Questions for Religious Right Members of This Forum
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>die a religious Jew (which is what I am), I will suffer an eternity of
torture. But, if I accept that Jesus died for our sins and become a
Christian, I will enjoy an eternity of paradise.
So naturally, for purely selfish reasons, I become a Christian. But
that leaves me with a lot of questions:
1) Do I have to become the right kind of Christian? As I understand
it, Catholics don't believe that Protestants go to heaven, and some
Protestants feel the same way towards Catholics. Will I be punished
with Hell for picking the wrong Church?
2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
to heaven.
3) Can I still vote Democratic?
4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
compassion, that would be impossible.
And now the big one:
5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
the right religion.
Lincoln
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>if you believe in 'god', then according to your belief, you are of
'god', and therefore part of 'god'. so, figure out yourself and you
will have all the answers you need.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Welcome to AvC.
> 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
the right religion.
I'm an atheist so I can't answer your questions but do have one for you related to your last point.
What is the difference between your conception of God and his inter-relationship with man than the Christian one?
I have relatives who are atheist Jews but since they weren't raised in the Jewish religion I'm not familiar with the Jewish religious beliefs.
Apologies for side-tracking the thread and feel free to ignore my question if you'd prefer to focus on the Christian responses here.
--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015
Ma-choo!
<thoreau38@aol.com>give you my two cents:
On Mar 15, 7:20 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's assume, for discussion's sake, that you convince me that if I
> die a religious Jew (which is what I am), I will suffer an eternity of
> torture. But, if I accept that Jesus died for our sins and become a
> Christian, I will enjoy an eternity of paradise.
>
> So naturally, for purely selfish reasons, I become a Christian. But
> that leaves me with a lot of questions:
If it was done for purely selfish reasons (and not geniune belief) -
for obvious reasons your identification as a 'Christian' is
questionable and - since it's insincere - even under the Old Testament
(OT) paradigm - God would know this and the 'reward' of heaven would
presumably be lost. Not the main point here - but, worth noting I
thought.
>
> 1) Do I have to become the right kind of Christian? As I understand
> it, Catholics don't believe that Protestants go to heaven, and some
> Protestants feel the same way towards Catholics. Will I be punished
> with Hell for picking the wrong Church?
My recommendation would be that this is something you have to decide
for yourself. I believe the path God intends for you, as one would
expect, depends on where you're starting from. The Catholic Church
affirmed the ability of Protestants to go to heaven long ago - and
during the past few decades also affirmed the possibility of non-
Christians going to heaven during the Vatican II Council.
In the gospel of Mark, Christ identified the two greatest commandments
- his entire philosophy in a nutshell. The first I have no doubt you
know - the Shema - "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart." And two - love your
neighbor as yourself. The rest is up to you to decide - and in my
humble opinion, the important thing isn't so much where you start -
it''s how far you go.
>
> 2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
> that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
> similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
> to heaven.
The main prohibitions against homosexuality are in the OT - so if
you're already comfortable with gays in light of those verses - then
Christianity wouldn't bring any major change. The religious right may
be more vocal on this than orthodox Judaism - but the basis is
undoubtedly within your current religion.
> 3) Can I still vote Democratic?
I do. And since they are undoubtedly the party which strives the most
to take care of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the aliens - I
don't see how any informed and reasonable Christian could not vote
Democratic.
>
> 4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
> majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
> probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
> compassion, that would be impossible.
How does this change from Judaism to Christianity? Do you not believe
in Gehenna? The pit? Sheol? Where do evil people go when they die- and
how do you justify your presence in heaven in light of that fact now?
Its a great question that could have many answers. It could be that
we're simply denied knowledge of hell when in heaven by a loving and
compassionate God- and a part of love is also justice - which mandates
that evil is not rewarded.
It's also possible that upon entering heaven people gain some
knowledge about their loved ones in hell that mitigates that pain -
for example, maybe you know that in due time your loved one will be
rejudged when Christ returns, and eventually return to God, etc. In
any case, the fact that possible answers do exist remove this as a
logical problem.
>
> And now the big one:
>
> 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> the right religion.
I assume you already believe God created you as fallible, and subject
to temptation. And I assume you believe that not every person in the
world goes to heaven. In which case, you already believe that God
created you a fallible being who will be tempted - and that temptation
will doom you to hell unless you choose the right religion - whether
it's Christianity, Judaism, or whatever requirement you use here.
We may disagree on what exactly a person must do to avoid hell - but
the basic outline remains the same - so I'm not sure there's much real
difference here.
Thanks for the thought provoking post,
Ma-Choo
Doris Briscoe
<dbriscoe5@gmail.com>The story of a woman touching Jesus, the word says she touch a Jew this was before the new testement. You need to ask yourself if you are of Jewish faith and you live one law of Jewish faith the word says you will live all the laws of Jewish and practice it. Do You. And if you confess that you are a Christain and believe that Jesus died for are sins and took the stripes for us ,were we did not aft to go through this he did it for us. And of couarse he is the Son of God and he gave us the gift that we can be God's Son's and Daughter's also. There is only one difference between the Jewish,true Jewish,and Christains,true Christains,they do believe Jesus is the Son of God and they do believe if you mess up you can ask forgiveness and repent of your sins are your deeds,seventy times over seventy times. Jewish believe in prayer and laws and steps and worship God. I am not going into the laws of the Jewish,true Jewish. And what chruch that you branched off of Peter's? Jesus said when he acended to the Father: I will send you the Holy Comforter. Jewish and Christains can even have great debates on even these subjects. It takes a step of faith for the true Jewish to look in the direction and believe that Jesus is the son of God. The word also says this if any man does not believe that Jesus walks in the flesh now,is no son of mind but a bastard/ This was not said to be mean it was and is a invitation and a chance to be his son thru Jesus Christ. Paul of the Bible went through many of a trail and battles. Paul said God forbid if I delete the law,and did say wheather you are circumcise are not. It is a circumcision of the heart. We all fall short of God's Glory. Paul said I am Greek ,I am Roman,and so fourth(excuse the so fourth)Paul and the disciple's went through many perils of life to carry on the message. The Jewish have mercy but they did not have forgiveness. If you tresspass then there was certain things you would half to do in the law to get rid of that tresspass. If you are a Christain you can get on your knee's are go into your prayer closet and ask forgiveness and will get a answer and forgiveness instantly if you are right with God, if you are not he will correct that. If you believe in Christ Jesus he says he will give you (life enternity) Being a Christain does not mean you half to be dogmatic.
--
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.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>christians, you could also ask any other religion i.e. Islam,
Scientology, Mormonism whatever.
What's the common demoninator with everything here? Humans made up
stories and others believed them. That's it in a nutshell.
It's all woogity boogity. All of it.
Juadaism is woogity boogity, as is Christianity, Islam and all the
other folk and neo religions.
They've all got their narrative, beliefs, symbolism and practices, but
the foundation stomes are all the same.
Nil evidence. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Plenty of claims sure, but nothing.
Woogity Boogity.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>knowledge of as woogity boogity? if so, i guess you classify a lot of
things as such, right? you might try finding evidence for yourself,
that would be a novel idea woudnt it? but no, until somebody takes the
time to figure something out, write it all out for you in nice simple
terms that you can understand, its just all woogity boogity ... sorta
narrow way of looking at things, no? seems like you are similar to the
ancient guys who bought everything the scientists said, until their
claims were proven wrong, and then you changed your viewpoint, or
should i say, bought into the revised viewpoint. i guess you choose
which subject to be gullible about huh?
> > Lincoln- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LL
<llpens@aol.com>
LL: Your questions show the complete fallacy and illogic of religion.
************************************
>
> Lincoln
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> a few questions ... do you classify anything that you have no
> knowledge of as woogity boogity? if so, i guess you classify a lot of
> things as such, right?
Such as?
________________________________________
We don't want government involved. When atheists become the majority
in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to
have "one nation under no God" inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.
-- Michael Newdow
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> I'm an atheist too, but personally the questions you ask of
> christians, you could also ask any other religion i.e. Islam,
> Scientology, Mormonism whatever.
>
> What's the common demoninator with everything here? Humans made up
> stories and others believed them. That's it in a nutshell.
>
> It's all woogity boogity. All of it.
I like it!
woogity boogity it is!
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> Let's assume, for discussion's sake, that you convince me that if I
> die a religious Jew (which is what I am), I will suffer an eternity of
> torture. But, if I accept that Jesus died for our sins and become a
> Christian, I will enjoy an eternity of paradise.
>
> So naturally, for purely selfish reasons, I become a Christian. But
> that leaves me with a lot of questions:
>
> 1) Do I have to become the right kind of Christian? As I understand
> it, Catholics don't believe that Protestants go to heaven, and some
> Protestants feel the same way towards Catholics. Will I be punished
> with Hell for picking the wrong Church?
