(rev 2.2.1) What is Monotheism - Un-confusing Christianity, Islam and Judaism - {HRI 20070914-V2.2.1}
Koos Nolst Trenite
14 Sept 2007
{HRI 20070914-V2.2.1}
(Version 2.2.1
on 7 Oct 2007)
Based on Quotes from
{HRI 20070106-V3.0-pi6-V2.1}
(written and published only for
the highly intelligent and
well-intentioned reader)
'
The Definition of Monotheism
which gives you, I believe, very new data, and an understanding,
that has been pushed away in some distant corner of your soul,
but which you basically know, or can recognize with some ease
and much relief, which
is contained in the three separate parts given below:
'
They just "change their reality" - even into
"themselves 'being senior to The Creation'" -
while they can not create anything, *(11)
THEY can not create a chair or a bird or
a human body, *(3a)
which Jesus Christ could do;
though - for very personal reasons
that he did not disclose, he did
so - only in very limited number,
or
very sporadically (it is, that
he did) create things (he copied
them, actually) or (he made copies
of or restored) living organisms,
*(aa)
which none of the gurus can, at
all, *(11)
let alone that THEY could create a
planet: *(3b)
'
They can not create, command, steer and
condense Life Energy Particles into
creations, at all - obviously, they can
not actually create anything - *(0)
other than AN ILLUSION, a picture or feeling
of something - a dream, a fleeting PICTURE of
'something created,' which they then like to
call "A Universe," *(11)
or some feeling or emotion (Energy, they do
create and project at someone, Energy) with
which they - like also the very un-harmonious
hypnotist Gurdjieff - can command someone, or
bring about, at most, a compulsion in others,
indeed their tools are to inflict
hypnosis and spiritual blindness
onto others, intentionally, *(17)
'
and then they simply "change their own
reality,"
and tell you - with David Icke, I
believe, but actually all "Hinduists,"
and Buddhists and "New Agers" are
demanding of each other to believe and
to tell you - that
THAT, "the dream, IS reality." *(11)(19(20)
'
Much like Saddam Hussein, an incarnate
Demon, made himself convinced
- as also Hitler did, and the tiny
demon commanding North Korea,
and as Chavez currently does,
yes, even "Vladolf" Putin, now,
does try to convince himself,
(though he, and the others
DO KNOW as well, about
themselves and each other,
that they are very severely
Criminal Souls,
nevertheless, such a person
usually prefers to feel the
very opposite of truth)
feeling, and broadcasting to
others, "his own reality" -
that "he is a great leader,"
and in the case of "Islamic" dictator
Saddam Hussein (now deceased by means
of public and well-deserved hanging)
this individual wants to feel, *(14)
that he, Saddam Hussein, a Demon, "will
go to the Arab-Islamic heaven" after his
death by hanging:
"The dream, IS the reality."
'
That applies to any Criminal Mind, also
to those in Hollywood, those makers of
illusions, those actors and directors,
(including the Criminal Soul
George Clooney, by the way) *(7a)
who DENY the existence of The Creation,
and some of them DENY even the nature of
(or the very existence of themselves,
of) what they are: They are a soul.
So then 'the road is open' for them, to
fill the pretended vacuum that is caused
by their soul now "missing," and
they can fill this "void" with anything,
really:
Whatever he (or she) decides "is
real for him (or her)," is "what
exists."
Which is one of the basic
definitions of psychosis,
and of psychopathology,
but which is not easily
detectable in a professional
actor, as I have adequately
explained in other Human
Rights Issues (HRI's).
'
Continue reading the remaining two parts, below
- under 'Textnote' (aa), and then
- actually two comments, to two books, under (Books). *(8a)
'
'
Supposing not without reason, that you desire to have the definition
of truth, I will give that definition to you, here:
Truth is DEFINED as 'that what happened, caused by whom with
what actual intentions.' *(0)
'
Koos Nolst Trenite 'Cause Trinity'
human rights philosopher and poet
'The whole world
sought audience with Solomon
to hear the wisdom
God had put in his heart.'
1 Kings 10:24
________
Textnote:
(aa) One might wonder, what the purpose is, of a man who can create
his own body again, to let himself be subjected to some torture
and allow himself to be murdered publicly at the insistence of
some very insane mob that is hypnotized into a frenzy by its
"leader," by a very severely Criminal Soul (called Caiaphas).
And then he, Jesus Christ, continues to create confusion by
hiding the true nature of his resurrection, and hiding where he
went; he continues to hide that - and so much more - from his
loyal friends even.
And also, why he was neither providing for the material nor the
security needs of his friends. Nor did he inform them correctly,
where he came from (from which planet) nor where (to which
planet, which he refers to as "his father's place," as "his
heaven") he would go back to, after his obvious punishment of
'being sent to Earth and living a life there,' a punishment with
reasons he ALSO refused to disclose, all the while boasting of a
connection to "armies of angels" and such, that he had obviously
no connection to at all, let alone command over.
And then, deceiving his friends and forcing them to accept as
belief, that 'he will create peace on Earth,' which is a very
repulsive lie indeed.
Not even to mention, that he 'promised them, his friends,' that
'they will enter the "Kingdom of Heaven",' not even telling them
the planet or star system or civilization he talks about, which
is a place where - in actual fact - his friends won't at all be
received, also not in their next incarnation, no matter how much
they are 'believing in' those very nasty lies,
lies which are all based on, and that derive their power
from the truth,
that is, from the actual fact, that some people do have
the ability to connect to the Source ENERGY of The
Creation, God, not a person but the Source Energy,
with which one can, indeed, create, heal, and perceive
- but which the very evil use also, that is, to destroy
life.
'
Furthermore, he (Jesus Christ) was deliberately refusing to
identify who controlled him to do all those very crazy things
and who controlled him into practically NOT using his abilities
at all, and stopping it totally 'in order to suffer his public
punishment,'
yes, he was denying even, THAT he was controlled - controlled
at least by being denied his 'entry back (into "heaven") on his
own planet,'
until he had suffered his punishment on Earth, until he had done
what was demanded of him by his "heavenly father," by AN
INDIVIDUAL,
a Yahweh (in written Hebrew 'YHWH' or 'YHVH,' *(1d))
a 'big soul,' a person who is claiming,
and who is pretending to those less informed and
to those (you and me) who are made blind and kept
blind spiritually by Criminal Minds,
spiritually blind and technologically in a retarded
civilization on Earth, so that people here can
believe,
that he himself, in this case the person who held sway
over and commanded Jesus Christ, is "the heavenly father,"
that "he is (a) god," yes, even "the god,"
floating in his technologically slightly advanced
'Star of Bethlehem' above the now famous location of
Bethlehem - after he had demanded the soul of Jesus
(Christ) be incarnated (born), to Mary.
'
And how his biological mother, Mary, got pregnant, that is
of no importance or consequence at all, for anything or to
anybody
(except to the very, very Insane *(10a)
- to whom, after all, the most unimportant
things are "of the highest importance and
significance" -
or if they want to make some money by turning
the fiction into a 'Da Vinci Code,' using my
Energy and name to get attention and to make
much money *(2a))
- I mean, if you can create a live body out of
nothing, or repair a dead body and make it alive,
then you can CERTAINLY make an egg fertile, in
the same spiritual (or 'psychic') way, isn't it;
and
whether it was that 'parthenogenesis' or a
natural fertilization, *(6a) is ENTIRELY without
importance (except for the very Insane *(10a)).
'
'
I can not have any respect for all those lies and for all that
was deliberately hidden by Jesus Christ, especially, as the
mystery has also kept me baffled for thousands of years, of
course,
making - as Charlemagne - big discussions with you about
'The Trinity,'
about the nature and role of Jesus Christ, and about what
he meant with 'God' as "his heavenly father," and about
what was now 'The Spirit' (the Energy Source which IS
God)
wasting my time discussing such artificially made
problems, rather than, as Charlemagne, governing
the 'Nations of Europe' and demanding everyone to
be Christian,
assuming that people - being made Christian -
would then also behave, in a Christian way of
respecting each other and all that,
while I was
desperately trying to make sense of the, in fact very
vicious, lies to cover up his (Jesus Christ's) own
condition (of being sent to Earth as his punishment)
and the lies for hiding his connections with other
planets - planets with 'heavenly' (normal) civilizations
(that have no Criminal Minds to destroy it all -
civilizations not on Earth, now, that is).
'
After having penetrated Buddhism (which is earlier than
Christianity) and having penetrated Hinduism, which is still
earlier, *(11)
all of which serve, to plant and maintain the lies of
self-destruction, that stem from the deliberately
infused PURPOSE NOT TO FACE and NOT TO OPPOSE THE MOST
CRIMINAL SOULS,
to 'make Earth a Paradise for Criminal Souls,'
now it becomes obvious, what I already analyzed and wrote three
years ago, in 'About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time,
And Earth's Past And Future' {HRI 20040617-V3.8}, *(9a)
and that is, that Civilization on Earth should be shown, that
"The by far most able and beautiful, MUST BE PUNISHED
AND DESTROYED PUBLICLY." And:
"The very evil, the proven murderer, must be set free,
instead." And:
"The very able MUST NOT USE THEIR OWN ABILITIES FOR
STANDING UP TO THE CRIMINALS." And:
"The Criminals (Criminal Minds) must win, and the very
capable must be brought to death." And:
"You must NOT use your abilities - even though you have
these - to create wealth and beauty."
"You must NOT interfere, in evil that is inflicted on
others."
And that is then - originally at least - the Evangelium,
the "message of the Angels," that should spread for
thousands of years.
'
Not just someone, but ESPECIALLY a person, Jesus Christ, in
capabilities exceeding all of us by a hundred thousand times,
"SHOULD," "according to 'the will of god'," "be tortured and
killed and should not defend himself, nor others, against evil,"
but instead "should spread very false tales about his purpose
and reason for being on Earth," and even "should claim to care
for the people of Earth,"
all with the purpose of creating a "paradise for Criminal
Souls, on Earth,"
at the expense of six billion people's happiness and their
(your and my) health,
at the expense of six billion people WHO ARE NOT CRIMINAL
SOULS AT ALL. *(1a)(1b)(c)
'
'
'
Still, it is a big relief now, to know these things, so I will
no longer spend my time on such things that are indeed "wholly
impossible to understand" - because they are deliberately
INTENDED not to be understood and keep the relevant data wholly
out of sight.
And, maybe you also do not have to dwell on it any longer, now.
'
'
Christianity itself then, I must add here, is largely based on
and formed by the general knowledge and understanding of the
Energy of The Creation, which properly IS called God, and not
"the Sun" as people mis-interpreted Monotheism and the first
mono-theist, who is pharaoh Akhenaton (Echnaton, Amenhotep IV)
as you know, and who carried on as Plato:
To largely define Christian thought of care and decency and
respect and love for life and people, while knowing that the
Energy Source called 'God' or 'Spirit,' 'The Light,' is what
fuels and makes creative acts possible, possible by those who
can create - or who at least can copy, such as was (and still
is) the ability of Jesus Christ, which however he, then as now,
refuses mostly to use, with the result that we indeed did have
the slaughter of Mankind, that was not prevented, called World
War Two, for instance.
Which brings us to the reason why he used and uses this ability
very little, reasons that (to me obviously) he does not himself
understand, much like most other very powerful psychics do not
understand it either: They are "overcome by The Spirit," or
"enter a trance," and then they have all kind of awesome
abilities, but also when they do not have a trance at all, they
ALSO have those abilities if called upon.
All they do, is simply connect to God, to the Source of Energy
of The Creation, the SPIRITUAL SUN that Akhenaton (me, at that
time, I) described, which is of course the basis of
Monotheism, because anybody else, who either claims to be god,
or who pretends to be god, or who is looked up to by others and
called god, is an individual: They merely are individuals who
can more easily connect to and use the Source Energy of The
Creation, which - and not the individuals, but the Source of
Energy they use - IS God.
Why did Jesus Christ use it so little? He had entirely different
motives for coming here, than he claimed. And he refused to be
honest and decent in far too many respects: His purpose was
obviously, to suffer his punishment, and to then be allowed back
into 'heaven' by whoever controlled him and whom he fawned upon
as being "his heavenly father." ('Heaven' being simply, as in
all religions, another planet or planets with a civilization
without Criminal Minds.)
'
And, for a person OF THE CALIBER OF Jesus Christ, to be sent to
Earth to live a human life here, is like 'shutting someone up in
a dark cupboard,' for one life time - and 'not coming out of it'
because his love for people here, and his understanding of
people here
- he is capable of seeing very much, which is however
entirely different from understanding,
as any psychic can tell you,
and his desire to understand and his resulting
understanding -
was and remained very limited, because
THAT was not at all his purpose:
First to admit that he did not understand, and then to
acquire the understanding he lacked, about people here on
Earth, and about their problems HERE,
that understanding WAS AND IS NEITHER HIS PURPOSE, NOR HIS
DESIRE to obtain,
and so he was limiting himself, to simply exhibit and show his
extraordinary psychic PERCEPTIONS and psychic abilities, to
people, "to make them into believers in God," *(8a)
actually - and once again - causing a great amount of
confusion, by refusing to state why he was here, and
simply showing off the most awesome things he could do,
perceptions, and abilities, which do not require or even
cause a desire, in most psychics, to truly UNDERSTAND
people and the conditions seen very precisely by them,
and instead accepting the "explanations" given by
Criminal Minds
(such as 'Karma' and 'Evolving,' and 'going
to Heaven after leading an obedient life,'
entirely false and exceedingly MALICIOUS
"explanations")
for life's suffering, that these, Criminal Minds.
inflict anf have inflicted since millions of years,
nor do the psychics desire an understanding of the
abilities they use, because of their attitude of
"I have these abilities, don't I, so why understand them?"
