Why is religion a belief?
Jamffer
It's because there is no super-being to (know).
God is a man-made myth.
The Bible should start out with: Once upon a time, in the beginning....
Somebody watched God create the universe and took notes for their book.
If there was a God, it would be a (fact and reality) not a (belief).
Richo
Its a collection or system of beliefs practices and rituals which give
a people a sense of purpose and connection with the world - and revels
a peoples connections with the unseen forces that lie behind everyday
reality.
> It's because there is no super-being to (know).
>
> God is a man-made myth.
Yes so is Thor.
There is much more to religion than belief in God (or Thor).
It's a HUGE subject.
> The Bible should start out with: Once upon a time, in the beginning....
>
> Somebody watched God create the universe and took notes for their book.
>
> If there was a God, it would be a (fact and reality) not a (belief).
You are using "belief" in a strange way.
"I believe the Sun is hot."
There is nothing stopping you having (true) beliefs about reality.
Cheers, Mark.
Zadok
"Richo" <> wrote in message ...
On Feb 8, 10:14 am, "Jamffer" <jamf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why is religion a belief?
>
>It isnt.
>Its a collection or system of beliefs practices and rituals which give
>a people a sense of purpose and connection with the world - and revels
>a peoples connections with the unseen forces that lie behind everyday
>reality.
>Yes so is Thor.
>There is much more to religion than belief in God (or Thor).
>It's a HUGE subject.
You lack of logic is showing. Without the belief in a deity, there is no
religion.
All the other things you add, are simply that, additions.
And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any God
exists.
Thus the idiotic logic, that my God exists, and your's doesn't. But we end
up using
the same arguments to prove that our particular God does exist.
Smile.
Sugien
"Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:YWMqj.3874$FO1.3001@edtnps82...
proven as can the *brain* of every other mammal; but humanities mind can
not be proven; because the part that says to its self "I think there for I
am" is the part that was given to the human animal by God. btw, why would
atheists cross post to believing groups? Well unless they were actually
agnostics sitting on the fence? Oh, btw, after posting this any further
posts by myself to *this* thread will have alt.atheism taken out of the
cross.
hth
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
. /}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
. \}
Gods Words Are my Strength and Sword
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
"Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13qn40n...@corp.supernews.com...
> Why is religion a belief?
religion is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE CROCK OF CRAP
it comes from the bullshit ramblings of superstitious cave dwellers and goat
fuckers
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> it is about the same with the human mind; because the human brain can be
> proven as can the *brain* of every other mammal; but humanities mind can
> not be proven; because the part that says to its self "I think there for I
> am" is the part that was given to the human animal by God. btw, why would
> atheists cross post to believing groups? Well unless they were actually
> agnostics sitting on the fence? Oh, btw, after posting this any further
> posts by myself to *this* thread will have alt.atheism taken out of the
> cross.
>
> hth
Your only problem with that logic, is which God, gave that part to the human
animal??
Your God or mine??
See, then you are stuck with trying to prove it, and can't.
Thus once again, your religion becomes nothing but a belief.
Smile.
Richo
> "Richo" <> wrote in message ...
>
> On Feb 8, 10:14 am, "Jamffer" <jamf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is religion a belief?
>
> >It isnt.
> >Its a collection or system of beliefs practices and rituals which give
> >a people a sense of purpose and connection with the world - and revels
> >a peoples connections with the unseen forces that lie behind everyday
> >reality.
> >Yes so is Thor.
> >There is much more to religion than belief in God (or Thor).
> >It's a HUGE subject.
>
> You lack of logic is showing.
Really? Can you explain why?
I am serious - if I am wrong I like to know so that I may correct
myself.
> Without the belief in a deity, there is no
> religion.
>
Non sequituer.
(That means "it does not follow")
> All the other things you add, are simply that, additions.
>
No. While many religions contain beliefs in gods and beliefs about
gods - that isnt what makes them a religion.
If I decide to make up a religion today that contains no belief in a
God or gods - then nothing and no one can stop me (in a country with
freedom of religion).
One example - Scientology.
Full of whacky beliefs - but no gods.
For a more traditional (and ancient) example - Buddhism - many
beliefs, principles, rituals - but believing in God or gods is
optional - not essential - to being a Buddhist.
> And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any God
> exists.
>
Show me a religion that consists of "a belief" - name one such
religion.
Cheers, Mark.
Richo
wrote:
> "Jamffer" <jamf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13qn40n...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Why is religion a belief?
>
> religion is a TOTAL AND COMPLETE CROCK OF CRAP
>
It depends a little on the religion.
I think they all have some truth to them.
It would be pretty damn miraculous if you could create an entire
religion that contained nothing that was true or wise.
That would seem to reguire supernatural levels of stupidity or evil -
I believe the authors of religions are generally of average human
stupidity and evil.
Scientology comes close - but if you looked hard enough I bet even it
has something going for it.
Cheers, Mark.
Bill M
"Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13qn40n...@corp.supernews.com...
You are absolutely correct in your post.
Science and intelligent people KNOW the reality of life. Like all other
animals of the world, we are born,
we live, procreate and we die. Life is a thing.
Most people however, have such a panic fear of the finality of death that
they must create and believe
in after lives. That is why religions, heavens, Gods and other after life
scenarios need to be created
and propagated.
Zadok
"Richo" <> wrote in message ...
> You lack of logic is showing.
>Really? Can you explain why?
>I am serious - if I am wrong I like to know so that I may correct
>myself.
Simple -
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
>One example - Scientology.
>Full of whacky beliefs - but no gods.
Most people would argue that they are a cult, not a religion.
>For a more traditional (and ancient) example - Buddhism - many
>beliefs, principles, rituals - but believing in God or gods is
>optional - not essential - to being a Buddhist.
See definition above -
Then follow this -
uddha was born around 565 B.C. in Lumbini in modern day Nepal. His name
'Siddhattha Gautama,' means 'descendant of Gotama whose aims are
achieved/who is efficacious in achieving aims', he later became the Buddha
(literally Enlightened One or Awakened One). He is also commonly known as
'Shakyamuni' or 'Sakyamuni' (lit. "The sage of the Shakya clan") and as the
Tathagata (lit. "thus come" or "thus gone"). Gautama was a contemporary of
Mahavira.
Few of the details of the Buddha's life can be independently verified, and
it is difficult to determine what is history and what is myth.
According to most Buddhist traditions, Siddhattha Gautama, the future Buddha
lived many lives before coming to our present world era. In his many
existences during the long, long period of time and in the one hundred
thousand worlds, the future Buddha had fulfilled the Ten Paramitas, and, in
order to save this world, he was to be born in our era and to become a fully
enlightened Buddha.
Siddhartha Gautama was born in Lumbini (a town situated in modern Nepal,
near the Indian border) under the full moon of May to the clan of the
Shakyas, a warrior tribe. The day of his birth is widely celebrated in
Buddhist countries as Vesak. Gautama's father was the king of Kapilavastu in
Magadha, and Gautama was born a prince, destined to a life of luxury.
Would you agree that someone who has lived many lives during the long period
of time in one hundred thousand worlds, might be considered supernatural??
> And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any
God
> exists.
>Show me a religion that consists of "a belief" - name one such
>religion.
The Church of England - See 1 a above.
You have to remember that just because the Supreme Court named atheism a
religion, does not make it so.
Smile.
Sugien
I don't have to prove anything; because either you accept God or you do not,
it is up to you. It is just like the human mind either you accept that it
exists or you do not; because you can not prove the mind exists. With that
being said however, God is as evident as the mind is. The only thing is
that you need one to appreciate the other. what I do not understand is why
non-believers come to groups inhabited by believers?
Zadok
"Richo" <> wrote in message ...
>It depends a little on the religion.
>I think they all have some truth to them.
>It would be pretty damn miraculous if you could create an entire
>religion that contained nothing that was true or wise.
>That would seem to reguire supernatural levels of stupidity or evil -
>I believe the authors of religions are generally of average human
>stupidity and evil.
>Scientology comes close - but if you looked hard enough I bet even it
>has something going for it.
Back to Scientology - From the net.
Scientology is, according to its own texts, the "the study and handling of
the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life."[1]
Scientology philosophy encompasses all aspects of life from the point of
view of the spirit; including a spiritual rehabilitation philosophy and
techniques, morals, ethics, detoxification, education and management.[2]
Prime among Scientology's beliefs is: "that man is a spiritual being whose
existence spans more than one life and who is endowed with abilities well
beyond those which he normally considers he possesses."[3]
Scientology believes man to be basically good and that his experiences have
led him into evil; that he errs because he seeks to solve his problems by
considering only his own point of view; and that man can improve to the
degree he preserves his spiritual integrity and remains honest and
decent.[4]
According to the Church, the ultimate goal is: "a civilization without
insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and
honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater
heights."[5]
The purpose of Scientology is "to know"; to achieve complete certainty of
one's spiritual existence and one's relationship to the Supreme Being.[6] In
Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith; the
tenets of Scientology are expected to be tested and seen to be either true
or not by Scientology practitioners. "That which is true for you is what you
have observed to be true."[7]
Scientology says its practice provides exact and precise methods by which a
person can achieve greater spiritual awareness.[7] "Auditing" and "Training"
are the primary practices of Scientology.[8]
Note just before No 6. One's relationship to the supreme being!!
Another form of deity.
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> alt.atheism removed from cross posting:
> I don't have to prove anything; because either you accept God or you do
not,
> it is up to you. It is just like the human mind either you accept that it
> exists or you do not; because you can not prove the mind exists. With
that
> being said however, God is as evident as the mind is. The only thing is
> that you need one to appreciate the other. what I do not understand is
why
> non-believers come to groups inhabited by believers?
Again, you only show your arrogance. You make inane statements, and run with
them.
Any doctor can prove in no time that the mind exists. A simple opening of
the skull can do that.
You say it doesn't prove anything. They can measure the electronic impulses
in it. They can
shut parts of it down.
Then you make an arrogant statement about me being a non-beliver, when you
don't have
a clue as to what I believe. Can you show where I ever said that I didn't
believe in God.
You may be right, in that it's not the same God, that your unproven mind has
invented for you.
But then it doesn't have to be. Because you have no proof of the existence
of your God.
And we end up back at the beginning of this thread, when the author, stated
simply
that religion was a belief.
And the beauty of religion, is that you can believe whatever your little
mind makes up.
Smile.
Zadok
"Midwinter" <> wrote in message ...
> And it is a thing which we have learned relatively little about thus far.
> We are still not entirely sure, for example, what 'life' actually is.
>
>
> > Most people however, have such a panic fear of the finality of death
> > that they must create and believe
> > in after lives. That is why religions, heavens, Gods and other after
> > life scenarios need to be created
> > and propagated.
>
> So how does your assessment here address religious belief systems that
> don't necessarily involve an afterlife?
>
> (I know you have trouble separating the concepts of 'religion' and
> 'Christianity' - but give it a go, and tell me what you think.)
>
> Then you can explain to me, if you will, what leads you to embrace the
> idea of death as 'finality', bearing in mind that you appear to be
> conscious at present.
