by Popes,
Jews, and the Mass Media.

[Tom Potter]

"sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message
news:jjqlgb$rhj$1...@dont-email.me...

> In alt.atheism Tom Potter <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Languages indicates a commonality among humans.
>

> There's lots of similarities between cultures. You'd expect
> this. We're all one species, and it makes sense that all
> of us would like similar things.

>
>> As can be seen from analyzing ALL languages,
>> they are based on the following hierarchy:
>>
>> Nouns:
>> 1. First principle ( God/big bang/nothingness/etc.)
>

> Means nothing; the fact that there are words like "God" in
> a language doesn't mean that there ARE Gods. There are words
> for "Balrog", "Sarlaak", "Unicorn". Doesn't mean they exist
> either.

>
>> 2. Me
>> 3. You
>> 4. They
>> 5. It
>> 6. Those
>>
>> Verbs:
>> 2. Changes in time and space.
>>
>> Other parts of speech,
>> attempts to hack language to fit reality.
>>
>> The questions are:
>> 1. What are the needs of mankind?
>

> The basics for survival; after the needs are provided, mankind
> can devote its time to the "wants"; art, hobbies, leisure, etc.

>
>> 2. What "first principle" best supplies the needs of mankind?
>

> What actually happened in the beginning, i.e. the truth. Physiscists
> and cosmologists are looking into it.

>
>> I suggest that a non-intrusive, multi God, "First principle"
>> such as practiced by the Romans, Greeks,
>> and Buddhists does the job best.
>

> Why? Why would something that has no evidence for existing be "best"?

>
>> ( Observe that these were/are long-lived, productive, positive cultures.)
>>
>> The Muslim and Christian religions are intrusive,
>> the Jewish religion is selfish and divisive,
>> and the atheist religion provides too many Gods,
>

> 1) There's no "atheist religion"
> 2) Atheists don't believe in Gods.

>
>> far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.
>>
>> The one God approach concentrates too much
>> culture onto one point,
>> and the atheist religion fragments culture into
>> individual units, every atheist being his own God.
>

> I'm not a God, nor do I claim to be. I know of no atheist
> who does. Where are you getting this from?

>
>> A cohesive, long-lived, positive culture
>> NEEDS a "first principle" that is focused
>> BUT not too much.
>

> Why? What evidence do you have for this assertion? Why couldn't
> a culture be happy with the truth?

>
>> The "I am" atheist "first principle"
>> eliminates a unifying "first principle"
>

> How so? We're all humans; doesn't this suffice for a unifying
> idea? Why do I need something else? What *exactly* is it that
> having some kind of panoply of Gods provide me that acknowledging
> that we're all humans and all want to be happy does not?

>
>> and does not provide for a cohesive, long-lived,
>> positive, SOCIAL, culture.
>

> Again, an unsupported assertion.

>
>> The "One God" "first principle"
>> ends up creating self-centered religions
>> like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
>> that consider THEIR God the best,
>> and they become hostile to religions that
>> "have others Gods before them".
>>
>> The best religion would feature
>> freedom of speech
>> AND
>> "freedom of Gods"
>

> So, in other words, identical to the constitutions of a lot of
> countries?

>
>> and as man is a social animal,
>> encourage sharing Gods with others
>> in a free and open market.
>

> Why do we have to share Gods in an open market? Aren't goods good
> enough?

How about sharing ideas, music, art, likes, fears, customs, etc.
in a free and open market, where everyone is free to pick the
cultural components that best fills his needs,
without fear of Jews, Muslims, Christians. Atheists,
and other religious fanatics bothering him?

And here is an interesting post
made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.

"Naw. You don't get it. He who controls the present, controls the past...
AND the laws of physics. If all physics "authorities" suddenly declare
up is down, black is white, CO2 is "pollution" or any other
pronoucements, it becomes "true" because it's "established" science.
Going against "established science" will end your career in physics, so
the purity of "established science" is maintained by force. All debate
over issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And what those
in power say is true, becomes true. Period."

I was saddened to see that my pal "sbalneav"
does not seem to know that the longest lived and most productive cultures
like the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures.
and the existing Eastern cultures,
had/have a multitude of Gods, and allowed folks to
pick and choose the God they preferred or needed at the moment,
without pretending that they were privy to a more powerful God
or philosophy, as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Atheists do.

--
Tom Potter
http://tom-potter.tel

[Tom Potter]

"???" <scotp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9dded73e-0a27-4423...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

And here is an interesting post
made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.

"Naw. You don't get it. He who controls the present, controls the past...
AND the laws of physics. If all physics "authorities" suddenly declare
up is down, black is white, CO2 is "pollution" or any other
pronoucements, it becomes "true" because it's "established" science.
Going against "established science" will end your career in physics, so
the purity of "established science" is maintained by force. All debate
over issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And what those
in power say is true, becomes true. Period."

[Josef Balluch]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:46:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:


...

> There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system. Because
> it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
> are not part of their jurisdiction.

Baloney. Science employs the concept of causation and the question "Why?"
is the same as the question: "What is the cause?"

> OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
> "Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".

Why is that? < chuckle! >

> Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
> your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
> that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

IOW, you posit an Argument from Ignorance to justify your claims.



Regards,

Josef


Religion is the idol of the mob; they adore everything they do not
understand.

-- Frederick the Great

[Josef Balluch]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:31:08 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:


...

> So, having explained how there comes to be gravity, the question
> unresolved remains "Why is there a Space Time Continuum in the first
> place?"

How did you determine that there was a Space Time Continuum "in the first
place"?


...

> So it would seem that you believe.
>
> But religion is part of philosophy, not natural studies. And vice
> versa.

ROTFL!!!!!

So each is a subset of the other?

