An incarnated god

[Shi Ming]

An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...

If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
miracles....

1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate? What
tests could establish the truth of his claims?

2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
what would it take for them to accept him as a god?

I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
institution.

Peace
耏 識 明

"Maybe this world is another world's hell."
-- Aldous Huxley

[e_space]

i have never heard a decent argument that comes close to convincing me
that 'god' ever performed any miracles, taught anybody anything, made
any claims whatsoever, or referred to self as 'he'. if one only refers
to 'god' as a reflection of the xtian teaching of such [or any
religion], they most likely will never get a better understanding of
the potential of 'god'. my feeling of 'god' has NOTHING to do with
what i was taught, and i was deeply immersed in religion for decades.

regarding your sign off, i have referred to earth as 'hell' for many
years, and in my concept, it is actually the bottom rung of a tall
ladder, a testing station that baby spirits have to learn to get off
by growing their energy to the point where they become so bright that
they are magnetically pulled into the core and do not have to come
back. i realize this vaguely expressed view is a goofy concept to
most, but i cant think of a better one. ;-)

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 9, 3:14 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i have never heard a decent argument that comes close to convincing me
> that 'god' ever performed any miracles, taught anybody anything, made
> any claims whatsoever, or referred to self as 'he'. if one only refers
> to 'god' as a reflection of the xtian teaching of such [or any
> religion], they most likely will never get a better understanding of
> the potential of 'god'. my feeling of 'god' has NOTHING to do with
> what i was taught, and i was deeply immersed in religion for decades.

My hypothetical does make, perhaps, too many assumptions. I suppose I
am just curious as to how our increased sophistication in 2009 might
impact our ability to even recognize a god, if there was one and it
rested incarnate among us.

> regarding your sign off, i have referred to earth as 'hell' for many
> years, and in my concept, it is actually the bottom rung of a tall
> ladder, a testing station that baby spirits have to learn to get off
> by growing their energy to the point where they become so bright that
> they are magnetically pulled into the core and do not have to come
> back. i realize this vaguely expressed view is a goofy concept to
> most, but i cant think of a better one. ;-)

I like Huxley a lot. I understand your analogy and it seems to
synchronize with much that we observe. The bird leaves the nest and
even the bubble leaves a boiling pot of water.

Peace
耏 識 明

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 9, 12:14 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i have never heard a decent argument that comes close to convincing me
> that 'god' ever performed any miracles, taught anybody anything, made
> any claims whatsoever, or referred to self as 'he'. if one only refers
> to 'god' as a reflection of the xtian teaching of such [or any
> religion], they most likely will never get a better understanding of
> the potential of 'god'. my feeling of 'god' has NOTHING to do with
> what i was taught, and i was deeply immersed in religion for decades.
>
> regarding your sign off, i have referred to earth as 'hell' for many
> years, and in my concept, it is actually the bottom rung of a tall
> ladder, a testing station that baby spirits have to learn to get off
> by growing their energy to the point where they become so bright that
> they are magnetically pulled into the core and do not have to come
> back. i realize this vaguely expressed view is a goofy concept to
> most, but i cant think of a better one. ;-)

Good thing you put that happy-dappy face at the end to remind everyone
how happy you are, otherwise you might come across as being fairly
miserable.

I'm assuming you believe you're one of those whose energy is so bright
that you will be magnetically pulled into the core (believe me, if you
get pulled into the molten core of the earth you won't have to be
worried about coming back)? Wishful thinking is so...revealing.

> On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > miracles....
>
> > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate? What
> > tests could establish the truth of his claims?
>
> > 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> > what would it take for them to accept him as a god?
>
> > I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> > institution.
>
> > Peace
> > 耏 識 明
>
> > "Maybe this world is another world's hell."

> > -- Aldous Huxley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JFG]

On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> miracles....
>
> 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate?

Why would God want you to?

>What
> tests could establish the truth of his claims?
>

What claims would He make?

> 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> what would it take for them to accept him as a god?
>

Not all Christians believe the fullness of the truth, so it is
unlikely that *any* teaching would not differ "in some way from what
Christians believe." What are some examples of ways you might be
thinking about? Would he, for instance, teach that murder is O.K.?
What part of the Christian Faith do you see as optional enough to be
superfluous and subject to possible change?

> I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> institution.
>

If that happened, clearly it would be God's Will. Even without
miracles.

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 9, 6:48 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > miracles....
>
> > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate?
>
> Why would God want you to?

I am afraid that I have no idea. The concepts of god is rather
meaningless to me at the level of my reality so I would leave the
answer to those who believe.

> >What
> > tests could establish the truth of his claims?
>
> What claims would He make?

I might surmise pearls of wisdom or deep thoughts or views that reveal
a deeper understanding of reality or perhaps related to salvation or
jihad or other religious ideas.

> > 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> > what would it take for them to accept him as a god?
>
> Not all Christians believe the fullness of the truth, so it is
> unlikely that *any* teaching would not differ "in some way from what
> Christians believe."  What are some examples of ways you might be
> thinking about?  Would he, for instance, teach that murder is O.K.?
> What part of the Christian Faith do you see as optional enough to be
> superfluous and subject to possible change?

Again, I must leave that to the believer to surmise.

> > I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> > institution.
>
> If that happened, clearly it would be God's Will.  Even without
> miracles.

Would you believe that it was God?