A quick look at nature will show you that every living thing on this earth,
goes through a birth, life and death. Whether it be a plant budding and
growing,
or an animal actually being born.
The stupidity of mankind, is wasting time dreaming up mysteries of death,
when
they should be spending that time enjoying the mysteries of life.
Smile.
Sugien
infesting humans and that through auditing that humans can purge those
spirits. What the forget to tell you is that you will have to pay them
hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of those space alien spirits
inhabiting your psyche. The supreme being they are talking about is a space
alien which their own inside documents admit.
Sugien
>
> "Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
>
>> alt.atheism removed from cross posting:
>> I don't have to prove anything; because either you accept God or you do
> not,
>> it is up to you. It is just like the human mind either you accept that
>> it
>> exists or you do not; because you can not prove the mind exists. With
> that
>> being said however, God is as evident as the mind is. The only thing is
>> that you need one to appreciate the other. what I do not understand is
> why
>> non-believers come to groups inhabited by believers?
>
> Again, you only show your arrogance. You make inane statements, and run
> with
> them.
> Any doctor can prove in no time that the mind exists. A simple opening of
> the skull can do that.
Sorry but you are in error; because you are confusing the brain with the
mind
> You say it doesn't prove anything. They can measure the electronic
> impulses
> in it. They can
> shut parts of it down.
That doesn't prove or disprove the mind
>
> Then you make an arrogant statement about me being a non-beliver, when you
> don't have
> a clue as to what I believe. Can you show where I ever said that I didn't
> believe in God.
My statement was directed to those that said so and not you in piticular
>
> You may be right, in that it's not the same God, that your unproven mind
> has
> invented for you.
Now who is making asumptions? unproven mind indeed, lol
>
> But then it doesn't have to be. Because you have no proof of the existence
> of your God.
which is why I said God is as easy to prove as what the human mind is; but
from your above statements you are confusing mind with brain.
>
> And we end up back at the beginning of this thread, when the author,
> stated
> simply
> that religion was a belief.
religion is much much more then a belief
>
> And the beauty of religion, is that you can believe whatever your little
> mind makes up.
were you looking into a mirror when you said that?
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> Sorry but you are in error; because you are confusing the brain with the
> mind
Why is it that you play with words, trying to make a non-existent case??
See when I go to my dictionary, and look up brain. 1) is a physical
description, but guess what 2) is.
I bet you have guessed, it says MIND: intellect.
Isn't that amazing. My dictionary says Brain and Mind are the same.
Should I wait until you publish your dictionary, before I believe that??
> > You say it doesn't prove anything. They can measure the electronic
> > impulses
> > in it. They can
> > shut parts of it down.
>
> That doesn't prove or disprove the mind
Listen, if you don't believe that it is proof, then your mind is quite
capable
of believing that.
> > Then you make an arrogant statement about me being a non-beliver, when
you
> > don't have
> > a clue as to what I believe. Can you show where I ever said that I
didn't
> > believe in God.
>
> My statement was directed to those that said so and not you in piticular
Then be careful what you say, when answering a particular posting.
> > You may be right, in that it's not the same God, that your unproven mind
> > has
> > invented for you.
>
> Now who is making asumptions? unproven mind indeed, lol
But I did not say the mind was unproven. That was your claim.
As you claimed it was unproven, I naturally assumed that it must be from
your
own experience.
If you care to say, the mind is proven, then I'll agree you have a proven
mind.
I'll let that be your call. Smile.
> > But then it doesn't have to be. Because you have no proof of the
existence
> > of your God.
>
> which is why I said God is as easy to prove as what the human mind is; but
> from your above statements you are confusing mind with brain.
No, not confusing. Just not playing your word games.
> > And we end up back at the beginning of this thread, when the author,
> > stated
> > simply
> > that religion was a belief.
>
> religion is much much more then a belief
As you have stated time and again, but offer nothing to back it up.
Listen, just go to a dictionary, and look up the meaning.
You continually quote Scientology, or Buddha, but in both cases we are
talking
about a religion that is based on a supernatural figure.
That's just a fact.
Your job, in order to back up what you say, is to give us an example, of a
religion
that is not based on this supernatural figure.
Or Not, if you can't.
> > And the beauty of religion, is that you can believe whatever your little
> > mind makes up.
>
> were you looking into a mirror when you said that?
Why not. I have the guts to admit it. You don't.
In reality everyone's religion is based on what their mind makes up.
The way to refute that of course is to offer some proof of the existence of
YOUR God.
Smile.
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> Scientology also believes that there are spirits from outerspace that are
> infesting humans and that through auditing that humans can purge those
> spirits. What the forget to tell you is that you will have to pay them
> hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of those space alien spirits
> inhabiting your psyche. The supreme being they are talking about is a
space
> alien which their own inside documents admit.
So, that would be like what? An exoricism that some religions carry out
to get rid of demons?
Doesn't sound like anything new to me.
Smile.
Richo
> "Richo" <> wrote in message ...
> > You lack of logic is showing.
> >Really? Can you explain why?
> >I am serious - if I am wrong I like to know so that I may correct
> >myself.
>
> Simple -
>
> re·li·gion (r-ljn)
> n.
> 1.
> a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
> creator and governor of the universe.
> b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
> worship.
>
Ok that's a dictionary you are quoting - Dictionaries give brief one
or two line descriptions/examples of word usage.
They do their job well but they are not encyclopedias.
So IF I had meant by religion the above THEN I would have been
illogical.
Since I didnt take religion to mean the above - you havent shown
anything illogical in my statement.
So if I mean by religion: (wikipeadia)
"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally organized
around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer,
ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or
cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as
personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to
both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group
rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction"
Then there is nothing wrong with my logic.
OK?
> >One example - Scientology.
> >Full of whacky beliefs - but no gods.
>
> Most people would argue that they are a cult, not a religion.
>
Cults are just religions you dont like or approve of.
A religion is a cult that is popular and approved of.
> >For a more traditional (and ancient) example - Buddhism - many
> >beliefs, principles, rituals - but believing in God or gods is
> >optional - not essential - to being a Buddhist.
>
> See definition above -
>
By that definition non theistic religions are not religions.
Thats obvious - but I dont want to limit the meaning of religion to
that definition.
(And neither do Anthropologists etc)
> Then follow this -
>
> uddha was born around 565 B.C. in Lumbini in modern day Nepal. His name
> 'Siddhattha Gautama,' means 'descendant of Gotama whose aims are
> achieved/who is efficacious in achieving aims', he later became the Buddha
> (literally Enlightened One or Awakened One). He is also commonly known as
> 'Shakyamuni' or 'Sakyamuni' (lit. "The sage of the Shakya clan") and as the
> Tathagata (lit. "thus come" or "thus gone"). Gautama was a contemporary of
> Mahavira.
>
> Few of the details of the Buddha's life can be independently verified, and
> it is difficult to determine what is history and what is myth.
>
> According to most Buddhist traditions, Siddhattha Gautama, the future Buddha
> lived many lives before coming to our present world era. In his many
> existences during the long, long period of time and in the one hundred
> thousand worlds, the future Buddha had fulfilled the Ten Paramitas, and, in
> order to save this world, he was to be born in our era and to become a fully
> enlightened Buddha.
>
> Siddhartha Gautama was born in Lumbini (a town situated in modern Nepal,
> near the Indian border) under the full moon of May to the clan of the
> Shakyas, a warrior tribe. The day of his birth is widely celebrated in
> Buddhist countries as Vesak. Gautama's father was the king of Kapilavastu in
> Magadha, and Gautama was born a prince, destined to a life of luxury.
>
> Would you agree that someone who has lived many lives during the long period
> of time in one hundred thousand worlds, might be considered supernatural??
>
Sure.
If I didnt believe in anything supernatural but believed in the 4
noble truths and tried to follow the 8 fold way?
What then?
Individual Buddhists certainly can be superstitious - but if you
believe that the Buddha was enlightened one and you try and follow his
teachings then I think you could reasonably call yourself a Buddhist.
>
> > And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any
> God
> > exists.
> >Show me a religion that consists of "a belief" - name one such
> >religion.
>
> The Church of England - See 1 a above.
>
Sorry. The follow the Nicene creed which has about 8 beliefs.
And they believe many other things besides the Nicene Creed.
> You have to remember that just because the Supreme Court named atheism a
> religion, does not make it so.
>
OK
Cheers, Mark.
Richo
> "Richo" <> wrote in message ...
> >It depends a little on the religion.
> >I think they all have some truth to them.
> >It would be pretty damn miraculous if you could create an entire
> >religion that contained nothing that was true or wise.
> >That would seem to reguire supernatural levels of stupidity or evil -
> >I believe the authors of religions are generally of average human
> >stupidity and evil.
> >Scientology comes close - but if you looked hard enough I bet even it
> >has something going for it.
>
> Back to Scientology - From the net.
> The purpose of Scientology is "to know"; to achieve complete certainty of
> one's spiritual existence and one's relationship to the Supreme Being.[6]
>
> Note just before No 6. One's relationship to the supreme being!!
> Another form of deity.
Interesting - I wonder if they added this one in their battle with the
IRS to get Tax exemption as a religion.
It might be worth some investigation.
Thanks for the info.
I'll have to find a different example of a non theistic religion.
Cheers, mark.
Gabriel
<jam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why is religion a belief?
You might figure that out if you ever figure out why macro
evolution is also a belief.
Zadok
"Richo" <> wrote in message ...
> re·li·gion (r-ljn)
> n.
> 1.
> a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
> creator and governor of the universe.
> b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
> worship.
>
>Ok that's a dictionary you are quoting - Dictionaries give brief one
>or two line descriptions/examples of word usage.
>They do their job well but they are not encyclopedias.
>So IF I had meant by religion the above THEN I would have been
>illogical.
>Since I didnt take religion to mean the above - you havent shown
>anything illogical in my statement.
>So if I mean by religion: (wikipeadia)
>"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally organized
>around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer,
>ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or
>cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as
>personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to
>both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group
>rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction"
>Then there is nothing wrong with my logic.
>OK?
I consider wikipedia to be illogical. And truthfully, I can't imagine anyone
using it.
But hey, if it works for you.
> >One example - Scientology.
> >Full of whacky beliefs - but no gods.
>
> Most people would argue that they are a cult, not a religion.
>
>Cults are just religions you dont like or approve of.
>A religion is a cult that is popular and approved of.
See other post of Scientilogy believing in a supreme being.
> >For a more traditional (and ancient) example - Buddhism - many
> >beliefs, principles, rituals - but believing in God or gods is
> >optional - not essential - to being a Buddhist.
>
> See definition above -
>
>By that definition non theistic religions are not religions.
>Thats obvious - but I dont want to limit the meaning of religion to
>that definition.
>(And neither do Anthropologists etc)
Then give us an example of a religion that does not have a supernatural
being!!
It matters little, what IFS you throw out. The fact is that he is/was
considered a
supernatural being.
>Individual Buddhists certainly can be superstitious - but if you
>believe that the Buddha was enlightened one and you try and follow his
>teachings then I think you could reasonably call yourself a Buddhist.