- abilities and perceptions that are used very
astoundingly by them, leaving you wondering:
The lack of desire of these psychics, to understand
their own abilities, is a quality or condition of
them, that is baffling, it is something that people
(you and I) can not easily accept.
In this case, of Jesus Christ, it has left an endless
trail of suffering, in those who were and still are
trying to grasp and understand it, and lacking such,
were trying to "explain" it,
resulting in endless religious strife and separation
of people
caused by Criminal Minds who cleverly use the
confusion created and maintained,
by Jesus Christ in this example,
(suffering caused) in and by those who did claim "to
understand" a super-psychic,' Jesus Christ; (I repeat)
'
an understanding that this 'super-psychic' neither
had himself, nor that he was or is interested in, to
acquire about himself and to explain to people on Earth,
because he is not actually interested in helping the
people of Earth,
who merely did provide a largely loathed, and
in part indeed a murderous companionship for
him, during his banishment to Earth.
'
'
I hope you - the faithful reader, that is - do get now, at last,
what was and is happening, because I never managed to tell you
before, and I now finally got enough pieces together, to
understand it sufficiently to work with, for you.
Certainly, you will have to integrate these data into your own
experiences, and to shift the "explanations"
that others assumed or that they did offer (to "explain"
and "understand" their own experiences and feelings, or
those of others)
into a new light of understanding. *(4a)(5a)
'
'
Thus, addressing A PERSON, an INDIVIDUAL,
- because of his or her spiritual abilities or by means
of technical capabilities (gadgets) -
who is able of giving, ON EARTH
(in the spiritually and also technically - relatively
speaking of course - very primitive society of Earth,
he or she can be someone who is able to give, ON EARTH)
the semblance or appearance of "talking as if god" or "acting
as if god," to you and me or to others, as described in the
books of Judaism,
the act of you or me addressing an individual as
'being god,' and being addressed by an individual who
has a position or gadgets to claim to be a god, the god,
such an activity
CAN NEVER BE MONOTHEISM - you understand now, I hope.
See further the comments, given below, to the books indicated.
'
'
'
_____
Books:
(8a) (Books)
Dr. Dahesh, 'The Memoirs of Jesus of Nazareth,' 1993 New York,
(Daheshist Publishing Co., New York)
Actually should be called 'The Confessions of Jesus
Christ' - confessing half-heartedly to vengeful emotions
and psychicly killing an evil man, and confessing in the
same manner, to refusing to help a close friend in
sickness, refusing to provide materially for his best
friends, though providing so very well for himself -
confessions which, to my understanding, are the only
actual reasons for his writing the book, apart from
showing his resentment for and his general refusal to
understand what he sees very well IS going on in other
people and in himself, and his appalling refusal to tell
people then what was actually going on with him -
a vast amount of very pertinent and vital data NOT
mentioned, again not mentioned EITHER now, in this book
by him, nor in any of the other books he wrote in this
life time as 'Dr. Dahesh', other than exhibiting his large
displeasure of being on Earth,
and his difficulties with the opposite sex, and in
understanding jealousy, etc. as is a common - and a very
artificial, created - problem also in Arabic culture,
which I have explained and remedied in other Human Rights
Issues.
(Books)
Salim Onbargi, 'Born Again With Doctor Dahesh,' 1993 New York,
(Daheshist Publishing Co., New York)
An engineer with very little understanding of spiritual
matters, encounters the psychic, and travels as the
psychic's companion, for some time, in the Middle East
- a highly interesting account and a clear viewpoint:
Very confusing though, is (and this is why I am reluctant
to recommend it without explanations) the complete lack
of understanding by the psychic himself, of his own,
indeed totally awesome and tremendous abilities - his own
complete lack of understanding how he connects to the
Source Energy of The Creation, and of how and when he can
NOT do so, and why he can sometimes, and other times can
not connect to those Energies, and
giving others very debilitating and frustrating "advice,"
through his own lack of understanding the source of Energy
and by not understanding his own abilities which are, of
course and indeed, not abilities that everyone just can
conjure up by chanting or writing some formula on a piece
of paper
- a tremendous lack of understanding his own self and the
mechanisms involved, resulting in him dying a biological
death of long and painful bodily sickness, that he could
NOT repair (which is highly irrational and supposedly
explained or accepted and not remedied by himself as
'part of his punishment of being sent to Earth for one
life time')- so he dies after living a life of actively
showing his abilities, and his rather sick and sickening
"understanding" of these abilities, and his repulsive lack
of understanding people and global situations,
a lack largely determined by the fact, that he had
and has no purpose to remedy these, at all.
And so he resorted to what DID interest him:
"It is enough, if you know (heard about, or have seen) the
power of someone who can wield some of the Source Energy
of the Creation"
- Energy that HE could at times tap into, and doing so
equally without any ritual, or with some elaborate
ritual, which already makes the use of any ritual highly
irrational, and a ritual only worked anyway if it was
initiated (started as a future creation, by himself)
so it is all a confusing, but nevertheless entirely
awesome mess, and he had no desire or necessity to
understand anything of the people on Earth, let alone
to remedy things here and to bring peace, much less to
judge anyone,
because he would leave again anyway, after this life
time, and be allowed back by whoever punished him with
the ordeal of being on Earth, back on his home planet,
and all he wanted to do and to preach, was -
"if you have seen his acts of Creation" (his being by
far the most awesome psychic that has ever been around
on Earth)
- creating things or living bodies or repaired bodies, or
Teleportation (moving objects from far) or Precognition
(predicting events years ahead and keeping them secret
so nobody changes the events, or winning lottery tickets
- a combination of pre-cognition and creating the actual
ticket as well - or TODAY creating the newspaper of
tomorrow ACCURATELY - (on which the famous TV series
'Early Edition' was apparently based) -
"THEN 'all will be fine' - simply if you believe and know,
that that Energy exists."
Which is a very childish, utterly irresponsible attitude
about, and not caring at all for Earth, nor for Mankind on
Earth,
much like we know it from so many others who claim
to "care,"
infected as also he was with various, extremely false
ideas, very deliberate, calculated lies, from Hinduism
and from Buddhism, that are based on and are ideologically
serving the INTENTION AND PRACTICE to make and keep Earth
a very attractive place for Criminal Souls, so that these
(Criminal Souls) will not show up (will not be born or
incarnate) on peaceful and civilized planets,
as I already pointed out earlier to you, in 'About Aliens,
Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past And
Future' {HRI 20040617-V3.8}. *(1a)(1b)(1c)
'
_________
Footnotes:
(0) The three parts of this Human Rights Issue, have been quoted and
edited from:
'(Part Six) Too Far ABOVE The Journalists - People ARE not
"Anti-American" ' (Buddhism, The Buddha, Milarepa)
{HRI 20070106-V3.0-pi6-V2.1}
(6 January 2007 - part issue 6 on 13 Sept 2007 - Version 2.1
on 14 Sept 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/msg/2e6a951ec99d3e10
Also issued as:
'Koos Nolst Trenite - On Siddhartha Gautama, or Gotama,
"the Buddha," in {HRI 20070106-V3.0-pi6-V2.1.1}'
http://groups.google.com/group/nl.religie/msg/0d33bfc1cfa92101
'Koos Nolst Trenite - On Siddhartha Gautama, or Gotama,
"the Buddha," in {HRI 20070106-V3.0-pi6-V2.1}'
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/ecb601883e01d3f0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/550399c5afca20c8
'
(1a) 'About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past
And Future'
{HRI 20040617-V3.8}
(17 June 2004 - Version 3.8 on 29 August 2004)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/518554a536e1bf6e
(1b) 'Leonardo Da Vinci - About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness,
Time, And Earth's Past And Future'
{HRI 20040829-V3.4.3}
(29 August 2004 - Version 3.4.3 on 18 May 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d986639cd9593ee1
(1c) 'Quote 'Simple but correct (and very much needed) definitions'
in Version 3.0 of 'Leonardo Da Vinci
- About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's
Past And Future {HRI 20040829-V3.0}'
(23 Apr 2005 quote from Version 3.0 of 23 Apr 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1decab87b0a91b17
(1d) Look for 'Celestial Writing,'
in 'Leonardo ... {HRI 20040829-V3.4.3}' under *(1b), above.
(2a) 'The Dan Brown Code - The Trillion Dollar Question'
{HRI 20060610-V3.4}
(10 June 2006 - Version 3.4 on 10 July 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/msg/2721c03970946e56
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/2721c03970946e56
(3a)'The Nature Of Life As Seen From Earth - Introduction: Life Forms'
{HRI 20010829-pi1-V1.1.1}
(29 August 2001 - part issue 1 Version 1.1.1 on 11 Sept 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/88a7a7b2d830d5e6
(3b)'The Nature Of Life As Seen From Earth - Introduction: Our Planet'
{HRI 20010829-pi2-V1.2}
(29 August 2001 - part issue 2 Version 1.2 on 12 Sept 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/06119c3448d82941
(4a) 'Koos Nolst Trenite - 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
V2.1.txt.nfo'
(Introduction to 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
{HRI 20021018-V2.1} )
(12 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c0ac2bef1c56fc4
(5a) 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
{HRI 20021018-V2.1}
(18 October 2002 - V2.1 on 12 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4cbda7801312876f
(6a) 'True Love ...Loves - Sacks In Any Religion and Definition of
Sacks'
{HRI 20060521-V2.0.2}
(21 May 2006 - Version V2.0.2 on 26 March 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/098db1d0173bdcbf
'True Love Loves - 'Sacks' In Any Religion, and Definition
of 'Sacks' '
{HRI 20060521-V2.0.2-UAA}
(21 May 2006 - Version 2.0.2-UAA on 26 March 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/5c94910c64f57cdf
(7a) 'Famous European Life Energy Vampires - Unsuspected Of Destroying
Your Emotional Integrity'
{HRI 20040729-V1.1}
(29 July 2004 - Version 1.1 on 27 Aug 2004)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/01ae9af4767aa656
(8a) See under 'Books,' above.
(9a) 'About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past
And Future'
{HRI 20040617-V3.8}
(17 June 2004 - Version 3.8 on 29 August 2004)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/518554a536e1bf6e
(10a)'Definition Of Insane - Relation To Humor'
{HRI 20030205-V2.3.3}
(5 Feb 2003 - Version 2.3.3 on 13 May 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/83cdfa7c46d584d1
(11) 'Penetrating and Exposing Hinduism and Buddhism'
{HRI 20060816-V5.0}
(16 August 2006 - Version 5.0 on 1 Nov 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/msg/ccbd175e3fca1cdc
(14) ' 'The Shadow Of A Monster,' being the body-double of Saddam
Hussein's son Uday - Report on Saddam Hussein's criminal
insanity'
{HRI 20060702-A2-V1.0.2}
(2 July 2006 - Issued separately 28 Dec 2006 - Version 1.0.2)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.greek/msg/a8b60b031f82d4bc
(18) 'Dismantling Criminal Minds - Fine Particle Physics
Major Discoveries' ('How to become free of evil people')
{FPP 20070331-V2.7}
{HRI 20070331-V2.7}
(31 March 2007 - V2.7 on 30 Apr 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/c119dfc9bd620170
(19) 'The Rights of Criminal Minds'
{HRI 20040108-V1.2.1}
(8 January 2004 - Version 1.2.1 on 9 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/93359b640af83e20
(20) 'The Feeling "When God Has Left You..."
- Introduction to 'What is Hell' '
{HRI 20031124-V3.2}
(24 November 2003 - Version 3.2 on 16 May 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/msg/3c6799e5a78fbda5
'
__________
References:
'Explaining The Scale Of Sanity'
{HRI 20040619-V4.1}
(19 June 2004 - Version 4.1 on 16 May 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/0106a24825d74cc2
'What I Told You Already Two Thousand Years Ago...
Plato's Republic'
{HRI 20070821-V1.0.1}
(21 August 2007 - Version 1.0.1 on 21 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/20e9443285bed2e4
'Definition of Justice'
{HRI 20070817-V1.1}
(17 August 2007 - Version 1.1 on 20 August 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/6be97d0db99705c0
'Koos Nolst Trenite - 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
V2.1.txt.nfo'
(Introduction to 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
{HRI 20021018-V2.1} )
(12 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c0ac2bef1c56fc4
'The Mafia Code Against Mankind'
{HRI 20021018-V2.1}
(18 October 2002 - V2.1 on 12 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4cbda7801312876f
'Discovery of Life Energy - History in 1784'
(13 October 2003 quote from 'The Mafia Code Against Mankind,'
from {HRI 20021018-V2.0})
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.healing.reiki/msg/baf9af229e2bf21b
'American Constitution - Destroyed By Benjamin Franklin In 1787,
How' - Quote from {HRI 20021018-V2.0} 'The Mafia Code Against
Mankind'
(10 October 2003 quote, of Version 2.0 on 10 October 2003)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/51a464db1342b6e3
'If Pilate Had Provided King Solomon's Justice...'