> So, who do you favor in the March madness?

You.



Regards,

Josef


A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.

-- William James

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:24:56 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


...

> And here is an interesting post
> made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.
>
> "Naw. You don't get it.

...



Yawwwwwnnnn. Most every kook on the internet uses that conspiracy theory.

So, ......... shall we place you on the kook list?

> I was saddened to see that my pal "sbalneav"
> does not seem to know that the longest lived and most productive cultures
> like the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures.
> and the existing Eastern cultures,
> had/have a multitude of Gods, and allowed folks to
> pick and choose the God they preferred or needed at the moment,
> without pretending that they were privy to a more powerful God
> or philosophy, as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Atheists do.

ROTFL !! A relativist attempting to restrict choice!!!!

Priceless!!!!!



Regards,

Josef


The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men
do.

-- B. F. Skinner

[Josef Balluch]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:23:19 -0400, Josef Balluch wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>
>> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
>> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
>> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>
>
> Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.

Hmmmmmmmm, ............. I shoulda done this first:

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1580076&messageID=5764676

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.google/msg/7dabc38dcc9958d4



Regards,

Josef


Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.

-- Bertolt Brecht

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:1jub2qzcw5iga.m...@40tude.net...

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>

>> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Mark Twain

>> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
>> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>
>
> Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef

As a guy who is married to an Asian,
who taught in an all Black Inner City High School,
aggressively supported <And supports> Obama
during his run for president,
opposes the instigations of conflicts and wars pitting
Christians against Muslims,
Blacks against Whites,
rich against the poor,
Americans against Latinos,
conservatives against liberals,

and as one who believes in the Jefferson principles
of "life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness"
for ALL PEOPLES,

unlike my pal Josef, who focuses on -A- color,
I prefer to focus on a SPECTRUM of commonly shared PRINCIPLES
shared by a SPECTRUM of peoples.

It appears that my pal Josef operates on a very narrow bandwidth,
dominated by his ego and promoting an image linked
to Mass Media promoted centers of influence.

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:11o6f8ywqwcue.1...@40tude.net...

The dice are in the hands of my pal Josef.
I trust that he will roll them,
rather than play silly games.

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:53:28 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

> news:11o6f8ywqwcue.1...@40tude.net...


...

>> That's better, Tommy, but you still haven't got the hang of it. Wanna roll
>> the dice again?

> The dice are in the hands of my pal Josef.
> I trust that he will roll them,
> rather than play silly games.

Keep guessin', Tommy.

That's what you do best.



Regards,

Josef



He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a
fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave.

-- William Drummond

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:dedaf29j4tvt.1j...@40tude.net...

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:23:19 -0400, Josef Balluch wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
>>> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
>>> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>>
>> Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.
>
> Hmmmmmmmm, ............. I shoulda done this first:
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1580076&messageID=5764676
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.google/msg/7dabc38dcc9958d4
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef

It is interesting to see that my follower "Josef Balluch"
associates himself with the small gang
of immature, race/religion biased bigots
that operate out of alt dot kooks.

No doubt my follower "Josef Balluch"knows that when this gang
was trying to discredit me, that they operated out of caballista.org
(A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together,
usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church,
state, or other community, often by intrigue. )

and thought that they were making fools of non-Jews with their
back and forth banter about "have a tequila".
(Hava Nagila" (??? ?????) (lit. Let us rejoice) is a Hebrew folk song
that has become a staple of band performers
at Jewish weddings and Bar / Bat Mitzvahs.)

Just for the record,
here are the guys whose opinions my pal "Josef Balluch" supports.
( The guys that voted for me.)

Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man, Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet
The God of Odd Statements, Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake

Birds of the feather.

As my Pappy used to say:
"You are judged by the enemies you make."

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 15, 10:46 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ??? <scotpres...@gmail.com> on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:50 -0700 (PDT)

> typed in alt.religion  the following:
>
> >On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks to my pal "???"
> >> for pointing out that  science is a religion.
>
> >Science is not a religion. Science describes our world quite
> >accurately while religion cannot explain or account for these
> >phenomena.  Are you saying that the theory of gravity is also a
> >religion?
>
>         There is Science, which is a purely materialistic system.  Because
> it is purely concerned with the material world - questions of "Why?"
> are not part of their jurisdiction.
>         OTOH, Scientism is a philosophy which argues that because
> "Science" knows so much about "how", it also knows a lot about "why".
>
>         Unless you want to believe that you are no more than the sum of
> your biochemical reactions, "Science" cannot explain why you "believe"
> that some activities are "just", and others "unjust".

Guess what, pyotr: you *are* nothing more than the sum of your
biochemical reactions. Grow up and get used to it.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:139dztcy97k8l$.auujprgc636t.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:24:56 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>
>> And here is an interesting post
>> made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.
>>
>> "Naw. You don't get it.
>

> Yawwwwwnnnn. Most every kook on the internet uses that conspiracy theory.
>
> So, ......... shall we place you on the kook list?
>
>> I was saddened to see that my pal "sbalneav"
>> does not seem to know that the longest lived and most productive cultures
>> like the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures.
>> and the existing Eastern cultures,
>> had/have a multitude of Gods, and allowed folks to
>> pick and choose the God they preferred or needed at the moment,
>> without pretending that they were privy to a more powerful God
>> or philosophy, as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Atheists do.
>
> ROTFL !! A relativist attempting to restrict choice!!!!
>
> Priceless!!!!!

As my Pappy used to say:

"Don't mud wrestle with a pig,
because pigs love mud,
and everyone gets muddy."

If my follower "Josef Balluch"
doesn't have the intelligence
to comprehend the essence of posts,

nor the knowledge and equipment
to engage in rational, intelligent discussions and debates,

and he feels compelled to target messengers,
rather than address messages in an intelligent way,

and this makes him feel good,
that's just great!