The fact remains, you can modify a religion to suit yourself. But the fact
remains, that
you would be trying to follow the teachings of a supernatural being, who has
many
existences during a long. long period and in one hundred thousand words.
Most people consider that to be supernatural.
>
> > And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any
> God
> > exists.
> >Show me a religion that consists of "a belief" - name one such
> >religion.
>
> The Church of England - See 1 a above.
>
>Sorry. The follow the Nicene creed which has about 8 beliefs.
>And they believe many other things besides the Nicene Creed.
And without the Godman there is nothing!!
You can have a simplistic religion without rituals, creeds and all the mumbo
jumbo
that surrounds the other religions. But the one thing they all need is a
deity, or
supernatural being.
When in fact you are trying to make the method the religion.
Richo
not paying me enough.
8-)
> > >One example - Scientology.
> > >Full of whacky beliefs - but no gods.
>
> > Most people would argue that they are a cult, not a religion.
>
> >Cults are just religions you dont like or approve of.
> >A religion is a cult that is popular and approved of.
>
> See other post of Scientilogy believing in a supreme being.
>
Yeah. 1 point to you.
Well done.
> > >For a more traditional (and ancient) example - Buddhism - many
> > >beliefs, principles, rituals - but believing in God or gods is
> > >optional - not essential - to being a Buddhist.
>
> > See definition above -
>
> >By that definition non theistic religions are not religions.
> >Thats obvious - but I dont want to limit the meaning of religion to
> >that definition.
> >(And neither do Anthropologists etc)
>
> Then give us an example of a religion that does not have a supernatural
> being!!
>
Secular Humanism.
Buddhism.
http://website.lineone.net/~ashvajit/Buddhism%20a%20non-theistic%20religion.htm
Taoism.
> > Would you agree that someone who has lived many lives during the long
> period
> > of time in one hundred thousand worlds, might be considered supernatural??
>
> >Sure.
> >If I didnt believe in anything supernatural but believed in the 4
> >noble truths and tried to follow the 8 fold way?
> >What then?
>
> It matters little, what IFS you throw out. The fact is that he is/was
> considered a
> supernatural being.
>
You don't have to think of him as supernatural.
Hypothetically I may decide to be a Buddhist this afternoon.
I don't believe in the supernatural I don't believe in gods - there is
just reality and we are standing in.
I commit myself to following the teachings (Dahma) of the Buddha I
commit myself to following the 8 fold path.
What *stops* me from doing this?
Do the Religion Police turn up with lights flashing and arrest me for
"having a religion without enough bullshit in it"?
There is no such a crime and there are no religious police (outside
Iran, Suadi Arabia etc) to punish transgressors.
No I am not a Buddhist - and I am not giong to become one just to win
this argument - that would be silly.
But the point is : I could do it and you couldn't stop me.
> >Individual Buddhists certainly can be superstitious - but if you
> >believe that the Buddha was enlightened one and you try and follow his
> >teachings then I think you could reasonably call yourself a Buddhist.
>
> The fact remains, you can modify a religion to suit yourself. But the fact
> remains, that
> you would be trying to follow the teachings of a supernatural being, who has
> many
> existences during a long. long period and in one hundred thousand words.
> Most people consider that to be supernatural.
>
And most people believe in superstitious nonsense - but its not a
requirement - you can say "no".
"Remember Kids Just say NO to bullshit"
>
> > > And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any
> > God
> > > exists.
> > >Show me a religion that consists of "a belief" - name one such
> > >religion.
>
> > The Church of England - See 1 a above.
>
> >Sorry. The follow the Nicene creed which has about 8 beliefs.
> >And they believe many other things besides the Nicene Creed.
>
> And without the Godman there is nothing!!
>
Still 1 doesn't equal 8 - no matter how you slice and dice it - you
have to concede at least this one point or I am calling shenanigans on
you!
> You can have a simplistic religion without rituals, creeds and all the mumbo
> jumbo
> that surrounds the other religions. But the one thing they all need is a
> deity, or
> supernatural being.
>
But I don't like gods or the Supernatural !
I do like the idea of having a community of people who want a positive
purpose in life and to be compassionate and share wisdom with others.
And I think the idea that I cant have **that** without believeing in
gods and supernatural stuff is a very silly rule and I am not going to
follow it.
So there.
8-)
Cheers, Mark.
Richo
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:14:16 -0500, "Jamffer"
>
> >Why is religion a belief?
>
> You might figure that out if you ever figure out why macro
> evolution is also a belief.
You can have true beliefs as well as false beliefs.
Cheers, Mark.
Mike
>
> God is a man-made myth.
>
> The Bible should start out with: Once upon a time, in the beginning....
>
> Somebody watched God create the universe and took notes for their book.
>
> If there was a God, it would be a (fact and reality) not a (belief).
Religion is a belief because even a brain-damaged xian would gag at
the idea of calling it reasonable thought. When a religious idiot
says that he believes in God, he seems to me something subtly
different than to say that he THINKS a God exists. Consider how
amusing the Nicene creed would sound if one replaced throughout the
word "believe" with the word "think".
I think that there is one God, the Father Almighty, and I think that
he is the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and
invisible. And I think that the one Lord Jesus Christ is the only-
begotten Son of God. I think that he was begotten of the Father
before all worlds. I think that he is Light of Light, etc.
Even Mike Huckabee or Pat Robertson would choke on the words.
Wouldn't you think?
Zadok
"Midwinter" <> wrote in message ...
>
> > A quick look at nature will show you that every living thing on this
> > earth, goes through a birth, life and death. Whether it be a plant
> > budding and growing,
> > or an animal actually being born.
>
> question about that at all. There will presumably(*) be a point where I
> go from conscious to unconscious, from 'alive' to 'not alive'.
There are gnostic writers, who consider all of life to be nothing but a
dream.
And we only enter the dream when we become aware of it. Thus birth, becomes
the entry into awareness. And death is the end of that awareness of what we
know at this point. Is there some kind of awareness after we die?
We won't know that until it happens. And we certainly have no idea what
that awareness will be like. So, why prepare for something that you can't
even begin to imagine.
So, again, enjoy the mysteries of life, while you are alive.
And enjoy the mysteries of death, when you die.
The one flaw with your equation, is that you have already gone from
not alive to alive. And if you were not conscious before you were born, what
makes you think that you will have a conciousness after you die.
If that were so, there should be some awareness of things before you
entered the state of being concious.
> My question is, why do we assume that death - even without invoking
> religion of any kind - equates to 'finality'? I have gone from 'not
> alive' to 'alive' once already. Before I was born I was not alive; not
> conscious. A consciousness - a sense of 'self' - has appeared that I now
> experience as 'me'.
>
> So, if it has happened to all of us at least once already, why should an
> assumption that it will not and cannot happen again be considered the
> most logical position to take? Those who take that position often seem
> to take it as read that they are the sensible ones, the intellectual
> ones, the 'strong' ones - after all, anyone who considers any other
> possibility must be doing so only because they're weak, and frightened of
> oblivion. There are no doubt many for whom that's true. But many who
> wonder about such things are doing so because of the natural human
> tendency to ask questions. Some people just aren't willing to leap to
> conclusions in either direction about something that it's physically
> impossible to probe or measure.
That is true. IMPOSSIBLE to probe or measure. So why should I worry about
it, before it happens. It could be heaven or hell, but there is no way we
can know before we get there.
To me hell and a loving God are not compatible.
So, in the end, we have a hope that there will be some kind of awareness,
after we die.
But we have no way of knowing that.
So, I plan on dealing with my awareness of life, and once I die if there is
still some
kind of awareness, one can only hope to enjoy that awareness, as much as I
enjoy
the mysteries of life..
Sugien
>
> "Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
>
>
>> Sorry but you are in error; because you are confusing the brain with the
>> mind
>
> Why is it that you play with words, trying to make a non-existent case??
> See when I go to my dictionary, and look up brain. 1) is a physical
> description, but guess what 2) is.
> I bet you have guessed, it says MIND: intellect.
>
the esoterically. It is like the body and the soul that is housed in it. I
won't argue with you because of your using some sort of dictionary other
then what I seem to be able to find or is it that you're just making it up?
Noun: Brain
1. That part of the central nervous system that includes all the higher
nervous centers; enclosed within the skull; continuous with the spinal cord
2. Mental ability
3. That which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of
the faculty of reason
4. Someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality
5. The brain of certain animals used as meat
So I don't know what dictionary you are using; but the mind is certainly NOT
the brain; but rather the mind is contained within the brain much like the
soul being contained in the body. The mind is just as hard to prove as what
the soul is, and if you prove the soul you have proven Gods existence.
religion is as much a belief as my belief that the sun will rise every
morning, although I believe it is true it is none the less a belief.
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> Sorry but no; because the brain is the physical component and the mind is
> the esoterically. It is like the body and the soul that is housed in it.
I
> won't argue with you because of your using some sort of dictionary other
> then what I seem to be able to find or is it that you're just making it
up?
Funk and Wagnalls - Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary -
Brain - 1. Anat. The enlarged and greatly modified part of the central
nervous
system conatined in the cranium of Vertebrates 2. Mind, intellect (which
sounds just like your number 2. mental ability)
I don't know what dictionary you are using, but the mind is certainly the
same as the brain.
Oh, you already said that but in reverse.
Listen, how about you quote YOUR dictionary, and believe they are different.
And I'll quote my dictionary and believe they are the same.
> but rather the mind is contained within the brain much like the
> soul being contained in the body. The mind is just as hard to prove as
what
> the soul is, and if you prove the soul you have proven Gods existence.
> religion is as much a belief as my belief that the sun will rise every
> morning, although I believe it is true it is none the less a belief.
Oh, and now we compare the mind to your imaginary SOUL??
The fact that you believe the sun will rise every morning, is not based on a
belief,
it based on an observable fact. You don't believe me, tomorrow morning go
out and look
to the east. If it's cloudy maybe wait until the next day.
Now the next day, go out and observe your Godman flying through the sky.
And when you actually see that, then you will have an observable fact, not a
belief.
But then again, you probably have a dictionary, that will tell you that we
only
believe that the sun came up this morning.
Logic certainly is not one of your strong points.
Smile.
Jamffer
"Midwinter" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F-udndsvILeyujHa...@bt.com...
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> said :
>
> > A quick look at nature will show you that every living thing on this
> > earth, goes through a birth, life and death. Whether it be a plant
> > budding and growing,
> > or an animal actually being born.
>
> question about that at all. There will presumably(*) be a point where I
> go from conscious to unconscious, from 'alive' to 'not alive'.
>
> religion of any kind - equates to 'finality'? I have gone from 'not
> alive' to 'alive' once already. Before I was born I was not alive; not
> conscious. A consciousness - a sense of 'self' - has appeared that I now
> experience as 'me'.
A very good point. I often use that when discussing, the fear of death.
Should we be afraid of not being alive, when thousands of years ago we were
most likely (not alive).
Excluding having lived other lives in other bodies in the past, we were dead
before.
Whatever can happen, can happen again, when given an eternal amount of time.