>
> 2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
> that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
> similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
> to heaven.
>
> 3) Can I still vote Democratic?
>
> 4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
> majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
> probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
> compassion, that would be impossible.
>
> And now the big one:
>
> 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> wrong; I very much DO love God,
Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
> but my concept of the eternal and
> divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> the right religion.
Tracey Maddow
<tracey.maddow101@gmail.com>> Let's assume, for discussion's sake, that you convince me that if I
> die a religious Jew (which is what I am), I will suffer an eternity of
> torture. But, if I accept that Jesus died for our sins and become a
> Christian, I will enjoy an eternity of paradise.
>
> So naturally, for purely selfish reasons, I become a Christian. But
> that leaves me with a lot of questions:
>
> 1) Do I have to become the right kind of Christian? As I understand
> it, Catholics don't believe that Protestants go to heaven, and some
> Protestants feel the same way towards Catholics. Will I be punished
> with Hell for picking the wrong Church?
You got it all wrong. Catholics believe that Protestants can go to
heaven. Non-Christians as well, can go to heaven. I don't know why
Jewish think otherwise.
> 2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
> that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
> similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
> to heaven.
In the Catholic Church, there are a lot of gay parishioners. I wonder
where you got the idea that gays cannot go to heaven.
> 3) Can I still vote Democratic?
No, vote Republican. I'm Republican and I don't vote for Democrats, so
follow me!
> 4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
> majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
> probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
> compassion, that would be impossible.
Hell has been portrayed in the Bible as a place of darkness. How can
burning be possible in a place of darkness? It's impossible.
> And now the big one:
>
> 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> the right religion.
I"m Catholic and I believe in the Bible verse, "The three most
important things to have are faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
them is love." --1 Corinthians 13:13
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 16, 2:48 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> one small suggestion ... move on from fundamental biblical teachings.
> if you believe in 'god', then according to your belief, you are of
> 'god', and therefore part of 'god'. so, figure out yourself and you
> will have all the answers you need.
I didn't post this as part of a spiritual quest. I have other routes
for that. I'm just trying to understand fundamentalist beliefs.
Lincoln
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 16, 4:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Lincoln
>
> Welcome to AvC.
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> > wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> > divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> > who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> > the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> > torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> > the right religion.
>
> I'm an atheist so I can't answer your questions but do have one for you
> related to your last point.
>
> What is the difference between your conception of God and his
> inter-relationship with man than the Christian one?
I don't think it's really a matter of Jewish vs. Christian conceptions
of God, although they differ, of course. There are also tremendous
differences within both (and every other large) religion.
My concept of God, and certainly of what God wants from us, is much
closer to Martin Luther King than to Meir Kahane, even though Kahane
worshipped with the same prayers as I. Prayers are merely a form. What
counts is working for peace, tolerance, equality, justice, mercy, and
charity. And I learned THAT from my father--an atheist.
Lincoln
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 16, 10:07 am, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In the gospel of Mark, Christ identified the two greatest commandments
> - his entire philosophy in a nutshell. The first I have no doubt you
> know - the Shema - "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is
> one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart." And two - love your
> neighbor as yourself. The rest is up to you to decide - and in my
> humble opinion, the important thing isn't so much where you start -
> it''s how far you go.
I think that's the essence of all religions, although fundamentalists
(of all religions and non-religions) tend to forget this, and instead
see the main point as "I'm right and you're wrong, and you're going to
be punished for being wrong."
When Hillel was asked to sum up the Torah (what Christians call the
Five Books of Moses), he answered "What is evil to you, do not do onto
others." Jesus, of course, said something very similar. So, I think,
did Buddha.
>
>
>
> > 2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
> > that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
> > similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
> > to heaven.
>
> The main prohibitions against homosexuality are in the OT - so if
> you're already comfortable with gays in light of those verses - then
> Christianity wouldn't bring any major change. The religious right may
> be more vocal on this than orthodox Judaism - but the basis is
> undoubtedly within your current religion.
Again, this isn't really a Jewish vs. Christian thing. Orthodox Jews
are every bit as homophobic as fundamentalist Christians.
>
> > 3) Can I still vote Democratic?
>
> I do. And since they are undoubtedly the party which strives the most
> to take care of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the aliens - I
> don't see how any informed and reasonable Christian could not vote
> Democratic.
I feel the same way about Jews.
>
>
>
> > 4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
> > majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
> > probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
> > compassion, that would be impossible.
>
> How does this change from Judaism to Christianity? Do you not believe
> in Gehenna? The pit? Sheol? Where do evil people go when they die- and
> how do you justify your presence in heaven in light of that fact now?
>
> Its a great question that could have many answers. It could be that
> we're simply denied knowledge of hell when in heaven by a loving and
> compassionate God- and a part of love is also justice - which mandates
> that evil is not rewarded.
>
> It's also possible that upon entering heaven people gain some
> knowledge about their loved ones in hell that mitigates that pain -
> for example, maybe you know that in due time your loved one will be
> rejudged when Christ returns, and eventually return to God, etc. In
> any case, the fact that possible answers do exist remove this as a
> logical problem.
There's no real consistent belief in an afterlife in Judaism. You'll
find beliefs in heaven and hell, purgatory, reincarnation, and no
afterlife at all. The reason we say the mourner's kaddish for 11
months is because the longest anyone can stay in purgatory is one
year, and we don't want to imply that our beloved departed was bad
enough to get the full term--but that's not really a common belief.
Personally, I don't believe in an individual life after death. Just as
a drop of water ceases to be a unique drop when it rejoins the ocean,
we cease to be individual soles when we return to God.
>
>
>
> > And now the big one:
>
> > 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> > wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> > divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> > who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> > the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> > torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> > the right religion.
>
> I assume you already believe God created you as fallible, and subject
> to temptation. And I assume you believe that not every person in the
> world goes to heaven. In which case, you already believe that God
> created you a fallible being who will be tempted - and that temptation
> will doom you to hell unless you choose the right religion - whether
> it's Christianity, Judaism, or whatever requirement you use here.
Actually, no, I don't believe that at all. My question was for people
who do believe that.
I love God, but I could not possibly love a God who would do that. To
my mind, that would be an evil God.
>
> We may disagree on what exactly a person must do to avoid hell - but
> the basic outline remains the same - so I'm not sure there's much real
> difference here.
No, I don't think there's much difference between our beliefs. But
then, you're not the type of Christian I addressed this to. You're
more the type of Christian I like.
Lincoln
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 16, 4:02 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> I'm an atheist too, but personally the questions you ask of
> christians, you could also ask any other religion i.e. Islam,
> Scientology, Mormonism whatever.
>
> What's the common demoninator with everything here? Humans made up
> stories and others believed them. That's it in a nutshell.
>
> It's all woogity boogity. All of it.
>
> Juadaism is woogity boogity, as is Christianity, Islam and all the
> other folk and neo religions.
>
> They've all got their narrative, beliefs, symbolism and practices, but
> the foundation stomes are all the same.
>
> Nil evidence. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
>
> Plenty of claims sure, but nothing.
>
> Woogity Boogity.
And thus we have another belief system based on the idea of "I'm
right, and everyone else is wrong." Another form of fundamentalism.
Lincoln
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 17, 12:46 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: Your questions show the complete fallacy and illogic of religion.
No. Just the fallacy of fundamentalism--the absolute certainty that
you are right. And there are fundamentalist atheists just as there are
fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims.
My objection isn't to any particular religion, or to atheism. My
objection is to closed-minded fundamentalists.
Lincoln
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 17, 1:15 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
> by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
Because clearly, I do not agree with your definition of God.
I do not know with absolutely certainty that God exists, and I often
describe myself as intellectually agnostic. But I don't find the
logical arguments that there is a God (for instance, the laws of
physics seem to make the evolution of intelligent life inevitable) any
more preposterous than the arguments that there isn't one. I also
sense God's presence, which I understand is not a logical argument
either way.
Now what exactly is this God? An eternal, all-knowing, all-loving, all-
powerful (maybe) body-less consciousness is clearly something beyond
human imagination. Therefore, however we "see" God is going to be a
distortion of reality.
To my mind, religion is one way human culture tries to connect with
that undefinable something that the Mosaic tradition calls God. Its
importance lies not in whether it is historically accurate, but in the
way it touches the spiritual, and in the ways it makes us both happier
people and (more importantly) better people.
Lincoln
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Well I can't argue with what you said counts :-)
Thanks for your feeding my curiousity.
I'm familiar with Rabbi Kahane and don't know very many Jews, religious or not, who agree with his form of Judaism.