Everybody needs to find a way to feel adequate,
but they shouldn't expect folks that prefer
clean, rational, intelligent, moral discussions and debates ,
to get down and mud wrestle with them.

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:18:18 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:139dztcy97k8l$.auujprgc636t.dlg@40tude.net...

>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:24:56 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>>> And here is an interesting post
>>> made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.
>>>
>>> "Naw. You don't get it.
>>
>> Yawwwwwnnnn. Most every kook on the internet uses that conspiracy theory.
>>
>> So, ......... shall we place you on the kook list?

[ snip ]

Translation: Yes.

But as you acknowledged elsewhere in this thread, you have already been
honoured in this way.

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:53:01 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:1jub2qzcw5iga.m...@40tude.net...

>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:


...


>>> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Mark Twain
>>> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
>>> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>>
>>
>> Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.

[ snip ]

Synopsis: That's correct.

[Josef Balluch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:31:57 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:dedaf29j4tvt.1j...@40tude.net...

>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:23:19 -0400, Josef Balluch wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:57:05 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
>>>> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
>>>> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>>>
>>> Ah!! Tommy is starting to show his true colours.
>>
>> Hmmmmmmmm, ............. I shoulda done this first:
>>
>> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1580076&messageID=5764676
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.google/msg/7dabc38dcc9958d4
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Josef
>
> It is interesting to see that my follower "Josef Balluch"
> associates himself with the small gang
> of immature, race/religion biased bigots
> that operate out of alt dot kooks.

Thanks for acknowledging that you are a well known kook.

[ala]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Cfy8r.152$%P4...@newsfe05.iad...

>
>

>
> Thanks to my pal "Josef Balluch" and Marfk Twain
> for calling attention to the fact that Jews have long used
> "excitation" of people to instigate conflicts and wars.
>
> Perhaps this is why Jews have come into conflict
> with all of their neighbors throughout history.
>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/faith-debate-nourish-long-established-jewish-prayer-group/2012/03/15/gIQA9DnOGS_story.html
Faith, debate nourish long-established Jewish prayer group
By Michelle Boorstein, Friday, March 16, 10:27 AM

The crowd around Elaine Parker's Rockville dining room table is elderly, the
coffeecake homemade, the conversation familiar. These are people who clearly
have been hashing out their Judaism over such scenes for decades.

"Nelly, who was the British officer guy from Palestine we studied?" says
Ruth Gruenberg, an 85-year-old widow with a Chicago accent.


Personal Post

A minute later, Ralph Sanders, an 85-year-old with a prosthetic leg, belts
out: "Who was that woman who took over from her husband's banking business
in the Middle Ages?"

Having met monthly since the late 1960s, this Jewish study group
understandably has a huge repertoire of memories, and some have faded.

Indeed, many things have changed. A community that was formed out of the
D.C. Reform synagogue Temple Sinai with a few dozen young families is now
down to seven people, mostly widows and one man. Sunday evening gatherings
recently shifted to days to avoid night driving. A rotation of deeply
researched presentations has been replaced with 30-minute video classes.
Weekend retreats to places such as Harpers Ferry are out.

But some things haven't changed - namely, the rules of the first study, or
kallah, group at Sinai, named Kallah Aleph, for the first letter of the
Hebrew alphabet.

Unlike many since-formed kallahs for young mothers or parents with
rebellious children or other categories, this group is about serious study.
Members must be open-minded and tolerant, even on explosive such subjects as
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or whether such practices as human cloning
are compatible with Jewish ethics. (The only serious disagreement the group
can recall was triggered by someone years ago bringing a platter of shrimp,
which is not kosher.)

But debate is encouraged, even essential.

"Two Jews, three opinions - that's the expression," said Rae Sanders, 83,
who joined the group with her husband in 1972.

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:1t8agds5ac8gx.j...@40tude.net...

Thanks to my follower "Josef Balluch"

for calling attention to the fact

that centers of influence are viewed differently
by opposing groups.

As my follower "Josef Balluch" indicates,
he, dishonest Jews, and the individuals listed below
consider me to be a "kook"

Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man, Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet

The God of Odd Statements, Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake,

whereas my students in military school, high school,
college, and at seminars, and my fellow workers
at the four Fortune 500 companies I worked for,
and the employees of my companies,
seemed to consider me to be a tower of truth and virtue.

It appears to me that my follower "Josef Balluch"
considers me such a powerful center of influence,
that he is desperate to discredit me
because I expressed the FACT that Jews have come into

conflict with all of their neighbors through out history.

As my Pappy used to say:

"Birds of the feather flock together."

and one can see what kind of birds
my follower "Josef Balluch" flocks with.

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:dnv3vpgldcnz$.9a3r40c1g3ll$.dlg@40tude.net...

As my Pappy used to say:

"Birds of the feather flock together."

As can be seen, with his statement:
"So, ......... shall we place you on the kook list?",

my follower "Josef Balluch" proudly proclaims that
he is a "bird of the feather" with the following birds.

Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man, Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet

The God of Odd Statements, Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake.

It should also be of interest to honest, moral folks
to know that the "Birds" that
my follower "Josef Balluch" flocks with,

operated out of caballista.org
(A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together,
usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church,
state, or other community, often by intrigue. )

and thought that they were making fools of non-Jews with their
back and forth banter about "have a tequila".

(Hava Nagila" (lit. Let us rejoice) is a Hebrew folk song

that has become a staple of band performers
at Jewish weddings and Bar / Bat Mitzvahs.)

and used alt dot kooks in an effort to smear
folks who expresseed facts and opinions that
Jews do not want the public exposed to.