Peace
耏 識 明

[e_space]

move on son before ya hurt yourself. spend less time residing in hate
is my suggestion. ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

imo, the only way to recognize or find 'god' is with eyes closed and
welcome mat out. i think you are on the right track with meditation. i
dont believe anything you read will bring you any closer to
understanding or knowing 'god'. one can read all they want about filet
mignon, learn where it comes from, why it is tender, how it is
processed, etc etc [physical], but they really have NO idea about the
taste of it until they put it in their mouth [sensory].

physical knowledge is okay i guess, although i MUCH prefer the
sensory. i feel that the important things in life are emotions, not
knowledge. so what if one is the most knowledgeable person on the
planet, if they are not happy? i guess im not overly knowledgeable
about physical things because i gave up that quest in lieu of
spiritual happiness, despite the conclusions some here have that i am
"fairly miserable". ;-)

i read one huxley book about 40 years ago when i still read anything
of significance, and really enjoyed it. i dont read anymore. why? one
day while immersed in damien by herman hesse, i read something that i
had thought about the previous week. it totally reflected my own
developing philosophy. i thought that reading the philosophy of others
may actually sidetrack my own philosophical development, add some
deviation that was not natural. i consequently stopped reading
anything that didnt have big pictures. we have enough inherent
knowledge to keep us entertained forever, yet most look to the
teachings of others for their information. i find this to be very
unfortunate.

[e_space]

which truth do you speak of?

On Dec 9, 6:48 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 10, 3:57 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> move on son before ya hurt yourself. spend less time residing in hate
> is my suggestion.   ;-)

Sorry, as long as the insane try to impose their insanity on others I
feel morally obligated to speak up. I can understand why you would
want to dismiss that as "hate."

[e_space]

stating an opinion is not trying to impose anything. as mentioned once
or twice [cough], i am in no way trying to convert you to anything. in
fact, i really have never said anything as factual, or described
anything other than a concept. if you believe i am trying to make you
feel a certain way, please point it out, or just keep on spewing forth
your unfounded allegations. it really does not make that much
difference to me, although i do admire your persistence, no matter how
misguided. ;-)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 10, 5:24 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> stating an opinion is not trying to impose anything. as mentioned once
> or twice [cough],

Instructions dressed up as opinions are not opinions, they are passive
aggressive commands. Here, let me refresh your ADD addled mind:

"spend less time residing in hate is my suggestion."

That is not an opinion, and that was your previous sentence.

> i am in no way trying to convert you to anything.

Yes, you are. You are trying to convert me to your way of thinking.

> in
> fact, i really have never said anything as factual, or described
> anything other than a concept.

And now you're lying outright. The only thing I'm not sure of is if
you believe your own lies. I don't see that anyone else does.

> if you believe i am trying to make you
> feel a certain way, please point it out, or just keep on spewing forth
> your unfounded allegations.

My allegations are not unfounded; I use your words as evidence, like I
did above.

> it really does not make that much
> difference to me,

Keep telling yourself that.

> although i do admire your persistence, no matter how
> misguided. ;-)

Please demonstrate why it is misguided to speak up when the insane try
to impose their insanity on others.

[e_space]

you dont know how i think, so how can you equivocate that to me trying
to convert you? i have given some very vague descriptions of how i
progressed spiritually. i have never said anyone else would get the
same results. this is certainly not a hand book, or a manual, or a
bible. and it isnt a religion. what i am trying to convert you to is
WAY beyond me. could you describe your thoughts on this to me so that
i have more of an inkling of what you are talking about?

ah well, im insane now. if you were a bit more considerate, you would
have pity for me, instead of showering me with your venom. i trust
that you do not work in the mental care business as you would be
exacerbating the problems of the patients, wouldnt you? but thats ok,
your attitude is fun for me, although a bit tiresome in its
repetition. another thing that i take comfort in is that if you
consider yourself sane, i feel fortunate to be labeled insane.
actually, anything that you say that differentiates me from you is
taken as a compliment, so thanks ;-)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 10, 7:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you dont know how i think, so how can you equivocate that to me trying
> to convert you?

You argue on behalf of your beliefs, you try to talk me out of mine.
Consult a dictionary.

> i have given some very vague descriptions of how i
> progressed spiritually.

So what? They still amount to you arguing on behalf of your beliefs,
and you trying to talk me out of mine. You are also trying to talk the
theists out of their beliefs about God.

> i have never said anyone else would get the
> same results.

Yet you keep giving everyone advice on what they should do.

> this is certainly not a hand book, or a manual, or a
> bible.

Cults don't generally start out like that. They start with a
charsmatic leader whose first step is to break his potential followers
down by giving them advice on what they should do. Unfortunately for
you, you seem to have zero charisma.

> and it isnt a religion.

Not yet it isn't.

> what i am trying to convert you to is
> WAY beyond me. could you describe your thoughts on this to me so that
> i have more of an inkling of what you are talking about?

You keep plugging spirits and your own defintion of god. The second
step of the charismatic cult leader after they have broken the
potential believers down is to introduce his version/definition of the
supernatural being (which is really just his ego projection). So to
answer your question, what you are trying to convert us to is your
defintion of god/spirit. You're going to have to work on your
charisma, though.

> ah well, im insane now.

Not NOW; you have been insane all along.