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\
>
> So, if it has happened to all of us at least once already, why should an
> assumption that it will not and cannot happen again be considered the
> most logical position to take? Those who take that position often seem
> to take it as read that they are the sensible ones, the intellectual
> ones, the 'strong' ones - after all, anyone who considers any other
> possibility must be doing so only because they're weak, and frightened of
> oblivion. There are no doubt many for whom that's true. But many who
> wonder about such things are doing so because of the natural human
> tendency to ask questions. Some people just aren't willing to leap to
> conclusions in either direction about something that it's physically
> impossible to probe or measure.
>
> It's not a case of dreaming up mysteries of death. Death - or more
> accurately, the nature of life and consciousness - is a mystery already,
> whether we pay it any attention or not.
>
> --
> (*) Barring this truly terrifying concept, that is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Sugien
tomorrow mooring as I do that God is real. You of course are free to
believe anything you like, and so am I.
Sugien
> Gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> said :
>
>>>Why is religion a belief?
>>
>> You might figure that out if you ever figure out why macro
>> evolution is also a belief.
>
> Creationism, then?
>
> Say I call you a deluded religious zealot. You don't deny that you are,
> but tell me that I'm a deluded religious zealot too. That makes us both
> deluded religious zealots - but it doesn't demonstrate the truth of your
> belief.
>
> Creationists seem convinced that the only way to prove their beliefs right
> is to attack evolution. But the fact is that, even if you got science to
> abandon the concept of evolution (which you won't - there'd be a lot of
> stuff that'd be difficult to explain without it), it's still a long, long
> way from there to 'God did it by magic'.
But then again science just about says the same thing; because they say that
the universe came from nothing and science doesn't have any theory to say
where or how life came to be and evolution doesn't say how anything became
alive at all ;but only what happened to it *after* life happened. I find it
much easer to believe in a creator then for everything to just magically
appear out of nothingness without *anything* causing it. If you ask me,
saying that the universe just popped into existence from nothing is more a
magic act then saying that God created it. Likewise with life; because
science has *no* explanation as to what started life, well other then.
science does believe that the universe popped
into existence only they say that there was first a singularity and the
singularity exploded into everything. I as a Christian believe they believe
approximately the same thing as I do and it is only that they call God a
singularity;)
There are scientific circles that believe that there is a probability that
you can start to cross the street and dematerialized and then re-materialize
on the other size. It is called probability theory. There are even
stranger theories when you get into M-Theory and string theory and chaos
theory and the likes
how do we describe, thought, ideas, dreams,
communication by speech, writing and reading? How do we explain emotions,
will, intuition, or conscience? Are these the result of "random mutations
and natural selection"? If so, pray tell us how this comes about. For
without them there can be no life and without life all we are is a mixture
of dead chemicals.
There are literally thousands of pitfalls for the evolutionary theory,
en route from a primitive atmosphere, bombarded by lightning or
radiation, to a one-celled living organism able to reproduce itself.
Every competent scientist knows this. He knows that the many
speculations advanced to evade these pitfalls are inadequate. Laws
governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous
generation of life. Mathematical laws of probability doom its chances.
The simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of Mycoplasma)
has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. However, some contend
that, theoretically, one might get by with 124 such proteins. What are
the chances of one of these proteins of 400 "left-handed" amino acids
forming from a mixture of both "right-" and "left-handed" ones? One
chance in 10120 (1 followed by 120 zeros).
However, for this nonexistent cell 124 proteins are needed. What are the
chances of spontaneously forming that many, all from "left-handed"
molecules? One chance in 1014,880. But these amino acids cannot be tied
together just indiscriminately; they must be in the right sequence. To
get these 124 proteins, averaging 400 "left-handed" amino acids each,
with the acids in the correct sequence, the chances are 1 in 1079,360.
If we wrote out this last number in full (1 followed by 79,360 zeros),
it would take about 20 pages of this magazine to do it! Dr. Emil Borel,
an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less than a 1 in
1050 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how
much time is allowed. And that number could be written in less than two
of these lines.
Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into
outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that 'existing
terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory for
sound chemical reasons,' and that 'life did not originate on earth
itself but, rather, on comets.' Others grit their teeth and believe in
spite of the lack of evidence. Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George
Wald stated: "One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to
concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is
impossible. Yet here we are-as a result I believe, of spontaneous
generation." On his own admission, he believes in the impossible. This
kind of reasoning is comparable to that of an earlier biologist, D. H.
Watson, who said that evolution was "universally accepted not because it
can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the
only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: "As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution"a
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution
. . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also
being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists,
scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from
the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and
author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its
acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of
biology, Darwin
And where are the facts of evolution? it doesn't even pass the
scientific method. The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what
happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be
true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and
watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is
this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no
clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
Scientists do not know how that happened."-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved
to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
past."-The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most
particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that
Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.
. . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
credentials."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is
creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to
me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the
experimental evidence supports it." (Italics added.)-Physics Bulletin,
1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists."
Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy
among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies in sight
what evidence? a few bones? The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of
Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people
assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general
argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the
geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated
chain of slow and progressive evolution."-January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1,
pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and
extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of
skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most
spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet."-(California,
1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there
are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the
Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older
beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture
could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special
creation at the beginning of Cambrian times."-Natural History, October
1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: "If progressive evolution from simple to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures
in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and
scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On
the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in
the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms
of life were established fits best."-Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil
evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."-(New
York, 1980), p. 29.
Professor J. D. Bernal
offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: "By applying the
strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous
generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at
several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the
improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too
small." He added: "Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on
Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments
have to be bent round to support its existence." And the picture has not
improved.
Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as
saying: 'Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have
begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility
that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to
support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.' Are you
comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of
'bending' of the facts?
There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a
need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life.
Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What
facts and what conclusion?
Evolution by natural selection? fixed? not according to real scientists
Gould recognizes that natural selection has lost ground to chance:
"Substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural
selection and may spread through populations at random."
David Raup, curator of geology, writes in the Chicago Field Museum of
Natural History Bulletin for January 1979, on "Conflicts between Darwin
and Paleontology." Raup says the fossil record shows change, but not "as
the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. . . . it goes on
in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. . . . A
currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the
effects of pure chance. . . . We are thus talking about the survival of
the lucky as well as the survival of the fittest." He thinks perhaps
that "the mammals were not better than the dinosaurs but just luckier,"
and concludes his article by saying of Darwin: "The part he missed was
the simple element of chance!"
With chance in the dominant role guiding evolution, the thorny question
of design returns: How can chance accomplish the intricate and amazing
designs that are everywhere? The eye, Darwin said, made him shudder.
Moreover, it is not just once that such miracles of design by chance
have to occur, but they must happen again and again in unrelated species.
For example, the octopus is no relative of ours, but his eye is
amazingly "human." Unrelated fish and eels have electrical shocking
equipment. Unrelated insects, worms, bacteria and fishes have luminous
organs giving off cold light. Unrelated lampreys, mosquitoes and leeches
have anticoagulants to keep their victims' blood from clotting.
Unrelated porcupines, echidnas and hedgehogs are said to have
independently evolved quills. Unrelated dolphins and bats have sonar
systems. Unrelated fish and insects have bifocal eyes for vision in air
and under water. In many unrelated animals-crustaceans, fishes, eels,
insects, birds, mammals-there are amazing abilities for migration.
Even more than all of this, evolutionists would have us believe that
three different times warm-blooded animals developed from cold-blooded
reptiles; three times color vision developed independently; five times
wings and flight developed in unrelated fish, insects, pterodactyls,
birds and mammals.
Could chance repeat these feats over and over again? The mathematics of
probability shouts, No!
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> Ah, but by my mind I understand and have the same belief in the sun rising
> tomorrow mooring as I do that God is real. You of course are free to
> believe anything you like, and so am I.
AHH, now you sound just like a religionist!!
You can watch the sun come up, and you compare that to something you
have never seen, and never will see. But in your mind they are one and the
same.
That's only because the term SUN of God confuses you.
Smile.
Zadok
"Midwinter" <> wrote in message ...
> > there is still some
> > kind of awareness, one can only hope to enjoy that awareness, as much
> > as I enjoy
> > the mysteries of life..
>
> for people's right to have a different philosophy, at least insofar as it
> doesn't infringe your right to your own. It's circular, I know, but
rights
> and freedoms are a matter of reciprocal respect. Without that, there will
> always be injustice and oppression.
Ahh, finally the sound logic. As long as that religion does not infringe
upon my
rights.
And that is my argument. If religion wants me to respect their God, and be
tolerant of
them, Then they also have to respect my God/Goddess, and be tolerant of me.
Unfortunately religionists as we know them, have to believe in ONE GOD, thus
by definition they are intolerant.
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> Even more than all of this, evolutionists would have us believe that
> three different times warm-blooded animals developed from cold-blooded
> reptiles; three times color vision developed independently; five times
> wings and flight developed in unrelated fish, insects, pterodactyls,
> birds and mammals.
Snip most of the crap.
Why a religionist, thinks that by quoting a few scirentists, that say they
believe in some kind of creator (which in most cases, they never define)
some how, is proof of existence is a joke.
And anyone who resorts to that kind of argument, is only covering the
fact that they have no argument.
That kind of argument lost out in a court room in Dover, Penn. recently.
After the intelligent design argument, was presented, and easily refuted by
real scientists, even a conservative judge that Bush has appointed, had to
throw
out all the intelligent design arguments, as nothing more that creationism
with
a new spin.
Any man who comes on the newsgroups and will make a statement that the
sun coming up in the morning is a belief, the same as his belief in God,
obviously
has no sensible argument to make.
Instead of branishing a sword, and claiming to be a cyber Knight, you should
have a picture of Alfred E. Neuman, and claim to be an idiot for Christ.
The more you post on here, the more you will harm your religion, as
stupidity
is always exposed.
Smile.
Ralph
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> --
>> From the Desk of Paul CKC
>
>
> I didn't notice this particular bit of excruciating pretentiousness when I
> started.
You really should have because in that duo it is the desk that has the
brains.
Jamffer
Jamffer
Zadok
"Midwinter" <> wrote in message ...
>
> > Ahh, finally the sound logic. As long as that religion does not
> > infringe upon my
> > rights.
> >
> > And that is my argument. If religion wants me to respect their God,
> > and be tolerant of
> > them, Then they also have to respect my God/Goddess, and be tolerant
> > of me.
> >
> > Unfortunately religionists as we know them, have to believe in ONE
> > GOD, thus by definition they are intolerant.
>
> skewed, simply because so many people come here solely in order to have
> fights. Usenet is, you might say, highly exaggerated. But in the real
> world, while I have certainly had extensive experience of intolerant
> religious bigots who demand I comply with their beliefs, I have also
> known a great many religious people - yes, even monotheists - who have
> their beliefs and are quite happy to allow me mine.
>
> For them, it is my choice to believe or not. That is the 'free will'
> that's built into their religion. They might tell me that I'm doomed to
> Hell - and that's fine. I've no problem with them showing concern for my
> soul.
Ahh, but that is where you and I differ, Their own Godman tells them to
judge not.
Thus when they tell me I am doomed to hell, it is evidence of their
intolance.