And most of us, religious or not, can relate to Martin Luther King who was truly a sincere and genuine man who deeply cared about not only his community but America as a whole.
Lincoln
--
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.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>On Mar 17, 7:50 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> a few questions ... do you classify anything that you have no
> knowledge of as woogity boogity?
No.
if so, i guess you classify a lot of
> things as such, right?
As I responded no, the question is moot
you might try finding evidence for yourself,
Evidence of what? Woogity boogity?
> that would be a novel idea woudnt it?
Most certainly would, particularly if I found just one shred of
evidence that is. And if I did manage that feat, I'd be the first
individual in the history of mankind to find some physical evidence of
what was formerly known colloquially as 'Woogity Boogity'. And the
chances of me doing that?
but no, until somebody takes the
> time to figure something out, write it all out for you in nice simple
> terms that you can understand, its just all woogity boogity ... sorta
> narrow way of looking at things, no?
I for the life of me don't know how an airconditioning system works in
detail, or how one can split an atom or anything about calculus for
that matter, but that doesn't mean I can't learn to know these things
if I choose to. But I can know them, by way of scientific study, which
of course, provides validity through evidence. Not make believe
woogity boogity story telling.
seems like you are similar to the
> ancient guys who bought everything the scientists said, until their
> claims were proven wrong, and then you changed your viewpoint, or
> should i say, bought into the revised viewpoint. i guess you choose
> which subject to be gullible about huh?
You really don't understand science do you? Good science desires
error. In fact it demands it. Error redefines a hypothesis. Early
aviators and aircraft makers used the scientific method to engineer
their flying machines. When some crashed and killed their pilots, they
didn't give it away as silliness or that it can't be done. Further
study and research indentified better methods of lift, the use of
control surfaces and numerous other things to evolve avaitaion to what
it is today. Woogity Boogity doesn't make planes fly, science allows
planes to fly.
The woogity boogity merchants offer nothing other than puerile
mythmaking that answers nothing.
The woogity boogity mythmakers are, as you term, void.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>"Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates
as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned
argument or contradictory evidence. Others in turn, such as Christian
theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to
characterize atheism as dogmatic."
As a relatively new term in our lexicon (fundamentalism), it's usage
is bound to be applied in a somewhat cavalier fashion. The pejorative
inference is clearly evident, however I ask you Abe.........
I offer my viewpoint as an opinion, with regard to the lack of
evidence to the contrary argument i.e. the supernatural. I therefore
sarcastically apply ridicule to supernaturalists in all their guises
or forms as a means to highlight the patent idiocy of mythmaker
stories being represented as truths, when they are patently not. Or at
least we have zero evidence of same.
True, many people may not be wrong, such as the pastafarians, or the
scientologists and their thetan spirits from aliens who died in
volcanoes or the Mormons in their funny protective underwear ad
infinitum, or women with explosive suicide belts for Allah, then I'm
happy to have the firmly held view that I have.
Yes, I may be wrong too.
But until the evidence is in, just one scrap of it, then Abe, I'm an
atheist.
Not hard to understand really is it?
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><snip>
> > What is the difference between your conception of God and his
> > inter-relationship with man than the Christian one?
>
> I don't think it's really a matter of Jewish vs. Christian conceptions
> of God, although they differ, of course. There are also tremendous
> differences within both (and every other large) religion.
>
> My concept of God,
Whence did this concept of yours originate?
> and certainly of what God wants from us,
How do you know what your conceptual entity wants from us?
> is much
> closer to Martin Luther King than to Meir Kahane, even though Kahane
> worshipped with the same prayers as I. Prayers are merely a form. What
> counts is working for peace, tolerance, equality, justice, mercy, and
> charity.
Why the need to believe in a god in order to achieve those ideals?
> And I learned THAT from my father--an atheist.
________________________________________
The radical defect in Christianity is that it tried to win the world
by a bribe, and it has become a nullity.
-- Ouida
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>that means that thoughts dont exist, right? ime, 'god' is not physical
so you will never find any such evidence of such. this seemingly will
ensure that your skepticsim will remain intact, since you seemingly
expect others to point the way for you.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> On Mar 17, 1:15 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
> > by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
>
> Because clearly, I do not agree with your definition of God.
I would not expct you to do so since I did not provide any definition
of "god."
> I do not know with absolutely certainty that God exists,
Meanwhile, why is it that people refuse to accept the obvious?
Gods were at first the anthropomorphizing of the lack of knowledge and
fears of early humans who could not explain what they witnessed
without going through some sort of powerful invisible agent that acted
upon the world in a manner similar to the way they themselves were
acting on the world as agents with limited abilities.
Religion became the formalization of the rituals and beliefs that came
to be as early humans tried to placate these super-agents in order to
win their favours.
God, the ultimate super-agent, is just the logical end-point of this
way of thinking. If you start believing in small powerful agents, then
eventually you get to the point were you believe in one super-duper
agent who controls everything and who knows everything.
Want to prove me wrong? Show me one objective bit of evidence that
there was ever a "god" who interacted with our world in any manner at
all.
> and I often
> describe myself as intellectually agnostic. But I don't find the
> logical arguments that there is a God (for instance, the laws of
> physics seem to make the evolution of intelligent life inevitable) any
> more preposterous than the arguments that there isn't one.
Well, in fact, there are no logical argument to support that there is
a god.
All arguments are subjective, therefore not within the realm of logic.
However, there are many perfectly logical explanation that explain how
the human animal created this monster that is religion.
Unfortunately, believers usually wave their hands and stick with their
personal subjective feelings at the expense of the rational logical
explanation. Usually this happens due to various reasons, such as
being indoctrinated as youngsters; and/or because they are
unconsciously afraid and/or insecure; and/or because they have had
experiences that they cannot explain in rational terms (or refuse to
apply rational explanations to those experiences because unconsciously
they do not like where it would lead them); and/or their need to
belong to a collective is too great; and /or many other subjective
explanations.
> I also
> sense God's presence,
What does that mean, exactly?
> which I understand is not a logical argument
> either way.
>
> Now what exactly is this God? An eternal, all-knowing, all-loving, all-
> powerful (maybe) body-less consciousness is clearly something beyond
> human imagination.
Not at all, we did create it using our collective imagination.
In any case, how do you know that this immaterial being is all-
knowing, all-powerful and all-loving in such a manner as to defy our
imagination?
> Therefore, however we "see" God is going to be a
> distortion of reality.
First, demonstrate that gods belongs to our reality, then we can
discuss whether our "perception" of these beings are acurate or
distorted.
It seems to me that you are actually begging the question:
God is A, and because God si A, we cannot demonstrate or show or even
imagine that god is A.
Now, if you had actual objective evidence to indicate that god is at
least real in some way, then we could examine your proposition, but as
it is, it is just a logical fallacy.
> To my mind, religion is one way human culture tries to connect with
> that undefinable something that the Mosaic tradition calls God. Its
> importance lies not in whether it is historically accurate, but in the
> way it touches the spiritual,
Please, define the word "spiritual."
> and in the ways it makes us both happier
> people and (more importantly) better people.
I disagree.
In some case it does, but the cost, over all, is way too high.
It would be much better to try to make society a better place by
having its people take responsibility for everything they do and feel.
As it is, too many people blame mankind when shit happens, but praise
some sort of invisible being when good stuff happens.
It would be far healthier and more beneficial for society as a whole
if people were not divided according to ancient superstitious beliefs
and if everyone took responsibilities, for the good and the bad alike.
When, for instance, a community manges to saves some children from a
dire situation, they should be proud of themselves and thank each
other, not some invisible being. Conversely, if a community fails in
some endeavour, they should sit down, take responsibility for the
failure and figure out how to avoid this outcome in the future.
No need for gods or religious beliefs.
Also, another problem with religion is that many people think that
there exist some sort of objective code of morality. There is no such
thing, but as long as people believe there is, they will argue with
each other based on ancient superstitious writings instead of working
together to formulate some sort of morality code that would work for
everyone and that could be modified as we evolve instead of having it
written in stone.
So, you see, to my mind, religion creates so many problems that its
disadvantages far outweigh its advantages. The only advantages it has
is at the personal subjective level, however, as soon as a religion
exists, it also has societal implications that usually cause more
problems than it solves.
Let me ask you this, for the betterment of the human species as a
whole, and based on the history of said species, knowing that we are
alwasy moving towards a greater globalisation, would it be easier and
more practical to A) get all different religious people to live in
peace with each other in a society that accommodates all religious
views (remember that new religions will be spawned as we move into the
future); or B) eliminate religion from the picture?