> if you were a bit more considerate, you would
> have pity for me,

I do, that's why I've been trying to point out to you that you have a
psychological problem. But the group comes first, so I'm not going to
tiptoe around your delicate condition. As I said, I feel morally
obligated to speak up when the insane try to impose their insanity on
others. This is probably because I have so much experience dealing
with the insane, and have seen all too closely the damage they can
inflict when people are too afraid or overly polite to say anything.

> instead of showering me with your venom.

Thinking it's "venom" is a defensive mechanism.

> i trust
> that you do not work in the mental care business as you would be
> exacerbating the problems of the patients, wouldnt you?

Might as well be, since I've taken care of so many insane people for
so long. But insane people need medication and therapy.

> but thats ok,
> your attitude is fun for me, although a bit tiresome in its
> repetition. another thing that i take comfort in is that if you
> consider yourself sane, i feel fortunate to be labeled insane.

Uh huh. You don't want to learn anything yet you think you have
something to teach. You think suicide is a viable option for getting
away from humanity, which you despise. You think you are full of
"spirit energy" and that you're going to be magnetized to the earth's
core. The list goes on. You're freaking nuts.

Now, tell me in what way you think that I'm insane?

> actually, anything that you say that differentiates me from you is
> taken as a compliment, so thanks   ;-)

Keep right on deluding yourself, it's in keeping with your policy of
ignorance.

[e_space]

lol

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 10, 9:06 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> lol

You forgot the happy dappy winkie thing to let everyone know how happy
you are.

[JFG]

You don't appear to have any opinions you might discuss.

[e_space]

lol

[JFG]

Here, hypothetical only.

[LL]

On Dec 10, 5:24 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> stating an opinion is not trying to impose anything.

LL: It is when it descends to proselytizing, and it almost always
does.

********************************

[e_space]

so when an atheist states with compunction that in their opinion 'god'
does not exist, they are proselytizing? or just ridiculing, or _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ ???

[e_space]

and elsewhere?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JFG]

Is that relevant?

I am a Catholic Christian. What else would you like to know?

[e_space]

just the original question. what do you consider 'truth'? everything
you have been told by your religion? and if so, why do you consider
something to be the truth that you have no evidence of? seems rather
gullible to me.

[Shi Ming]

Indeed. I was more interested in learning than discussing.

Peace
耏 識 明

> > 耏 識 明- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

learned much so far?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 11, 12:37 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> learned much so far?

Alas, not of what I had hoped.

All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
of fancy are to be avoided.

Too much seriousness about subjects, the very nature of which,
incorporate many elements of imagination and fantasy.

[e_space]

to some, imagination seems to be a bad word and cannot be considered a
realistic part of life, why? because imagination is not provable, or
cannot be shared in its original and full glory with others. in other
words, someones perceptions have no relevance in reality because they
cannot be seen, touched or fully communicated with another.

some theists are hooked on a book that makes very little sense to me,
so i have rejected organized religion. their version of 'god' is what
they have been taught, which to me is very close-minded.

some atheists are dependent on science to answer their questions for
them. like observer, who just posted, "If there is no scientific
explanation for what you are calling paranormal then the paranormal
does not exist." to me, this is a comical statement coming from
somebody who claims to be intelligent. unanswered questions mean that
eventually the answer wont be attained? or that what is being
questioned does not exist because science hasnt determined a way to
prove it?

the world was round when it was considered flat. but just because
science hadnt determined that it was round, it was actually flat
because that was the accepted truth? to me, this is why atheism dies
on the vine. shutting the door before it has been opened seems to be a
very immature way of thinking.

i very much like how your mind works, but notice that you have
basically run into a brick wall with the atheists here, even though
you claim to be one yourself [i dont believe you are, but that you
have rejected the biblical interpretation of 'god', but what do i
know?]. i believe you are neither theist or atheist, and i repeat, i
believe you are 'spirit rich' and that eventually your internalization
and desire will allow the light to shine in. whether or not you call
that light 'god' is really not the issue. it will be enough to make
your life totally robust, despite what you call it, or the odour of
your surroundings :-)

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Shi Ming <er.xi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 11, 12:37 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> learned much so far?

Alas, not of what I had hoped.

What were you hoping to learn?
 

All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
of fancy are to be avoided.

I disagree. Sometimes the problem is with the student and not the teacher.
 

Too much seriousness about subjects, the very nature of which,
incorporate many elements of imagination and fantasy.

 
--

-------------------------
Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  -- H.L. Mencken.

Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet."  ~Joseph Joubert

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 11, 1:20 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 12:37 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > learned much so far?
>
> > Alas, not of what I had hoped.
>
> What were you hoping to learn?

What other's thoughts might be on determining whether or not an
incarnated god in our midst would be accepted as such.

> > All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
> > interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
> > engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
> > of fancy are to be avoided.
>
> I disagree. Sometimes the problem is with the student and not the teacher.

Always, I should say. That is why the student is the student and the
teacher is the teacher.

Peace
耏 識 明

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 11, 1:20 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> to some, imagination seems to be a bad word and cannot be considered a
> realistic part of life, why? because imagination is not provable, or
> cannot be shared in its original and full glory with others. in other
> words, someones perceptions have no relevance in reality because they
> cannot be seen, touched or fully communicated with another.

I love my imagination, it is free to go wherever it wants and very
occasionally it brings back a gift for me.