Who is one to believe?
Me, "Josef Balluch", Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man,
Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet, The God of Odd Statements,

Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake,

or their own eyes?

[Tom Potter]

"ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_vSdnTRGFca-dv7S...@earthlink.com...

Hopefully my follower "ala"
will solicit the "opinions" of the Jews in question
and get their take on why

Jews have come into conflict with all of their neighbors

throughout history,

and why the Jewish culture was vastly inferior to
the cultures of Egypt, Persia, <Iran> India, China,
Greece, Rome, etc.

and why the only two times in history
that the Jewish culture was up to the level
of their neighbors was when Rome appointed and controlled
King Herod, and when the Phoenician King Hiram
took a liking to Solomon and built him palaces and a temple.

Also, like Mel Gibson, Helen Brown, Henry Ford,
Jimmy Carter, and millions of other folks,
I'd like to know their take on why Jews are central to,
and profit from so many conflicts and wars.

I will be looking forward to seeing my follower "ala"
provide some feedback with historical FACTS,
about issues which are of more importance to
the billions of good folks on the planet than
babbling about personal, race/religion biased "memories".

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:11cphpv46xtt5$.or2pvpy7lvi4.dlg@40tude.net...

Thanks to my follower "Josef Balluch"

for declaring his loyalty to Jews,
rather than mankind.

As can be see, "Josef Balluch",
as dishonest people usually do,
attempts to obscure and distort the message,
and make the messenger the issue.

I am flattered that "Josef Balluch"
considers me such a center of influence
that he is compelled to make me the issue,

but I dare say that the fact that Jews

have come into conflict with all of their neighbors

throughout history, and have been central to,
and profited, from numerous conflicts and wars
is of greater interest to mankind.

[chibiabos]

In article <b6V7r.17271$HX7....@newsfe11.iad>, Tom Potter
<tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks to my pal "chibiabos" for demonstrating

I'm not your pal.

> how Atheists assume an attitude of superiority,

Why do you capitalize "atheists?"

> and fantasize themselves as the "First principle"

The "first principle" is your fantasy, not mine.

> and cut the link between themselves
> and the original "God/Goddess image", their fathers/mothers,
>
> and from the "God/Goddess images"
> used by they culture they inhabit.
>
> It has been my observation,
> that most (All?) Atheists I have observed,
> tend to be egotists,

I suppose there is a certain amount of egotism in reality. Show me a
real god and I'll lose the egotism.

> that reject the "Gods/Goddesses" that brought them into the world,
>
> and the root, mean squared "Gods/Goddesses"
> created by SOCIETIES of sentient beings
> to provide efficient, peaceful, ways for groups to deal
> with sickness, death, wars, dispair, etc.
>
> As Thales of Miletus, the first Western philosopher, said:
> "All things are full of Gods."

Which demonstrates the utter mindfuckery of all philosophy, or at least
that first guy's take on philosophy.

I find it amusing that the scrawny little weed growing in your brain
is, to you, a precious flower that you must share with the whole world,
and yet you choose USENET to share it.

What's important to us now as it was to our ancestors are three things:
First, is it something good or bad for us. Is it an antelope or a
saber-tooth tiger. Second, is it strong or weak with respect to us. Is
it a saber-tooth tiger or a mosquito. And third, is it active or
passive towards us. Is it a saber-tooth tiger or a pool of quicksand,
which we can merely walk around.

Everything else is word salad.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Josef Balluch]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:23:38 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:1t8agds5ac8gx.j...@40tude.net...

>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:31:57 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

...

>>> It is interesting to see that my follower "Josef Balluch"
>>> associates himself with the small gang
>>> of immature, race/religion biased bigots
>>> that operate out of alt dot kooks.
>>
>> Thanks for acknowledging that you are a well known kook.

[ snip ]

Chill out, Tommy. You are already on the kook lists. You don't need to
prove anything else.

[Tom Potter]

"chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:160320122055374081%ch...@nospam.com...

I am saddened to see that my follower "chibiabos"
has a serious reading comprehension problem.

I find it amusing that the scrawny little weed growing in "chibiabos" brain
is, to him , a precious flower that he must share with the whole world,
and yet he chooses USENET to share it.

That "scrawny little weed growing in "chibiabos" brain"
is the need to feel superior to the folks that find
companionship, strength, structure, and comfort
in organized religions, which of course,
the vast majority of mankind always has.

The fact of the matter is that man is a frail social animal,
and needs customs that unites him with others,
and governments and religions serve this need.

The questions is:
What are the best forms that religions and governments
should have?

Certainly the religion of atheism does not serve the needs
of mankind.

Other questions are
:
Who would you want to administer to you
in times of sickness, grief, and death,

and who would you want to work along side of you
in counter some natural disaster,

and who would you want to fight alongside you
in a war,

an atheist, a government employee,
or a member of a common religion?

No doubt, no religion,
including the religions of science and atheism
are bullet proof,
but the question is
( Which "chibiabos" was unable to comprehend.)
which serves the needs of mankind best?

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:1t4oad78s4be7.e...@40tude.net...

Thanks to my follower "Josef Balluch"
for calling attention to the fact that

a gang of rude, crude, low I.Q., race/religion biased "kooks"
put me on their "list"
for expressing FACT that Jews don't want the
public to be exposed to.

Facts, such as the fact

that Jews have come into conflict with all of their neighbors

throughout history, and that fcat that the Jewish culture
was vastly inferior to the cultures of Egypt, Persia, India,
China, Greece, rome, etc.

As my Pappy used to say:
"Birds of the feather flock together."