So, unless we can actually demonstrate that there exist a god, and
thus we need some sort of procedure (or religion, if you will) to
account for its presence, religion is just a hindrance to the actual
development of society as a whole, on planet Earth. Look at our
collective history, all the good things that were achieved through
religion could have been achieved anyways, but we would have been
better off without all the bad things that were the direct
consequences of having religion around.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 18, 6:49 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you find physical evidence of a thought? ... no? hmmm ... guess
> that means that thoughts dont exist, right? ime, 'god' is not physical
> so you will never find any such evidence of such. this seemingly will
> ensure that your skepticsim will remain intact, since you seemingly
> expect others to point the way for you.
LL: Every god that has ever been proposed, every fairy tale, every
inane "explanation" falls into the same category, so, we can only
assume that you accept all of those ideas without skepticism. You
apparently believe everything you hear. That's a great definition of
gullible.
******************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>LL: I asked him to do that on several occasions. So far the silence
has been deafening. He apparently can't do it.
****************************************************************
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>experience. one would have thought you would have grasped that by now,
but alas, no such luck ...
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>slobbers. in one of his failed attempts to start a thread, he stated
that he was as spiritual as anyone. take a chance LL, and ask your
idol. dont worry, he only gobs on xtians and those that dont revere
him. ;^-)
> > -- Ouida- Hide quoted text -
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 18, 11:01 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i dont believe anything i hear oh misguided one. i believe what i
> experience. one would have thought you would have grasped that by now,
> but alas, no such luck ...
LL: Have you experienced
Islam?
Buddhism?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Mormonism?
Baha'i Faith?
Bön?
Buddhism?
Cao Dai?
Chinese Religion?
Chopra Center?
Christian Science?
Confucianism?
Eckankar?
Epicureanism
Falun Gong?
Greco-Roman Religion?
Hare Krishna?
Hinduism?
Jainism?
Judaism?
Kemetic Reconstructionism?
Mayan Religion?
Mithraism?
Neopaganism?
New Thought?
Rastafari?
Scientology?
Shinto?
Sikhism?
Stoicism?
Taoism?
Unification Church?
Unitarian Universalism?
Wicca?
Zoroastrianism?
*****************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 18, 11:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> as i have previously suggested, why dont you ask your brother
> slobbers. in one of his failed attempts to start a thread, he stated
> that he was as spiritual as anyone. take a chance LL, and ask your
> idol. dont worry, he only gobs on xtians and those that dont revere
> him. ;^-)
LL:I'd rather have you define it.You use the term much more than
anyone else.
***********************************
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you find physical evidence of a thought? ... no? hmmm
Yes. "Students and researchers have the latest technology at their
disposal. Aarhus University has recently received a grant of EUR 2.1
million for the purchase of a so-called MEG brain scanner – the first
of its kind in Denmark. The scanner records images of brain activity
at intervals of 1/1000 of a second. This is much faster than the
familiar PET and MRI scanners, which record images at intervals of a
couple of seconds or minutes. The new MEG technology enables the
researchers to see how the brain reacts when a thought arises.
http://www.viden.au.dk/research/2009/1
guess
> that means that thoughts dont exist, right?
Incorrect conclusion
ime, 'god' is not physical
> so you will never find any such evidence of such.
How do you know this?
this seemingly will
> ensure that your skepticsim will remain intact, since you seemingly
> expect others to point the way for you.
No, but I do prefer to stand on the shoulder of giants.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>thought was? thats the point.
On Mar 19, 4:08 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:49 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > can you find physical evidence of a thought? ... no? hmmm
>
> Yes. "Students and researchers have the latest technology at their
> disposal. Aarhus University has recently received a grant of EUR 2.1
> million for the purchase of a so-called MEG brain scanner – the first
> of its kind in Denmark. The scanner records images of brain activity
> at intervals of 1/1000 of a second. This is much faster than the
> familiar PET and MRI scanners, which record images at intervals of a
> couple of seconds or minutes. The new MEG technology enables the
> researchers to see how the brain reacts when a thought arises.http://www.viden.au.dk/research/2009/1
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>signifigance? especially since it was stated by one sooooo revered by
ya'll ....
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>mentioned several hundred times by now that i am not religious.
religion is of man ... im suggesting one should look inside for their
'god' answers and guess what ... you wont find religion there ...
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>In most people, but after reading your posts I can only admitt you're
an exception!
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>btw, thinking is only required when one doesnt know, so im sure you
spend a lot of time with your thinking cap on ;^-)
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> I"m Catholic and I believe in the Bible verse, "The three most
> important things to have are faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
> them is love." --1 Corinthians 13:13
I once read a Catholic statement with a laundry list of hazards of
marrying a non-Catholic - dangers of unstable marriage, confused
children, etc. Yet, the Catholic church has been known to convert one
spouse of a non-Catholic family. If they love that family, why do they
expose the family to dangers like unstable marriage, confused
children, etc.?
Tracey Maddow
<tracey.maddow101@gmail.com>They do, for obvious reasons. Religion and politics are the most
common cause of division among cultures. Before a couple is married in
the Catholic Church, they would go first to a couseling session with a
priest. In that meeting everything is laid out on the table,
encompassing the hazards that your mentioned.
Any Catholic can marry a non-Catholic or a non-Christian, with
permission from the local bishop, which is always approved after
couseling. Conversion to Catholicism is not imposed ever, to the non-
Catholic. He/she is given the power to exercise free will. I have
friends who are still married and the other parties are Protestants.
In another set, the other half is a Buddhist.
Love conquers all.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 19, 5:57 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why not get one of your own ilk to describe it, wouldnt that have more
> signifigance? especially since it was stated by one sooooo revered by
> ya'll ....
LL: And excellent example of double-talk. It should win some kind of
award.
***************************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 19, 6:00 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry you wasted so much time copying/pasting but i think i have
> mentioned several hundred times by now that i am not religious.
> religion is of man ... im suggesting one should look inside for their
> 'god' answers and guess what ... you wont find religion there ...
LL: You don't have to be religious to be ignorant and dim-witted.
You've proven my point.
****************************************
Lincoln
<lincolnspector@gmail.com>On Mar 18, 7:18 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:52 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 1:15 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
> > > by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
>
> > Because clearly, I do not agree with your definition of God.
>
> I would not expct you to do so since I did not provide any definition
> of "god."
Of course you did. You called God "an imaginary being that was created
by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?"
That is what you believe God to be.
You'll probably want to respond to that with something on the order of
"No, that's what God is." That, of course, is the answer of a
fundamentalist.
Lincoln
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>"can you find physical evidence of a thought?"
You made no mention of what that thought is / was? I provided an
answer in the affirmative (which you don't dispute), therefore your
earlier posit has been refuted.
Now, to the second issue of determining what the thought was?
That would be an issue of context I would think;
If I have three upturned cups with one nut under one of these cups & I
ask you decide where the nut is placed, I could safely assume
(although not categorically of course) that your 'thoughts' as
measured by MEG technology or the like, is likely to be corresponding
to the task of deciding under which cup the nut is placed. In other
words, you're thinking about nut location.
Also, if I have thoughts and through verbal communication with
thousands of other humans who also claim to have thoughts, I could
assert that humans have thoughts. What each thought is at any
particular time would of course be unclear to the observer.
One day, some smart people might be able to 'read' thoughts, if of
course they can be readable. The stuff of science fiction of course,
but who knows?
But in the meantime, I'll satisfy myself with the scientific method.
But I do like a good sci fi though.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>A42 describes how humans collectively manufactured an imaginary being
and then you sidetrack the issue with, who & how one defines what
about these manufactured entities. Concocted stories that come without
any evidential foundation, remain simple stories. Santa, Easter Bunny,
magic carpenters, virgin births etc etc.
I can also see you've got this laboured viewpoint on the use of the
term fundamentalism too and so try to attach it's perjorative meaning
to atheists.
If you wish to call me a fundamentalist Atheist, in the sense that I
hold true the tenet that the scientific method is a preferred method
to explain my surroundings as apposed to accepting banal woogity
boogity stories from ignorant prestidigiatators or that I despise the
wickedness of relgious indoctrination, then fine, I'm a Atheist
fundamantalist, just for you.
But personally, I much prefer the simple explanation, that I lack a
belief in God(s) or the supernatural.
You know the drum. Provide evidence. Anything, please I beg you.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>it. Of course, the nutters despise being ridiculed (I mean who
doesn't), but I think it's just that when their foolishness is brought
to the surface for all to examine, and then one applies the blowtorch
of comedic brevity on it, it's lunacy become magnified a hundred fold.
For the life of me, I couldn't begin to know, what a nutter would say,
when you simply state their all religious observances are silly
demonstrations of woogity boogity. Really, whay could they say in
their defence?
I mean for goodness sakes, the catholics have a Chief
Excorcist................Woogity Boogity woobidy boo.....!!!!!
Says it all eh?