> some theists are hooked on a book that makes very little sense to me,
> so i have rejected organized religion. their version of 'god' is what
> they have been taught, which to me is very close-minded.

With my views of individual reality I can understand closed-
mindedness. Our beliefs in our realities must be protected.

> some atheists are dependent on science to answer their questions for
> them. like observer, who just posted, "If there is no scientific
> explanation for what you are calling paranormal then the paranormal
> does not exist." to me, this is a comical statement coming from
> somebody who claims to be intelligent. unanswered questions mean that
> eventually the answer wont be attained? or that what is being
> questioned does not exist because science hasnt determined a way to
> prove it?

I have great admiration for the scientific method. It has provided
many discoveries of the physical world that have allowed us to reach
much consensus among our disparate subjective realities.

> the world was round when it was considered flat. but just because
> science hadnt determined that it was round, it was actually flat
> because that was the accepted truth? to me, this is why atheism dies
> on the vine. shutting the door before it has been opened seems to be a
> very immature way of thinking.
>
> i very much like how your mind works, but notice that you have
> basically run into a brick wall with the atheists here, even though
> you claim to be one yourself [i dont believe you are, but that you
> have rejected the biblical interpretation of 'god', but what do i
> know?]. i believe you are neither theist or atheist, and i repeat, i
> believe you are 'spirit rich' and that eventually your internalization
> and desire will allow the light to shine in. whether or not you call
> that light 'god' is really not the issue. it will be enough to make
> your life totally robust, despite what you call it, or the odour of
> your surroundings   :-)

Thank-you for your kind words.

I am indeed an atheist. I have no beliefs that I can see fitting any
descriptions of any gods I have heard of. Many atheists have trouble
with my positions because they are not completely materialistic and
most atheists are materialists. There are some, like me who have no
use for gods but feel there is more to whatever actual reality is than
we are able to perceive and that may be related to our minds and our
consciousness.

[e_space]

yes... using the word 'god' is dicey at best, mostly because of mans
description of such. to me, there is a much more intense 'state' that
i call 'spirit energy'. i think word definitions is where we run into
many of the problems associated with this debate.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Shi Ming <er.xi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:20 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 12:37 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > learned much so far?
>
> > Alas, not of what I had hoped.
>
> What were you hoping to learn?

What other's thoughts might be on determining whether or not an
incarnated god in our midst would be accepted as such.

It was a good question for theists who religiously dodged it or didn't respond and who could have responded to it because they all have a god concept.

This is not unusual in this group unfortunately and some of the better theist posters who would have responded seriously are not around right now and likely won't be until later.

Atheists would be unlikely to concern ourselves with the question posed in this way,  since we have no god concepts and in order to respond a specific god concept has to be provided.

Being "open minded" and having "imagination" and "creativity" are all good things but anything taken to its extreme or without foundation is usually bad.
 

> > All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
> > interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
> > engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
> > of fancy are to be avoided.
>
> I disagree. Sometimes the problem is with the student and not the teacher.

Always, I should say. That is why the student is the student and the
teacher is the teacher.

True, my "sometimes" acknowledged the fact that the roles can be reversed.
 

Peace
耏 識 明

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[LL]

On Dec 10, 11:30 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so when an atheist states with compunction that in their opinion 'god'
> does not exist, they are proselytizing? or just ridiculing, or  _ _ _
> _ _ _ _ _ _ ???

LL: I know almost no one who would make such a statement. Whether they
are proselytizing or ridiculing, I can't imagine. Many might be
responding to years of oppressive religious indoctrination and are
rebelling against it by going to extremes. It is not the position of
the vast majority of atheists. Why don't you ask someone who takes
this position? I certainly can't speak for this minority and I don't
make such statements or take that position.


******************************

[LL]

On Dec 11, 9:44 am, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 12:37 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > learned much so far?
>
> Alas, not of what I had hoped.
>
> All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
> interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
> engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
> of fancy are to be avoided.
>
> Too much seriousness about subjects, the very nature of which,
> incorporate many elements of imagination and fantasy.

LL: We don't avoid them. We know their place. We don't confuse fantasy
and imagination with truth. When we're talking about the possible
existence of a god, we don't fantasize. There are plenty of discussion
groups you could join that deal almost exclusively in fantasy and
imagination. This is not one of them.

You shouldn't go to a Japanese restaurant and complain because you
can't get Italian food there. This is an analogy of what you are doing
on this discussion group.

**********************************

[LL]

LL: In my opinion you are not an atheist. You are a supernaturalist.
Just because you reject some gods does not make you an atheist.


***************************************************************

[e_space]

i dont know anybody that had religion force fed to them more than me.
one has to get over their environmental upbringing, come to their own
conclusions, and quit blaming all xtians for the actions of a few.

you made the statement that most xtians are proselytizing when they
talk about 'god'. i simply asked if atheists were doing the same to
get their point across. how would you classify the words of atheists
here who use rather harsh terminology to vent against xtianity?

[e_space]

what is untruthful about imagination? most inventions originate from
an idea.

what is untruthful about idle contemplation? it is reality to the
person who is experiencing it.

you seem to think all truth is a physical reality. something you can
see and touch. imo, that completely negates the reality of conscience.
sounds rather like an empty existence to me.

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 11, 2:47 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: In my opinion you are not an atheist. You are a supernaturalist.
> Just because you reject some gods does not make you an atheist.