It should also be of interest to honest, decent, moral folks
to know that the "Birds" that "Josef Balluch" flocks with

operated out of caballista.org
(A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together,
usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church,
state, or other community, often by intrigue. )

and thought that they were making fools of non-Jews with their
back and forth banter about "have a tequila".

(Hava Nagila" (lit. Let us rejoice) is a Hebrew folk song

that has become a staple of band performers
at Jewish weddings and Bar / Bat Mitzvahs.)

and used alt dot kooks in an effort to smear

folks who expressed facts and opinions that

Jews do not want the public exposed to.

Who is one to believe?

Me, "Josef Balluch", Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man,
Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet, The God of Odd Statements,
Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake?

[Tom Potter]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:zWw9r.3080$fj7...@newsfe20.iad...

I just happened to read the following news report,
which said in part:

"At the Dexter United Methodist Church,
every seat was filled with the grateful, the grieving
and those seeking grace in a time of chaos."

and the thought occured to me

after a disaster strikes a community of atheists,
where do they assemble to cope with the disaster,
plan for the future,
and morn for their loved ones?

Hopefully my follower "chibiabos"
will post information about how he
and his fellow atheists handles situations like this,
and how they handle marriages, deaths, the dying,
funerals, oath taking, etc.

And hopefully "chibiabos" will provide a reference to a community
of atheists that have created a successful model
that folks can emulate.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/tornadoes/story/2012-03-18/michigan-tornado/53621286/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

[sbalneav]

Yeah, ok, so, what's stopping them from being shared?

> in a free and open market, where everyone is free to pick the
> cultural components that best fills his needs,
> without fear of Jews, Muslims, Christians. Atheists,
> and other religious fanatics bothering him?

I was under the impression we more or less had that now. Do you
have specific examples where we do not?

> And here is an interesting post
> made by B Jacoby in sci.physics yesterday.
>
> "Naw. You don't get it. He who controls the present, controls the past...
> AND the laws of physics. If all physics "authorities" suddenly declare
> up is down, black is white, CO2 is "pollution" or any other
> pronoucements, it becomes "true" because it's "established" science.

This is, of course, ridiculous.

> Going against "established science" will end your career in physics, so
> the purity of "established science" is maintained by force. All debate
> over issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And what those
> in power say is true, becomes true. Period."

This demonstrates the usual total lack of understanding of how science
operates.

> I was saddened to see that my pal "sbalneav"

I'm not your pal. I've never met you. You're pixels on a screen.

> does not seem to know that the longest lived and most productive cultures
> like the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures.
> and the existing Eastern cultures,
> had/have a multitude of Gods, and allowed folks to
> pick and choose the God they preferred or needed at the moment,
> without pretending that they were privy to a more powerful God
> or philosophy, as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Atheists do.

The ability to pick a "god" has no bearing whatsoever on if the
God exists or not. By all means, if worshipping Yahweh one moment,
and Ra the next works for you; carry on. It doesn't mean either
of them exists.

[Josef Balluch]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:24:07 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:1t4oad78s4be7.e...@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:23:38 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>>> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>>> news:1t8agds5ac8gx.j...@40tude.net...
>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:31:57 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>> It is interesting to see that my follower "Josef Balluch"
>>>>> associates himself with the small gang
>>>>> of immature, race/religion biased bigots
>>>>> that operate out of alt dot kooks.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for acknowledging that you are a well known kook.
>>
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> Chill out, Tommy. You are already on the kook lists. You don't need to
>> prove anything else.
>

[ snip some twaddle ]

What's the problem, Tommy? Is your trolling not getting the response you
need? I notice that your previous two threads haven't done too well. Looks
like everyone has put you on the kook list already. But fear not. You can
always come back to this thread when you need someone to laugh at you.


Toodles,

Josef

[Tom Potter]

"sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message

news:jk8el1$d14$1...@dont-email.me...

It appears that my follower "sbalneav"
does not comprehend that the thread has to do with

*** what religion best fills the need of mankind, ***

not with picking a particular God,
nor with the actual existence of a God.

It is also clear that my follower "sbalneav"
has been conditioned to
how the "science" establishment operates
by free loaders on the Public Dole,
and what the Mass Media promotes as "science"

and that he obviously

"demonstrates the usual total lack of understanding

of how Nature operates."

For example, my follower "sbalneav" may not comprehend
that Einstein was a Mass Media Poster Boy
created by Jews in the media

to promote the fiction that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims,
in order to rationalize why Jews have come into conflict

with all of their neighbors throughout history,

and why the Jewish Culture was vastly inferior
to the cultures of Egypt, Persia, India, China, Greece, Rome, etc.

For example, Einstein's General Relativity,
which was Einstein's attempt to apply the
model (Stresses and strains) and the tool (Tensors)
of the stress analysis gurus of the 1800's
to the larger universe,
is a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds.

It might enlighten my follower "sbalneav"
to compare Einstein's model to other models.

After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.

After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.

I noticed in the news in the last few days,
that the DNA model was recently used to develop
a new form of rice that will prevent 500,000 children
from going blind EVERY YEAR,

and that it was used to convert blood types,
and that people with rare blood types will have a safe
supply of blood in the future.,

and that the DNA model was used to
find out that chickens are related genetically
to dinosaur.

Now folks,
would you spend your own money conducting experiments
that predict things that are useless, non-cost-effective,
or far, far beyond man's capacity to
experience in time and space?

Things like the birth and death of the universe,
time travel, warping through space, worm holes,
black holes, gravitons, evolution of stars, etc.