And also further evidence of their own insanity.
A Loving God and hell are not compatible.
Sugien
You believe the sun will come up tomorrow, you don't know for a fact;
because it could go super nova about 6 minuets before sunrise and you would
be there with your * belief * that it was about to rise and then you would
have your belief shattered just before you died.
Everything is biased upon a belief in something. Your belief that the
sun will rise is biased upon what you have observed your entire life.
Religion is the same sort of belief in that a belief is based upon what a
person has observed their entire life. Regardless of whether or not
something is deemed to be a fact it is the belief in those facts that make
them real.
If I do not have belief that the sun will rise tomorrow it will most
likely rise none the less. It is the same with a belief in God, if you do
not have a belief that God holds the universe together, God will most likely
hold it together none the less.
*everything* is biased upon a belief system.
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> But then again science just about says the same thing; because they
>> say that the universe came from nothing
>
> don't know where it came from, and there is no evidence to lead us in any
> particular direction. That's a whole different crate of aardvarks, and
> it's entirely, completely true.
>
> It'd be true to say that science *treats* the universe *as though* it
> came from nothing - and that's because, as it stands, the universe
> appears to be relatively self-contained.
>
> There is, I understand, some research that seems to suggest the 'Big
> Bang' wasn't the absolute information-block we thought it was, and that
> there may, possibly, be evidence of a previous universe existing before
> it. While that would be of crucial scientific importance, it still
> wouldn't answer the question of where it all came from in the first
> place.
>
> But if science DID say "the universe came from nothing", then sure - it'd
> be a religion, because there's no data available to suggest that that's
> the case. But it doesn't say that.
>
>
>> and science doesn't have any
>> theory to say where or how life came to be
>
> which *life* came to be. Read up on amino acids and proteins. What it
> can't address quite so well is how life went from being a set of
> mechanical, automatic biological processes to the complex abstract
> consciousness we experience today. Or, more specifically, it can't
> properly address the distinct sense of 'self' that we experience, or the
> sense that our minds are somehow different from our bodies.
>
> There may be a scientific answer to this. There may not. Until we find
> out, it's only partially accurate to say that science doesn't understand
> how life came about - and entirely inaccurate to say it has no models to
> describe the process.
>
>
>> and evolution doesn't say how anything became alive at all
>
> pre-'life' chemical structures.
>
>
>> I find it much easer to believe in a creator then for
>> everything to just magically appear out of nothingness without
>> *anything* causing it.
>
> Genesis literalism. You've picked up a few (inaccurate) preconceptions
> about 'What Science Says', and rather than expend the effort to research
> and assess those preconceptions, you take the path of least resistance.
>
> You happily ignore the contradiction that "God did it by magic" is no
> more satisfactory than your erroneous idea that evolution did it by magic
> - you simply go with the belief that requires least effort on your part
> but that still enables you to reassure yourself that you know all you
> need to know.
>
>
>> If you ask me, saying that the universe just
>> popped into existence from nothing is more a magic act then saying
>> that God created it.
>
> less. That's why it would make no sense to say either. And that's why
> science *doesn't* say either.
>
>
>> science does believe that the universe popped
>> into existence only they say that there was first a singularity and
>> the singularity exploded into everything. I as a Christian believe
>> they believe approximately the same thing as I do and it is only that
>> they call God a singularity;)
>
> rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator. There again, I see
> no reason to assume that that was the case. Science, also embraces
> neither conclusion. It simply reports what it can see - and since it
> cannot (so far) see past the Big Bang, it reports nothing.
>
> "There is no evidence to say that God did not do it, therefore God must
> have done it" is an illogical statement.
>
> "There is no evidence to say that God did it, therefore God cannot have
> done it" is similarly flawed.
>
> Hence, science makes neither statement.
>
>
>> The simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of
>> Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. However,
>> some contend that, theoretically, one might get by with 124 such
>> proteins. What are the chances of one of these proteins of 400
>> "left-handed" amino acids forming from a mixture of both "right-" and
>> "left-handed" ones? One chance in 10120 (1 followed by 120 zeros).
>
> how, in that case, you've managed to cling to the idea that science
> claims life appeared by magic?
>
>
>> Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into
>> outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that 'existing
>> terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory
>> for sound chemical reasons,' and that 'life did not originate on earth
>> itself but, rather, on comets.'
>
> question still has to be answered - and an origin here on Earth is no
> less likely than an extraterrestrial origin.
>
> The same fact faces those who are spending their time probing the Big
> Bang: assuming they have found or do find evidence of a pre-existing
> universe, it does not remove the question of where *that* universe came
> from.
>
> Yet while Creationists are quite happy to jump on that as evidence that
> science and its methods are flawed, they are happy to accept that God can
> simply have 'appeared from nowhere', or might simply have existed
> forever.
>
>
>> THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
>> established fact.
>
> an established fact. The theory of evolution is the best model that
> current scientific understanding can describe as to how evolution works.
>
> Similarly, while gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity is our best
> *description* of that fact.
>
>
>> They believe that evolution is an "actual
>> occurrence," a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the
>> word "fact." But is it?
>
> daily, as they struggle to keep ahead of the increasing resistance of
> bacteria to antibiotics. Animal breeders and horticulturalists have
> utilised evolution for thousands of years. And there is overwhelming
> evidence to support the divergence of species.
>
> So yes, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution has changed and
> will continue to change as our understanding increases.
>
>
>> Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no
>> clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing
>> nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.
>> Scientists do not know how that happened."-The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
>> the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
>
> it did not happen.
>
>
>> Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy
>> among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies in
>> sight
>
> Including, significantly, "how evolution happened".
>
>
>> Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil
>> evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."-(New
>> York, 1980), p. 29.
>
> Carl Sagan would, I'm sure, have known this. A sufficiently irrational
> God (by our standards of rationality, at least) could have created the
> universe just a moment ago, and implanted into His creation fully-formed
> memories of lives they had never lived. He may not have created us at
> all - perhaps we are merely figments of His imagination.
>
> But certainly, however the universe might look, it "could be consistent"
> with the idea of a Great Designer.
>
>
>
>> There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see
>> a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of
>> life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable
>> conclusion. What facts and what conclusion?
>
> unavoidably to the conclusion that we cannot suggest any fully reliable
> conclusion.
>
> The fact that we do not have all the available information does not
> justify an assumption of the existence of a God by any given description
> who spoke and behaved as described by any given religion.
>
>
>> With chance in the dominant role guiding evolution
>
> recognises - your presentation is hard to follow) that evolution is
> guided, rather than being, as many Creationists claim, entirely random.
>
> Now the only thing we need to address is just what you imagine when you
> say that chance plays the 'dominant role'.
>
>
>> For example, the octopus is no relative of ours, but his eye is
>> amazingly "human."
>
> solutions. The octopus's eye is amazingly human-like - but it is not
> human.
>
>
>> Could chance repeat these feats over and over again? The mathematics
>> of probability shouts, No!
>
> we have discussed, evolution is *guided*. It is guided by external
> pressures. Chance's role in evolution extends as far as the appearance
> of certain mutations in genetic replication. After that, the environment
> takes over. Survival and the environment become the regulators of
> evolution. And for populations evolving in similar environments, facing
> similar challenges, the mathematics of probability suddenly seem more
> amenable.
I disagree and you need to read an entire post before trying to dissect it
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> --
>> From the Desk of Paul CKC
>
>
> I didn't notice this particular bit of excruciating pretentiousness when I
> started.
Having only a whit of wit, is the reason your forte is mediocrity and why
your post attempts to find fault with even the sig line
--
Judge not each man by his gifts and skills, but instead by
whether or not he uses those skills for good or evil
or chooses apathy and does not use them at all
Sugien
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Mnirj.69962$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Ah, now I see the problem, atheism is in the cross post and atheist because
they don't believe in anything try and tell everyone else to not believe in
anything.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
SwordofZ
>
> "Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
>
>> Ah, but by my mind I understand and have the same belief in the sun
>> rising
>> tomorrow mooring as I do that God is real. You of course are free to
>> believe anything you like, and so am I.
> AHH, now you sound just like a religionist!!
SoZ:
??? you have to be a religionist?
> You can watch the sun come up, and you compare that to something you
> have never seen, and never will see.
SoZ:
seen through observation.
But in your mind they are one and the
> same.
SoZ:
do you have a better explanation?
> That's only because the term SUN of God confuses you.
SoZ:
allogorical.
Smile.
Zadok
"SwordofZ" <> wrote in message ...
> allogorical.
If you expect to be answered, you have to make sense.
Smile.
Zadok
"Sugien" <> wrote in message ...
> You believe the sun will come up tomorrow, you don't know for a fact;
> because it could go super nova about 6 minuets before sunrise and you
would
> be there with your * belief * that it was about to rise and then you would
> have your belief shattered just before you died.
Would have, could have.
The sun will come up tomorrow morning. That is not a belief, it's a fact.
And you can play word games with all the ifs, ands and buts you want.
But that will not change the FACT that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I suggest you read Ralph's reply.
It's become obvious that your desk, has more for brains than you do!!
Ralph
"Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47ae053f$0$30714$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Which edition? I'm looking at my copy of 'Cosmos' and I don't see that
quote.
Ralph
>
> "Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Mnirj.69962$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Midwinter" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:i9-dnVlLE99hMDDa...@bt.com...
>>> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> From the Desk of Paul CKC
>>>
>>> Damn. I should have opened with 'Dear Desk', shouldn't I?
>>>
>>> I didn't notice this particular bit of excruciating pretentiousness when
>>> I
>>> started.
>>
>> You really should have because in that duo it is the desk that has the
>> brains.
>>
>
> Ah, now I see the problem, atheism is in the cross post and atheist
> because they don't believe in anything try and tell everyone else to not
> believe in anything.
Paul, we crossed paths in the past and you lost. Why try to get your ass
handed to you again?
Zadok
> > to judge not.
> > Thus when they tell me I am doomed to hell, it is evidence of their
> > intolance.
>
> it's only if they try to insist that I believe it, and live by their
> rules, that I have a problem. Otherwise they're free to believe what
> they like. And I wouldn't call it 'judging' if all they're doing is
> saying "if you don't believe, you'll go to Hell". If they were telling
> me - as some self-appointed 'pastors' and the like on these groups often
> do - that I'll go to Hell because I'm evil and God hates me, *then*
> they're being judgemental, and thus violating the commands of their own
> God.
Spitting hairs. If they tell you that you are going to hell, how do you tell
if
they are self appointed pastors or not. If they tell you that if you don't
believe, you
are going to hell, then they have told you subtley that you are evil. As
only evil
people go to hell.
> > And also further evidence of their own insanity.
>
> No, you see, I'm not comfortable with the quick leaps to claims of
> insanity. Largely because 'sanity' as used around here so often equates
> to 'conformity': "believe what I tell you to believe, and see things how
> I tell you to see them, or I'll declare you insane".
That is more because of where you live. See here in North America, these
fundies
have their own radio stations, their own colleges, and a brand of idiocy all
their own.
> In a way, it's no different to them telling me what to believe on pain of
> damnation.