On Mar 18, 4:14 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 7:02 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm an atheist too, but personally the questions you ask of
> > christians, you could also ask any other religion i.e. Islam,
> > Scientology, Mormonism whatever.
>
> > What's the common demoninator with everything here? Humans made up
> > stories and others believed them. That's it in a nutshell.
>
> > It's all woogity boogity. All of it.
>
> I like it!
>
> woogity boogity it is!
> ________________________________________
> We don't want government involved. When atheists become the majority
> in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to
> have "one nation under no God" inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.
> -- Michael Newdow
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 19, 3:30 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 7:18 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 17, 5:52 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 17, 1:15 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
> > > > by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
>
> > > Because clearly, I do not agree with your definition of God.
>
> > I would not expct you to do so since I did not provide any definition
> > of "god."
>
> Of course you did. You called God "an imaginary being that was created
> by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?"
>
> That is what you believe God to be.
LL: So if I asked you what a leprechaun is and you said ie's a
mythical being from Irish folklore that would amount to your belief in
leprechauns? Woogity Boogity it is.
*****************************
grisha
<gralmgralm@gmail.com>On Mar 17, 2:09 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lincoln
>
> > Welcome to AvC.
>
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> > > wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> > > divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> > > who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> > > the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> > > torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> > > the right religion.
>
> > I'm an atheist so I can't answer your questions but do have one for you
> > related to your last point.
>
> > What is the difference between your conception of God and his
> > inter-relationship with man than the Christian one?
>
> I don't think it's really a matter of Jewish vs. Christian conceptions
> of God, although they differ, of course. There are also tremendous
> differences within both (and every other large) religion.
>
> My concept of God, and certainly of what God wants from us, is much
> closer to Martin Luther King than to Meir Kahane, even though Kahane
> worshipped with the same prayers as I. Prayers are merely a form. What
> counts is working for peace, tolerance, equality, justice, mercy, and
> charity. And I learned THAT from my father--an atheist.
>
> Lincoln
Mrs. P
<ginampina@comcast.net>laugh!
I for one have always been faithful, but have never considered myself
to
to be religious. It is my feeling that religion says, "come only if"
while
faithfullness says "come as you are...just come".
The legalistic perspectives of many religious organizations are
exclusionary,
to say the least, and the judgment that they pass on their brothers
and sisters
is not the way of the Lord in my view.
We all have an innate desire to know God, or at least something
greater
and more powerful than ourselves. For all that is not in our control
is seemingly
life threatening, and yet we truly are that to which we pray.
It is my belief that God is in us in Spirit, and when our bodies die,
we return to God
in Spirit form, and that we do so regardless of what religious
community we join.
However, it does seem difficult to imagine the gravitation towards God
upon death
if we live our lives in disbelief, so this may be the result of a
forgotten soul, which
in my mind is what manifests as hell.
I could go on and on about this subject in fact, but I would prefer an
interactive
conversation, so I will stop with this thought. We are not human
beings having a
Spiritual experience, we are Spiritual beings having a human
experience.
Sincerely,
Mrs. P
On Mar 15, 5:20 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's assume, for discussion's sake, that you convince me that if I
> die a religious Jew (which is what I am), I will suffer an eternity of
> torture. But, if I accept that Jesus died for our sins and become a
> Christian, I will enjoy an eternity of paradise.
>
> So naturally, for purely selfish reasons, I become a Christian. But
> that leaves me with a lot of questions:
>
> 1) Do I have to become the right kind of Christian? As I understand
> it, Catholics don't believe that Protestants go to heaven, and some
> Protestants feel the same way towards Catholics. Will I be punished
> with Hell for picking the wrong Church?
>
> 2) I'm completely comfortable around gays, and belong to a Synagogue
> that's been performing gay weddings for 20 years. Can i join a
> similarly gay-friendly church (there are plenty of them) and still go
> to heaven.
>
> 3) Can I still vote Democratic?
>
> 4) How can one truly be happy in Heaven when you know that the vast
> majority of people, including in my case my parents and (in all
> probability) my children are burning in Hell? If you have any sort of
> compassion, that would be impossible.
>
> And now the big one:
>
> 5) Is believing enough, or do I also have to love God? Don't get me
> wrong; I very much DO love God, but my concept of the eternal and
> divine is very different from yours. I couldn't possibly love a God
> who created us as fallable beings subject to temptation, but considers
> the very fact that we can be tempted as proof that we deserve eternal
> torture, and offers us a way to escape said torture only by guessing
> the right religion.
>
> Lincoln
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Welcome to AvC.
Are you a Christian?
--
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.
--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>here that sorta sees it as i do. most here are locked into their
physical existence and really have no concept or appreciation of
spirit. its refreshing to hear from someone who does and states it
without the religious dogma that has a tendency to drown spiritual
growth, from my perspective ...
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Mar 20, 11:29 pm, "Mrs. P" <ginamp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Well Lincoln, I must say that you definately gave me a good hard
> laugh!
>
> I for one have always been faithful, but have never considered myself
> to
> to be religious. It is my feeling that religion says, "come only if"
> while
> faithfullness says "come as you are...just come".
Equivocating on the word "religious" does not mean you aren't
religious if you believe in God and Spirit.
> The legalistic perspectives of many religious organizations are
> exclusionary,
> to say the least, and the judgment that they pass on their brothers
> and sisters
> is not the way of the Lord in my view.
Just because you don't like religious institutions doesn't mean you
aren't religious:
re·li·gious adjective (from dictionary.com)
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a
religious man.
All you have to do is be pious, devout, or godly to be religious. It
doesn't say you have to be a member of an organization.
> We all have an innate desire to know God, or at least something
> greater
> and more powerful than ourselves.
How do you explain atheists then? I'm an atheist, and I don't have the
innate desire to be part of some cosmic spiritual hierarchy, at all. I
find the idea kind of repulsive, actually. That kind of thinking has
led to a lot of totalitarianism, which I despise.
> For all that is not in our control
> is seemingly
> life threatening, and yet we truly are that to which we pray.
>
> It is my belief that God is in us in Spirit, and when our bodies die,
> we return to God
> in Spirit form, and that we do so regardless of what religious
> community we join.
Please provide objective and verifiable evidence of "Spirit" and
"God."
> However, it does seem difficult to imagine the gravitation towards God
> upon death
> if we live our lives in disbelief, so this may be the result of a
> forgotten soul, which
> in my mind is what manifests as hell.
Here you sound a lot like an exclusionary religious institution.
Until you support your religious claims with valid evidence, they are
rationally explained as wishful thinking (at least) on your part.
> I could go on and on about this subject in fact, but I would prefer an
> interactive
> conversation, so I will stop with this thought. We are not human
> beings having a
> Spiritual experience, we are Spiritual beings having a human
> experience.
I'm not a "Spiritual being," and physiologically there is nothing
different between you and me besides our sex organs. So the rational
explanation is that you are imagining things.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone who
enthusiastically rejects the notion of such. i would not spend much
time responding to his uninspired commentary or you will find yourself
in a tornado, constantly having to reflect off the same circular posts
over and over and over again ad nauseum ... i know your spirit wont be
affected by this, but you might find yourself getting a bit
dizzy ... ;^-)
On Mar 21, 2:29 am, "Mrs. P" <ginamp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> dont mind neil mrs p ... hes just stuck in his spiritless rut and
> doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone who
> enthusiastically rejects the notion of such.
Why would I accept the notion of "spirit" when you have no evidence
for it?
> i would not spend much
> time responding to his uninspired commentary or you will find yourself
> in a tornado, constantly having to reflect off the same circular posts
> over and over and over again ad nauseum ...
How is it "circular" to ask for evidence?
> i know your spirit wont be
> affected by this, but you might find yourself getting a bit
> dizzy ... ;^-)
Dizziness might explain your unsupported religious beliefs, but I
think Narcissistic Personality Disorder explains them better.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>On Mar 21, 7:15 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:Why would I accept the notion of "spirit" when you have no evidence
> dont mind neil mrs p ... hes just stuck in his spiritless rut and
> doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone who
> enthusiastically rejects the notion of such.
for it?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Mar 21, 7:51 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 7:15 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > dont mind neil mrs p ... hes just stuck in his spiritless rut and
> > > doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone who
> > > enthusiastically rejects the notion of such.
>
> > Why would I accept the notion of "spirit" when you have no evidence
> > for it?
>
> Ah, I may not be able to tell you how I feel. But the *peace that passeth
> understanding* sure is a good way to know
If it "passeth understanding" then why do you pretend that you
understand it?
> -- know with a knowledge that you
> are in *Christ Jesus* having the Holy Spirit as your down payment in the
> here and now.
You've already said you don't understand it, so I'm not about to
believe that you "know" about 'spirit.'