I reject all gods I have ever been made aware of descriptions for.

I deny the existence of the supernatural and believe that all
phenomena are either natural or non-existence.

I trust this will help you to label me
耏 識 明

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 11, 2:44 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Dec 11, 9:44 am, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All is not lost, I have learned that this hypothetical is of little
> > interest here, those that do seem to be interested are hesitant to
> > engage in any comments that might incorporate imagination, and flights
> > of fancy are to be avoided.
>
> > Too much seriousness about subjects, the very nature of which,
> > incorporate many elements of imagination and fantasy.
>
> LL: We don't avoid them. We know their place. We don't confuse fantasy
> and imagination with truth.

Truth may arise where it is least expected. Creativity has revealed
much truth (Edison and others, for example).

> When we're talking about the possible
> existence of a god, we don't fantasize. There are plenty of discussion
> groups you could join that deal almost exclusively in fantasy and
> imagination. This is not one of them.

So, I see.

You and I should be able to discuss StarTrek without assuming that
beaming up and down is real or that Warp drives exist. We can discuss
Dr. Zhivago and Laura's emotions without them being real.

I simply thought that it might be interesting to see what we might
make of a claimant to be god among us.

Sorry if it offended you in some way. That was not my intent.

> You shouldn't go to a Japanese restaurant and complain because you
> can't get Italian food there. This is an analogy of what you are doing
> on this discussion group.

I was suggesting a discussion as an hypothetical exercise concerning a
god. That seems to deny your analogy since I see many discussing gods
and God here and we know that all of that is hypothetical. I am sorry
but I don't think it was off topic but was perhaps it was not suitable
for other reasons.

Respectfully
耏 識 明

[Observer]

On Dec 9, 9:11 am, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> miracles....
>

> 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate? What

> tests could establish the truth of his claims?

Observer
Why would a god , what ever you mean by that , wish to 1) incarnate 2)
make any claims as to its being deity?

You, and we all play antics with semantics.

I submit that until there is scientifically verifiable substantiating
data for the EXISTENCE of or any ACT of a god that we stop this
foolishness of inquiry into it's nature , it's proclivities, and all
other such nonsense which tends not towards edification of any kind.

The single most devastating problem of providing such scientifically
verifiable substantiating data lies in the mission to define what is
meant by the word god.

So long as the multitudinous and quite arbitrary patterns of beliefs
which embody the sundry ideas of gods remain so arbitrary no inquire
can be productive of useful data enabling accurate prognostications
relating to what ever is meant, jointly and severally by any god
concept.

Such is the function of extrapolating from an unknown to what one
thinks to be known with out ever supplying even the basic language
which must be agreed upon .

It is useful only to make observations form a postulate and then to
apply the use of scientific method to the end of determining what
will be , with exactitude , what it is we are attempting to discover.

In the absence of a clearly stated question no useful answer is
possible.

The balance of any inquiries lead to the nightmare that has become
philosophical incongruities and the endless and quite mindless
speculation as to the existence and importance of what has never been
defined, and by the consideration of which no direct purpose is
served.

Enough nonsense. Let's , if we are going to speculate start with what
is probably existent and attempt to learn by testing all that we can
there from.

Psychonomist

>
> 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> what would it take for them to accept him as a god?

Observer
Once again a fatal error in that speculation into the probable acts ,
propensities, and degrading into nonsensical opinions of what a
creature of indeterminate potentialities would achieve were it to
exist.

Bah Humbug !

>
> I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> institution.

Observer
Who Cares?

Psychonomist

[Shi Ming]

My apologies. I thought it might have led to some interesting
discussion. I was wrong.

I will pause for more thought before posting in the future.

Humbly
耏 識 明

> > -- Aldous Huxley- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

dont let a few bad apples spoil the pie ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JFG]

I have evidence.

[e_space]

keeping it secret are ya? ;-)

[JFG]

I have never made any secret about it.

[LL]

On Dec 11, 1:00 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i dont know anybody that had religion force fed to them more than me.
> one has to get over their environmental upbringing, come to their own
> conclusions, and quit blaming all xtians for the actions of a few.
>
> you made the statement that most xtians are proselytizing when they
> talk about 'god'. i simply asked if atheists were doing the same to
> get their point across. how would you classify the words of atheists
> here who use rather harsh terminology to vent against xtianity?

LL: I find it unnecessary but understandable.

*******************************

[LL]

On Dec 11, 1:53 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2:47 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LL: In my opinion you are not an atheist. You are a supernaturalist.
> > Just because you reject some gods does not make you an atheist.
>
> I reject all gods I have ever been made aware of descriptions for.
>
> I deny the existence of the supernatural and believe that all
> phenomena are either natural or non-existence.
>
> I trust this will help you to label me
> 耏 識 明

LL: I have no need to label you. Perhaps I was mistaken about your
position. I might have had your statements mixed up with someone
else's.

******************************

[LL]

On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have never made any secret about it.

LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
that you have beliefs.

********************************************

[e_space]

congratulations! ;-)

[e_space]

maybe you just dont understand the statements?

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 12, 2:30 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> LL: I have no need to label you. Perhaps I was mistaken about your
> position. I might have had your statements mixed up with someone
> else's.

I know how easily this can happen. I apologize if I misunderstood your
desire to label me.

It is interesting, is it not, that our two communications each
incorporated a misunderstanding?