{HRI 20041102-V1.3}
(2 November 2004 - Version 1.3 on 2 Apr 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/human-rights-issues/msg/8a0076d89f741b32
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology/msg/10e1d33aa5888fe3
'The Nature of War'
{HRI 20051027-V1.8.1}
(27 Oct 2005 - Version 1.8.1 on 4 May 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/71ca92e9e9d5e495
' 'Do you make a good journalist?' Multiple choice aptitude test
- (Humor)'
{HRI 20070212}
(12 February 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.humor/msg/88bfe2a861b28a03
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/9364ac2716a718e7
'Dismantling Criminal Minds - Fine Particle Physics
Major Discoveries' ('How to become free of evil people')
{FPP 20070331-V2.7} also {HRI 20070331-V2.7}
(31 March 2007 - V2.7 on 30 Apr 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/c119dfc9bd620170
'Living In The Present - Definition'
{HRI 20030102-V3.1}
(2 Jan 2003 - Version 3.1 on 14 July 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/msg/a269b01624b7e47f
'An Argument For Studying History - And For Teaching History'
(Quote from {HRI 20030102} 'Living In The Present - Definition')
(6 January 2003)
http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.history.what-if/msg/a7ebed92f49855f2
'YOUR Role on Earth - A Very Simple Observation'
{HRI 20070629-II-V2.1-Q1-V3.2}
(2 July 2007 - Version 3.2 on 1 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/msg/40b086a7aab7c87b
'The First International Law' (FIL)
{HRI 20021124-V2.0.2}
(24 November 2002 - Version 2.0.2 on 10 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/48d9132192eaf221
'The Nature of War'
{HRI 20051027-V1.8.1}
(27 Oct 2005 - Version 1.8.1 on 4 May 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/71ca92e9e9d5e495
'The Rights of Criminal Minds'
{HRI 20040108-V1.2.1}
(8 January 2004 - Version 1.2.1 on 9 Aug 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/93359b640af83e20
'You Prefer To Feel The Pleasant, Caring MASK Of Criminal Minds'
(27 July 2005 - Quoted from {HRI 20040920-V2.4} )
http://www.googlegroups.com/group/sci.anthropology/msg/bb346d9baa481457
'Penetrating and Exposing Hinduism and Buddhism'
{HRI 20060816-V5.0}
(16 August 2006 - Version 5.0 on 1 Nov 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/msg/ccbd175e3fca1cdc
'Criminal Minds ENJOY LYING And THEY Know They Intentionally Lie'
{HRI 20050527-V3.5.2}
(27 May 2005 - Version 3.5.2 on 16 Jul 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/c8b4f54782dc87e8
'The Trinity Of Science - Truth, Love and Beauty'
{HRI 20030307-pi-1-V2.1}
(7 Mar 2003 - Version 2.1 on 17 Oct 2003)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/bd379f557a773729
'Those, by whom the truth of Past Lives is actively denied OR
perverted, are SEVERELY INSANE, malicious, and inherently
Criminal'
{HRI 20070905}
(5 September 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.showbiz.gossip/msg/bf1150e13be1a9e6
'Resolving Identity Energy, of 'being Socrates' '
{FPP 20070809}
(9 August 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/c2a29dfdf2e0aef5
'Those, by whom the truth of Past Lives is actively denied OR
perverted, are SEVERELY INSANE, malicious, and inherently
Criminal'
{HRI 20070905-V1.1}
(5 September 2007 - Version 1.1 on 7 Sept 2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/ba7dc4037ee90d30
'
____________
Verification:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
Copyright 2007 by Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher
and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
anyone who learns from it and (even if he can not learn from it)
who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
to others who might be able to learn from it.
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
or religious or scientific agenda, but only to educate, and to
encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
about any organizations or individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
David V.
> What is Monotheism
It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
Leonardo Been
accommodate or oblige, nor to appease sociopaths.
Friendly relations with sociopaths are entirely impossible,
and any Love whatsoever, given to them, will only be used by
them to become more devious, and to destroy life more, and
more thoroughly.
'
Therefore, such individuals, sociopaths and their supporters, are
enjoined to filter out any such articles
- not written for them, not meant for them, and not posted for them.
'
'
Quite their opposite, Koos Nolst Trenite ('Cause Trinity') is
arguably the most intelligent, beautiful, caring and loving,
and the most truthful philosopher known.
'
'
The Definition of Monotheism
> for life's suffering, that these, Criminal Minds,
> inflict and have inflicted since millions of years,
_________
Footnotes:
> '
>
> (1a) 'About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's Past
> And Future'
> {HRI 20040617-V3.8}
> (17 June 2004 - Version 3.8 on 29 August 2004) http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/msg/518554a536e1bf6e
>
> (1b) 'Leonardo Da Vinci - About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness,
> Time, And Earth's Past And Future'
> {HRI 20040829-V3.4.3}
> (29 August 2004 - Version 3.4.3 on 18 May 2006) http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d986639cd9593ee1
>
> (1c) 'Quote 'Simple but correct (and very much needed) definitions'
> in Version 3.0 of 'Leonardo Da Vinci
> - About Aliens, Dimensions, Consciousness, Time, And Earth's
> Past And Future {HRI 20040829-V3.0}'
> (23 Apr 2005 quote from Version 3.0 of 23 Apr 2005) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1decab87b0a91b17
>
> (1d) Look for 'Celestial Writing,'
> in 'Leonardo ... {HRI 20040829-V3.4.3}' under *(1b), above.
>
> (2a) 'The Dan Brown Code - The Trillion Dollar Question'
> {HRI 20060610-V3.4}
> (10 June 2006 - Version 3.4 on 10 July 2006) http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.japan/msg/2721c03970946e56
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/2721c039709...
Immortalist
> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
> > What is Monotheism
>
> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>
Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with complete
proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually athiests should
never take the burden of proof against a proposed God else you will
have the burden of proof for what you propose upon you.
Al Klein
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>> > What is Monotheism
>>
>> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>>
>
>Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with complete
>proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually athiests should
>never take the burden of proof against a proposed God else you will
>have the burden of proof for what you propose upon you.
The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
due to the way Christianity defines it.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
-Phil Clemence
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:8vuig3l23nurgisff...@4ax.com...
watch these lectures and then see if you believe there is an old dude in the
sky
http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/mom.htm
If you don't watch it , don't talk to me.
If you do watch it and still believe in some old dude in the sky, you are
too far gone to save.
David V.
> On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>>
>>> What is Monotheism
>>
>> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>
> Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with
> complete proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually
> athiests should never take the burden of proof against a
> proposed God else you will have the burden of proof for what
> you propose upon you.
The person making the positive claim always carries the burden of
proof.
David V.
>
> Friendly relations with sociopaths are entirely impossible,
I have absolutely no desire to have friendly relations with bush.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Friendly relations with sociopaths are entirely impossible,
>
>I have absolutely no desire to have friendly relations with bush.
But if you were a friend of the president, you would be wealthy.
hhya...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
need such a position.
However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
when no proof can be shown.
David V.
There is not enough money in the world for that to happen.
Michael Gray
Mr. Klein is as atheist as they come...
JTEM
> Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of
> God with complete proof that has no chance of being
> in error.
You do it all the time, for every god except your own. The
only difference between you & him is that he denies one
more god than you do.
That hardly seems like a valid basis for challenging him:
"You're doing the same thing that I'm doing in the case
of thousands, if not millions of gods!"
JTEM
> There is not enough money in the world for that to happen.
Sure there is. But there's no way these elitists ****s would
ever give that much money. They shower it on each other,
sure, but they're all part of the club. Besides, piling heaps
of cash on people who could use it is a complete waste...
-Phil Clemence
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2tbjg3li6qr793g6t...@4ax.com...
Ahh ... my mistake to reply in that order ;-)
David V.
> "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is not enough money in the world for that to happen.
>
> Sure there is.
Not for me.
> But there's no way these elitists ****s would ever give that
> much money. They shower it on each other, sure, but they're
> all part of the club. Besides, piling heaps of cash on people
> who could use it is a complete waste...
I wouldn't be part of that club. I could not lower myself enough
to join them.
Michael Gray
<m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
You are very civil to admit error.
You could not be a Christian! ;)
Michael Gray
But, but...
"Immortalist" is mentally special!
Mich...@gmail.com
>
> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
> need such a position.
> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
> when no proof can be shown.
What proof would you accept? It has been mentioned before in this
forum how "God" has helped someone and how people have experienced
God, but this is difficult to formulate into a proof. If one belongs
to the Christian faith and believes in a figurative literal
translation of the Bible then one would believe that God wants us to
only be able to accept Him by faith.
There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
the Bible's account of history, but I'm fairly certain that you wont
accept that as proof of God.
I believe God intends to only reveal Himself to individuals for the
sole purpose of having a relationship at a personal level. I.E. If
you want proof then ask Him to reveal himself to you.
However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot help you.
SeppoP
I'd settle for someone to prove a god of any kind, or produce *any* evidence of one beyond "testimony".
I don't need evidence *against* gods, since nonexistence does not require evidence.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
David V.
>> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a
>> god. We don't need such a position. However, we are against
>> theologist who claimed there is a god and going on to
>> brainwash all the children who are innocent. In this type of
>> situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts
>> to lie. LIE when no proof can be shown.
>
>
> What proof would you accept?
Any proof. Anecdotal claims are not proof of anything except the
gullibility of humans.
> It has been mentioned before in this forum how "God" has
> helped someone and how people have experienced God, but this
> is difficult to formulate into a proof.
That cannot be considered as proof since there is no way to prove
what they experienced was real.
> If one belongs to the Christian faith and believes in a
> figurative literal translation of the Bible then one would
> believe that God wants us to only be able to accept Him by
> faith.
That's an excuse, not proof.
> There is an abundance of historical and archaeological
> evidence that the Bible's account of history, but I'm fairly
> certain that you wont accept that as proof of God.
There is more historical and archaeological evidence that proves
much of the bible to be wrong. Of course anything in the bible is
not acceptable as proof since all the bible does is make claims
and outlandish statements. It provides no proof.... except for
the gullibility of humans.
> I believe God intends.....
That is not proof of anything.
> However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot
> help you.
You are the one that needs to do the proving. It's your god, you
prove it.
Dan Tappan
>> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
>> need such a position.
>> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
>> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
>> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
>> when no proof can be shown.
>
> What proof would you accept? It has been mentioned before in this
> forum how "God" has helped someone and how people have experienced
> God,
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/10/08/0340229.shtml
====
"Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to map the
euphoric
religious feelings within the brain. As a result, it's now quite
possible to
experience 'proximity to God' via a special helmet: 'In a series of studies
conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have
trained
their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the
researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence — a
feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact,
is — or
of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth.
====
Al Klein
<m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8vuig3l23nurgisff...@4ax.com...
>> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
>> due to the way Christianity defines it.
>watch these lectures and then see if you believe there is an old dude in the
>sky
>http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/mom.htm
>If you don't watch it , don't talk to me.
>If you do watch it and still believe in some old dude in the sky, you are
>too far gone to save.
Do I still have to watch it if I've never, since I was conceived,
considered that opinion to be anything other than childish nonsense?
Al Klein
Or, if he is, one whose friendship I'd value. (I count a RC priest as
a good friend, but he's sane too. Maybe he's just an EAC mole.)
Al Klein
>What proof would you accept?
Any objective evidence that the god you claim objectively exists
actually does. (If you don't know what "objective evidence" or
"objective existence" mean, this is your chance to learn something
new.)
>There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
>the Bible's account of history
There's an abundance of evidence that it's false, yes. There was no
Noahic flood, there was no Exodus (the "Canaanites" that the
Israelites "conquered" were, in fact, the Israelites themselves -
there was no conquest, and 600,000 men, their wives, children and
animals DID NOT live in the desert for 40 years - there's physical
proof of that), there were no plants before there was a sun, etc., ad
nauseam.
>I believe God intends to only reveal Himself to individuals for the
>sole purpose of having a relationship at a personal level.
And, if one doesn't wish that personal relationship, one goes to hell
to burn for all eternity. Not a god worthy of worship, more like a
spoiled brat burning ants with a magnifying glass. Might doesn't
make right, but it does make one sadistic little bastard who deserves
a good bare-assed paddling.
>If you want proof then ask Him to reveal himself to you.
IOW, the old canard, "believing is seeing". Sorry, but if he
objectively exists, there's objective evidence of that existence, so
post it. If he doesn't objectively exist, who cares what you believe,
as long as you keep your beliefs to yourself?
>However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot help you.
This is Usenet, so it's you burden, not our intent, to provide
evidence to back your claims. We have no burden of disproving them
David V.
> Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a
>>> god. We don't need such a position. However, we are
>>> against theologist who claimed there is a god and going on
>>> to brainwash all the children who are innocent. In this
>>> type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for
>>> the existence. And here is what they had failed, which
>>> amounts to lie. LIE when no proof can be shown.
>>
>> What proof would you accept? It has been mentioned before
>> in this forum how "God" has helped someone and how people
>> have experienced God,
>
> map the euphoric religious feelings within the brain. As a
> result, it's now quite possible to experience 'proximity to
That helmet offers proof that a god does not exist. It proves
that this god is just a feeling, a human emotion, not some being
that created things.