> Ah, such joy and peace that Jesus gives when all we have to do is believe
> that *God raised Jesus from the dead* -- wow, I like this great swap -- the
> waters fine - come on in.
Sorry, I'm don't have to embrace a delusion in order to be find joy
and peace. And the religious seem more panicked than joyful or happy
to me in the first place.
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>"Spirit" is and where do I find it? And how do I know it's the gooddy
"Spirit"?
After all, go to Africa, in fact you'll find them in any Christian
country, people claiming to be so full of the "Spirit" that they're
willing to beat the shit out of any one they think are full of the
baddy "Spirit"!
Must be difficult for you people, believing you have this "Spirit",
knowing how to differentiate between the "Spirit" and mental sickness.
I mean, if the "Spirit" feeling tells you to harm someone is it the
god "Spirit" doing the harm or simply you? How do you know if someone
committing harm on the "Spirit" orders is not getting the message from
your "Spirit"?
Strange things these "Spirit" beliefs!!
"Isn’t killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of
insanity?" – Arthur C. Clarke
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>
On Mar 21, 7:51 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>If it "passeth understanding" then why do you pretend that you
> > On Mar 21, 7:15 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > dont mind neil mrs p ... hes just stuck in his spiritless rut and
> > > doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone who
> > > enthusiastically rejects the notion of such.
>
> > Why would I accept the notion of "spirit" when you have no evidence
> > for it?
>
> Ah, I may not be able to tell you how I feel. But the *peace that passeth
> understanding* sure is a good way to know
understand it?
You've already said you don't understand it, so I'm not about to
> -- know with a knowledge that you
> are in *Christ Jesus* having the Holy Spirit as your down payment in the
> here and now.
believe that you "know" about 'spirit.'
> Ah, such joy and peace that Jesus gives when all we have to do is believeSorry, I'm don't have to embrace a delusion in order to be find joy
> that *God raised Jesus from the dead* -- wow, I like this great swap -- the
> waters fine - come on in.
and peace. And the religious seem more panicked than joyful or happy
o me in the first place.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>evidence of it becomes circular when it is continuously prompted for,
even though one has tried over and over to explain to you that nobody
can lead you to it, or explain it to you, or prove it to you. please
try to grasp this neil, so that maybe, just maybe, we can move on.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>that maybe you and neil can finally see it. of course, being such an
abject skeptic, your chance of actually finding it there is very
doubtful ...
many things seem strange to those who have not experienced them. funny
how something so wonderful to one person, is strange, fantastical, non-
existent, etc to another, but thats the nature of the beast it
seems ...
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Mar 21, 11:58 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> to repeat ad nauseum ... 'spirit' is found within ...
The rational explanation is that you have narcissistically renamed
your thoughts and feelings as 'spirit" to make yourself sound holy.
> asking for
> evidence of it becomes circular when it is continuously prompted for,
That makes no sense. But I can understand why you want to discourage
me from asking for evidence to support your wild religious claims,
since you haven't got any.
> even though one has tried over and over to explain to you that nobody
> can lead you to it, or explain it to you, or prove it to you.
Then I have no reason to believe that anybody has led them to it, or
explained it to them, or proved it to them, and that 'spirit' is just
a figment of their imagination, or a product of their insanity, or a
narcissistic lie.
> please
> try to grasp this neil, so that maybe, just maybe, we can move on.
I grasp it as the irrational bleatings of a disturbed mind. Please try
to grasp that it is rational to require evidence for claims of
existence, particularly extraordinary claims that a higher being
resides within your intestines, or the like.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Mar 21, 11:53 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 7:51 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 21, 7:15 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > dont mind neil mrs p ... hes just stuck in his spiritless rut and
> > > > > doesnt really mean any harm. its hard to explain spirit to someone
> > who
> > > > > enthusiastically rejects the notion of such.
>
> > > > Why would I accept the notion of "spirit" when you have no evidence
> > > > for it?
>
> > > Ah, I may not be able to tell you how I feel. But the *peace that
> > passeth
> > > understanding* sure is a good way to know
>
> > If it "passeth understanding" then why do you pretend that you
> > understand it?
>
> Because the peace is all the way down in my belly
Argument from incredulity fallacies are not evidence that you can know
something that you said no one can know. Just because you feel really,
really, super duper peaceful is not enough to convince me that God
exists. But I'm glad you feel peaceful. So do I.
> -- I cannot explain to you
> what it is all about --
Then I have no reason to believe you know what it is all about.
> but I know the Holy Spirit fills us up to
> overflowing and the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ is so much more
> than you can ever put into words. The Bible calls it *passeth
> understanding*.
Which means that it is beyond understanding. Which raises the
question, how can you claim to understand something that is beyond
understanding? After all, you just finished explaining it to me - "the
Holy Spirit fills us up" etc. Why explain something that you can't
understand? It makes me think that, besides having no evidence that
Spirit exists, you don't know what you're talking about.
> > > -- know with a knowledge that you
> > > are in *Christ Jesus* having the Holy Spirit as your down payment in the
> > > here and now.
>
> > You've already said you don't understand it, so I'm not about to
> > believe that you "know" about 'spirit.'
>
> To explain the Holy Spirit I think one would have to be able to explain
> another dimension where you are living only in a Spirit world, where flesh
> and blood have already lost their power.
I'll assume that you've never been to another dimension where you are
only living in a Spirit world, so I will conclude that you have no
idea what you are talking about.
> > > Ah, such joy and peace that Jesus gives when all we have to do is believe
> > > that *God raised Jesus from the dead* -- wow, I like this great swap --
> > the
> > > waters fine - come on in.
>
> > Sorry, I'm don't have to embrace a delusion in order to be find joy
> > and peace. And the religious seem more panicked than joyful or happy
> > o me in the first place.
>
> Wow! I understand what you are saying when you say the *religious seem more
> panicked* - yep, that is what I watch now.
Thea - you're one of them. You seem especially panicked to me, and
your fear is expressed as holy giddiness. Which is sweet, and nice,
but not at all what I want out of life. I want to go through life with
my eyes wide open.
> At least here in the lower 48, there is panic over everything - jobs,
> housing, food prices, etc. and I know that God fed Elijah by sending a
> Raven to feed him - and Israel was well fed in the wilderness, and Noah was
> fed, and I too, will be well fed.
I can rationally explain your being well fed as the product of your
having worked and earned some kind of pension. No god belief
required.
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > 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<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
LL
<llpens@aol.com>
LL: I concur. You've hit the nail on the head.
************************************
grisha
<gralmgralm@gmail.com>How about words, reactions? Very physical.
On Mar 18, 6:49 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you find physical evidence of a thought? ... no? hmmm ... guess
> that means that thoughts dont exist, right? ime, 'god' is not physical
> so you will never find any such evidence of such. this seemingly will
> ensure that your skepticsim will remain intact, since you seemingly
> expect others to point the way for you.
>
> > > On Mar 16, 7:02 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm an atheist too, but personally the questions you ask of
> > > > christians, you could also ask any other religion i.e. Islam,
> > > > Scientology, Mormonism whatever.
>
> > > > What's the common demoninator with everything here? Humans made up
> > > > stories and others believed them. That's it in a nutshell.
>
> > > > It's all woogity boogity. All of it.
>
> > > > Juadaism is woogity boogity, as is Christianity, Islam and all the
> > > > other folk and neo religions.
>
> > > > They've all got their narrative, beliefs, symbolism and practices, but
> > > > the foundation stomes are all the same.
>
> > > > Nil evidence. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
>
> > > > Plenty of claims sure, but nothing.
>
> > > > Woogity Boogity.
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Why do you thing that there are no physical evidences for thoughts?
How about words, reactions? Very physical.
MRI Scans are being used to detect memories and thought processes and now can determine the difference.
The number of physical things that can't be measured is being reduced rapidly as we come up with new technologies which allow us to do that.
--
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Why do you thing that there are no physical evidences for thoughts?
> How about words, reactions? Very physical.
Not only that but I challenge anyone to demonstrate to me something
mental happening without something physical preceding it in the brain.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe." - Einstein
"Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear
them and be influenced by them for good or ill."
[Buddha]
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>you?
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> where would you guys be without someone else finding evidence for
> you?
We find evidence for each other, genius.
So I looked inside and didn't find any 'spirit.' So unless you have
something else to offer, I'm concluding that 'spirit' is just your
hallucination/delusion/lie.
grisha
<gralmgralm@gmail.com>e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>just wondering, cuz im nosey ...
grisha
<gralmgralm@gmail.com>thoughts.
On Mar 21, 2:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> > > insanity?" – Arthur C. Clarke- Hide quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> can you describe something of significance you have found evidence of?