Peace
耏 識 明

[grisha]

In this case why do you call yourself non-materialist?

[Shi Ming]

On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case why do you call yourself non-materialist?

I do not accept that natural must be material, I believe that the
actual nature of the reality that we all share is so unknown to us
that ruling out a natural non-material state is premature. I cannot
conceive of it in any specific, definable way, but I accept it as a
likely possibility. Some of this is based on my meditative
experiences.

Peace
耏 識 明

[LL]

LL: Where or what do you suppose those meditative experiences come
from? Do they have any meaning or are they just free-floating figments
of your imagination?

[e_space]

long live imagination! it makes the world go round ;-)

[Shi Ming]

I think that meditative states reveal glimpses of actual reality, they
strip away the filters and barriers that we build to protect our
minds. I have mentioned before that Aldous Huxley and Dali both used
this explanation for the effects of drugs like mescaline. I think it
applies to meditative states as well. Meditation is a lowering of
resistance, a relaxation of the filters, so that we gain glimpses of
the actual reality we inhabit.

Because of my acceptance of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum
mechanics I also believe that meditative states (including dreaming)
may open windows into other parallel worlds.

That's the part that often gets me labelled as crazy, but there is
quite a surprising amount of support in the world of physicists for
MWI, like Deutch and Tegmark and even Hawking is a supporter of MWI.

So I don't feel completely crazy, perhaps avant-garde would be
good? :)

Peace
耏 識 明

[JFG]

On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> that you have beliefs.
>

I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
Saints. They are the evidence I have. I also have experiential
evidence that corroborates what the Saints wrote, but that isn't
accessible to you. But the Saints themselves, are, as are their
writings.

Now you are going to dismiss everything I've said under the blanket of

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > that you have beliefs.
>
> I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> Saints.  They are the evidence I have.

Testimonials aren't evidence.

>  I also have experiential
> evidence that corroborates what the Saints wrote, but that isn't
> accessible to you.

Schizophrenic hallucinations aren't evidence.

[LL]

On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > that you have beliefs.
>
> I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> Saints.  They are the evidence I have.  I also have experiential
> evidence that corroborates what the Saints wrote, but that isn't
> accessible to you.  But the Saints themselves, are, as are their
> writings.
>
> Now you are going to dismiss everything I've said under the blanket of
> "your evidence is that you have beliefs."

LL: No, it will be because you have no objective evidence. That's all
it takes for a rationalist to dismiss everything you've said about
religion.

But you are a believer, so nothing I or any other non believer says
will make any difference to your position.

Merry Christmas to you and yours (and I mean that in the best way
possible).

**************************************

[JFG]

On Dec 14, 2:51 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > > that you have beliefs.
>
> > I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> > Saints.  They are the evidence I have.  I also have experiential
> > evidence that corroborates what the Saints wrote, but that isn't
> > accessible to you.  But the Saints themselves, are, as are their
> > writings.
>
> > Now you are going to dismiss everything I've said under the blanket of
> > "your evidence is that you have beliefs."
>
> LL: No, it will be because you have no objective evidence.

Which is appropriate, since God is not an object we would expect to
leave traces.

Evidence for God will necessarily be different from evidence for
sunspots, for example.

I wonder if any atheist will ever get that.

>That's all
> it takes for a rationalist to dismiss everything you've said about
> religion.
>

That is assuming that it is even rational to expect to find objective
evidence for an entity that wouldn't necessarily leave any. Clearly,
such would not be a rational expectation, so clearly, a rational
person wouldn't be able to dismiss everything I've said so easily, at
least not on that basis.

> But you are a believer, so nothing I or any other non believer says
> will make any difference to your position.
>

Well, that goes without saying. It would be fairly sloppy of God to
leave believers' faith susceptible to destruction by non-believers,
wouldn't it?

> Merry Christmas to you and yours (and I mean that in the best way
> possible).
>

Thank you, LL! I wish you the same!

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 14, 4:06 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:51 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > > > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > > > that you have beliefs.
>
> > > I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> > > Saints.  They are the evidence I have.  I also have experiential
> > > evidence that corroborates what the Saints wrote, but that isn't
> > > accessible to you.  But the Saints themselves, are, as are their
> > > writings.
>
> > > Now you are going to dismiss everything I've said under the blanket of
> > > "your evidence is that you have beliefs."
>
> > LL: No, it will be because you have no objective evidence.
>
> Which is appropriate, since God is not an object we would expect to
> leave traces.
>
> Evidence for God will necessarily be different from evidence for
> sunspots, for example.
>
> I wonder if any atheist will ever get that.

Special pleading fallacies don't constitute a reasonable argument that
evidence for God's existence would be different than evidence for the
existence of any other object. That is, it needs to be objective,
verifiable, and falsifiable to qualify as evidence. I doubt you will

[e_space]

i doubt you will ever understand how evidence of some things cannot be
given. why hasnt your beloved science answered the 'god' question, or
a lot of other questions? come on neil, drum up something interesting,
just for a change??? ;-)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 14, 5:19 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i doubt you will ever understand how evidence of some things cannot be
> given.

I doubt you will ever understand what a special pleading fallacy is.

If something exists, then evidence can be provided to show it exists.

> why hasnt your beloved science answered the 'god' question,

It has. "God" is rejected due to insufficient evidence. Why don't you
get off your intellectually lazy ass and go get some valid evidence
instead of blaming others for your inadequacy?