Dan Tappan
Which was my point.
Though, strictly speaking, what it does is offer proof that "mystical"
experiences, which some people offer as proof of a God's existance, are
a purely physical artifact of the way the brain works.
Dubh Ghall
>
>>
>> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
>> need such a position.
>> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
>> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
>> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
>> when no proof can be shown.
>
>What proof would you accept?
That is your problem.
However, If, twenty four hours after I post this, every atheist in
usenet, were a xtian, you would certainly have my undivided attention.
>It has been mentioned before in this
>forum how "God" has helped someone and how people have experienced
>God, but this is difficult to formulate into a proof.
Yes, it is subjective.
>If one belongs
>to the Christian faith and believes in a figurative literal
>translation of the Bible then one would believe that God wants us to
>only be able to accept Him by faith.
>
...And is going to punish us for eternity, should we lack that faith,
even though the bible says that faith is from God.
So if we lack faith, it is because God has withheld it.
>There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
>the Bible's account of history,
"The Bible's account of history", is what?
Certainly not accurate.
>but I'm fairly certain that you wont
>accept that as proof of God.
You are correct.
>
>I believe God intends to only reveal Himself to individuals for the
>sole purpose of having a relationship at a personal level. I.E. If
>you want proof then ask Him to reveal himself to you.
I did, and at a time when I still believed.
He must have been out, all those long years.
>
>However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot help you.
Why ever would anyone try to prove a negative?
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Dan Tappan wrote:
>>
>>> Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What proof would you accept? It has been mentioned
>>>> before in this forum how "God" has helped someone and
>>>> how people have experienced God,
>>>
>>> "Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done
>>> to map the euphoric religious feelings within the brain.
>>> As a result, it's now quite possible to experience
>>> 'proximity to God' via a special helmet:.....
>>
>> That helmet offers proof that a god does not exist. It
>> proves that this god is just a feeling, a human emotion, not
>> some being that created things.
>
> Which was my point.
Good. I've seen several christians trying to use this as proof of
their god.
> Though, strictly speaking, what it does is offer proof that
> "mystical" experiences, which some people offer as proof of a
> God's existance, are a purely physical artifact of the way the
> brain works.
They are claiming that's how their god did it.
Gene Ward Smith
news:NMqdnRG8qrRTOpfa...@sti.net:
>>> That helmet offers proof that a god does not exist. It
>>> proves that this god is just a feeling, a human emotion, not
>>> some being that created things.
>>
>> Which was my point.
>
> Good. I've seen several christians trying to use this as proof of
> their god.
>
Either way, the argument is completely bogus. Neither side has proven
anything. In both directions, it boils down to assuming your conclusion.
Mich...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:22:41 -0700, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> >What proof would you accept?
>
> Any objective evidence that the god you claim objectively exists
> actually does. (If you don't know what "objective evidence" or
> "objective existence" mean, this is your chance to learn something
> new.)
>
> >There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
> >the Bible's account of history
>
> There's an abundance of evidence that it's false, yes. There was no
> Noahic flood, there was no Exodus (the "Canaanites" that the
> Israelites "conquered" were, in fact, the Israelites themselves -
> there was no conquest, and 600,000 men, their wives, children and
> animals DID NOT live in the desert for 40 years - there's physical
> proof of that), there were no plants before there was a sun, etc., ad
> nauseam.
Skipping the flood for the moment (since I know where that argument
will lead). No Exodus? You have historical or archaeological proof
that there was no Exodus?
The proof I was referring to was that place mentioned in the Bible
existed and the discovery of their existence considerably post-dates
the texts that mention their existence. Also the events mentioned in
the Bible correspond to the events found in other ancient texts. The
people mentioned in the Bible also appear in other historical
documents.
> >If you want proof then ask Him to reveal himself to you.
>
> IOW, the old canard, "believing is seeing". Sorry, but if he
> objectively exists, there's objective evidence of that existence, so
> post it. If he doesn't objectively exist, who cares what you believe,
> as long as you keep your beliefs to yourself?
>
> >However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot help you.
>
> This is Usenet, so it's you burden, not our intent, to provide
> evidence to back your claims. We have no burden of disproving them
I'm sorry I was being coy. I was simply trying to state to a dis-
believer - no matter what belief we are referring too - just about any
proof can be denied and argued away. Which lends credence to why God
would require desire before revealing His nature to a person.
I feel no burden to prove God to you (i.e. if God wants you to know
Him you will), but I find it extremely entertaining to argue the point
(maybe it should not be so entertaining).
Howard Brazee
>We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
>need such a position.
>However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
>going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
>In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
>when no proof can be shown.
I suspect most theologists are True Believers in whichever religion
they preach. Obviously those theologists in those Other religions
are wrong. But are they lying?
Howard Brazee
I didn't mention cause or effect. I suspect you have to be wealthy
first to be a friend of the president.
Nobody in particular
<news:23flg3lb7tc86evon...@4ax.com>...
Yes, of course they are. Great Cthulhu told me so. By the way, the
stars are *almost* right.
David V.
>
> Skipping the flood for the moment (since I know where that
> argument will lead). No Exodus? You have historical or
> archaeological proof that there was no Exodus?
Do you have proof of the exodus?
> The proof I was referring to was that place mentioned in the
> Bible existed ....
Because the bible got a place name right means nothing. It does
not give credence to anything else in that book.
> I'm sorry I was being coy. I was simply trying to state to a
> dis- believer - no matter what belief we are referring too -
> just about any proof can be denied and argued away.
Not if your facts are right. The theists have no facts, just dogma.
> Which lends credence to why God would require desire before
> revealing His nature to a person.
That's an excuse. You need to prove the god exists before you
make such claims.
> I feel no burden to prove God to you
Because you can't. You cannot "prove" something that does not exist.
David V.
Yes. Some are lying. Some are fooled. Some are fools.
David V.
True, you do have to contribute lots of money to the NeoCons in
order to be their "friend".
-Phil Clemence
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:41:41 -0000, Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:22:41 -0700, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >What proof would you accept?
>>>
>>> Any objective evidence that the god you claim objectively exists
>>> actually does. (If you don't know what "objective evidence" or
>>> "objective existence" mean, this is your chance to learn something
>>> new.)
>>>
>>> >There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
>>> >the Bible's account of history
>>>
>>> There's an abundance of evidence that it's false, yes. There was no
>>> Noahic flood, there was no Exodus (the "Canaanites" that the
>>> Israelites "conquered" were, in fact, the Israelites themselves -
>>> there was no conquest, and 600,000 men, their wives, children and
>>> animals DID NOT live in the desert for 40 years - there's physical
>>> proof of that), there were no plants before there was a sun, etc., ad
>>> nauseam.
>>
>>
>>Skipping the flood for the moment (since I know where that argument
>>will lead). No Exodus? You have historical or archaeological proof
>>that there was no Exodus?
>
> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
> million people.
>
> Add enough animals for each family.
>
> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
> adults would.)
>
> Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have found them
> already. (They've been searched for with sub-surface radar.) They're
> not there.
>
>>The proof I was referring to was that place mentioned in the Bible
>>existed and the discovery of their existence considerably post-dates
>>the texts that mention their existence. Also the events mentioned in
>>the Bible correspond to the events found in other ancient texts. The
>>people mentioned in the Bible also appear in other historical
>>documents.
>
> archaeologist came to that conclusion (from decades of accumulated
> evidence) about 5 years ago.
>
>>I'm sorry I was being coy. I was simply trying to state to a dis-
>>believer - no matter what belief we are referring too - just about any
>>proof can be denied and argued away.
>
> standing in the surf. Opinion, whoever expert, isn't evidence.
>
>>Which lends credence to why God
>>would require desire before revealing His nature to a person.
>
but not with evil intent, wouldn't you say, for what he/they saw as the
needs of the time?
So the road to hell was paved ...
> If you can't see
> God, it's your fault for not being good enough, or not wanting enough.
>
>>I feel no burden to prove God to you
>
> On Usenet, the rule is that if you make an assertion, you provide the
> evidence to back it up when challenged. God, cows, sand - it makes no
> difference. It's your existentially positive assertion, so you bear
> the burden of proof.
ahh .. I never read anything about proof in the bible :-(
I think there is something about ...blood from a stone...
>
> You wouldn't drive on the right side in the UK, would you?
... on the right side of the car? or the road?
sorry i couldn't let it go ;-)
Howard Brazee
>There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
>the Bible's account of history, but I'm fairly certain that you wont
>accept that as proof of God.
Do you accept historical and archaeological evidence to point to Islam
being Right? Or is there some qualative difference that makes that
evidence not valid?
Al Klein
>On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:22:41 -0700, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >What proof would you accept?
>>
>> Any objective evidence that the god you claim objectively exists
>> actually does. (If you don't know what "objective evidence" or
>> "objective existence" mean, this is your chance to learn something
>> new.)
>>
>> >There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
>> >the Bible's account of history
>>
>> There's an abundance of evidence that it's false, yes. There was no
>> Noahic flood, there was no Exodus (the "Canaanites" that the
>> Israelites "conquered" were, in fact, the Israelites themselves -
>> there was no conquest, and 600,000 men, their wives, children and
>> animals DID NOT live in the desert for 40 years - there's physical
>> proof of that), there were no plants before there was a sun, etc., ad
>> nauseam.
>
>
>Skipping the flood for the moment (since I know where that argument
>will lead). No Exodus? You have historical or archaeological proof
>that there was no Exodus?
The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
million people.
Add enough animals for each family.
Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
adults would.)
Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have found them
already. (They've been searched for with sub-surface radar.) They're
not there.
>The proof I was referring to was that place mentioned in the Bible
>existed and the discovery of their existence considerably post-dates
>the texts that mention their existence. Also the events mentioned in
>the Bible correspond to the events found in other ancient texts. The
>people mentioned in the Bible also appear in other historical
>documents.
As far as the Israelites being the Canaanites, an Israeli
archaeologist came to that conclusion (from decades of accumulated
evidence) about 5 years ago.
>I'm sorry I was being coy. I was simply trying to state to a dis-
>believer - no matter what belief we are referring too - just about any
>proof can be denied and argued away.
Objective evidence exists - you can't "argue away" the ocean if you're
standing in the surf. Opinion, whoever expert, isn't evidence.
>Which lends credence to why God
>would require desire before revealing His nature to a person.
Because the person who invented him was no fool. If you can't see
God, it's your fault for not being good enough, or not wanting enough.
>I feel no burden to prove God to you
On Usenet, the rule is that if you make an assertion, you provide the
evidence to back it up when challenged. God, cows, sand - it makes no
difference. It's your existentially positive assertion, so you bear
the burden of proof.
You wouldn't drive on the right side in the UK, would you?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> I didn't mention cause or effect. I suspect you have to be
>> wealthy first to be a friend of the president.
>
>True, you do have to contribute lots of money to the NeoCons in
>order to be their "friend".
That's expected, but the main thing is that only wealthy people count.
Michael Gray
>
>>
>> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
>> need such a position.
>> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
>> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
>> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
>> when no proof can be shown.
>
>What proof would you accept?
:
Let's start with:
What have you got?
I am sure that you do not have a scrap of any evidence, and must
resort to handballing the problems created by your personal delusions
on to others.
Show us what you have got.
Show us the best single bit of evidence that you have.
Bet you can't.
-Phil Clemence
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:24:35 -0400, "-Phil Clemence"
> <m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:8vuig3l23nurgisff...@4ax.com...
>
>>> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
>>> due to the way Christianity defines it.
>
>>watch these lectures and then see if you believe there is an old dude in
>>the
>>sky
>
>>http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/mom.htm
>
>>If you don't watch it , don't talk to me.
>>If you do watch it and still believe in some old dude in the sky, you are
>>too far gone to save.
>
> Do I still have to watch it if I've never, since I was conceived,
> considered that opinion to be anything other than childish nonsense?
Heheh ... it was intended for whoever it was that suggested or proposed that
...
I never saw the original post (in some group other than alt.philosophy, I
guess)
Those lectures include a lot on the origins of religious myths, what they
mean, and why they are important...
an importance undermined by the belief in some old dude in the sky.
I won't talk to my parents about it, or others who might still believe so
long as they don't expect others to believe the same.
I don't see the point in arguing the details with people who believe in god
if they don't mention it.
Christmas at my parents house a couple of years ago I played a video of
Richard Feynman talking about his life and learning.
A lot of what he said about the way his father taught him reminded me of my
parents, and he is interesting, but I didn't realize that he was asked near
the end of the talk about his thoughts on God. He was gentle about it, but a
gentle word contrary to the idea of a god from such a reasonable man as
Feynman is enough to crush it. I had originally listened to it as I was
laying down, and drifted off to sleep never hearing (or being aware of) that
part. I felt pretty bad sitting there with my aging parents, wondering how
they took it. I don't care what they believe - they raised 6 kids -took
moral stands and faced the challenges we gave without relying on
(presenting) god as an excuse or a reason for anything that I know of. I
still wonder if they believe ... they know I don't, but never mention it.
Well there are plenty of things to believe in, even worship - the
originating authority doesn't matter much unless it seems false and
therefore undermines those things by association. The relative good or bad
effects of the belief really is the most important thing to people, whether
we know it or not.