Or would you spend your money on DNA projects to
develop better food crops,
improve animal husbandry,
develop better medicine,
reconstruct history more accurately,
cure cancer,
create bees that pollinate essential plants more surely,
create animals that can sniff out chemicals and diseases, etc.,
save endangered animals,
find criminals, fight crime,
purify water,
etc.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Tom Potter]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message

news:ru2l195xgim2.pvres3jaq8nz$.dlg@40tude.net...

considers the following set of people "everyone"..

as these are the people that voted to put me
on the "kook list" that is operated by a few bigoted Jews
who operated out of the web site caballista.org.

(A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together,
usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church,
state, or other community, often by intrigue. )

Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man,
Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet, The God of Odd Statements,

Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake.

It is also interesting to see that the caballista.org Jews

thought that they were making fools of non-Jews with their
back and forth banter about "have a tequila".

(Hava Nagila" is a Hebrew folk song

that has become a staple of band performers
at Jewish weddings and Bar / Bat Mitzvahs.)

It appears that Jews have institutionalized bigotry
and gangs of Jewish bigots gang bang anyone
( Jimmy Carter, Mel Gibson, Helen Brown, Henry Ford, etc.)
who express facts that Jews do not want the public exposed to.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person
who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>

I suggest that if anyone wants to know what
"Josef Balluch" thinks is "everyone"
do a Google search on the following names.

Art Deco, Meat Plow, Kadaitcha Man,
Puddleduck, Cujo DeSockpuppet, The God of Odd Statements,

Daedalus, The_Man, Eric Gisse, and T Wake.

As my Pappy used to say:

"Birds of the feather.."

[chibiabos]

In article <zWw9r.3080$fj7...@newsfe20.iad>, Tom Potter
<tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The questions is:

are.

> What are the best forms that religions and governments
> should have?

Religion should be formless and personal. We're still working on the
best forms of government.

> Certainly the religion of atheism does not serve the needs
> of mankind.

Atheism isn't a religion, moron.

> Other questions are

Good. you can be taught.

> Who would you want to administer to you
> in times of sickness, grief, and death,

My wife is a registered nurse. I'm covered.

> and who would you want to work along side of you
> in counter some natural disaster,

Neighbors with the same goals.

> and who would you want to fight alongside you
> in a war,

Her son is an Army Ranger. I pick him.

> an atheist, a government employee,
> or a member of a common religion?

Why would any of those things matter, as long as the job gets done?

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[sbalneav]

I understand the thread perfectly well.

> *** what religion best fills the need of mankind, ***

And my question is: if there is a need that mankind has
that religion fills, but we can't prove if religion is
true, might there not be a better way of filling this need?

If my life is very busy, do I "need" to buy the latest
iPhone with Siri to organize my schedule, and get my
calendar syncing going between my phone and my desktop,
and get my desktop plugged into my widescreen tv so I
can keep an eye on my schedule in the evenings while
I'm watching a movie....

... or do I just need to do less things?

> not with picking a particular God,
> nor with the actual existence of a God.

The actual existence of a God is pretty central to picking
which religion is "best" for mankind; If there is a God,
making sure you pick the right one will be VERY important,
and if there ISN'T any Gods, then you might have to think
about, again, how you're going to solve this "need" that
religion supposedly fulfills.

So far, you haven't actually elucidated what this "need"
actually is.

> It is also clear that my follower "sbalneav"
> has been conditioned to
> how the "science" establishment operates
> by free loaders on the Public Dole,
> and what the Mass Media promotes as "science"

The "science establishment", in the roughly 400 years
of it's really coming into it's own, has managed to:

1) Cure many diseases, and ameliorate the affects
of countless others.
2) Provided us with a vastly improved standard of
living, and lifespan.
3) Allowed us to do incredible things, like travel
to the moon, that were only dreams even 100
years ago.

Religion, on the other hand, held sway for at least 1000
years in the western world. We called this particular
period of time "The Dark Ages". Guess who's got the
better track record of improving my life?

> and that he obviously
> "demonstrates the usual total lack of understanding
> of how Nature operates."

I understand VERY well how nature operates; I read science
books.

> For example, my follower "sbalneav" may not comprehend
> that Einstein was a Mass Media Poster Boy
> created by Jews in the media

Racist idiocy noted.

> to promote the fiction that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims,
> in order to rationalize why Jews have come into conflict
> with all of their neighbors throughout history,
> and why the Jewish Culture was vastly inferior
> to the cultures of Egypt, Persia, India, China, Greece, Rome, etc.

Anti-semetic racist bullshit noted.

> For example, Einstein's General Relativity,
> which was Einstein's attempt to apply the
> model (Stresses and strains) and the tool (Tensors)
> of the stress analysis gurus of the 1800's
> to the larger universe,
> is a Tower of Babel
> that wastes time, money and minds.

Complete and utter non-ability to understand the ToR
noted.

> It might enlighten my follower "sbalneav"

I've already come to the conclusion that there's nothing
whatsoever that's going to come out of you that's going
to enlighten me, but do keep trying; it's kind of fun
to watch you wallow around in your own shit.

> to compare Einstein's model to other models.
>
> After Newton's model,
> there were immediate and rapid advances
> in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

Experiments, verified many times over, have proven that
Newton's model of the universe is wrong. A useful simulation
for things larger than an atom, but still wrong. You can
use Newtonian mechanics to predict the orbit of planets, but
not to predict where an electron is in an electron cloud.

> After Maxwell's model
> there were immediate and rapid advances
> in chemistry, electricity, etc.
>
> After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
> there were immediate and rapid advances
> in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
> the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.

And after Einsteins model, there were advances as well.
GPS Satellites, for instance, only work because they
take relativistic effects into account.