> or
> a lot of other questions?

Umm...hey, genius. The religious stifled science for centuries. If
science hasn't answered everything yet, blame it on totalitarians such
as yourself.

> come on neil, drum up something interesting,
> just for a change???  ;-)

I find the question of God's existence interesting, even if you don't.
But then again, I don't prescribe to your policy of ignorance. If God
exists, I want to know.

[LL]

On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > that you have beliefs.
>
> I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> Saints.

LL: I have read enough of the Saints to know that there is nothing
there that would lead me to believe a god exists. BTW, I was raised a
Roman Catholic.

*******************************************************************

[e_space]

neil "If something exists, then evidence can be provided to show it
exists."

really??? do you mean that before a scientist has discovered something
it didnt exist??? to use a common example, do you think the earth was
flat before evidence was available to prove that it was round??? why
are scientists still trying to answer some questions neil?

you really should think things through a bit before you punch the send
button ...

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 15, 4:44 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> neil "If something exists, then evidence can be provided to show it
> exists."
>
> really??? do you mean that before a scientist has discovered something
> it didnt exist??? to use a common example, do you think the earth was
> flat before evidence was available to prove that it was round??? why
> are scientists still trying to answer some questions neil?

Did I say "science has discovered everything that exists," genius?

> you really should think things through a bit before you punch the send
> button ...

You should get a brain transplant. Thanks for providing yet more proof
that your policy of ignorance is working for you.

[LL]

On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > miracles....
>
> > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate?
>
> Why would God want you to?

LL: Maybe so people wouldn't run around wasting time, energy and brain
power believing in something that such a god doesn't want people to
believe in? How about that?

**************************************

[LL]

On Dec 10, 11:30 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so when an atheist states with compunction that in their opinion 'god'
> does not exist, they are proselytizing? or just ridiculing, or  _ _ _
> _ _ _ _ _ _ ???

LL: That is not the atheist position. Why can't you get that through
your head? If you find someone foolish enough to voice that opinion,
send him or her to us.

**********************************************

>
> On Dec 10, 2:01 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:24 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > stating an opinion is not trying to impose anything.
>
> > LL: It is when it descends to proselytizing, and it almost always
> > does.
>
> > ********************************
>
> >  as mentioned once
>
> > > or twice [cough], i am in no way trying to convert you to anything. in
> > > fact, i really have never said anything as factual, or described
> > > anything other than a concept. if you believe i am trying to make you
> > > feel a certain way, please point it out, or just keep on spewing forth
> > > your unfounded allegations. it really does not make that much
> > > difference to me, although i do admire your persistence, no matter how
> > > misguided. ;-)
>

> > > On Dec 10, 8:09 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 10, 3:57 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > move on son before ya hurt yourself. spend less time residing in hate
> > > > > is my suggestion.   ;-)
>
> > > > Sorry, as long as the insane try to impose their insanity on others I
> > > > feel morally obligated to speak up. I can understand why you would
> > > > want to dismiss that as "hate."
>

> > > > > On Dec 9, 4:23 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Dec 9, 12:14 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > i have never heard a decent argument that comes close to convincing me
> > > > > > > that 'god' ever performed any miracles, taught anybody anything, made
> > > > > > > any claims whatsoever, or referred to self as 'he'. if one only refers
> > > > > > > to 'god' as a reflection of the xtian teaching of such [or any
> > > > > > > religion], they most likely will never get a better understanding of
> > > > > > > the potential of 'god'. my feeling of 'god' has NOTHING to do with
> > > > > > > what i was taught, and i was deeply immersed in religion for decades.
>
> > > > > > > regarding your sign off, i have referred to earth as 'hell' for many
> > > > > > > years, and in my concept, it is actually the bottom rung of a tall
> > > > > > > ladder, a testing station that baby spirits have to learn to get off
> > > > > > > by growing their energy to the point where they become so bright that
> > > > > > > they are magnetically pulled into the core and do not have to come
> > > > > > > back. i realize this vaguely expressed view is a goofy concept to
> > > > > > > most, but i cant think of a better one. ;-)
>
> > > > > > Good thing you put that happy-dappy face at the end to remind everyone
> > > > > > how happy you are, otherwise you might come across as being fairly
> > > > > > miserable.
>
> > > > > > I'm assuming you believe you're one of those whose energy is so bright
> > > > > > that you will be magnetically pulled into the core (believe me, if you
> > > > > > get pulled into the molten core of the earth you won't have to be
> > > > > > worried about coming back)? Wishful thinking is so...revealing.
>

> > > > > > > On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > > > > > > > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > > > > > > > miracles....
>

> > > > > > > > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate? What

> > > > > > > > tests could establish the truth of his claims?
>

> > > > > > > > 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> > > > > > > > what would it take for them to accept him as a god?
>

> > > > > > > > I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> > > > > > > > institution.
>

> > > > > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > 耏 識 明
>
> > > > > > > > "Maybe this world is another world's hell."

[JFG]

On Dec 16, 8:15 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > > miracles....
>
> > > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate?
>
> > Why would God want you to?
>
> LL: Maybe so people wouldn't run around wasting time, energy and brain
> power believing in something that such a god doesn't want people to
> believe in? How about that?
>

Obviously, God does allow people to waste their time, for example,
being atheists, and even arguing for atheism.