That's a lot of preaching to the chior for an antheist....
Michael Gray
Sides?
What sides?
There is only one side here making a claim.
They have presented zero proof for it.
-Phil Clemence
What if someone explained the origins of the idea of god -where, when and
who got those ideas, how they passed them on and how they became corrupted
as time passed?
Would that be proof that god does not exist?
I suppose only if they are right in the facts.
How can we know if they are right?
What if their explanation is based on the translations of the oldest texts
known?
Still, the people who wrote those texts could be lying and only claim to
have originated the idea.
Yet , they are the only ones to claim to have originated it, and the
corruption of it is documented by the corrupters.
Still not enough to be proof , I suppose.
Amen
David V.
>
> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were
> marriageable and, in that religion, had a responsibility to
> God to marry and reproduce. That would mean an additional
> 600,000 women. At even an average of 4 children per family (a
> gross underestimate), that's 3.6 million people.
>
> Add enough animals for each family.
>
> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1
> pound of coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of
> coprolites, for the people alone. (The average 4 children
> would produce about what 3 adults would.)
>
> Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have found
> them already. (They've been searched for with sub-surface
> radar.) They're not there.
Oh.... can I answer this one..... they ate "manna". No shit. I
mean that if you eat manna from heaven it could not possibly
produce something as foul as coprolite...... unless they were
coprophagous.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
> I believe God intends to only reveal Himself to individuals for the
> sole purpose of having a relationship at a personal level.
Figures. Your god is a pervert.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Robibnikoff
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1191883301....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:22:41 -0700, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >What proof would you accept?
>>
>> Any objective evidence that the god you claim objectively exists
snip
>
> I feel no burden to prove God to you
Of course you don't. That's because you don't have any evidence he/she/it
exists and you know it.
(i.e. if God wants you to know
> Him you will),
Baloney - Prove it.
>but I find it extremely entertaining to argue the point
> (maybe it should not be so entertaining).
Well, if you're easily amused by idiotic arguments....................
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Al Klein
<m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:4fllg3paccg16s117...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:41:41 -0000, Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>Which lends credence to why God
>>>would require desire before revealing His nature to a person.
>> Because the person who invented him was no fool.
>but not with evil intent, wouldn't you say, for what he/they saw as the
>needs of the time?
More so that no one could call him a faker. Evil? Maybe not exactly
evil, but what do you call a desire to fool, use and abuse your fellow
man? If every religious faker were to go out and look for a real job,
the world would be crushed by the unemployment figures.
>So the road to hell was paved ...
Probably with sharp stones and ankle-breaking holes. Maybe a little
snake oil, since bananas weren't common.
>>>I feel no burden to prove God to you
>>
>> On Usenet, the rule is that if you make an assertion, you provide the
>> evidence to back it up when challenged. God, cows, sand - it makes no
>> difference. It's your existentially positive assertion, so you bear
>> the burden of proof.
>
>ahh .. I never read anything about proof in the bible :-(
>I think there is something about ...blood from a stone...
Stones don't assert that their make-believe buddy in the sky is
objectively real, many Christians do. But Christianity has nothing to
do with the Bible.
>> You wouldn't drive on the right side in the UK, would you?
>... on the right side of the car? or the road?
>sorry i couldn't let it go ;-)
Better not, or you'll end up driving on the sidewalk. (I assume this
is a contest in which the worst pun wins?)
Al Klein
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
That's on the same page of the biology textbook as the herbivorous
lions in the Garden of Eden. The ones with the short, carnivorous,
guts.
Mich...@gmail.com
Please do not misunderstand, the following text is not meant to
convince you (I'm sure only God could do that). I reply simply to
answer your question. None of the following events "proved" God's
existence to me. I was already convinced of His existence before
these events transpired.
To mention just a few instances:
As a child I was attacked by dogs. I asked for God's help and the
request was immediately granted.
As a college student I constantly asked for Gods help with my studies
and he blessed me in that.
As a father I asked for Gods help with a personal matter with my
daughter and he answered that prayer also.
I have seen the opposite side of the spectrum also.
All of this to say. My beliefs have a personal impact upon my life.
If they did not then what would be the point.
I happen to also believe that all of human nature and human history is
consistent with that belief.
David V.
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:38:27 -0700, "David V."
> <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Al Klein wrote:
>>
>>> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were
>>> marriageable and, in that religion, had a responsibility
>>> to God to marry and reproduce. That would mean an
>>> additional 600,000 women. At even an average of 4
>>> children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
>>> million people.
>>>
>>> Add enough animals for each family.
>>>
>>> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1
>>> pound of coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION
>>> TONS of coprolites, for the people alone. (The average 4
>>> children would produce about what 3 adults would.)
>>>
>>> Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have
>>> found them already. (They've been searched for with
>>> sub-surface radar.) They're not there.
>>
>> Oh.... can I answer this one..... they ate "manna". No shit.
>> I mean that if you eat manna from heaven it could not
>> possibly produce something as foul as coprolite.
>
>
> That's on the same page of the biology textbook as the
> herbivorous lions in the Garden of Eden. The ones with the
> short, carnivorous, guts.
God works in mysterious ways.
They have an answer for everything.
David V.
>
> Please do not misunderstand, the following text is not meant to
> convince you (I'm sure only God could do that). I reply simply to
> answer your question. None of the following events "proved" God's
> existence to me. I was already convinced of His existence before
> these events transpired.
Then it was your bias that formed your conclusions, not logic...
or reality.
Robert Marxreiter
> As a child I was attacked by dogs. I asked for God's help and the
> request was immediately granted.
> As a college student I constantly asked for Gods help with my studies
> and he blessed me in that.
> As a father I asked for Gods help with a personal matter with my
> daughter and he answered that prayer also.
> I have seen the opposite side of the spectrum also.
So some supposed god saved you from a dogbite, helped you with your
marks and solved some private issues for you?
I'm just stunned. Obviously that same supposed god helped you to
completely ignore the proportions here. On the one hand some rich man
who is too lazy to learn his stuff and can't handle his personal issues,
on the other hand poor people dying by the thousands, desperately
praying and begging to the same supposed god for their lives. That god
seems to have some weird priorities, mh?
Obviously this one particular god only cares about rich people. and by
"rich" I mean people like you and me, who don't have to fight for their
lives every day and who are even decadent enough to own a computer and
post in the Usenet. Sure, in your little dreamworld all those poor
people who pray and die will get their reward and go to some place
called heaven. But in the meantime your god plays some cruel, childish game.
Someone who acts like that does not earn any respect from my part.
I think I'd better pick some other god, let's see... mh. Damn. They all
act alike in that respect. Must be some god-conspiracy against the poor
and the amputees.
What would be the point of your life without supporting that? Sanity,
reason and responsibility. Of course these points are not very
comforting and very inconvenient, so in your case I'd indeed say: stay a
believer. Just don't think about all those poor people whom your god is
playing his cruel game with and whom he completely ignores. Then
everything will be fine in your little dreamworld.
Greetings
- Robert
Mich...@gmail.com
>From your statements can I infer that you think that "if there is a
God" he should only be involved in the "big" things, and that those
who are seemingly blessed in life should receive less of God's mercy
then those at the bottom end of the spectrum? I would submit that in
God's eyes we are all equal and that He is seeking to "prove" Himself
to all who seek Him. I also don't mean to infer that "realness" of
God was made evident because I got what I wanted. Far from it. But
rather that God's mercy in dealing with me was generous in giving me
what I needed (which was far more then I deserved).
>From your perspective you could say that the events that transpired
where random or naturally occurring and the results were simply the
results of my actions and the actions of others, but for me the
reality is quite different. You may disregard faith because you have
none, but the person with faith realizes its worth.
Proof will only come to those who seek it. Doubt will come to those
who seek that.
Note: I am not a coprolites expert, but it sound like an interesting
study. Can I ask where this information is documented?
Immortalist
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:39:32 -0700, Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
> >> > What is Monotheism
>
> >> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>
> >Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with complete
> >proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually athiests should
> >never take the burden of proof against a proposed God else you will
> >have the burden of proof for what you propose upon you.
>
> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
> due to the way Christianity defines it.
So your claming that if a Christian defines his or her God in a
particular way, you accept it as proof that the God exists?
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>
> >>> What is Monotheism
>
> >> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>
> > Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with
> > complete proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually
> > athiests should never take the burden of proof against a
> > proposed God else you will have the burden of proof for what
> > you propose upon you.
>
> proof.
> --
Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
ridiculous!
Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
to accept it as true.
The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an
argument? In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we
discuss the concept of a burden of proof, which is defined there as
"how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win
someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the
heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as
Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens,
he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally
consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up
to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he
shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that,
if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's alien-abduction story must be
true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it
is up to him to support it.
In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally
assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably
not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone
shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a
claim which would be very difficult to support.
http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html
In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove
allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially,
burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to
defend a position against a prima facie other position...
...The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal
action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The
degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the
proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the
balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence
in the US, and beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD). In addition to these,
the US introduced a third standard called clear and convincing
evidence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the
skeptic, and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying
assumption that as between theism and atheism, it is the former that
is obviously true and the latter that is obviously false?
(2) This not being possible in any way that is of immediate interest
to religious belief, how does the believer regard his inability to
prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
The concept of a "burden of proof" is important in debates - whoever
has a burden of proof is obligated to "prove" their claims in some
fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is
much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or
point out where they are inadequately supported.
It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between
atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the
burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of
agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the
debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try
to define in advance who has the burden of proof.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase "burden of proof"
is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that
phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a
doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case.
A more accurate label would be a "burden of support" - the key is that
a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical
evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature
of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to
support than others - but regardless, a claim without any support is
not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim
which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept
must provide some support.
An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of
proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the
person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.
In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies
with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist
probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who
asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.
This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of
rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The
methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is
what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons
that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or
engage in a sensible discussion.
The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is
often violated, however, and it isn't unusual to find someone saying,
"Well, if you don't believe me then prove me wrong," as if the lack of
such proof automatically confers credibility on the original
assertion. Yet that simply isn't true - indeed, it's a fallacy
commonly known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof." If a person claims
something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to
prove them wrong.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position
of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the
United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent
until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the
prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.
Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn't have to do
anything - and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially
bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without
calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for
the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-
argument simply isn't deemed important.
In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those
required to support their claims do offer something - and then what?
At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do
not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause
why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may
involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said
(something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to
construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than
the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and
actual case).
Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is
important to remember here is that some response is expected. The
"burden of proof" is not something static which one party must always
carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the
course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You
are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as
true, but if you insist that a claim isn't reasonable or credible, you
should be willing to explain how and why.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
Immortalist
> Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
> >> need such a position.
> >> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
> >> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
> >> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
> >> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
> >> when no proof can be shown.
>
> > forum how "God" has helped someone and how people have experienced
> > God, but this is difficult to formulate into a proof. If one belongs
> > to the Christian faith and believes in a figurative literal
> > translation of the Bible then one would believe that God wants us to
> > only be able to accept Him by faith.
>
> > There is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence that
> > accept that as proof of God.
>
> > you want proof then ask Him to reveal himself to you.
>
> > However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot help you.
>
> I'd settle for someone to prove a god of any kind, or produce *any* evidence of one beyond "testimony".
> I don't need evidence *against* gods, since nonexistence does not require evidence.
>
But if some convincing proof of a God or a Unicorn showd up, how would
this affect your views on life's meaning
> --
> Seppo P.
> What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Immortalist
> Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a
> >> god. We don't need such a position. However, we are against
> >> theologist who claimed there is a god and going on to
> >> brainwash all the children who are innocent. In this type of
> >> situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
> >> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts
> >> to lie. LIE when no proof can be shown.
>
> > What proof would you accept?
>
> gullibility of humans.
>
> > It has been mentioned before in this forum how "God" has
> > helped someone and how people have experienced God, but this
> > is difficult to formulate into a proof.
>
> what they experienced was real.
>
A skeptic might respond that ths applies to about any belief you can
have about anything. He would conclude that the science theory was
supported more than the God theory, by observations about events.
Science is a belief system also.
Epistemologists find a number of problems with finding a meta-
justification standard for justifying emperical beliefs. (adapted from
BonJour's 'Basic Antifoundationalist Argument')
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical
beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that
the belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least
one empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
If there is no way to justify emperical beliefs apart from an appeal
to other justified emperical beliefs, and if an infinite sequence of
distinct justified beliefs is ruled out, then the presumably finite
system of justified emperical beliefs can only be justified from
within, by birtue of the relations of its component beliefs to each
other. Coherence theory is of the variey (3) seemingly circular if
veiwed in an linear fasion, merely indicated by whatever
"property" (or complex of properties) is requisite for the
justification of such a system of beliefs. Degrees of justification
emerge out of the relations of groups of beliefs.
> > If one belongs to the Christian faith and believes in a
> > figurative literal translation of the Bible then one would
> > believe that God wants us to only be able to accept Him by
> > faith.
>
> That's an excuse, not proof.
>
> > There is an abundance of historical and archaeological
> > evidence that the Bible's account of history, but I'm fairly
> > certain that you wont accept that as proof of God.