> I noticed in the news in the last few days,
> that the DNA model was recently used to develop
> a new form of rice that will prevent 500,000 children
> from going blind EVERY YEAR,
>
> and that it was used to convert blood types,
> and that people with rare blood types will have a safe
> supply of blood in the future.,
>
> and that the DNA model was used to
> find out that chickens are related genetically
> to dinosaur.
>
> Now folks,
> would you spend your own money conducting experiments
> that predict things that are useless, non-cost-effective,
> or far, far beyond man's capacity to
> experience in time and space?

Yeah, it's called primary science. Sometimes we want to find
things out just because we want to know the truth. You've
already shown you don't care about that, since you're wanting
to know which religion is the best without first establishing
that there needs to be religion at all.

> Things like the birth and death of the universe,
> time travel, warping through space, worm holes,
> black holes, gravitons, evolution of stars, etc.

Why wouldn't we want to know about these things? Evolution
of stars? In case you haven't noticed, we orbit one. Might
be nice to know how long we can keep doing that, eh?

> Or would you spend your money on DNA projects to
> develop better food crops,
> improve animal husbandry,
> develop better medicine,
> reconstruct history more accurately,
> cure cancer,
> create bees that pollinate essential plants more surely,
> create animals that can sniff out chemicals and diseases, etc.,
> save endangered animals,
> find criminals, fight crime,
> purify water,
> etc.

Sounds fantastic; we do those things now. So then the question is;
why would we waste any time on a religion AT ALL if these things are,
as YOU are saying, so important?

> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

When you get one, be sure not to waste it then.

[ala]

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:qnT9r.5692$532....@newsfe14.iad...

>
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>

1, 6, 8, 12, 15, 28, 30
(sounds like Lotto Numbers)

all minds are wasted
they all die they are all gone eventually

[Tom Potter]

"chibiabos" <chib...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:200320120827083946%chib...@nospam.com...

Thanks to my pal "chibiabos"

for calling attention to the fact that religions
arise and persist, to serve the people
in times of sickness, grief, and death.

Of course, on occasions ad hoc groups
are able to do the job, but the lessons of history
clearly show that individual and ad hoc efforts
are not enough and that structured religions serve a very useful role.

As I have indicated,
the uniGod atheist religion provides too many Gods,
every atheist being his own God,

and the one God religions like the Jewish, Christian and Muslim
religions end up warring with non believers,

whereas the Eastern religions and the religions of
Greece and Rome that featured several Gods
have clearly served the needs of mankind better than
atheists, ad hoc groups, and one God religions.

The nice part about having a few Gods,
is if you don't like Zeus,
you can have Nike, Pan, etc.

I dare say that many atheists would be happy with
Dionysus and Hermaphroditus as their personal Gods.

[Tom Potter]

"sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message

news:jkaj08$vdb$1...@dont-email.me...

=============
Regarding my follower "sbalneav" question:

"And my question is: if there is a need that mankind has
that religion fills, but we can't prove if religion is
true, might there not be a better way of filling this need?

So far, you haven't actually elucidated what this "need"
actually is.

"The actual existence of a God is pretty central to picking
which religion is "best" for mankind; "

It appears that my follower "sbalneav" does not comprehend

that history and current events clearly demonstrate that
religion plays a central and important role in all cultures,
both good and bad. My question what religion
best fills the need of modern man?

=============
Regarding my follower "sbalneav" claim:

The "science establishment", in the roughly 400 years
of it's really coming into it's own, has managed to:

"1) Cure many diseases, and ameliorate the affects
of countless others.
2) Provided us with a vastly improved standard of
living, and lifespan.
3) Allowed us to do incredible things, like travel
to the moon, that were only dreams even 100
years ago."

It is interesting to see that my follower "sbalneav"
credits the advances brought on by people

like Watt (Steam power), Edison (Electric power, movies, audio),
Carniege (Steel and railroads), Hertz, Marconi, De Forest (Radio),
Ford (Internal combustion power), T.I. & Fairchild (Integrated circuits)
Bell Labs (The transistor, digital communications),
Hughes Aircraft (The LASER), Intel (Microcomputers),
Xerox (OOP, the mouse, windows), etc.

to the "science establishment" which is a taxpayer funded gang
mostly concerned with high energy physics and billion dollar experiments
using Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks to rationalize Einstein's theories,

=============
Regarding my follower "sbalneav" comment:

"Religion, on the other hand, held sway for at least 1000
years in the western world. We called this particular
period of time "The Dark Ages". "

The Dark Ages came about because of the breakup of the
Roman Empire. The Greece that was the inspiration for
Roman culture had many free market Gods,
and the Rome that grew to greatness had many free market Gods.

What destroyed Rome and brought on the Dark Ages,
was the breakup of the many Gods Greece/Roman culture,
brought about by conflict with the one God Jewish/Christian culture.

As I indicated in my original post,

"The "One God" "first principle"
ends up creating self-centered religions
like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
that consider THEIR God the best,
and they become hostile to religions that
"have others Gods before them"."

=============
History clearly demonstrates that the
long lived, successful cultures have been
cultures with a few free market Gods,

and that the most violent, self-serving cultures
have been the one God cultures like the
Jewish, Muslim, and Christians cultures.

And history clearly demonstrates that
there has NEVER been, and I assert
that there will NEVER be, a successful, long-lived
Atheistic culture, as atheists are too materialistic
and concerned with self to create and sustain
a successful culture.

==============
Although my follower "sbalneav" is very
concerned with star burn outs and collisions in space,
I suggest that he should be more concerned
collisions between one God cultures,
right here on the Earth.

It is okay to permit Atheists to fragment from their
central culture as they die on the vine,
but the collisions between one God cultures
cause death, despair and destruction to mankind.

[atheist communion]

haven't you twats heard the news? GOD IS DEAD

"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7Gdar.6845$2d3....@newsfe17.iad...

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Seon Ferguson]

None of them, life is too amazing to let some childish stories ruin its
mystery and splendour. Why do you need religion?