>
> Plus, of course insanity is a nice easy claim to make, and doesn't lend
> itself to proof or disproof (especially in a forum such as this) - which
> is why it's always a disappointment to see otherwise intelligent people
> resorting to it.
Again, here in North America, you actually have these religious kooks,
aligning
themselves with government, and trying to make laws based on their religious
views. And that does infringe on the freedom of others.
So, yes, in your environment, you would be correct. But there is another
environment.
Smile.
bob young
Jamffer wrote:
> Why is religion a belief?
>
> It's because there is no super-being to (know).
>
> God is a man-made myth.
>
> The Bible should start out with: Once upon a time, in the beginning....
>
> Somebody watched God create the universe and took notes for their book.
>
> If there was a God, it would be a (fact and reality) not a (belief).
You really must not come here with your logic and factual stuff. This ng
is for brain damaged people who need their myths strengthened and their
blinders [blinkers] more firmly fixed on their heads.
Please do not rock the boat, my blinders may fall off
Bob
bob young
Sugien wrote:
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:YWMqj.3874$FO1.3001@edtnps82...
> >
> > "Richo" <> wrote in message ...
> > On Feb 8, 10:14 am, "Jamffer" <jamf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why is religion a belief?
> >>
> >>It isnt.
> >>Its a collection or system of beliefs practices and rituals which give
> >>a people a sense of purpose and connection with the world - and revels
> >>a peoples connections with the unseen forces that lie behind everyday
> >>reality.
> >
> >
> >>Yes so is Thor.
> >>There is much more to religion than belief in God (or Thor).
> >>It's a HUGE subject.
> >
> > You lack of logic is showing. Without the belief in a deity, there is no
> > religion.
> >
> > All the other things you add, are simply that, additions.
> >
> > And religion becomes a belief, simply because there is no proof that any
> > God
> > exists.
> >
> > Thus the idiotic logic, that my God exists, and your's doesn't. But we end
> > up using
> > the same arguments to prove that our particular God does exist.
> >
> > Smile.
> >
> >
> it is about the same with the human mind; because the human brain can be
> proven as can the *brain* of every other mammal; but humanities mind can
> not be proven; because the part that says to its self "I think there for I
> am" is the part that was given to the human animal by God. btw, why would
> atheists cross post to believing groups?
Because most of them like a good debate and some fear the next world war will
be nuclear war between two groups extending The Crusades - Islam and
Christianity and that it could well wipe out half the world population all in
the name of imaginary deities.
I hope that is a good enough reason.
> Well unless they were actually
> agnostics sitting on the fence? Oh, btw, after posting this any further
> posts by myself to *this* thread will have alt.atheism taken out of the
> cross.
>
> hth
>
> --
> From the Desk of Paul CKC
bob young
Bill M wrote:
> "Jamffer" <jam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13qn40n...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Why is religion a belief?
> >
> > It's because there is no super-being to (know).
> >
> > God is a man-made myth.
> >
> > The Bible should start out with: Once upon a time, in the beginning....
> >
> > Somebody watched God create the universe and took notes for their book.
> >
> >
> > If there was a God, it would be a (fact and reality) not a (belief).
>
> You are absolutely correct in your post.
>
> Science and intelligent people KNOW the reality of life. Like all other
> animals of the world, we are born,
> we live, procreate and we die. Life is a thing.
>
> Most people however, have such a panic fear of the finality of death that
> they must create and believe
> in after lives. That is why religions, heavens, Gods and other after life
> scenarios need to be created
> and propagated.
Just about every religion has them and by every religion I mean 'thousands of
them'
Zadok
> > you tell if they are self appointed pastors or not.
>
> really like you to accept Jesus because I value you and want to see you
> saved" and "accept Jesus because I'm right and I want everyone to believe
> what I believe and besides it'll make me look good if I get converts".
I agree, and you can tell that if you are sitting across from the person.
But on usernet, how does one make the distinction??
> As to how we recognise a self-appointed 'pastor', well, in Usenet it's
> normally straghtforward, because the title they've bestowed on themselves
> is usually the first thing they push at you: Pastor Frank, Pastor Steve
> Winter, and so on.
>
> Even without the explicitly stated title, it's fairly easy to tell from
> attitude. These are the ones whose only reasoning for expecting you to
> comply is, well, because they tell you to. They don't take time to talk
> to you, explain why they think what they do, and listen to your point of
> view. Instead they insist, possibly rant, quote endless Bible verses,
> and deride those who don't obey.
Ah, but that is the problem, one never knows on Usernet, if that person
is anything like they pretend to be.
> In short, they're the ones who proselytise for their own sake, rather
> than for the sake of the souls being proselytised to.
>
> It might be unfashionable, and anti-religionists might consider it a
> weak-minded outlook, but I'm quite happy to tolerate someone telling me
> their beliefs if I think they're doing it out of genuine concern for my
> soul (which, I explain patiently to them, I don't have). When so
> motivated, it's not an insult or an act of religious aggression: it's a
> kindness, and I treat it as such.
You are much to kind to that ilk. But that can be an individual thing.
I will always have a problem, with anyone mentioning going to hell,
when any sort of reason, tells you that hell and a loving God are not
compatible.
If you have to resort to fear for converts, you have already lost the
battle.
> > If they tell you that if you
> > don't believe, you
> > are going to hell, then they have told you subtley that you are evil.
> > As only evil
> > people go to hell.
>
> Well, possibly; possibly not. I should say that most Christians I know
> don't think of it as a problem in any case because - as I'd be inclined
> to believe if I were Christian - they seem to credit God with a brain.
> According to them, He will decide whether you've lived well or not,
> whether you're Christian or not.
>
> Even those who imagine Him as some sort of mindless automaton - saving or
> damning mechanically, based solely on whether someone has declared belief
> in Christ, and regardless of their previous or subsequent behaviour -
> don't necessarily condemn someone as evil when they warn of Hell. In
> fact, on one occasion the person explicitly told me that it would be a
> shame if I were sent to Hell because they thought I was a good person
> (which just goes to show how wrong one can be). That's not a
> condemnation by them, even implied: it's simply a warning of condemnation
> by God according to the rules they believe He's laid down.
Again, I would only repeat, that Hell and a loving God are not compatible.
> > That is more because of where you live. See here in North America,
> > these fundies
> > have their own radio stations, their own colleges, and a brand of
> > idiocy all their own.
>
> No doubt, no doubt. And there are certainly a few of those here -
> although I agree they're much less prominent than in the USA.
>
>
> > Again, here in North America, you actually have these religious kooks,
> > aligning
> > themselves with government, and trying to make laws based on their
> > religious views. And that does infringe on the freedom of others.
> >
> > So, yes, in your environment, you would be correct. But there is
> > another environment.
>
> Okay, I'll go for that. All I'd ask is that you bear in mind that Usenet
> is global. Fair?
Fair!! Smile.
Jamffer
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:47AF2005...@netvigator.com...
You are one of a handful of (thinkers) on this news group.
If anything should be worshipped, it should be the (now), not the (after you
die) world.
The bible has a lot of wisdom, except for the (invisible beings myth) and
(God the creator myth).
Jamffer
> bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com> said :
>
> > Please do not rock the boat, my blinders may fall off
>
> attached so far.
I see no blinders on Bob.
Most of his brain seems to function.
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> I disagree and you need to read an entire post before trying to
>> dissect it
>
> lines of text, just to add *that*?
>
> Come back when you've got an argument to make, then.
What is the point? No one can make any argument to a closed mind like those
of most all agnostics and atheists. I can say however that when I was an
agnostic I truly had a open mind as is evident by my coming to believe in
God. When you become open to the possibility of the existence of God *YOU*
come back. After all science is open even to the possibility that you can
start across a street and there *IS* a probability that you can integrate
and then reintegrate on the other side. Although the probability is quite
small science agrees that there is a probability of such occurring. What
gets me is that science can admit to the probability of such things
happening; but *refuses* to admit to the probability of God.
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> Having only a whit of wit, is the reason your forte is mediocrity and
>> why your post attempts to find fault with even the sig line
>
> away under the wishful cover of a high-handed, one-line dismissal, I might
> concern myself even a little with your assessment of my wit or my forte.
>
> Your forte, it seems, is not in having the courage of your convictions.
I don't debate with closed minds because there is no point; because the
*refuse* to accept any argument that doesn't agree with their own.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
DanielSan
> "Midwinter" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fO6dnWt1qdv83DPa...@bt.com...
>> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>>
>>> I disagree and you need to read an entire post before trying to
>>> dissect it
>> And that's it, is it? That's all you're going to offer? You quote 231
>> lines of text, just to add *that*?
>>
>> Come back when you've got an argument to make, then.
>
> What is the point? No one can make any argument to a closed mind like those
> of most all agnostics and atheists.
I can't speak for other atheists or any agnostic, but I am an atheist
and I'm extremely open-minded. What would you like to discuss?
> I can say however that when I was an
> agnostic I truly had a open mind as is evident by my coming to believe in
> God. When you become open to the possibility of the existence of God *YOU*
> come back.
I am open to the possibility. I haven't seen any evidence for this
entity, though.
> After all science is open even to the possibility that you can
> start across a street and there *IS* a probability that you can integrate
> and then reintegrate on the other side.
Actually, that's a hypothesis not bounded in science. Science simply
says what we can observe, test, and predict. Only when you can provide
evidence of this quantum leap on a scale enough for a human to "leap"
across the street, it remains fiction.
> Although the probability is quite
> small science agrees that there is a probability of such occurring.
On the subatomic level, yes. On the macro-level needed for a human
"leap"? Not a chance.
> What
> gets me is that science can admit to the probability of such things
> happening; but *refuses* to admit to the probability of God.
Possibly because there's evidence, no matter how minute, of "quantum
leaps", but no evidence whatsoever of gods.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> I don't debate with closed minds because there is no point; because the
>> *refuse* to accept any argument that doesn't agree with their own.
>
> *is* a closed mind.
>
> But that's fine: if you need to rationalise your retreat, you go ahead.
I have no need or desire to retreat. However I also have no desire to
debate with those that have no desire to listen about God. I was an
agnostic for my most of my life and only became a believer in 1983 and I
will be 55 this year. I know all the party lines on the agnostic side as
well as the atheist side. I do however believe that being an agnostic is
being more realistic then being a flat out atheist; because at least it can
be said of agnostics that they DO have an open mind; because they say that
they neither confirm *nor* deny the existence of God. Atheists on the other
hand flat out say there is no God. Agnostics are sort of the ones from
Missouri of the bunch because they don't say there is or is not but rather
"Show me". The problem is that believing in God is done with *faith* much
like the faith that most scientist have that the majority of the universe is
made up of what can not be seen (dark mater and dark energy). Science can
see the effects of dark mater and energy but can not directly see the dark
mater or energy. Mostly they use the gravity lensing test for dark mater in
effect saying that dark mater is there because it is bending the light that
is passing near it. Belief in God is much the same but instead of gravity
lensing, Gods presence can be seen by change lensing. Which is the effect
that God has on believers and how their life changes.
Sugien
a probility. If you think anything else then you should give back your
belief in science card.