>
> There is more historical and archaeological evidence that proves
> much of the bible to be wrong. Of course anything in the bible is
> not acceptable as proof since all the bible does is make claims
> and outlandish statements. It provides no proof.... except for
> the gullibility of humans.
>
> > I believe God intends.....
>
> That is not proof of anything.
>
> > However, if your intent is to "dis-prove" God, then I cannot
> > help you.
>
> You are the one that needs to do the proving. It's your god, you
> prove it.
> --
-Phil Clemence
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:45:40 -0400, "-Phil Clemence"
> <m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:4fllg3paccg16s117...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:41:41 -0000, Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>Which lends credence to why God
>>>>would require desire before revealing His nature to a person.
>
>>> Because the person who invented him was no fool.
>
>>but not with evil intent, wouldn't you say, for what he/they saw as the
>>needs of the time?
>
> More so that no one could call him a faker. Evil? Maybe not exactly
> evil, but what do you call a desire to fool, use and abuse your fellow
> man?
But I thought the idea of god was not created by one single man but by many,
not in order to use and abuse their fellows but to keep them from each
other's throats.
>If every religious faker were to go out and look for a real job,
> the world would be crushed by the unemployment figures.
>>So the road to hell was paved ...
>
> Probably with sharp stones and ankle-breaking holes. Maybe a little
> snake oil, since bananas weren't common.
I figured you knew how the rest goes.
What is YOUR intention here? To help fight ignorance or to simply agitate?
Your road seems to be full of the same stones and holes.
>
>>>>I feel no burden to prove God to you
>>>
>>> On Usenet, the rule is that if you make an assertion, you provide the
>>> evidence to back it up when challenged. God, cows, sand - it makes no
>>> difference. It's your existentially positive assertion, so you bear
>>> the burden of proof.
>>
>>ahh .. I never read anything about proof in the bible :-(
>>I think there is something about ...blood from a stone...
>
> Stones don't assert that their make-believe buddy in the sky is
> objectively real, many Christians do. But Christianity has nothing to
> do with the Bible.
>
I was referring to the futile attempt to squeeze blood from a stone - just
as futile as asking for someone to prove their faith.
You are doing the squeezing, my friend.
>>> You wouldn't drive on the right side in the UK, would you?
>
>>... on the right side of the car? or the road?
>>sorry i couldn't let it go ;-)
>
> Better not, or you'll end up driving on the sidewalk. (I assume this
> is a contest in which the worst pun wins?)
pun? where? I don't see your pun and I don't see any from me (?)
It just occured to me that both the steering wheel is on opposite sides too.
I was just being silly and hairsplitting
If someone uses religion as a crutch, they won't like it if you try to kick
it out from under them.
A better approach is to show them that their legs are fine (people can be
good and moral without any gods).
You are working against that idea with your hate-filled religion bashing.
What is the effect of insults and name-calling?
Have you ever convinced a religious person to give up their faith?
Sure , we all have our moments (or threads) where we are angry and
insulting, but after a few shots you have to stand back and see if it does
any good..
I had one mine further up this thread, where I posted:
---------
watch these lectures and then see if you believe there is an old dude in the
sky
http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/mom.htm
If you don't watch it , don't talk to me.
If you do watch it and still believe in some old dude in the sky, you are
too far gone to save.
--------------
I replied out of order, and intended it for whoever was claiming god, but
now I feel I should direct it to you, too.
There are reasons why religions exist as they do, and it is a sad story -
the story of the emergence of consciousness and the awareness of the horror
and injustice of life as those concepts developed, the balance found by
attributing it all to a god we can't understand with the hope there is
something better after.
We may be modern humans, and we may have found our own balance, but if we
have ... if we have found that we can be understanding of others ignorance
and fears and can show how to find that balance without a god ... let's try
to do that.
Let's not prove that they need a god to defend what is good. If we don't
prove THAT to them, they will defend good by any means they can, however
irrational, and anything can be defended by the same irrational means.
We have seen that through history and to date in irrational religion, and in
those who wish to crush religion with rationality.
The only way to end this is to prove that rationality can take the place of
religion, and that can only be done by example.
You may not believe in god, but do you believe in the ideals and concepts
they try to defend with a god?
Do you have faith in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
If not, I consider you as much an enemy to humankind as religion, neither
wanting what is the better for us all but only to be right.
I try to not come off as angry, and I think those who are not defensive
won't take it that way, but those on either side who are defensive might. If
I make anyone defensive it will do no good, so I try to seem reasonable. I
know I take shots at things people say, but usually it is because I can find
something ironic or humorous, but I know it was me who found it that way,
and don't feel to good about it if people take it wrong. Sometimes you have
to appear insulting to make the joke (as I did with you above) but it is
hard to avoid misunderstanding on the internet, with the lack of expressions
and time lag. I like humor and it seems to spoil the joke to laugh at it
myself .. timing can means a lot when you are trying to be funny, but it is
risky. Sorry for any offense.
I am sure you are smart enough to see my points, but it may be my own doing
if you don't WANT to ;-)
-Phil Clemence
-Phil Clemence
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191957812.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I am not your enemy , but I have some different ideas.
I have posted them already if you care to look.
-Phil Clemence
Al Klein
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 5:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:39:32 -0700, Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>> >> > What is Monotheism
>>
>> >> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>>
>> >Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with complete
>> >proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually athiests should
>> >never take the burden of proof against a proposed God else you will
>> >have the burden of proof for what you propose upon you.
>>
>> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
>> due to the way Christianity defines it.
>So your claming that if a Christian defines his or her God in a
>particular way, you accept it as proof that the God exists?
Where did you get that lack of proof of impossibility is proof of
existence?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
SeppoP
Trot out scientific, verifiable evidence of *any* god or unicorn and I'm ready to reconsider.
Michael Gray
No, but that is not what I asked.
>I suppose only if they are right in the facts.
>How can we know if they are right?
>What if their explanation is based on the translations of the oldest texts
>known?
>Still, the people who wrote those texts could be lying and only claim to
>have originated the idea.
>Yet , they are the only ones to claim to have originated it, and the
>corruption of it is documented by the corrupters.
>Still not enough to be proof , I suppose.
Proof of what?
I want the christian imbeciles to provide their single best evidence
IN FAVOUR of their god, not against it.
>Amen
Michael Gray
>On Oct 8, 9:42 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:22:41 -0700, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a god. We don't
>> >> need such a position.
>> >> However, we are against theologist who claimed there is a god and
>> >> going on to brainwash all the children who are innocent.
>> >> In this type of situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> >> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts to lie. LIE
>> >> when no proof can be shown.
>>
>> >What proof would you accept?
>>
>> :
>>
>> Let's start with:
>> What have you got?
>>
>> I am sure that you do not have a scrap of any evidence, and must
>> resort to handballing the problems created by your personal delusions
>> on to others.
>>
>> Show us what you have got.
>> Show us the best single bit of evidence that you have.
>>
>> Bet you can't.
>
:
Childish bullshit snipped.
You did not even attempt to answer my question!
What is wrong with you?
I'll give you one more try:
Howard Brazee
<seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>> But if some convincing proof of a God or a Unicorn showd up, how would
>> this affect your views on life's meaning
>
>Trot out scientific, verifiable evidence of *any* god or unicorn and I'm ready to reconsider.
"Convincing" is sufficient here. This has been written about in SF
stories, where something that the protagonist believes is impossible
is convincingly shown to him.
For the most part though, these stories don't show the protagonist
changing his views on life's meaning.
As far as being shown a god, it depends on what were his
characteristics. (It should either be "a god" or "God", not "a God").
Picture Christopher Moore's fiction, or Thorne Smith's fiction or one
of the many authors that have other supernatural beings in urban or
suburban settings.
Now if it were the God of the Books (by any of the names He is known
by), it might depend whether the common beliefs of a Father who would
allow the vast majority of His children to be tortured beyond all
understanding forever and ever without hope of parole - or one of the
less evil alternative beliefs.
Mike
> On Oct 7, 5:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
>> due to the way Christianity defines it.
>> --
>
> So your claming that if a Christian defines his or her God in a
> particular way, you accept it as proof that the God exists?
No, he's not. The statement "If X, then Y" does not equate to "if not X,
then not Y." If "If X, then Y" is true, then X could be false and Y
could still be true.
Here, he's saying that "if the description is illogical, then the god
can't exist" but that doesn't mean that "if the description is logical,
then the god must exist."
SeppoP
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:10 +0300, SeppoP
> <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>
>>> But if some convincing proof of a God or a Unicorn showd up, how would
>>> this affect your views on life's meaning
>> Trot out scientific, verifiable evidence of *any* god or unicorn and I'm ready to reconsider.
>
> "Convincing" is sufficient here. This has been written about in SF
> stories, where something that the protagonist believes is impossible
> is convincingly shown to him.
If it "Convincing" it also has to be scientific and verifiable, if not, it will not be convincing either...
<snip>
Mike
> Dan Tappan wrote:
>> "Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to map the
>> euphoric religious feelings within the brain. As a result, it's now
>> quite possible to experience 'proximity to God' via a special
>> helmet:.....
>
> That helmet offers proof that a god does not exist.
No, it doesn't. It just proves that the effect CAN be produced by other
means and casts doubt on any god's existence but doesn't prove that a
god does not exist. Proving non-existence of a logically-possible entity
(and some gods are logically possible) is impossible.
It proves
> that this god is just a feeling, a human emotion, not some being
> that created things.
It just offers evidence that such a feeling of god's presence can be
duplicated but says nothing (and it CAN'T say anything) about if there's
also a god that produces the same sort of feelings or not.
Your (lack of) logic would say that if I'm taking LSD and see a man
standing in front of me and that man isn't really there right at that
moment, then men don't exist at all and this proves that ALL men are
just a delusion.
Please, David, go become an xian. You're embarrassing us atheists with
logic like that.
Mike
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:24:35 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
> <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:NMqdnRG8qrRTOpfa...@sti.net:
>>
>>>>> That helmet offers proof that a god does not exist. It
>>>>> proves that this god is just a feeling, a human emotion, not
>>>>> some being that created things.
>>> Good. I've seen several christians trying to use this as proof of
>>> their god.
>>>
>> Either way, the argument is completely bogus. Neither side has proven
>> anything. In both directions, it boils down to assuming your conclusion.
>
> Sides?
> What sides?
> There is only one side here making a claim.
> They have presented zero proof for it.
No, David made a very specific claim above ("a god does not exist.")
This device does NOTHING to prove that claim. It simply casts doubts on
the OTHER claim (that a god does exist and causes these feelings.)
No-where have all gods been dis-proven (how-ever, I'm not sitting around
waiting for them to show up, either.) David is falling for the old "if
you can't prove it true, then it's definitely false" crap that xians
fall for (except in the opposite way) all the time. Instead it's "if you
haven't proven it true, it's unknown."
Mike
>
> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
> million people.
>
> Add enough animals for each family.
>
> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
> adults would.)
(3.6million * 40 years * 365 days)/2000 is 26,280,000 tons (you got an
extra decimal in there somewhere.)
But also coprolites are FOSSILIZED remains. Fossils don't form under all
circumstances. As you'd be very fast to point out to people who say "if
the earth is so old and there's so many animals that have lived and
died, why aren't we overrun with fossils?" In the circumstances of the
Exodus (IF it occurred), the dung might not have fossilized.
>
> Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have found them
> already.
Only if they formed to begin with.
(They've been searched for with sub-surface radar.) They're
> not there.
Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The only way the
above would be evidence would be if the claim was "these 3.6 million
people camped here for 2 weeks and just left last night." THEN not
finding any wastes would be evidence that the people weren't there. But
if I said "they camped here 4000 years ago" then the dung could have
simply rotted away without fossilizing.
Mike
> What if someone explained the origins of the idea of god -where, when and
> who got those ideas, how they passed them on and how they became corrupted
> as time passed?
> Would that be proof that god does not exist?
> How can we know if they are right?
> What if their explanation is based on the translations of the oldest texts
> known?
> Still, the people who wrote those texts could be lying and only claim to
> have originated the idea.
> Yet , they are the only ones to claim to have originated it, and the
> corruption of it is documented by the corrupters.
> Still not enough to be proof , I suppose.
But even then we wouldn't have proof that no gods exist but only that
the idea that we have of god was originated in this way.
Example: I say "Phil has $1,000 in his hand right now." Now I just made
that up. It could be shown that I made it up by me actually admitting "I
made that up." But does that mean you CAN'T have $1,000 in your hand
right now? Of course not. You COULD, coincidentally, have $1,000 in your
hand right now. But my statement of such would not have been based on
any fact and I couldn't claim it as knowledge or evidence, even if it
just happened to be true. But also my admission of my making the
statement up can't be used as evidence for the actual fact being false,
either (and that's the problem that Al falls into a lot.)
Michael Stemper
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:10 +0300, SeppoP <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>>> But if some convincing proof of a God or a Unicorn showd up, how would
>>> this affect your views on life's meaning
>>
>>Trot out scientific, verifiable evidence of *any* god or unicorn and I'm ready to reconsider.
>
>"Convincing" is sufficient here. This has been written about in SF
>stories, where something that the protagonist believes is impossible
>is convincingly shown to him.
>
>For the most part though, these stories don't show the protagonist
>changing his views on life's meaning.