So why would God, in His secret Incarnation, bother to correct a
situation that, evidently, He allows?

[JFG]

On Dec 15, 1:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > > that you have beliefs.
>
> > I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> > Saints.
>
> LL: I have read enough of the Saints to know that there is nothing
> there that would lead me to believe a god exists.

But not enough, apparently, to conclude the opposite.

> BTW, I was raised a
> Roman Catholic.
>

Then you have less excuse than some others.

[JFG]

When God demonstrates His supremacy clearly to the whole world, if you
are still around, you will cease to be an atheist. Until then, I
predict you will continue to make irrational demands of God, and
continue to pretend I've offered you the kind of evidence you demand,
despite the fact that I haven't.

[grisha]

Are you talking about Vishnu or Seledka?

[Neil Kelsey]

You mean if. God first has to exist for him to be capable of doing
anything, let alone impress me with his totalitarian tendencies.

> Until then, I
> predict you will continue to make irrational demands of God,

I'm an atheist, genius. I'm not making any demands of God. I'm making
a polite request for you presented some valid evidence instead of
trying to equivocate me into submission, but as for me making demands
of God, how can I if I lack belief he exists?

> and continue to pretend I've offered you the kind of evidence you demand,

You've tried to present evidence for God to me for the past two years,
I would guess. All of it amounts to a stack of fallacies and the
overbearing, overwrought pronouncements of the narcissistic
schizophrenic that you are, like this post here.

> despite the fact that I haven't.

I know you haven't.

[LL]

On Dec 16, 5:36 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:15 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> > > > If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> > > > miracles....
>
> > > > 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate?
>
> > > Why would God want you to?
>
> > LL: Maybe so people wouldn't run around wasting time, energy and brain
> > power believing in something that such a god doesn't want people to
> > believe in? How about that?
>
> Obviously, God does allow people to waste their time, for example,
> being atheists, and even arguing for atheism.
>
> So why would God, in His secret Incarnation, bother to correct a
> situation that, evidently, He allows?

LL: I don't know. You tell me. You seem to know more about the god you
believe in than I do. I can only speculate from an atheist's
standpoint.

[LL]

On Dec 16, 5:38 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:52 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 8:42 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 2:32 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 11, 5:47 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have never made any secret about it.
>
> > > > LL: Then give us your evidence and, please, don't say your evidence is
> > > > that you have beliefs.
>
> > > I have already recommended, again and again and again, to read the
> > > Saints.
>
> > LL: I have read enough of the Saints to know that there is nothing
> > there that would lead me to believe a god exists.
>
> But not enough, apparently, to conclude the opposite.
>
> > BTW, I was raised a
> > Roman Catholic.
>
> Then you have less excuse than some others.

LL: I don't feel as if I need an excuse for my position. I have
approached belief and lack of belief honestly. I have studied religion
and I have found it wanting. I have studied atheism and found it suits
my way of thinking. Why would I need an excuse for my position any
more than you need one for yours?

***********

[e_space]

its not the atheists position that in their opinion there is no
'god'?

[e_space]

one thing you should ask yourself is... 'what does religion have to do
with 'god'? religion only promotes a connection to 'god', it doesnt
prove that such a connection exists, or that their interpretation or
promotion of 'god' is accurate.

i suggest that you do not come to your belief, or lack thereof, based
on the conclusions that others have come to, or from the teachings of
religion. ime, the window to a perception of 'god', lies within, not
by looking at history or the words of others. everybody should come to
their own conclusion, independent on what their eyes and ears have
processed.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Dec 17, 5:12 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> its not the atheists position that in their opinion there is no
> 'god'?

Your policy of ignorance is working out well for you.

[Simon Ewins]

On Dec 10, 2:30 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so when an atheist states with compunction that in their opinion 'god'
> does not exist, they are proselytizing? or just ridiculing, or  _ _ _
> _ _ _ _ _ _ ???

Or just stating their opinion, maybe?

[Simon Ewins]

On Dec 16, 8:19 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:30 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > so when an atheist states with compunction that in their opinion 'god'
> > does not exist, they are proselytizing? or just ridiculing, or  _ _ _
> > _ _ _ _ _ _ ???
>
> LL: That is not the atheist position. Why can't you get that through
> your head?  If you find someone foolish enough to voice that opinion,
> send him or her to us.

Um, that would be me. I say the affirmative, "God does not
exist" (capital G Christian, Jewish, Islamic God).

The reason being that its just too damned stupid an idea to be real,
in fact it is incoherent and so fractured that it is often difficult
to put two professed believers' ideas together in any kind of
synchronization.

It's a joke and the believers ain't got it yet.

BTW, that isn't proselytizing because I don't give a crap if it
convinces anyone. To proselytize you need to, at the very least, be
interested in convincing someone else.

[Simon Ewins]

On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, Shi Ming <er.xi.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An hypothetical to, perhaps explore. Assuming there is a god...
>
> If a god were to incarnate himself today and refused to do any
> miracles....
>
> 1. How could we determine if he were really a god incarnate? What
> tests could establish the truth of his claims?

None. It's too stupid an idea to ever be real.

>
> 2. If his teachings differed in some way from what Christians believe
> what would it take for them to accept him as a god?

Easy. Put a sack over their heads and smack 'em with hammers until
they're convinced.

>
> I think he would likely be dismissed and committed to a mental
> institution.

That too.