Sugien
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> said :
>
>> Ahh, but that is where you and I differ, Their own Godman tells them
>> to judge not.
>> Thus when they tell me I am doomed to hell, it is evidence of their
>> intolance.
>
> I don't see that. They can tell me what their God says if they want to -
> it's only if they try to insist that I believe it, and live by their
> rules, that I have a problem. Otherwise they're free to believe what
> they like. And I wouldn't call it 'judging' if all they're doing is
> saying "if you don't believe, you'll go to Hell". If they were telling
> me - as some self-appointed 'pastors' and the like on these groups often
> do - that I'll go to Hell because I'm evil and God hates me, *then*
> they're being judgemental, and thus violating the commands of their own
> God.
>
>
>
> No, you see, I'm not comfortable with the quick leaps to claims of
> insanity. Largely because 'sanity' as used around here so often equates
> to 'conformity': "believe what I tell you to believe, and see things how
> I tell you to see them, or I'll declare you insane".
>
> damnation.
>
> Plus, of course insanity is a nice easy claim to make, and doesn't lend
> itself to proof or disproof (especially in a forum such as this) - which
> is why it's always a disappointment to see otherwise intelligent people
> resorting to it.
>
>
>
> I agree.
Personally I have *NEVER* told anyone what they should believe or not
believe. I have only ever put forth my beliefs and everyone or anyone is
free to accept them or reject them. I likewise have never told anyone that
they are going to hell or heaven for that matter; because any belief or
non-belief that a person has about God is between them and God. Although I
do believe it *IS* between them and God whether or not they believe it; but
I don't judge them. It has been my experience however that most all of
those that don't believe in God tend to call *ALL* believers names when they
can't get the believer to disavow their beliefs and come over into the
agnostic or atheists camp. I guess there are those kinds of both sides.
Sugien
group; but to be frank there are a lot those in the believers camp that do
likewise to those in your camp. I and some like me however tend to only put
forth what we believe and say that people are just as free to accept it as
what they are to reject it. We do *not* however call people names or impugn
their character because they do not accept our point of view or convert.
Sugien
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> said :
>
>> Spitting hairs. If they tell you that you are going to hell, how do
>> you tell if they are self appointed pastors or not.
>
> really like you to accept Jesus because I value you and want to see you
> saved" and "accept Jesus because I'm right and I want everyone to believe
> what I believe and besides it'll make me look good if I get converts".
>
> normally straghtforward, because the title they've bestowed on themselves
> is usually the first thing they push at you: Pastor Frank, Pastor Steve
> Winter, and so on.
>
> Even without the explicitly stated title, it's fairly easy to tell from
> attitude. These are the ones whose only reasoning for expecting you to
> comply is, well, because they tell you to. They don't take time to talk
> to you, explain why they think what they do, and listen to your point of
> view. Instead they insist, possibly rant, quote endless Bible verses,
> and deride those who don't obey.
>
> than for the sake of the souls being proselytised to.
>
> It might be unfashionable, and anti-religionists might consider it a
> weak-minded outlook, but I'm quite happy to tolerate someone telling me
> their beliefs if I think they're doing it out of genuine concern for my
> soul (which, I explain patiently to them, I don't have). When so
> motivated, it's not an insult or an act of religious aggression: it's a
> kindness, and I treat it as such.
>
>
>> don't believe, you
>> are going to hell, then they have told you subtley that you are evil.
>> As only evil
>> people go to hell.
>
> don't think of it as a problem in any case because - as I'd be inclined
> to believe if I were Christian - they seem to credit God with a brain.
> According to them, He will decide whether you've lived well or not,
> whether you're Christian or not.
>
> Even those who imagine Him as some sort of mindless automaton - saving or
> damning mechanically, based solely on whether someone has declared belief
> in Christ, and regardless of their previous or subsequent behaviour -
> don't necessarily condemn someone as evil when they warn of Hell. In
> fact, on one occasion the person explicitly told me that it would be a
> shame if I were sent to Hell because they thought I was a good person
> (which just goes to show how wrong one can be). That's not a
> condemnation by them, even implied: it's simply a warning of condemnation
> by God according to the rules they believe He's laid down.
>
>
>> these fundies
>> have their own radio stations, their own colleges, and a brand of
>> idiocy all their own.
>
> although I agree they're much less prominent than in the USA.
>
>
>> aligning
>> themselves with government, and trying to make laws based on their
>> religious views. And that does infringe on the freedom of others.
>>
>> So, yes, in your environment, you would be correct. But there is
>> another environment.
>
> is global. Fair?
Believe it or not but I believe that you *would* have a better chance of not
having your soul destroyed in hell; because some here even if they were
standing in front of God with his existence as plane as the nose on their
face. They would still deny him and tell him that they would rather have
their soul destroyed in hell then to admit that what they are experiencing
at that time as being factual; because they would rather have their soul
destroyed then to admit that they had been wrong all their life and they
would refuse to accept God.
It is my belief that at the final judgment everyone that had not
accepted God love will be given the opportunity to do so. Then because God
will *not* force anyone to live for eternity loving him they will have their
soul destroyed. Now some may think that cruel; but actually it is an act of
love; because if they were to live for eternity in darkness that would be
much much cruel then to destroy their soul. I believe that after the end
the only source of light and warmth will be God because God is light and in
him is no darkness at all.
I disagree with all the religions that try and get converts by telling
them that if they don't accept and love Christ that they will be tormented
in hell for eternity; because for one thing the bible simply doesn't say
that and for another God is love and not vindictive. If someone asks I will
tell them what I believe and even why I believe what I do, well that is if
they ask because they truly are interested and have an open mind. If on the
other hand someone is only asking as a way to try and find fault in what I
am saying, I refuse to cast what I consider to be my pearls of wisdom before
those that would trample them and turn and insult me for only telling them
what I believe.
Sugien
> "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> said :
>
>> I agree, and you can tell that if you are sitting across from the
>> person. But on usernet, how does one make the distinction??
>
> and see how they act. If they're patient, and calm, and seem willing to
> answer (and ask) questions in a reasonable manner and aren't obviously
> ranting hellfire and damnation at me, then even if I don't agree with
> what they're telling me, I'm willing to let them have their say. At the
> very least I'll try to refuse courteously.
>
> If they can't tolerate questions and challenges, if they become hostile
> and aggressive, or angrily defensive, misquote or misrepresent what I
> say, refuse to listen to what I'm telling them, and so on, then I find it
> hard to accept that they're acting through any other motivation than
> their own self-interest. In those cases, it seems, they generally act
> out of pride, and the religion they're claiming says that's a sin - so
> they can't be what they're professing to be.
>
>
>> Ah, but that is the problem, one never knows on Usernet, if that
>> person is anything like they pretend to be.
>
> the people here for real - they are, in effect, just words on a screen -
> the 'personality' of their messages is all I'm interested in. The only
> thing that matters is what they're saying and how they're saying it. If
> someone is honest and friendly on Usenet then that's all I need to know.
>
>
>> You are much to kind to that ilk.
>
> rush to correct. :)
>
>
>> I will always have a problem, with anyone mentioning going to hell,
>> when any sort of reason, tells you that hell and a loving God are not
>> compatible.
>> If you have to resort to fear for converts, you have already lost the
>> battle.
>
>
> But Hell is different things to different people - even amongst
> Christians it's not necessarily considered to be the burning pit of fire.
> I've asked a lot of Christians about their ideas of Hell in my time, and
> while few say they don't believe in some form of Hell, many have
> suggested to me that it's actually a sort of self-imposed separation from
> God.
>
> It still doesn't sit right with me, because I'd assume that if God didn't
> *want* you separated from Him, you wouldn't be. But still - it's worth
> considering that not every Christian sees it as the vengeful, smitey God
> cackling as He hurls people into the inferno. There's no debate there:
> that picture certainly isn't compatible with the claim of a loving God.
>
>
>>> Okay, I'll go for that. All I'd ask is that you bear in mind that
>>> Usenet is global. Fair?
>>
>> Fair!! Smile.
>
A lot of non-believers and for that matter a lot of believers in my
opinion have a wrong view of hell. Hell is sort of a purifying fire, much
like the fire that Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego were in. That fire had no
effect on them because they were right with God. It is much the same in the
end, *EVERYONE* walks through the refining fire of God to enter into the
final rest. Those that have done good walk through without being consumed,
those that have not are consumed.
I believe that God is a loving God and will *not* force anyone to live
for eternity praising and loving him that don't want to. Try and look at it
this way, how would a person that loves to commit what God says are sin,
like it if he were *forced* to live for eternity in a place where he could
*never* *ever* do any of things which they consider to be pleasurable? Now
wouldn't that in effect be hell for them?
p.s.
Anytime I use *to make a point* or *THIS* point it is for emphasis and I am
*not* shouting.
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> You believe the sun will come up tomorrow, you don't know for a fact;
>> because it could go super nova about 6 minuets before sunrise and you
>> would be there with your * belief * that it was about to rise and then
>> you would have your belief shattered just before you died.
>
> a matter of fact. It's not going to go supernova tonight, or tomorrow,
> or next week, or this decade. We can say that because we know, at least
> to the extent required to assess such things, how the Sun works; and we
> know that our star isn't massive enough to go supernova. Not now, not
> ever. Instead, our Sun will undergo a relatively sedate decease as it
> expands into a red giant (engulfing the inner solar system in the
> process), ejects its outer mass and burns itself out as a white dwarf.
> As you can imagine, we're likely to see that coming, and we've plenty of
> time yet to work out what to do about it.
>
>
>> Everything is biased upon a belief in something. Your belief that
>> the
>> sun will rise is biased upon what you have observed your entire life.
>
> First, bear in mind that I've made similar arguments myself with regard
> to 'faith', firmly perceived by some anti-religionists here as a weakness
> and a sign of mental illness. Yet there are also non-religious
> applications for the word which amount to confident expectation of
> something without firm information, and my argument would be similar:
> that having faith does not in itself make one insane - all people have
> faith in all manner of things.
>
> Even so, you've picked a bad example: we do not have to *believe* that
> the Sun will rise. Of the many things in the world you could have picked
> that we have to have faith about, you managed to pick the one that
> probably requires least faith of all.
There is a probility no matter how ever slight that the sun will not rise;
because a black hole could open up and swallow it; besides the belief that
the sun rises is a false belief any way; because the sun in *fact* does
*not* rise and it is only an illusion. The fact of the matter is that the
earths rotation make the sun *seem* to rise when in *fact* it does *not*<s>
Which shows that the *belief* that the sun rises is *WRONG*!
I know that is being factitious; but it does illustrate part of what I
was trying to get across about belief.
Sugien
Antarctica taking samples from a lake that is composed of liquid water under
the ice and might release a bug that could wipe out humanity before a cure
could be found. There are any number of scenarios in which *man* could wipe
their self off the face of the world; but I believe that will never happen;
because God will not allow it. As for why *some* agnostics and atheists
would cross post, I believe it is because they enjoy it; but they most all
get angry when Christians refuse to play their game.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Midwinter" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:W_ydnRYsK46...@bt.com...
>> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>>
>>> I don't debate with closed minds because there is no point; because the
>>> *refuse* to accept any argument that doesn't agree with their own.
>>
>> It's just remarkable how quickly you leap to the conclusion that someone
>> *is* a closed mind.
>>
>> But that's fine: if you need to rationalise your retreat, you go ahead.
>
>I have no need or desire to retreat. However I also have no desire to
>debate with those that have no desire to listen about God.
Keep your bullshit out of the atheist groups and you won't be told to
prove it, moron.
> I was an
>agnostic for my most of my life and only became a believer in 1983 and I
>will be 55 this year.
You're lying.
> I know all the party lines on the agnostic side as
>well as the atheist side.
What "party lines", liar?
What "sides", liar?
It's just sociopathic theists who can't keep their deluded fantasies
to themselves.
> I do however believe that being an agnostic is
>being more realistic then being a flat out atheist; because at least it can
Liar.
>be said of agnostics that they DO have an open mind; because they say that
>they neither confirm *nor* deny the existence of God. Atheists on the other
What "existence of God" are you pretending has any relevance in the
real world outside your religion, moron?
>hand flat out say there is no God.
Liar.
We would have to have it in our paradigm to say that. But it's merely
part of the theist paradigm.
Why do you morons attempt to describe us using presumptions that are
only (at most) logically valid inside monotheism when we are part of
the rest of the world outside your religion?
To the point of inventing positions we don't have about something that
has no relevance?
> Agnostics are sort of the ones from
>Missouri of the bunch because they don't say there is or is not but rather
>"Show me".
Liar..
> The problem is that believing in God is done with *faith* much
>like the faith that most scientist have that the majority of the universe is
>made up of what can not be seen (dark mater and dark energy).
Not content with lying about atheists, you now lie about science and
scientists.
> Science can
>see the effects of dark mater and energy but can not directly see the dark
>mater or energy. Mostly they use the gravity lensing test for dark mater in
>effect saying that dark mater is there because it is bending the light that
>is passing near it.
Liar. It is part of a solution to equations which accurately model the
universe.
> Belief in God is much the same but instead of gravity
Liar. Belief in God is due to childhood brainwashing, not a
conclusion.
>lensing, Gods presence can be seen by change lensing. Which is the effect
How so, liar?
>that God has on believers and how their life changes.
Liar.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>*nothing* is a *FACT* until *after* it has happened until then it is *ONLY*
>a probility. If you think anything else then you should give back your
>belief in science card.
Yet another lying theist conflating acceptance of something as a
conclusion from evidence with his own unjustified belief in the
absence of evidence.
Have they no shame in their lack of integrity?
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> What is the point? No one can make any argument to a closed mind like
>> those of most all agnostics and atheists. I can say however that when
>> I was an agnostic I truly had a open mind as is evident by my coming
>> to believe in God. When you become open to the possibility of the
>> existence of God *YOU* come back.
>
> regard to the existence of god or gods could best be described as "don't
> know". In fact, "without knowledge" is a pretty close translation of
> "agnostic". It's also possibily the most honest position one can take
> with regard to the question, because all others require one to make a
> statement of fact about something for which there is no evidence one way
> or the other.
I agree and I use to be an agnostic or like someone from Misouri, "show me"
>
> An agnostic is usually quite open-minded, because they admit they do not
> feel sufficiently confident in a belief to say "God is real", or
> sufficiently confident in a lack of belief to say "God is not real".
I agree the peverable fence sitter, back when I was an agnostic I was
however also called a "Chicken Athesist", lol
>
>
>> After all science is open even to
>> the possibility that you can start across a street and there *IS* a
>> probability that you can integrate and then reintegrate on the other
>> side.
>
> I'm still working my way through that sentence. Integrate then re-
> integrate? Am I along the right lines if I assume you're talking about
> teleportation?
No,Chaos theory
>
> Yes, it's under research, but the barriers are considerable. However, if
> a way can be found to overcome these obstacles, then the process would no
> doubt be refined and developed until we're all zipping around the place
> trying to avoid putting on any red shirts.
Acutely it would be much easer to find a way to take all the data that makes
a person a person and then transmit that data to another place and create
another person that is exactly like the one that for whom the data was sent
for and then to destroy the original. I do not think that teleportation
like on Star Trek will ever be a reality; because the energy requirements
are prohibitive.
>
> Even so, that doesn't really make much difference to the question of
> belief in God. If science can find a way to make teleportation work at a
> physical scale then it'll be a miracle, sure: a miracle of science. It
> still won't address the question of whether or not God exists.
> Personally, I suspect that science won't ever want or be able to address
> that question.
>
>
>> What gets me is that
>> science can admit to the probability of such things happening; but
>> *refuses* to admit to the probability of God.
>
> Science doesn't deny the *possibility* of God - but it doesn't *admit* to
Acording so most of the non-believers that post in these groups, science
does not even admit to the *possibility* of God which is what I object to.
> the *probability*. 'Probability' used colloquially implies that there's
> a significance likelihood of something - and science just doesn't have
> any reason to make that assumption for God.
I never use *probability" in the colloquialy sense unless I quilify it as
such. I used it here as I most times do in these discussions as in
"probability theory".
>
> As I said, science can't address the question of whether or not God
> exists, because that question's so far outside anything science is
> willing to deal with. Whether or not God exists, the universe is as it
> is, and science deals with the universe as it is.
I would say to be more factual that "science deals with the universe as what
the *data* suggests it to be". Because in the final analysis science can
not say what they observe and the data that they have collected is *proof*
of how the universe is. after all Science use to think the universe was a
steady state or static universe and what Einstein considered to be his great
blunder because of his math showing that the universe was either expanding
or contracting is not considered to be fact and that the universe is not
only expanding and *not* state but that the rate at which the universe is
expanding is increasing in velocity.
>
> Even so, if there was half the evidence for the existence of God that
> there is for the reality of some form of teleportation, then no doubt
> science would pay the God question more attention. As it stands, there
> is no evidence either way: so science simply does not address the
> question. It suits some religionists to portray that as a denial of the
> possibility that God exists - but that merely represents the advancement
> of their own anti-science agenda.
The reason that *some* religionists say such is because the anti-religion
agenda most times either hint at such or out right say that science *proves*
or that scientists *say* that the existence of God is not factual.
Personally I have never seen a survey of scientists that asks them their
beliefs. I have seen scientists come down on both sides of the issue and
some believe and some do not and some are fence sitters;)
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> There in is the error of those like you that lump all believers into one
>> group
>
> agreement that there are different tendencies in different areas.
Maybe I mis-read it; after all I am only human:)
Sugien
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> I have no need or desire to retreat. However I also have no desire to
>> debate with those that have no desire to listen about God.
>
> want to address my comments as I addressed yours.
>
>
>> I do however believe that being an
>> agnostic is being more realistic then being a flat out atheist
>
> information available either way. Although that said I'm fully accepting
> of the atheist position that, lacking evidence to support a possibility,
> it is sensible to discard it.
>
>
>> because at least it can be said of agnostics that they DO have an open
>> mind; because they say that they neither confirm *nor* deny the
>> existence of God. Atheists on the other hand flat out say there is no
>> God.
>
> reason for them to believe. And as far as it goes, that's perfectly true
> and rational. I can only take it on faith that, were evidence to appear,
> they'd be willing to reassess their position. (Of course, if evidence of
> the Christian God were to turn up then I would also have to reassess my
> position.)
>
> But there are some who're more 'anti-religionist' than just 'atheist':
> these are the ones who become angry and irate at the first sniff of
> religion in the room, and spend their time indulging themselves in the
> vilification of people who don't see things the way they tell them to.
> These people are not the same thing at all.
>
>
>> Agnostics are sort of the ones from Missouri of the bunch
>
>
>
>> The problem is that believing in God is done with *faith* much like the
>> faith that most scientist have that the majority of the universe is
>> made up of what can not be seen (dark mater and dark energy).
>
> analogies in science? It's obvious why you do it: like many religionists
> you feel threatened by science and want to discredit it by finding
I don't think you can count mind reading as one of your talents; because I
certainly do not feel threatened by science and in fact think that science
shows more evidance for God then not.
> parallels in religion. This is a flawed approach for two reasons: first,
> science does not threaten religion. It might threaten *dogma*, but not
> religion. Secondly, if it is a means of deflecting accusations of 'blind
> faith', then attempting to tar science with the same brush would be
> hollow, since it wouldn't absolve *you* of the original accusation.
I use science analogies and such because that is what most always is used to
*try* and show that God doesn't exist. I think that those that try and use
science against religion will be more accepting or at least more able to see
points when science is used or at least scientific terminology and such.
Sugien
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:aj8vq3lt5l74tu8m0...@4ax.com...
Firstly *I* am not the one that cross posted into the atheism group; but I
would think that far more atheists cross-post into believers groups then
vice versa. Your belligerent and quite false accessions aside, you have a
nice day;)
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Firstly *I* am not the one that cross posted into the atheism group; but I
>would think that far more atheists cross-post into believers groups then
>vice versa. Your belligerent and quite false accessions aside, you have a
>nice day;)
You're lying again. Because that's where I saw your bullshit.
AFAIK we only have one cross-posting asshole, who gives you idiots a
taste of your own medicine.
But there is such a volume of cross-posting from you assholes that our
regular business gets submerged.
And what "false accessions (sic) were you lying about?
You have no idea what an atheist or an agnostic is.
bob young
Sugien wrote:
I think my scenario is more likely
> There are any number of scenarios in which *man* could wipe
> their self off the face of the world; but I believe that will never happen;
> because God will not allow it.
Groan - your god and everyone else's is simply a figment of the imaginations of
a pretty large proportion of humanity because Mr. Average cannot exist, or
fears too much of life, to exist alone and without making up gods to sop his
insecurity.
when our time is up it will be up and the last human to die will take the last
god with him. unless he is an atheist.
> As for why *some* agnostics and atheists
> would cross post, I believe it is because they enjoy it; but they most all
> get angry when Christians refuse to play their game.
Asking logical common sense questions and getting back wildly humorous and
sometimes quite childish smoke screens...........
IS A GAME ? !!!!!!!
It's a fun pastime perhaps, were it not for the fact many gross acts of
inhumanity are perpetrated by some religious fanatics in the name of their
imaginary gods.
Mary
> "Sugien" <paulbr...@gmail.com> said :
>
>> What is the point? No one can make any argument to a closed mind like
>> those of most all agnostics and atheists. I can say however that when
>> I was an agnostic I truly had a open mind as is evident by my coming
>> to believe in God. When you become open to the possibility of the
>> existence of God *YOU* come back.
>
> I'm going nowhere. An agnostic, incidentally, is one whose position with
> regard to the existence of god or gods could best be described as "don't
> know". In fact, "without knowledge" is a pretty close translation of
> "agnostic". It's also possibily the most honest position one can take
> with regard to the question, because all others require one to make a
> statement of fact about something for which there is no evidence one way
> or the other.
>
There's no such thing as an agnostic - if you think you *don't know* if
there is some invisible sky pixie watching, whilst doing nothing as a bus
load of children crash, whilst loving them all the time then you're just as
insane as the Christians.