[chibiabos]

In article <5Gdar.6844$2d3....@newsfe17.iad>, Tom Potter

I'm happy with Saccharomyces cerevisiae as my personal god.

[sbalneav]

Yes, you stated that originally. My question is; if religion
can't be shown to be factually correct in its assertions,
should we be filling this "need" at all?

What is the "need" that religion fills? Answer the quesion,
please.

> =============
> Regarding my follower "sbalneav" claim:
> The "science establishment", in the roughly 400 years
> of it's really coming into it's own, has managed to:
>
> "1) Cure many diseases, and ameliorate the affects
> of countless others.
> 2) Provided us with a vastly improved standard of
> living, and lifespan.
> 3) Allowed us to do incredible things, like travel
> to the moon, that were only dreams even 100
> years ago."
>
> It is interesting to see that my follower "sbalneav"
> credits the advances brought on by people
>
> like Watt (Steam power), Edison (Electric power, movies, audio),
> Carniege (Steel and railroads), Hertz, Marconi, De Forest (Radio),
> Ford (Internal combustion power), T.I. & Fairchild (Integrated circuits)
> Bell Labs (The transistor, digital communications),
> Hughes Aircraft (The LASER), Intel (Microcomputers),
> Xerox (OOP, the mouse, windows), etc.
>
> to the "science establishment" which is a taxpayer funded gang
> mostly concerned with high energy physics and billion dollar experiments
> using Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks to rationalize Einstein's theories,

Again, no. You misunderstand how science works.

If you're specifically talking about the LHC when you're referring to
"Billion dollar experiments using Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks", the
LHC isn't using any Newtonian or Maxwellian hacks. It's a large particle
accellerator doing primary research into the nature of matter.

>
> =============
> Regarding my follower "sbalneav" comment:
>
> "Religion, on the other hand, held sway for at least 1000
> years in the western world. We called this particular
> period of time "The Dark Ages". "
>
> The Dark Ages came about because of the breakup of the
> Roman Empire. The Greece that was the inspiration for
> Roman culture had many free market Gods,
> and the Rome that grew to greatness had many free market Gods.
>
> What destroyed Rome and brought on the Dark Ages,
> was the breakup of the many Gods Greece/Roman culture,
> brought about by conflict with the one God Jewish/Christian culture.

Historians tend to paint a different view than you.

> As I indicated in my original post,
> "The "One God" "first principle"
> ends up creating self-centered religions
> like the Jewish, Muslim, and Christians religions,
> that consider THEIR God the best,
> and they become hostile to religions that
> "have others Gods before them"."

What evidence do you have that moving to some kind of polytheism,
which if I'm not mistaken is seemingly what you're advocating,
is somehow going to make the world a better place, as opposed
to, say, realizing that ALL theism doesn't make much sense,
stopping all human effort with respect to religion, and funneling
that energy into, say, science and education?

To do that, you'd have to, as I've been asking for, tell us the
"need" that religion is filling.

> =============
> History clearly demonstrates that the
> long lived, successful cultures have been
> cultures with a few free market Gods,

History may show that, but that doesn't mean that those Gods
exist. Saying "Greece and Egypt were successful cultures,
and they were polytheistic, so if we want to be successful,
we should be polytheistic" is a logical fallacy. It's
the equivalent to saying "Napoleon was an excellent tactitician.
Napoleon was short. Therefore, to be a successful military
tactician, you must be short."

That Greece and Egypt were successful may or may not have anything
to do with their polytheism. It certainly doesn't prove that
polytheism is correct.

> and that the most violent, self-serving cultures
> have been the one God cultures like the
> Jewish, Muslim, and Christians cultures.

Again, the converse.

> And history clearly demonstrates that
> there has NEVER been, and I assert
> that there will NEVER be, a successful, long-lived
> Atheistic culture, as atheists are too materialistic
> and concerned with self to create and sustain
> a successful culture.

Your bald assertion means nothing. I assert that you are
not a human, but in fact a 200 pound bowl of tapioca pudding.

> ==============
> Although my follower "sbalneav" is very
> concerned with star burn outs and collisions in space,

I'm not, particularly. Astronomers so far seem to indicate
that I will have been dead for a goodly amount of time before
I need to worry about the sun going out. I'm NOT worried
about it BECAUSE an astronomer has taken the time to figure
it out. What it DOES mean, however, is that unless humanity
colonizes something other than earth sometime in the next
couple of billion years, all human life will cease to exist
at some point in the future. Long term planning types may
find this of interest.

As for impacts with asteroids and comets, yes, that is an
ongoing concern, and I'm glad there are people in the
"Scientific establishment" who are keeping an eye on
things.

> I suggest that he should be more concerned
> collisions between one God cultures,
> right here on the Earth.

That's been going on for most of recorded history, and shows no
sign of abating. Why should I be concerned? We've lived
with sectarian squabbles for some time now. Tell me; how would
polytheism solve this, as opposed to simply saying the whole
lot is grade-A bunkum, and moving on?

> It is okay to permit Atheists to fragment from their
> central culture as they die on the vine,
> but the collisions between one God cultures
> cause death, despair and destruction to mankind.

First, you have to show what need religion is supposedly filling.
Next, you need to show how your supposed polytheistic world
view is going to fill that need *better* than what we've got now.

So far, all you've done is make a lot of bald assertions.

[Smiler]

I'll drink to that...

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[ala]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.03.22....@JoeKing.com...

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:10:35 -0700, chibiabos wrote:
>>
>> I'm happy with Saccharomyces cerevisiae as my personal god.
>>
>
> I'll drink to that...
>

i know
I figured i would let you tell us first

I knew you'd have a good line