One nice counter-example is "The Miracle", by Pierre Boulle. It's set
in a small town (probably in France). Village doctor treats someone for
blindness (I think) and decides that it's incurable. Patient goes to
the priest to ask for divine intervention. He goes along, only reluctantly,
not wanting to disappoint them.
In the end, gur cngvrag ertnvaf uvf/ure fvtug. Gur qbpgbe, xabjvat gung
gur oyvaqarff jnf vaphenoyr, oryvrirf gung ur'f jvgarffrq n zvenpyr, naq
hajvyyvatyl qebcf uvf ngurvfz gb orpbzr n qribhg oryvrire. Ba gur bgure
unaq, gur cevrfg, qrgrezvarq gung guvf "zvenpyr" abg or npprcgrq bayl gb
yngre or qvfperqvgrq (juvpu jbhyq qnzntr gur erchgngvba bs gur Puhepu),
fcraqf nyy bs uvf gvzr nggrzcgvat gb cebir gung gur pher jnf pbzcyrgryl
angheny, naq ybfrf uvf snvgu.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
>> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
>> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
>> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
>> million people.
>>
>> Add enough animals for each family.
>>
>> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
>> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
>> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
>> adults would.)
>
>(3.6million * 40 years * 365 days)/2000 is 26,280,000 tons (you got an
>extra decimal in there somewhere.)
>
>But also coprolites are FOSSILIZED remains. Fossils don't form under all
>circumstances. As you'd be very fast to point out to people who say "if
>the earth is so old and there's so many animals that have lived and
>died, why aren't we overrun with fossils?" In the circumstances of the
>Exodus (IF it occurred), the dung might not have fossilized.
The desert is a particularly good place to find preserved dung,
however. (It isn't really fossilized, but it's well-preserved.)
>Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
It's only a little side-note to the fact that there never were any
Israelite slaves in Egypt.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
Mike
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:42 -0400, Mike <prab...@shamrocksgf.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Al Klein wrote:
>>> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
>>> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
>>> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
>>> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
>>> million people.
>>>
>>> Add enough animals for each family.
>>>
>>> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
>>> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
>>> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
>>> adults would.)
>> (3.6million * 40 years * 365 days)/2000 is 26,280,000 tons (you got an
>> extra decimal in there somewhere.)
>>
>> But also coprolites are FOSSILIZED remains. Fossils don't form under all
>> circumstances. As you'd be very fast to point out to people who say "if
>> the earth is so old and there's so many animals that have lived and
>> died, why aren't we overrun with fossils?" In the circumstances of the
>> Exodus (IF it occurred), the dung might not have fossilized.
>
> The desert is a particularly good place to find preserved dung,
> however. (It isn't really fossilized, but it's well-preserved.)
OK, let's say 1% of it was preserved (it's still not coprolites,
however). So we have 300,000 tons. Now let's say they moved around in an
area that was 200 miles in diameter. So that's around 31,000 square
miles. SO that's around 20,000 pounds/square mile. Or around 0.0005
pounds/square foot, on average. Now if it wasn't spread evenly (and I
doubt it was. They would have used community latrines for the people and
the animals would have been kept in groups and not allowed to roam just
EVERYWHERE) it would be even harder to find since you'd not only have to
be looking hard enough but you'd have to look in the right places. If
you were looking at one spot and the latrine was at another spot 500
feet away then no matter how deep you look, you'll not find it. So no
matter how hard you look, unless your search path had a resolution of
only a few hundred feet, you could be walking right along side it.
Also, you're assuming that there wasn't any exaggeration of the numbers,
etc.
>
>> Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>
> It's only a little side-note to the fact that there never were any
> Israelite slaves in Egypt.
That may be a valid argument. The other was not (at least not how you
had it worded.)
James Beck
ruk...@pern.invalid says...
Sure there was, I saw Yul Brynner forcing them to make bricks.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm
http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronology_of_egypt_and_israel.htm
l
The list of errors, omissions, and outright fabrications of the little
black book continues, BUT this is the book they turn to for the "truth".
Go figure.
Al Klein
wrote:
>OK, let's say 1% of it was preserved (it's still not coprolites,
>however). So we have 300,000 tons. Now let's say they moved around in an
>area that was 200 miles in diameter. So that's around 31,000 square
>miles. SO that's around 20,000 pounds/square mile. Or around 0.0005
>pounds/square foot, on average. Now if it wasn't spread evenly (and I
>doubt it was. They would have used community latrines for the people and
>the animals would have been kept in groups and not allowed to roam just
>EVERYWHERE) it would be even harder to find since you'd not only have to
>be looking hard enough but you'd have to look in the right places. If
>you were looking at one spot and the latrine was at another spot 500
>feet away then no matter how deep you look, you'll not find it. So no
>matter how hard you look, unless your search path had a resolution of
>only a few hundred feet, you could be walking right along side it.
Very good. But the entire desert was searched, in overlapping (0
resolution) swaths. (I wish I still had a link to the report.)
>Also, you're assuming that there wasn't any exaggeration of the numbers,
>etc.
My claim is that the Exodus, AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, never
happened. That would include the numbers. I'm not claiming that a
few Israelites escaping from some sort of captivity in Egypt,
wandering around the desert for a while and then taking over some
Canaanite house or tiny village never happened.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
Howard Brazee
<seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>> "Convincing" is sufficient here. This has been written about in SF
>> stories, where something that the protagonist believes is impossible
>> is convincingly shown to him.
>
>If it "Convincing" it also has to be scientific and verifiable, if not, it will not be convincing either...
If you look around at the world, you will find that this isn't true.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
>> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
>> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
>> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
>> million people.
>>
>> Add enough animals for each family.
>>
>> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
>> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
>> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
>> adults would.)
>
>(3.6million * 40 years * 365 days)/2000 is 26,280,000 tons (you got an
>extra decimal in there somewhere.)
>
>But also coprolites are FOSSILIZED remains.
Not neccessarily.
South Australian caves have what are termed 'fossils', but retain the
original material.
-Phil Clemence
"-Phil Clemence" <m...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:13go4nd...@news.supernews.com...
..and of course I believe in god now, because I just found the interview
with Richard Feynman was posted in alt.binaries.documentaries yesterday
(where I first got and saw it)
-Phil Clemence
"Mike" <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:feirn2$j7e$1...@news04.infoave.net...
Heheh
That is probably why I ended as I began, with no proof and only
possibilities ...
Yours is the most reasonable and scientific attitude and process I have
noticed in this thread (I don't mean to leave others out -maybe I am not
that perceptive?) You have made points that developed and then reabsorbed
like gas bubbles back into my mind. (The group may be indebted to you , as
they probably would have emerged later ... unpleasantly ;-)
Here is a bit of that interview with Richard Feynman I mentioned elsewhere
in this thread.
"There are very remarkable mysteries about the fact that we're able to do so
many more things than, apparently, animals can do, and other questions like
that, but those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the
answer to them. And so , altogether, I can't believe the special stories
that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large
because ... they seem to be ... too simple, too connected ... too LOCAL ...
too provincial . The *Earth* ! He came to the *Earth* ... one of the
aspects of God *came to the EARTH*, mind you .. and look at what's out
there. How can you .. it isn't in proportion ...
"Anyway it's no use arguing. I can't argue it, I'm just trying to tell you
why the scientific views that I have do have some effect on my belief."
" And also another thing...has to do with the question of 'how do you find
out if something is true?' And if you have all these theories of the
different religions [they] have all different theories about the thing,
then you begin to wonder, once you start doubting, just like you're supposed
to doubt. "
"You ask me if the science is true and I say, 'No, no .. we are trying to
find out . Everything is possibly wrong'. Start out understanding religion
by saying ,'Everything is possibly wrong - let us see'"
"You see , one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not
knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have
answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible
beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm
not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know
anything about...such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here,
and what the question might mean."
"I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really
know something - how careful you have to be about checking your
experiments - how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what
it means to know something, and therefore, I can't ... I SEE how they get
their information, and I can't believe that they know it - they haven't done
the work necessary - they haven't done the checks necessary - they haven't
done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know that
this stuff is ... they don't know and they are intimidating people by it. I
think so. I ... I don't know the world very well .. that's what I think."
In that section it seems he takes religious authorities to task, but it is
sloppy and pseudo-sciences he is talking about there.
I think we can have a great deal of certainty that there is no god, but to
maintain good judgment without proof, you must maintain doubt. To allow for
a small possibility of being wrong does not weaken your stance - quite the
opposite. On either side of any argument, if you don't show that you allow
for a small possibility that you are wrong, who can trust your judgment?
From the point of view of an atheist, myself included, there seems to be no
reason to allow for any chance that there is a god, but we MUST allow that
we may be wrong to some degree * in our proofs of why we hold our view*.
We can't show proof, we can only show that we have good judgment and hope
others will then listen.
Maybe he felt it was best to not say " God does not exist" because there was
insufficient proof of that, but maybe just to say that there is insufficient
proof that god exists to give any authority to anyone based on that
possibility." Who cares what anyone believes so long as they don't interfere
with the rights of others. Now, the way we live (the structure of our
societies) may dictate that we have to eliminate all religious organizations
because of their complex detrimental influence ... but we don't know that.
All we can say now is that anyone who violates the rights of others, as we
have set them forth, must be stopped.
I DO believe that the effect of religion is becoming a worse influence than
in the past, not due to terrorism, but due to the fact that it interferes
with a more rapid acceptance of moral authority based on human ... which
just happens to have been passed down in myths, and through into some
religious concepts by a few who thought humans could not have faith in
themselves. I hope they were wrong.
-Phil Clemence
SeppoP
I was speaking about convincing *me*, not some pig-ignorant religious freak.
Dubh Ghall
>On Oct 7, 5:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:39:32 -0700, Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Koos Nolst Trenite wrote:
>> >> > What is Monotheism
>>
>> >> It is a belief in a god that does not exist.
>>
>> >Are you claiming that you can deny the existence of God with complete
>> >proof that has no chance of being in error. Actually athiests should
>> >never take the burden of proof against a proposed God else you will
>> >have the burden of proof for what you propose upon you.
>>
>> The Christian god (the one to which you refer by name) can not exist,
>> due to the way Christianity defines it.
>> --
>
>So your claming that if a Christian defines his or her God in a
>particular way, you accept it as proof that the God exists?
>
No, only that the xtian believes that it exists.
I see nothing in Al's comments to suggest anything else.
The xtian definition of their god is self contradictory.
An omnipotent(all powerful) god, must, by definition, be
omniscient(all knowing).
An omniscient god, by definition, knows everything, past, present, and
future, and cannot be wrong.
Ergo, everything it knows will happen, will happen, and MUST happen.
The trouble with that, however, is that an omniscient god, is
powerless to change anything, so it cannot be omnipotent.
If OTOH it is not omniscient, it cannot be omnipotent.
There is no way in which the two features can be reconciled.
A god, of the xtian definition, cannot exist.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Dubh Ghall
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'd settle for someone to prove a god of any kind, or produce *any* evidence of one beyond "testimony".
>> I don't need evidence *against* gods, since nonexistence does not require evidence.
>>
>
>But if some convincing proof of a God or a Unicorn showd up, how would
>this affect your views on life's meaning
I can't speak for Seppo, but for my self, it would make no difference
to my "views on life's meaning": Why should it.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>> The Bible claims 600,000 men. Men, in that culture, were marriageable
>> and, in that religion, had a responsibility to God to marry and
>> reproduce. That would mean an additional 600,000 women. At even an
>> average of 4 children per family (a gross underestimate), that's 3.6
>> million people.
>>
>> Add enough animals for each family.
>>
>> Considering that the average adult produces what will be 1 pound of
>> coprolites per day, that's about 300 MILLION TONS of coprolites, for
>> the people alone. (The average 4 children would produce about what 3
>> adults would.)
>
>(3.6million * 40 years * 365 days)/2000 is 26,280,000 tons (you got an
>extra decimal in there somewhere.)
>
>But also coprolites are FOSSILIZED remains. Fossils don't form under all
>circumstances. As you'd be very fast to point out to people who say "if
>the earth is so old and there's so many animals that have lived and
>died, why aren't we overrun with fossils?" In the circumstances of the
>Exodus (IF it occurred), the dung might not have fossilized.
>
>>
>> Coprolites last for millions of years, so we should have found them
>> already.
>
>Only if they formed to begin with.
>
> (They've been searched for with sub-surface radar.) They're
>> not there.
>
>Remember, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
I think that there comes a point where lack of evidence must be given
some consideration as evidence of lack.
There are thousands of stories of divine intervention, and thousands
of sites where said intervention, took place.
In every case, there is nothing to indicate anything other than a
natural event
>The only way the
>above would be evidence would be if the claim was "these 3.6 million
>people camped here for 2 weeks and just left last night." THEN not
>finding any wastes would be evidence that the people weren't there. But
>if I said "they camped here 4000 years ago" then the dung could have
>simply rotted away without fossilizing.
Mmm.
I find my self asking other questions, mostly WRT the logistics.
For example: How much space would each family, and their animals,
require to make camp?
My own estimate would be ten thousand square feet.
So six hundred thousand families, at ten thousand square feet each is
something like fifteen square miles.
That is a camp site, almost four miles across.
The bible tells that the Hebrews, did they need to take a dump, were
to go outside the camp, and dig a hole, and bury their excrement.
That is close to a two mile hike, for some of them.
The bible tells of Manna, falling from heaven, but gives no clue as to
how the animals were fed.
Nor does it explain how water was distributed, or even supplied, for
the most part.
Then there is the question of fires.
True enough, dried animal dung is a common enough fuel in regions
where it dries quickly, and in a desert, It would surely dry quickly.
But would it be enough?
If you have ever spent any time in the desert, you will know that the
nights are bloody cold, to the point where frost and ice, form.
So cooking aside, a fair amount of fuel is going to be needed by the
guards, etc, during the night.
You have mentioned coprolites, and I have mentioned the rules.
The thing here, is that by burying their feces, in that dry sand,
especially if they bury it deep enough not to stink the camp out, or
be dug up by animals, they would be making it seriously difficult for
it to decompose, before it dried out.
This would make the formation of coprolites more probable.
But it ain't just crap, that they would leave behind, it is all sorts
of other refuse.
There would be broken tools, bits of rag, bits of bone, broken pots,
lost jewelry, lost ornaments; and how did they dispose of their own
dead?
Don't forget that God got pissed at them after they sent out the
twelve spies, and decreed that none that walked out of Egypt would
enter the promised land.
So there are, what, three million, near perfectly preserved corpses,
out there somewhere, that nobody has found.
Unless the Hebrews were in the habit of burning them.
The logistics of moving that number of people, something like four
times the population of Birmingham Al.
Work it out. Given modern transport; How long would it take to
evacuate the whole city?
Now increase the population by a factor of four, and move them every
few days, for forty years.
There would be so much debris that you would *still be falling over
it.
Sometimes, that lack of evidence can say as much as the prevalence of
it.
Especially so, when it is absent from places where it should be
abundant.
Mike
> Heheh
> That is probably why I ended as I began, with no proof and only
> possibilities ...
>
> Yours is the most reasonable and scientific attitude and process I have
> noticed in this thread (I don't mean to leave others out -maybe I am not
> that perceptive?) You have made points that developed and then reabsorbed
> like gas bubbles back into my mind. (The group may be indebted to you , as
> they probably would have emerged later ... unpleasantly ;-)
I just hate when people use bad logic on EITHER side. I might not always
use the best logic myself all the time but I do try.
> Here is a bit of that interview with Richard Feynman I mentioned elsewhere
> in this thread.
>
> "There are very remarkable mysteries about the fact that we're able to do so
> many more things than, apparently, animals can do, and other questions like
> that, but those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the
> answer to them. And so , altogether, I can't believe the special stories
> that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large
> because ... they seem to be ... too simple, too connected ... too LOCAL ...
> too provincial . The *Earth* ! He came to the *Earth* ... one of the
> aspects of God *came to the EARTH*, mind you .. and look at what's out
> there. How can you .. it isn't in proportion ...
Problem with that is where does the bible say "God cam only to the
earth." If there WAS a god (which I don't believe for a second), why
couldn't he have created people (or the equivalent) all over the place
on a bunch of planets and had a "Jesus" come to each planet?
So I wouldn't use our supposed uniqueness as an argument either way.
<snip>
Al Klein
wrote:
>Now increase the population by a factor of four, and move them every
>few days
They didn't have time to let their dough rise - which takes 15 minutes
(matzoh dough that's been wet for more than 15 minutes can't be used
on Passover) - so make that EVERY day. We couldn't do it now, with
modern transportation and communications, which would be the big
problem. How do you let the leaders know, each morning, that 3
million people are ready to move out? Doesn't anyone remember D-Day?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
Mich...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:42 -0400, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com>
Are you saying ancient Egypt did not have slaves or that you can
confirm that none of the sons of Abraham's descendent's were slaves in
Egypt?
James Beck
Mich...@gmail.com says...
> It's only a little side-note to the fact that there never were any
> Israelite slaves in Egypt.
What do you make of that?
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
Irrelevant.
However, as I have already mentioned, the instruction was that they
should go outside the camp, dig a hole, and then fill it in when they
were done.
It would actually be protected.
That allows it to dry, before it decomposed, which would increase the
chances of it being preserved.
I suggest that considerably more than 1% would survive.
>So we have 300,000 tons. Now let's say they moved around in an
>area that was 200 miles in diameter. So that's around 31,000 square
>miles. SO that's around 20,000 pounds/square mile. Or around 0.0005
>pounds/square foot, on average.
Isn't the distribution of gold, a very similar figure, on average?
>Now if it wasn't spread evenly (and I
>doubt it was. They would have used community latrines for the people
That is neither mentioned, nor inferred, in the bible.
At the risk of becoming tedious: The instruction was that they should
go outside the camp, dig a hole, and then fill it in when they were
done.
>and
>the animals would have been kept in groups and not allowed to roam just
>EVERYWHERE) it would be even harder to find since you'd not only have to
>be looking hard enough but you'd have to look in the right places.
It is unlikely that any animal feces would be found, as it would have
been used to fuel the fires.
>If
>you were looking at one spot and the latrine was at another spot 500
>feet away then no matter how deep you look, you'll not find it.
True, but that is not the way that archaeologists work.
If archaeologists can find a couple of five thousand year old post
holes, is a five acre field, which has been under cultivation since
before the Doomsday Book, or under the foundations of thousand year
old building, I'm sure that they can find mummified shite in, the
desert.
>So no
>matter how hard you look, unless your search path had a resolution of
>only a few hundred feet, you could be walking right along side it.
>
>Also, you're assuming that there wasn't any exaggeration of the numbers,
>etc.
>
Either the bible is accurate, or it is not.
To be accurate, it must be honest.
If it is, then the evidence is there.
If it is not accurate, then it is not honest.
If it is not honest in one place, it cannot be relied upon to be
honest anywhere.
If it is not honest, then it is worthless, and should be discarded.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>-Phil Clemence wrote:
>> What if someone explained the origins of the idea of god -where, when and
>> who got those ideas, how they passed them on and how they became corrupted
>> as time passed?
>> Would that be proof that god does not exist?
>> I suppose only if they are right in the facts.
>> How can we know if they are right?
>> What if their explanation is based on the translations of the oldest texts
>> known?
>> Still, the people who wrote those texts could be lying and only claim to
>> have originated the idea.
>> Yet , they are the only ones to claim to have originated it, and the
>> corruption of it is documented by the corrupters.
>> Still not enough to be proof , I suppose.
>
>But even then we wouldn't have proof that no gods exist
No one is asking for that: What part of "evidence that your god DOES
exist", are you having trouble understanding.
Dubh Ghall
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 8:29 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> We do not have to say god exist or not, or if there is a
>> >> god. We don't need such a position. However, we are against
>> >> theologist who claimed there is a god and going on to
>> >> brainwash all the children who are innocent. In this type of
>> >> situation, the claimer must offer the proof for the
>> >> existence. And here is what they had failed, which amounts
>> >> to lie. LIE when no proof can be shown.
>>
>> > What proof would you accept?
>>
>> Any proof. Anecdotal claims are not proof of anything except the
>> gullibility of humans.
>>
>> > It has been mentioned before in this forum how "God" has
>> > helped someone and how people have experienced God, but this
>> > is difficult to formulate into a proof.
>>
>> That cannot be considered as proof since there is no way to prove
>> what they experienced was real.
>>
>
>A skeptic might respond that ths applies to about any belief you can
>have about anything. He would conclude that the science theory was
>supported more than the God theory, by observations about events.
>Science is a belief system also.
Philosophical bollox!
Al Klein
>Are you saying ancient Egypt did not have slaves or that you can
>confirm that none of the sons of Abraham's descendent's were slaves in
>Egypt?
I'm saying that:
1) The people who claimed to have escaped slavery in Egypt, traveled
to Canaan and concurred the Canaanites WERE, in fact, Canaanites for
centuries before the time in the claim. They were the very people
they claimed to have conquered.
and
2) The Egyptians, who had records of everything, had no records of
Israelite or Hebrew slaves during the period in question.
Also, the actual claims in the Bible - moving 3 million people every
day, feeding them (they ate unleavened bread, according to the claim,
so they would have needed a few million tons of flour at the start),
providing water for them and grazing for their flocks, etc., wouldn't
even be possible with today's technology, let alone the
barely-out-of-the-Neolithic technology of the time. How do you
coordinate the start of the move every morning, when the people occupy
thousands of acres, and your only means of "long distance"
communications is ram's horn? (650,000 families, so it would take
days for each family to get the order to move and acknowledge it.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by
the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
-Phil Clemence
"SeppoP" <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:5n5tjjF...@mid.individual.net...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:34:06 +0300, SeppoP
>> <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Convincing" is sufficient here. This has been written about in SF
>>>> stories, where something that the protagonist believes is impossible
>>>> is convincingly shown to him.
>>> If it "Convincing" it also has to be scientific and verifiable, if not,
>>> it will not be convincing either...
>>
>> If you look around at the world, you will find that this isn't true.
>
> I was speaking about convincing *me*, not some pig-ignorant religious
> freak.
>
For everyday purposes you can say that and most people won't argue, but this
is philosophy and we are trying to look at what is reality.
If you are human, you will be convinced of many things that have not been
verified and that are not scientifically verifiable.
If you are convinced that you won't be convinced, that is an example of what
I just claimed.
I am not trying to be cute or picky. Your brain is not so finely tuned that
it will block out all influence from things other than verifiable scientific
proof.
I also wonder why you insult religious people by calling them names. They
may be ignorant, but what do pigs have to do with it?
What makes them freaks? There are so many of them they can hardly be called
freaks.
Why do you call them names? Won't the truth show all and say all that needs
to be said?
-Phil Clemence
-Phil Clemence
I agree. It was more to show his ideas about how to maintain good judgment.
There are plenty of other problems with the idea that there is a god.
-Phil Clemence
-Phil Clemence
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:jcksg3hk6gpoe5gt1...@4ax.com...
Hmm .. who put the word 'your' before god?
I think 'any' is more fitting
Gene Ward Smith
@news.supernews.com:
> Hmm .. who put the word 'your' before god?
> I think 'any' is more fitting
>
Not really; that leaves it up to you to define what a god is. What *is* a
god, exactly? We on rec.arts.sf.written have been pondering that very
question.
Mich...@gmail.com
1.) Without knowing your sources I cannot comment on this point. What
makes you think those sources are more reliable then the Bible (other
then your anti-Bible bias).
2.) If you believe the Biblical account of the Exodus (which I do) all
of the points you raised were real issues that were resolved via
miraculous means. Surely you have heard of the manna and water from
the rock. Certainly it seem reasonable that if God was willing to
perform these miracles to take care of Israelites in the desert (as
they were recorded) then He obviously must have taken care of all of
the other details too (not all of which may have been recorded).
As for communication, God himself signaled when the camp was ready to
move via a pillar of fire. The details (some of which I have skipped
over) are recorded in the Bible.
walksalone
posted from the alt.atheism group.
& alone you are not. The follow up is set to your group. So crossposting
should be kept down, I hope.
To give you an incomplete answer:
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of
gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are, lessor
gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful than
others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand
the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
& of course, if you are pantheistic, everything to include the kitchen
sink.
Have fun with the ;list if you are so inclined.
walksalone who would like an update, any suggestions?
Al Klein
>On Oct 11, 3:14 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:00:11 -0000, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >Are you saying ancient Egypt did not have slaves or that you can
>> >confirm that none of the sons of Abraham's descendent's were slaves in
>> >Egypt?
>>
>> I'm saying that:
>>
>> 1) The people who claimed to have escaped slavery in Egypt, traveled
>> to Canaan and concurred the Canaanites WERE, in fact, Canaanites for
>> centuries before the time in the claim. They were the very people
>> they claimed to have conquered.
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2) The Egyptians, who had records of everything, had no records of
>> Israelite or Hebrew slaves during the period in question.
>>
>> Also, the actual claims in the Bible - moving 3 million people every
>> day, feeding them (they ate unleavened bread, according to the claim,
>> so they would have needed a few million tons of flour at the start),
>> providing water for them and grazing for their flocks, etc., wouldn't
>> even be possible with today's technology, let alone the
>> barely-out-of-the-Neolithic technology of the time. How do you
>> coordinate the start of the move every morning, when the people occupy
>> thousands of acres, and your only means of "long distance"
>> communications is ram's horn? (650,000 families, so it would take
>> days for each family to get the order to move and acknowledge it.)
>
>1.) Without knowing your sources I cannot comment on this point. What
>makes you think those sources are more reliable then the Bible (other
>then your anti-Bible bias).
Actual archaeology is more reliable than 4,500 year old word-of-mouth
assertion.
>
>2.) If you believe the Biblical account of the Exodus (which I do)
The evidence says it never happened. Evidence is more reliable than
4,500 year old word-of-mouth assertion.
>of the points you raised were real issues that were resolved via
>miraculous means.
Objective evidence that miracles are objectively real? (You're
claiming objective reality here, so provide objective evidence to back
up your claim, please.)
>Surely you have heard of the manna
Surely you've heard that the reason Jews eat unleavened bread during
Passover is that they didn't have time to let their dough leaven for
40 years on the desert? At least be consistent in your use of
mythology.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done
to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
-George H. W. Bush, spoken in an interview with Sarah McClendon, June 1992