Nothing internationally significant, but I can dream. I'm pretty sure
I coined the term "multiverse," though, about thirty years ago, to a
frightened physics major. I stand ready to be corrected.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Even before all that high technology we had physical evidences of
thoughts.
Yes we did but that technology confirms what was just a subjective perception before.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 21, 3:59 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> where would you guys be without someone else finding evidence for
> you?
LL: Show it to us, E space, if you've provided it, we must have missed
it. Why keep it a secret?
************************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 21, 4:24 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you describe something of significance you have found evidence of?
> just wondering, cuz im nosey ...
LL: We can all show evidence of your ignorance, though, I admit,
that's not particularly significant.
On a more significant level, we can show you evidence that the earth
revolves around the sun--despite the fact that nobody in the bible
knew this. Would that be significant enough for you?
******************
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>the time to post to me? how do i have to the power to upset so many
here? any ideas? you know LL, you shouldnt bring yourself down from
your self imagined lofty position of intelligence to communicate with
such a loser as i ... think about it ... isnt it demeaning to you? if
so, why dont you quit, especially since you never say anything worth
responding to.
when you say "we" can show you evidence that the earth revolves around
the sun, who are you talking about? i asked neil what evidence HE had
provided about anything, not the entire scientific society from the
history of the planet. i didnt even ask you, so why are you
responding? of course, i wouldnt mind hearing about what great
contributions you have made to providing evidence of anything
significant. anything come to mind? no?
you are a result of what you have read and been taught ... i guess
thats something to polish your gold star about isnt it? all that i am
suggesting in regards to the concept of 'god', is that one try to
figure it out themselves, instead of simply reflecting off the words
of others. why are you having such a problem with that? hmmmm???
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>Seems like these "Spirit" believers don't have one single original
thought between them, stealing trite, second rate and meaningless
quotes like, LOOK INSIDE OF YOURSELF to answer questions!!!!!
And how does one, "LOOK INSIDE OF YOURSELF" to find little old Ms/
Mr."Spirit"????
> > insanity?" – Arthur C. Clarke- Hide quoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>inside, so i suggest you simply move on. there are more productive
things for you to do, you know, like read the thoughts and
determinations of others. finding anything worthwhile within yourself
is not likely to produce much of any value from all indications.
skepticism is not solid grounds for headway, so enjoy the physical
nature of your life and wait for the next article from science weekly
to expand your knowledge base, or lack thereof. dont concern yourself
with the fact that many books you have read (or not), where written by
people who introspected. im not sure if you have ever heard of that
word, and really, i dont suggest you do so. barking up a tree with no
cat in it is really quite a waste of time.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>LOOK INSIDE OF YOURSELF? What the f..k does that mean?
Seems like these "Spirit" believers don't have one single original
thought between them, stealing trite, second rate and meaningless
quotes like, LOOK INSIDE OF YOURSELF to answer questions!!!!!
And how does one, "LOOK INSIDE OF YOURSELF" to find little old Ms/
Mr."Spirit"????
The problem is that something like introspection can be done both constructively and not constructively.
Self-reflection in order to become a better person and re-evaluate one's self, attitudes, approaches, etc. is a constructive approach use of introspection.
Contemplative navel gazing is a useless and rather narcissistic approach to introspection and can only lead to self-delusion.
The psychology of the two approaches is very different but the term can, and often is used by some to give unwarranted credence to the second.
"This phenomenon has been termed the introspection illusion and has been used to explain some cognitive biases[7] and belief in some paranormal phenomena.[8] When making judgements about themselves, subjects treat their own introspections as reliable, whereas they judge other people based on their behavior.[9] This can lead to illusions of superiority."
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> lol ... if im so ignorant, why are you and your ilk bothering to take
> the time to post to me?
Because you are trying to spread your ignorance. History shows how
dangerous that can be. You'd know that if you ever studied history.
> how do i have to the power to upset so many
> here?
You are willing to sacrifice participating in rational dialogue for
behaving like an asshole, and assholes tend to upset people. Anyone
could do it, but most of us like being invited to parties. You've
obviously given up.
> any ideas? you know LL, you shouldnt bring yourself down from
> your self imagined lofty position of intelligence to communicate with
> such a loser as i ... think about it ... isnt it demeaning to you? if
> so, why dont you quit, especially since you never say anything worth
> responding to.
Hilarious that you keep responding to her. Man, are you oblivious.
> when you say "we" can show you evidence that the earth revolves around
> the sun, who are you talking about? i asked neil what evidence HE had
> provided about anything, not the entire scientific society from the
> history of the planet. i didnt even ask you, so why are you
> responding?
You've been posting here for how long now and you still haven't
figured out how it works?
LL can jump in anytime; in fact, it's a relief.
> of course, i wouldnt mind hearing about what great
> contributions you have made to providing evidence of anything
> significant. anything come to mind? no?
Ummm...hey, genius. What contributions have YOU made to providing
anything significant?
> you are a result of what you have read and been taught ...
So are you, in a reactionary kind of way. And you`re here trying to
teach us about `god`and our wicked ways, so you`re a complete
hypocrite about this. And I don't see how your personal hallucinations
and delusions are in any way superior to the accumulated knowledge of
humanity.
> i guess
> thats something to polish your gold star about isnt it?
Only a pathological narcissist would think that someone is worthless
if they exchange knowledge with others.
> all that i am
> suggesting in regards to the concept of 'god', is that one try to
> figure it out themselves, instead of simply reflecting off the words
> of others.
"Agreeing with others that you are full of shit" does not equal
"reflecting off the words of others." It doesn`t take much to "look
within" and find that 'god' isn't there.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 22, 3:46 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol ... if im so ignorant, why are you and your ilk bothering to take
> the time to post to me?
LL: Yes, I've asked myself the same question.
e-space: how do i have to the power to upset so many
> here? any ideas?
LL: You aren't upsetting anyone. We're just amazed.
e space you know LL, you shouldnt bring yourself down from
> your self imagined lofty position of intelligence to communicate with
> such a loser as i ... think about it ... isnt it demeaning to you? if
> so, why dont you quit,
LL: I'm considering it.
e space: especially since you never say anything worth
> responding to.
LL: I could say the same thing about you--why should take yourself
down from your self-imagined lofty position of intelligence to respond
to people you can't stand. Why are you doing it? Isn't it demeaning to
you?
>
e space when you say "we" can show you evidence that the earth
revolves around
> the sun, who are you talking about? i asked neil what evidence HE had
> provided about anything, not the entire scientific society from the
> history of the planet. i didnt even ask you, so why are you
> responding?
LL: I hate to burst your balloon e space, but this is an open forum.
Do you know what that means? Evidently that is simply one more or many
things you don't understand.
e space: of course, i wouldnt mind hearing about what great
> contributions you have made to providing evidence of anything
> significant. anything come to mind? no?
LL: I haven't provided evidence but I can understand other people's
evidence. How about you? You haven't provided any evidence of
anything, either, but in addition you have shown that you don't have a
clue about anyone else's evidence either. Seems to me you're in a much
worse position than I am.
>
> you are a result of what you have read and been taught ... i guess
> thats something to polish your gold star about isnt it?
LL: Yes, I'm the result of what I've read and been taught and been
able to analyze. That lets you out.
e space all that i am
> suggesting in regards to the concept of 'god', is that one try to
> figure it out themselves, instead of simply reflecting off the words
> of others. why are you having such a problem with that? hmmmm???
LL: Yes, I have a problem with anyone who is so ignorant that he can't
understand what other people are thinking and the evidence that others
provide. Why don't you get an education instead of your constant,
unproductive navel gazing?
"Education in the broadest sense is any act or experience that has a
formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an
individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which
society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and
values from one generation to another."
But, of course, you receive nothing from society and its accumulated
knowledge. You are too busy looking inside yourself.
*********************************
**********************************
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>e space: especially since you never say anything worth
> responding to.
LL: I could say the same thing about you--why should take yourself
down from your self-imagined lofty position of intelligence to respond
to people you can't stand. Why are you doing it? Isn't it demeaning to
you?
I think this explains it rather well ;-)
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c88cd56c3181d55b?hl=en
<snipped>
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 22, 10:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > e space: especially since you never say anything worth
> > > responding to.
>
> > LL: I could say the same thing about you--why should take yourself
> > down from your self-imagined lofty position of intelligence to respond
> > to people you can't stand. Why are you doing it? Isn't it demeaning to
> > you?
>
> I think this explains it rather well ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c88cd56c31...
LL: Indeed!
********************
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>stand you. until then, you shall remain just someone harmless to play
with, although your threesome is getting a bit long in the tooth.
throw in something new on occasion will you please?
in regards to the sour grapes scenario ... if i ever became void like
your lot, i would actually feel worried, until then, i couldnt make a
thimble full of sour grape juice from any desire to be like you, in
fact the thought is downright scarey ... id start having nightmares
about it, but feel safe that the day will thankfully never come ...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Mar 22, 12:32 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> when you become more significant to me, maybe i will feel that i cant
> stand you. until then, you shall remain just someone harmless to play
> with, although your threesome is getting a bit long in the tooth.
> throw in something new on occasion will you please?
>
> in regards to the sour grapes scenario ... if i ever became void like
> your lot, i would actually feel worried, until then, i couldnt make a
> thimble full of sour grape juice from any desire to be like you, in
> fact the thought is downright scarey ... id start having nightmares
> about it, but feel safe that the day will thankfully never come ...
LL: No comment. No comment necessary.
****************************
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume, for discussion's...
>
> read more »
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>expect
suggesting one looks inside to find spirit is being an asshole? oh i
get it, you mean talking to you is being an asshole. youre right, i
really dont know why i do it, its SO unproductive. wasting time in the
void if you will, but oh well, i only do it during downtimes. and
believe me neil, if happiness wasnt so inherent, youd bring me down.
your negativity is tangible. but as it is, you and your cohorts are
just little playthings that allow me to keep my sassy edge without
feeling tooooo bad about it. so continue to knock yourself out, i know
how hungry your obsession is and really, i would feel bad if i took
that away from you ;^-)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>
--
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.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>no idea about other than what you were told. to me, thats the height
of gullibility. i know one thing for sure, i learned a LOT more about
myself and about spirit by introspecting than i did from years of
going to church. but to each their own i guess ...
btw, did you get a sex change to be like a girl?
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>Read what you've wrote and THINK about it. "one who does not believe
in spirit should not waste their time looking inside."
You've just offered proof that old Ms/ Mr."Spirit" is only a figment
and creation of the imaginations of those who want, or have a blind
belief in so-called "Spirits". Because, without that self-created
belief, "Spirits" can't be imagined and, like you say, "one who does
not believe in spirit should not waste their time".
Isn't it sad to see people imagine and look for imaginary invisble
friends, "Spirits", when there are billions of real people in the
world?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>seemingly have neither, so all im suggestiong is that you dont waste
your time. diamonds are wonderful, but you wont find any without
looking. of course, you can buy a diamond, but unlike diamonds, spirit
cannot be bought.
btw, i am not capable of offering proof of spirit, or lack therof, so
im not sure how your mind came up with that thought. on the other
hand, the more i read your commentary, the more sense your misguided
posts make.
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>you discover nothing!!!
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> On Mar 18, 7:18 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 17, 5:52 pm, Lincoln <lincolnspec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 17, 1:15 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do explain to me how you can love an imaginary being that was created
> > > > by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?
>
> > > Because clearly, I do not agree with your definition of God.
>
> > I would not expct you to do so since I did not provide any definition
> > of "god."
>
> Of course you did. You called God "an imaginary being that was created
> by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago?"
>
> That is what you believe God to be.
Semantic shenanigans aside, I do not BELIEVE that this is what gods
are, IT IS what gods are.
Any evidence that it is not the case?
Every single bit of evidence regarding gods indicate that it is the
case.
So, if you want to rephrase my sentence, try this:
"
Gods (insert your definition) are imaginary beings that were created
by human collectives based on atavistic fears eons ago.
"
See?
I am not so much defining gods as stating where they came from.
> You'll probably want to respond to that with something on the order of
> "No, that's what God is." That, of course, is the answer of a
> fundamentalist.
See Max's reply regarding that pejorative sentence, I concur with his
views.
___________________________________________
There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who
cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and
that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares
not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly,
that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are
disputed.
-- Bertrand Russell
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>"i am not capable of offering proof of spirit, or lack therof"
and as you've already indicated time and again that you find it
impossible to explain your spirituality, could you at least elaborate
on how your personal spirituality manifests itself to you. If you
can't then you are illiterate, lieing or simply recalcitrant.
I don't doubt that you have feelings, or ideas, or dreams, or desires
or any number of things that may in themselves or in combination give
you some sensual euphoria, however if those senses of yours are active
then;
Is it like thea, where you get feelings right down in your belly?
(Best not to ask for a greater understanding of that one, me thinks)
Do you get tingling sensations?
Is it perhaps more ethereal than that. You know, no natural substance
to it!
You gotta be honest though e_space.
You assert that we all should look for our own spirituality, but you
yourself cannot explain it.
Is there any possibility that simply put, your belief in whatever
spirituality you think you experience, may in fact be just an
unexplained physical sensual phenomonena that you mistakenly explain
as something supernatural?
Is that possible & if not, why not?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>obviously just a bunch of hogwash to the spiritually void. its like
climbing a mountain with no summit and therefore getting a bit tiring,
especially as you astutely observed, i have been saying it over and
over. my words have not snagged so far, so i'll just pass on your
questions ... cheers
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Mar 23, 4:15 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> im always honest, but im moving past trying to explain what is
> obviously just a bunch of hogwash to the spiritually void.
You never tried to explain what it is in the first place, you always
placed the burden of proof for 'spirit' on others. Which is,
ironically, dishonest.
> its like
> climbing a mountain with no summit and therefore getting a bit tiring,
> especially as you astutely observed, i have been saying it over and
> over. my words have not snagged so far, so i'll just pass on your
> questions ... cheers
Translation: you have no evidence for 'spirit.' You're a complete
sham.
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>cause, particularly your own. Frankly, it just sounds a bit churlish.
Look, here's the thing. Your WORDS alone, will never snag those that
seek answers evidentially or via the scientific method.
There are still people who believe in witch doctors, faith healers and
all manner of hocus pocus, but what you must understand is that WORDS
on their own, count for little.
If you're mandate here is to convince others to look within, then
these are just empty WORDS. If you claim that if one believes they
have a spirit within (sans evidence) then again these are just WORDS.
WORDS on there own, do not cut it it.
The validity of a belief does not require artiface, empty rhetoric or
charismatic advocacy.
The validity of a belief does require evidence.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>wellbeing. thanks for the compassion though ;^-)
what you and your ilk dont seem to comprehend is that one has to find
evidence of spirit within themselves. please try very hard to
understand this. it is not something that can be translated from ones
experience to anothers comprehension. i dont think this is rocket
science, but you all seem to be having a VERY hard time grasping the
simplicity of the concept.
its similar to someone trying to prove evidence of love to another.
until you feel love inside, there is no evidence forthcoming. even if
there was a way to prove love, one would still not truly comprehend it
until they felt it. is there any portion of this that you understand?
i dont think so, so why should i keep banging my head against an
unmoveable object? doesnt make sense to me so i will cease and desist
such activity. now you guys can get back to what you love the most,
bashing todays xtians for what their forefathers said and did
thousands of years ago ;^-)
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>what you are trying to say. Most of my 'ilk' really do understand what
you are saying.
What you don't seem to understand is that many people of our 'ilk'
choose to use other words and rationale for the varied and diverse
human emotions and feelings we encounter or display fropm time to
time.
I would argue that both you & I would encounter pretty much the same
feelings and emotions in various ways and over different scenarios. I
would think that all humans broadly experience, happiness, love, hate,
anger, jealousy, ambition, fear and any other number of emotions.
So why would you expect that I couldn't experience any or all
'feelings' that you experience. I may well experience exactly that,
that you do, however the simple difference is that I call it something
else, like being 'awestruck' at the sheer magnificence of towering
mountains or marvelling at the joys of seeing my children achieve, or
the euphoria of falling in love.
Clearly, there are physiological things happening to my body, that
allow me to recognise these 'feelings'.
But I don't use a default position that any particular feeling,
emotion or reaction is supernaturally based.
I mean why should I?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>awestruck feeling of looking at a majestic mountain, the joy of an
offsprings acheivements, even falling in love with another person. the
experiences that i have failed to describe, which i refer to as
'spirit energy', have nothing to do with physical things, there is no
imagery of material items, there is nothing to do with our planet
whatsoever.
the experiences lie outside of a nature rush, or the thrill of
interpersonal goosebumps ... and this is one of the main reasons why
they are impossible to portray, which is why i simply suggest that if
someone has the desire and the motivation to attempt to find out more
about 'spirit, then they should introspect a bit more, and then these
things may become evident to them on a personal level, which is the
only place to realize them fme. this concept is absolutely scoffed at
by most here, or simply not commented on. its sorta like nobody has
heard of, or contemplated, meditation, and this kinda boggles my mind.
so really, why talk about it?
like i said, why not revert back to debating the pros and cons of
believing in the abrahamic God. after all, this group IS called aVSc,
with emphasis on VS. i dont mind the fact that it is typically a war
zone, but the repitition gets a bit stale to me, although most here
seem to revel in it.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -