Daily Spirit-guided WDJW health tip for 03/13/09
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
(hungrier) than ever.
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
Amen.
A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?
Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?
Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any
time:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?
What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a
catastrophic Pan-Flu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU
How to not be fearful:
Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah,
the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?"
(WDJW):
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Jesus is LORD, forever !!!
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Humans made up gods and christs. Really. They made the
stuff up. It was invented, manufactured, spread. It's not true.
Really. Trust me on this one. There are no gods or christs.
They're human-created myths. They're = nothing. They're
powerless, worthless, leftover remnants of humanity's early
journey into self-awareness.
Live for today. Live for one another. Live for your children
and your children's children. Love, live long, and prosper.
Life is certain. Live for what you know and drop the myths
from ancient humanity's origins.
You want hope? Hope that your life continues based on the
laws of science and physics and the natural world. Work
towards extending a pleasant existence as long as possible
in this world. Don't waste your life based on the myths of
the past. Those myths are delusional. They're lies. They're
hopeless journeys to nowhere. They're manipulative and
false. They lead to despair and hopelessness. Don't pray.
Don't fear. Depend on that which you know, this life, and
drop the ancient lies and hatreds from humanity's origins.
Thanks for your consideration. May you be at peace,
henceforth and forevermore, based on real hope in this
real world we all know and share.
- - -
Amen.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/11194899724b810d?
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Churches
It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
truth is expressed. Churches tend to shortcut the belief
modality in order to treat "_____" (insert beliefs here) as
truth.
So, "let's pray to god" is said instead of "let's talk to what
may be listening and we really don't know exists but we
believe it does 'cause hey, if we didn't, why would we be
talkin' to it"?
In other words, dealing on a realistic basis with a silent and
invisible something is not the mode of operation churches
choose to go by - since they choose to shortcut the beliefs
required to construct a silent and invisible god, their version
of truth becomes anything they want you to believe is true.
Blind Belief
In other words, it's not truth but blind belief that they're
pushing - calling it truth doesn't change the fact that it's
blind belief - unsubstantiated and highly questionable as
to its worthiness as a way of life.
Search for truth is ever open to probative change and
reconsideration, ever-evolving, ever-seeking, searching,
questioning, doubting, re-investigating, researching,
probing, thinking, pondering, comparing hypotheses,
testing solutions to problems, calling beliefs into question,
testing them, all-in-all a mentally stimulating and invigorat-
ing process.
Dark Rooms
Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any informa-
tion which might threaten the belief - truth is, blind belief
is a room without windows and without light and if any
windows appear and open up or if any light appears, blind
faith demands that the windows be closed/covered up and
the light be stamped out as quickly as possible, lest the
faith suffer and die out.
It's a rather braindead and close-minded way to approach
life, in my opinion, 'cause there you are, in a room without
windows, in the dark, talking to nothing and pretending it's
something and, well, as evidenced by the vast array of reli-
gions, then it becomes a matter of which fantasy to follow -
dark rooms beget lots of fantasies, myths, and fears.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Churches
>It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
>truth is expressed.
Simply meet up with folks who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" and it
would be easy :-)
"Where two or more of you gather, I am right there with you." -- LORD
Jesus Christ to His people.
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://T3WiJ.com
Andrew E. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. House
wrote:
> Churches
> It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
> truth is expressed. Churches tend to shortcut the belief
> modality in order to treat "_____" (insert beliefs here) as
> truth.
>
> So, "let's pray to god" is said instead of "let's talk to what
> may be listening and we really don't know exists but we
> believe it does 'cause hey, if we didn't, why would we be
> talkin' to it"?
That seems too wordy. Perhaps we should come up with a simple phrase
or even a single word to mean the same thing and be much more
convenent. Or we could just call it faith.
> In other words, dealing on a realistic basis with a silent and
> invisible something is not the mode of operation churches
> choose to go by - since they choose to shortcut the beliefs
> required to construct a silent and invisible god, their version
> of truth becomes anything they want you to believe is true.
They don't see it as construction.
> Blind Belief
>
> In other words, it's not truth but blind belief that they're
> pushing
Also known as 'faith'.
>- calling it truth doesn't change the fact that it's
> blind belief
Yes, quite true.
>- unsubstantiated and highly questionable as
> to its worthiness as a way of life.
Questionable by whom and compared to what?
There are plenty of ways of life that some find questionable for
various reasons.
> Search for truth is ever open to probative change and
> reconsideration, ever-evolving, ever-seeking, searching,
> questioning, doubting, re-investigating, researching,
> probing, thinking, pondering, comparing hypotheses,
> testing solutions to problems, calling beliefs into question,
> testing them, all-in-all a mentally stimulating and invigorat-
> ing process.
Would it surprise you to hear thas some Christians are like that? The
fundamentalists leave the impression that there are not but there are.
> Dark Rooms
>
> Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
> journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any informa-
> tion which might threaten the belief -
What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
exists? Please provide that information now.
> truth is, blind belief
> is a room without windows and without light and if any
> windows appear and open up or if any light appears, blind
> faith demands that the windows be closed/covered up and
> the light be stamped out as quickly as possible, lest the
> faith suffer and die out.
It's not like we have a supreme being detector and got back foolproof
results.
> It's a rather braindead and close-minded way to approach
> life, in my opinion, 'cause there you are, in a room without
> windows, in the dark, talking to nothing and pretending it's
> something and, well, as evidenced by the vast array of reli-
> gions, then it becomes a matter of which fantasy to follow -
> dark rooms beget lots of fantasies, myths, and fears.
Perhaps you mean "talking to what might be nothing" or "talking to
what is most likely nothing". I'm sure you did not mean to assert
your blind belief as fact. It's kind of an ironic turn given your
thesis.
Regards,
House
I
> Churches
> It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
> truth is expressed. Churches tend to shortcut the belief
> modality in order to treat "_____" (insert beliefs here) as
> truth.
Rather than God churches tend to emphasise the human Jesus of Nazareth.
This is further reinforced by calling the One God Yahweh "Lord" and also
calling the human Jesus of Nazareth "Lord". That is the "Confusion of
Lords".
> In other words, dealing on a realistic basis with a silent and
> invisible something is not the mode of operation churches
> choose to go by - since they choose to shortcut the beliefs
> required to construct a silent and invisible god, their version
> of truth becomes anything they want you to believe is true.
God is re-invented, reduced and packaged in a human form that can be talked
to the same as any other human.
> Blind Belief
>
> In other words, it's not truth but blind belief that they're
> pushing - calling it truth doesn't change the fact that it's
> blind belief - unsubstantiated and highly questionable as
> to its worthiness as a way of life.
One should have informed faith otherwise one is prey to belief in any silly
thing. I have informed faith in the operation of my computer. I have faith
that it will not blow up and injure me although I have limited understanding
of how a computer works. I have informed faith that my Weetbix packet will
not work as a computer.
> Search for truth is ever open to probative change and
> reconsideration, ever-evolving, ever-seeking, searching,
> questioning, doubting, re-investigating, researching,
> probing, thinking, pondering, comparing hypotheses,
> testing solutions to problems, calling beliefs into question,
> testing them, all-in-all a mentally stimulating and invigorat-
> ing process.
Yep! God is a journey and not an endpoint. (Fundamentalist Christians
think it is an endpoint.) In a journey one is always finding out new things
and changing one's view as a result. Life means change. If you never change
you are probably dead already.
> Dark Rooms
>
> Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
> journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any informa-
> tion which might threaten the belief - truth is, blind belief
> is a room without windows and without light and if any
> windows appear and open up or if any light appears, blind
> faith demands that the windows be closed/covered up and
> the light be stamped out as quickly as possible, lest the
> faith suffer and die out.
>
> It's a rather braindead and close-minded way to approach
> life, in my opinion, 'cause there you are, in a room without
> windows, in the dark, talking to nothing and pretending it's
> something and, well, as evidenced by the vast array of reli-
> gions, then it becomes a matter of which fantasy to follow -
> dark rooms beget lots of fantasies, myths, and fears.
I totally agree. Of particular worry is the fear factor in most religions.
Fear begets fear. One should have a love of truth and be fearless in
pursuing truth no matter what the cost. It does not benefit anyone to live a
lie.
--
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
Don Kirkman
<49bc4e5f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote:
>> Churches
>> It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
>> truth is expressed. Churches tend to shortcut the belief
>> modality in order to treat "_____" (insert beliefs here) as
>> truth.
>Rather than God churches tend to emphasise the human Jesus of Nazareth.
>This is further reinforced by calling the One God Yahweh "Lord" and also
>calling the human Jesus of Nazareth "Lord". That is the "Confusion of
>Lords".
This demonstrates the need for some acquaintance with the underlying
cultures and languages. The "Lord" [often "LORD"] in the older Jewish
scriptures and the "Lord" in the New Testament originated from
different languages and have different connotations. The problem is
that English doesn't always reflect what the originators of the text
understood or meant by them.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote ...
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote, in a post
> titled "Churches, Blind Belief, Dark Rooms",
> a report basically showing how churches were
> places where myths and blind faith are pro-
> moted, darkness is promoted, and the light
> of naturalistic verity is kept out. Andrew
> chose to respond to the 1st sentence and
> ignored the rest of the post ...
>> Churches
>>
>> It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
>> truth is expressed.
> Simply meet up with folks who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" and it
> would be easy :-)
Your "Jesus is Lord" obsession.
> "Where two or more of you gather, I am right there with you." -- LORD
> Jesus Christ to His people.
A claim. Any evidence? As for the implication
that he's not 'there' if only one human is 'there',
why would he disappear if only one human is
'there'? What happens to prayers when only
one human is 'there'?
> [...]
Many of you who disbelieve -or- doubt in the exist-
ence of any Gods are OK with God being given
credit for creation of the whole shebang ...
... and many of you of the doubt/disbelief view are
OK with God being worshipped by groups of peo-
ple the world over, but think about it, with all of the
evidence of a natural world and no God, how do
those of the doubt/disbelief view who are OK with
"them" (believers) worshipping and admiring and
adhering to the God thing reconcile the reality of
a natural world free of God with ...
... the worship of God?
So, you say, it's OK for them (believers) and it's
OK for them (believers) to guilt-trip / threaten /
blackmail their children into such beliefs and it's
OK for them (believers) to perpetuate the religious
myths to future generations absent any evidence
whatsoever that such guilt-trips mate to reality ...
... and I can't help but ask ...
"What about the children?"
I continue to fear for the children and I worry about
the children and the horrible nightmares and the fear
and the deaths, yes, the deaths that continue to result
to this very day from the horrible nightmares of fear
and blind faith which entrap the innocent in following
a path to despair and futility and ...
Please, people, wake up and realize that this whole
blind faith trip is not an innocent path to goodness and
positivity and wondrous joy but is, instead ...
A path which can lead to anti-humanism, loneliness,
despair, lies, desolation, and ...
Isn't about time that well-educated, logical, and reason-
able people drop excuses for religious faith, and OKs
for "them" (believers), and realize that it's long past time
for ...
... Humanity to face the reality of a real human world in
a real human existence of unknowns and mysteries and
searches for truth and openness to exploration free ...
... of the superstition and desperation of pre-scientific
humans without a clue ...
Please, see the pro-human morality of reaching beyond
the common conformist following-along motif of the
crowd mentality, and reaching out for the ...
... truth of that which it is to experience a natural world,
as a natural human being, depending on nothing more
than one another to make it through another day and
max out ...
... all that we can be, in this time, in this life, our *only*
one sure shot at it, free of guilt and fear and superstition
and reliance on risks inherent in humans knowing not of
the naturalistic totality of a world in which we do our best
to make it through every day, relying on one another to
be the best self each of us can possibly be.
Isn't about time that humanity face the truth of that which
we are and reach out to one another, not to the fictitious
human-created myths from our early advances into ex-
ploring what life is all about?
Isn't about time that humanity devote themselves full-time
to searching for answers in a naturalistic realm, and doing
the best we can to make sense of it all without relying on
ancient myths?
"All humans for all humans" ...
That, my friends, is the answer for the human condition,
not reliance on ancient fear-based superstition.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote ...
>
> > Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote, in a post
> > titled "Churches, Blind Belief, Dark Rooms",
> > a report basically showing how churches were
> > places where myths and blind faith are pro-
> > moted, darkness is promoted, and the light
> > of naturalistic verity is kept out. Andrew
> > chose to respond to the 1st sentence and
> > ignored the rest of the post ...
>
> >> Churches
> >>
> >> It's difficult to find a church where belief in god as the likely
> >> truth is expressed.
>
> > Simply meet up with folks who can publicly say "Jesus is LORD" and it
> > would be easy :-)
>
> Your "Jesus is Lord" obsession.
"... no one can say "Jesus is LORD" except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
Amen.
> > "Where two or more of you gather, I am right there with you." -- LORD
> > Jesus Christ to His people.
>
> A claim.
Fact corroborated by evidence.
> Any evidence?
Yes:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
> As for the implication
> that he's not 'there' if only one human is 'there',
> why would he disappear if only one human is
> 'there'?
It is not that HE disappeared but that we may have strayed from Him.
> What happens to prayers when only
> one human is 'there'?
If the one human is Jesus' disciple (either Jew of gentile), the
prayers are answered:
"Whatever you ask in My name will be done for you." -- LORD Jesus
Christ's exclusive promise to His disciples.
Amen.
This reminds me of my daughter telling me when she was 5 years old
that she was seeing monsters in the dark and these monsters were
entering into her dreams so that she was afraid to go to sleep.
Instead of telling her there were no such thing as monsters, ghosts,
or evil spirits, we prayed together, in Jesus' name, asking GOD to
keep scary things out of her dreams in order that her dreams be
sweeter.
The next morning she told me that she had a wonderful dream about
Krispy Kreme donuts. The Holy Spirit guided me to take her to a
Krispy Kreme donut shop to make her dream come true. She then asked
me how Jesus changed her dreams. The Holy Spirit guided me to say
"Jesus has GOD power because Jesus is LORD, which means HE is greater
than all things including scary looking monsters." Some nights later,
I heard her say "Jesus is LORD" in her sleep. Upon asking her about
this in the morning, she reported that she dreamed about seeing
monsters trying to come into her room during the night and that they
ran away when she said 'Jesus is LORD' because this made the whole
room light up.
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://WDJW.net
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-certified Cardiologist
> http://www.quackwatch.org/07PoliticalActivities/antiquackery.html
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
http://dave-grumpygit.blogspot.com/
Not authentic without this signature.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> On Mar 14, 4:48 am, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <prohuman...@ghg.net> wrote ...
>> [...]
>>
>> Search for truth is ever open to probative change and
>> reconsideration, ever-evolving, ever-seeking, searching,
>> questioning, doubting, re-investigating, researching,
>> probing, thinking, pondering, comparing hypotheses,
>> testing solutions to problems, calling beliefs into question,
>> testing them, all-in-all a mentally stimulating and invigorat-
>> ing process.
> Would it surprise you to hear thas some Christians are like that? The
> fundamentalists leave the impression that there are not but there are.
>> Dark Rooms
>>
>> Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
>> journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any informa-
>> tion which might threaten the belief -
> What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
> exists? Please provide that information now.
Evidence of No God
With a little liberty on thinking along the lines
of societies and cultures which live as if the
christian God (or muslim God or Jewish God
or some other God definition including the
multiple gods definition) is the Truth, the be-
all end-all of all, I think most can relate to the
way this position is presented.
Critical to this position is the idea of reality,
of having an experience with something like
the experience I'm having right now with my
keyboard and computer monitor, having
something that doesn't require human imag-
ination to be perceived and conceptualized,
that doesn't rely on ancient documents, that
doesn't leverage off of what others say but
is clearly evident and clearly real to the per-
sons having the experience. That's key in fol-
lowing the logic presented in the following:
Now, to defeat the "there is no god" state-
ment, you must provide a logical argument
for at least one god (or any god or all gods).
In that argument, you must either deal with
all other gods as equal to or as much a real-
ity as the selected god(s) or you must treat
all other gods as "there are no other gods
but the god(s) you've selected as existent
based on ______ as compared to the ab-
sence of existence for all other gods based
on ______".
Now, once you've boxed in your chosen
god(s), you must explain how you made
all the other gods disappear, as well as how
you eliminated all gods undefined and how
your selected god(s) avoided that massive
god-elimination event by which you've man-
aged to eliminate all gods but one (or a group
of more than one that you've chosen).
Really, a tough challenge for you there, as
once you make one god appear, assuming
you can do so, for that's all it takes to defeat
the argument "there is no god", how do you
prevent as many gods from appearing as one
can imagine and, furthermore, when does the
appearing god transition from imaginary to
reality, for such a transition must be required
to defeat the "there is no god" statement.
All it takes is a single god for you to defeat
the statement "there is no god", but if in do-
ing so, you defeat other gods imagined by
billions of people, in essence you've sup-
ported the position of "there is(are) only
the god(s) you've selected and only that
(those) god(s) is (are) real - all other gods
do not exist".
Your position then becomes "there are no
other gods than the god(s) you've selected".
Now, if god=nothing, "there is no god" is
a self-evident proposition, for nothing=god
and god=nothing is the same as "there is no
god".
Therefore, to falsify the statement, "there is
no god", the god must be something and if,
in creating or evidencing the something you
open the door to multiple somethings, then
god=somethings and the only valid statement
becomes "there are many gods."
But then, by definition of some of the many,
some claim their god(s) is(are) "the only", so
to defeat that argument you must disprove that
their god(s) is (are) "the only". Therein, you get
into the area of irreconcilable god(s) in which
all you've done is created an argument of
god(s) = impossibility.
To make any god(s) possible, god(s) must be
boxed in, as if humans could box in god(s),
and non-god(s) must be excluded. If that can-
not be done by humans, the god concept be-
comes an absurdity, an impossibility if you
will, a meaningless word with irreconcilable
definitions. One human's god(s) is(are) another
human's myths.
So, an absurd definition for god(s) yields an
absurdity ... god(s) = impossibility and impos-
sibility = god(s) are the same as "there is no
god".
Now, if in the unknown, you create god(s), you
must get it(them) out of the unknown to invali-
date the "there is no god" statement, for noth-
ing in the unknown can invalidate the statement.
To invalidate the statement, it must become
part of the known, for without knowledge how
can one experience it or even say what it is?
If your god(s) exist in the supernatural, you
must demonstrate an absence of naturalism
there.
You must find an endpoint for naturalism, a
place where naturalistic events don't constrain
your god(s), and a methodology by which the
supernatural transitions to / from the natural
and/or a methodology by which the natural
transitions to / from the supernatural.
If the natural and supernatural never interact,
that certainly would defeat the immortality
aspirations many use their boxed in god(s)
for. So, to be important and relevant and
meaningful to humans, that transition meth-
odology would have to be addressed.
Is there any methodology there other than
human imagination? Has anyone succeeded
in connecting the modality of the natural with
the supernatural?
Your quandary thus transitions to the only
valid statement you can try to make to defeat
the "there is no god" statement is that some-
thing in the unknown (in the supernatural area
you've created above or in the natural area
that humans have yet to substantiate with
validatable and testable experience) may be
god.
But if it is in the unknown, the god(s) you've
created is(are) nothing but an imaginary thing,
with limits you've set, a reflection of you, and
anyone and everyone can do the same exact
procedure, and you're faced with the same
problem iterated above, that being god(s) =
impossibility and that's the same as "there is
no god".
Imaginary things cannot defeat the "there is
no god" statement, because it must become
known in order to leave the unknown. If it
becomes known, it defeats the "there is no
god" statement but even so, unless it dem-
onstrates the ability of all inclusiveness, the
ability to be all, there would always be doubt
regarding what resides beyond the limits of
comprehension ...
In other words, on this earth, in this life,
"there is no god" cannot be defeated unless
the god becomes known and the god be-
comes all. Until it does, it's imaginary and
"there is no god" cannot be defeated by
any imaginary entity, no matter how much
one may wish it were so.
Now, you might submit, when you die,
you meet god(s) and therein resides a
defeat of "there is no god". My reply is
simple, claims of god(s) do not god(s)
make, and for you to defeat "there is no
god" you must provide evidence as iter-
ated above.
You can claim there is evidence in another
world or an afterlife and you can create
all sorts of fanciful notions regarding that
world (many have - see religions for a long
list of claims), but in all of that, without
one shred of evidence, all you have are
claims (irreconcilable claims) and no claim,
no matter how cleverly guised, can defeat
the "there is no god" statement unless it
can cross the bridge from imagination to
reality.
Until then, "there is no god" is irrefutable
as described above.
If god(s) exist in the unknown, it / she /
he / they have demonstrated to-date an
amazing ability to remain there.
If we go to the unknown, I hope we know
we're there. To presume a human can know
that there is a there, and furthermore, to
presume a human can comment intelligently
on god(s) and other entities there stretches
human imagination to the breaking point,
a point beyond which exists nothing but
hopes, dreams, fantasies, and fears.
- - -
"there is no god"
in the world of the real
since that's the deal
let's enjoy ourselves
and treat god(s)
and such things
as nothings
until god(s)
and such things
become somethings
real, not just spiel
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
>> truth is, blind belief is a room without windows and without
>> light and if any windows appear and open up or if any light
>> appears, blind faith demands that the windows be closed/
>> covered up and the light be stamped out as quickly as pos-
>> sible, lest the faith suffer and die out.
> It's not like we have a supreme being detector and got back
> foolproof results.
>> [...]
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Why do most parents focus on narrowly indoctrinating
their children into their little area of religious belief,
apart from all others and apart from even the remote
possibility that religions are inventions of man?
Why not give children a wide spectrum of knowledge
from which they can make their own choices? Is there
some genetic characteristic that propels humans to try
to clone themselves and their views into their children?
Is this fair? Isn't this morally indefensible?
Why not give our children the facts on all religions, beliefs,
and non-beliefs, and let them know the facts of that which
it is to be human?
- - -
Public Education
Let's take one mode of religious free education that has
worked, public schools.
Now, standards for public schools vary from state to
state, but by and large public schools do not teach
students about religions at an elementary school level
nor do they teach students about non-belief. Simply
put, that critical aspect of child-rearing is left up to the
parents, most of whom construct simple myth systems
that most children carry with them their entire lives.
- - -
Simple Religious and Cultural Curriculum
Now, I ask you, how hard would it be to address simple
religious and cultural curriculum at an elementary school
level, without bias, resembling the curriculum in place for
teaching elementary school students about foreign culture,
simply teaching students the facts regarding the diversity
of cultures and religious belief and non-belief?
Professional curriculum designers should be able to con-
struct course curriculum that teaches students the broad
facts about beliefs and non-beliefs at an elementary school
level (IMO).
Simply put, the truth about belief and non-belief, would be
a tremendous asset to our children. The knowledge and
the whys and wherefores of different cultures and religions
would make our children stronger, smarter, and more toler-
ant of different people and different beliefs.
- - -
Fear of Other Belief Systems?
Parents who are firm believers in their particular faith have
nothing to fear from other belief systems. I feel strongly that
parents have no right to deny their children the knowledge
of the entire world of belief and non-belief. To do so is to
impoverish them and deprive them of the ability to make
decisions on their own regarding their place in the world.
- - -
The Big Questions
From a very young age, children wonder "Who am I?",
"Where did I come from?", "Where am I going?", "What's
it all about?".
To educate our children on all religions, beliefs, and non-
beliefs is to enrich them and empower them; it is to raise
them to a level far beyond the level most of us were able
to reach due to our exposure to one or two narrow views
of religion up to an age approximating the age at which
most children rebel against their upbringings, including
religion, and search for their identity.
Richer (in spirit), stronger, better educated, and more
tolerant of different peoples and views. That, to me, is
a noble goal. All it takes is the will of the people to
approach religion, belief, and non-belief as factual
entities in the real world, an understanding of which
is absolutely critical to our children and to a thriving
democracy.
- - -
Religiously Impoverished
We (most of us) were religiously impoverished as children.
Our children deserve better.
.... the result of impoverishment (narrow points of view
regarding a single religion indoctrination) can be evidenced
via excerpts from a Dallas Morning News article from 1999
entitled "Death to the Schools":
"Leaders of religious right calling for a Christian exodus out
of public education:
Leaders of a rapidly growing movement of conservative
Christians are urging followers to withdraw their children
from public schools by next year in order to bring down
the government school system.
At least four organizations have sprung up around the
country in recent months to press parents to abandon
what fundraising letters describe as "atheistic" and
"unclean" public schools in favor of home schooling
and Christian academies.
The movement, which is just beginning to surface among
mainstream evangelicals, bills itself as a way to 'trump'
public education by offering strategies to 'thoroughly
supplant the corrupt government school system.'
This is dangerous hogwash, said Lee Berg, an expert
on the religious right at the National Education Association
in Washington."
- - - - - - -
Consequences of Religious Impoverishment
A few comments: This is what happens when the public
school system takes a "hands off" policy regarding edu-
cation of our children on religions, beliefs, and non-beliefs.
Those children grow up with only the narrow myths of one
religion to rely on and make terrible mistakes, often costly
to society and perpetuating the harm to future generations.
A "hands off" policy is not working. A "hands on" policy
of truth regarding religion, belief, and non-belief is just as
valid as a "hands on" policy of truth regarding science,
literature, poetry, geography, biology, history, music,
language, foreign languages, reading, writing, and arith-
metic.
- - -
No Indoctrination, Just Information
About All Beliefs and Disbelief
Separation of church and state does not mean silence by
the state regarding the church. It simply means the state
must not indoctrinate children into a church (a belief).
Facts are facts, whether they apply to religion, beliefs, or
non-beliefs. There is no reason whatsoever that a public
school should not be able to teach children the basic
facts regarding Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Buddhism,
Christian Scientists, Mormons, Atheism, Agnosticism,
Freethinking, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism,
etc..
Power to the Children ... Power to the People.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Why do most parents focus on narrowly indoctrinating
> their children into their little area of religious belief,
> apart from all others and apart from even the remote
> possibility that religions are inventions of man?
It remains wiser for parents to teach their children to recognize
right from wrong and true from false and to understand that they
should desire that which is true and right.
Such children of wise parents will simply come to know and expect that
there can be only one truly right answer to any meaningful multiple-
choice question and that the best approach is studying the right
answer in order to be able to readily reject all the wrong answers now
and in the future.
Folks the most adept at spotting forgeries are the ones who know the
original very well.
That which are forgeries are simply not worth studying because they
waste time better spent getting to know the original better.
Truth is simple :-)
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Protect Children From Brainwashing
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
Excerpt which could be used as a foundation to protect children
from brainwashing:
- - -
ARTICLE 13
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or
in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's
choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions,
but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are neces-
sary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order
(ordre public), or of public health or morals.
ARTICLE 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents
and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the
child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with
the evolving capacities of the child.
---break from text---
Comment: The key there is "consistent with the evolving capacities
of the child". One could make a strong case that scaring 3-year olds
into fearing god and hell is not consistent with the evolving capacities
of the child. As to when such a religious fear/threat tactic would be
OK for the child, that's a subject for debate (age 13, 16, 19, never?).
---return to text---
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only
to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to
protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others.
---
Recent shocking examples of abuse of religion resulting to harm
to children in the United States, and conveying the extent of the
danger in failing to give children the right to access to a wide
array of information on all faiths and non-faiths during their
vulnerable and formative years:
Freedom of Religion or State-Sanctioned Child Abuse?
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html
Excerpt: "Rising death toll fuels debate over parents
who choose prayer over medical treatment on behalf
of their children ...
---
Supporting Background References:
- - -
Born Free (031001)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/born_free.htm
"All of us were born free of Hinduism, Buddhism,
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all other faiths.
Innocent. Looking up to mom & dad (or others)
for sustenance, support, nourishment, a guiding
light as to what to do, where to go, what to be,
what life is ... Free yet dependent on those entities
that provided us with the means by which we sur-
vive to this very day ..."
- - -
Why Children Should Be Protected
From the Bible and Christianity (102500)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/children_protected.htm
"Burnin' in HELL tends to scare the HELL out
of children. Call it the X-rated fear and scare
tactics of the Bible and Christianity. ..."
- - -
What kind of parent is god? (102500)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/what_kind_of_parent_is_god.htm
"... so, I'm thinkin', what if the relationship
between parents and our children was just like
god's supposed relationship with his human
children, what would that be like ... let's see ..."
- - -
How Young is Too Young ... (102500)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/how_young_is_too_young.htm
"... to convert your son or daughter to be
a young warrior for God? ..."
- - -
Religion? It's all about the children
(100800)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/religion_all_about_children.htm
"As I've mentioned on multiple occasions,
the key to separating humankind from religious
myth is to somehow find a way to deal with the
tendency for humans to surround their children
with the myths in a never-ending cycle of
brainwashing from one generation to the next. ..."
- - -
Why Not Let Kids Decide For
Themselves? (061700)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/let_kids_decide_for_themselves.htm
"Why do most parents focus on narrowly
indoctrinating their children into their little
area of religious belief, extant from all others
and extant from even the remote possibility
that religions are inventions of man? Why
not give children a wide spectrum of
knowledge from which they can make
their own choices? ..."
- - -
Dr. House
wrote:
[...]
> >> Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
> >> journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any informa-
> >> tion which might threaten the belief -
> > What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
> > exists? Please provide that information now.
>
> Evidence of No God
>
> With a little liberty on thinking along the lines
> of societies and cultures which live as if the
> christian God (or muslim God or Jewish God
> or some other God definition including the
> multiple gods definition) is the Truth, the be-
> all end-all of all, I think most can relate to the
> way this position is presented.
>
> Critical to this position is the idea of reality,
> of having an experience with something like
> the experience I'm having right now with my
> keyboard and computer monitor, having
> something that doesn't require human imag-
> ination to be perceived and conceptualized,
> that doesn't rely on ancient documents, that
> doesn't leverage off of what others say but
> is clearly evident and clearly real to the per-
> sons having the experience. That's key in fol-
> lowing the logic presented in the following:
I've never experienced a super nova. That does not mean they have
never existed. Existence is not tied to my experience.
> Now, to defeat the "there is no god" state-
> ment, you must provide a logical argument
> for at least one god (or any god or all gods).
> In that argument, you must either deal with
> all other gods as equal to or as much a real-
> ity as the selected god(s) or you must treat
> all other gods as "there are no other gods
> but the god(s) you've selected as existent
> based on ______ as compared to the ab-
> sence of existence for all other gods based
> on ______".
I don't see why you would take this step. Our ignorance proves
nothing.
> Now, once you've boxed in your chosen
> god(s), you must explain how you made
> all the other gods disappear, as well as how
> you eliminated all gods undefined and how
> your selected god(s) avoided that massive
> god-elimination event by which you've man-
> aged to eliminate all gods but one (or a group
> of more than one that you've chosen).
What does choosing a god have to do with proving gods are not
possible?
> Really, a tough challenge for you there, as
> once you make one god appear, assuming
> you can do so, for that's all it takes to defeat
> the argument "there is no god", how do you
> prevent as many gods from appearing as one
> can imagine and, furthermore, when does the
> appearing god transition from imaginary to
> reality, for such a transition must be required
> to defeat the "there is no god" statement.
Was this to set up the position that we cannot show there is a god? I
can stipulate that for you. I don't think we can prove the existence
of a god using objective evidence. IMO it can't be done.
> All it takes is a single god for you to defeat
> the statement "there is no god", but if in do-
> ing so, you defeat other gods imagined by
> billions of people, in essence you've sup-
> ported the position of "there is(are) only
> the god(s) you've selected and only that
> (those) god(s) is (are) real - all other gods
> do not exist".
I think you are including religious theology which was not what I
intended. If you like I can stipulate that I don't think we can prove
any given theology is fact. I was talking about the pure possibility
that a higher being(s) exists. I'm not arguing that some religious
sect knows the nature of that life.
> Your position then becomes "there are no
> other gods than the god(s) you've selected".
>
> Now, if god=nothing, "there is no god" is
> a self-evident proposition, for nothing=god
> and god=nothing is the same as "there is no
> god".
>
> Therefore, to falsify the statement, "there is
> no god", the god must be something and if,
> in creating or evidencing the something you
> open the door to multiple somethings, then
> god=somethings and the only valid statement
> becomes "there are many gods."
>
> But then, by definition of some of the many,
> some claim their god(s) is(are) "the only", so
> to defeat that argument you must disprove that
> their god(s) is (are) "the only".
This is including theology in the possibility of a higher being.
Wouldn't the accuracy of various dogmas be independendent of the
existance of higher life forms?
> Therein, you get
> into the area of irreconcilable god(s) in which
> all you've done is created an argument of
> god(s) = impossibility.
>
> To make any god(s) possible, god(s) must be
> boxed in, as if humans could box in god(s),
> and non-god(s) must be excluded. If that can-
> not be done by humans, the god concept be-
> comes an absurdity, an impossibility if you
> will, a meaningless word with irreconcilable
> definitions. One human's god(s) is(are) another
> human's myths.
>
> So, an absurd definition for god(s) yields an
> absurdity ... god(s) = impossibility and impos-
> sibility = god(s) are the same as "there is no
> god".
Yet the vast majority of things we discovered existed back when we did
not understand them. Clearly existance is not tied to our ability to
describe or understand them.
> Now, if in the unknown, you create god(s), you
> must get it(them) out of the unknown to invali-
> date the "there is no god" statement, for noth-
> ing in the unknown can invalidate the statement.
Our ignorance isn't going to prove anything.
> To invalidate the statement, it must become
> part of the known, for without knowledge how
> can one experience it or even say what it is?
Intuition can work that way but is problematic.
> If your god(s) exist in the supernatural, you
> must demonstrate an absence of naturalism
> there.
Why is that?
> You must find an endpoint for naturalism, a
> place where naturalistic events don't constrain
> your god(s), and a methodology by which the
> supernatural transitions to / from the natural
> and/or a methodology by which the natural
> transitions to / from the supernatural.
Science has clear borders, things we cannot observe or test past, due
to limits of our universe. Perhaps one day we will learn of a way to
push back a border but at this time we cannot see it. If we do we
will probably find a new border beyond.
> If the natural and supernatural never interact,
> that certainly would defeat the immortality
> aspirations many use their boxed in god(s)
> for. So, to be important and relevant and
> meaningful to humans, that transition meth-
> odology would have to be addressed.
>
> Is there any methodology there other than
> human imagination? Has anyone succeeded
> in connecting the modality of the natural with
> the supernatural?
>
> Your quandary thus transitions to the only
> valid statement you can try to make to defeat
> the "there is no god" statement is that some-
> thing in the unknown (in the supernatural area
> you've created above or in the natural area
> that humans have yet to substantiate with
> validatable and testable experience) may be
> god.
I really don't understand why you think I would need to defeat the
"there is no god" statement. I have come to accept that I cannot
prove the existance of any god. What I asked for was infromation
showing that the existance of gods was not possible. This is not a
specific god - such as Mars or Thor but the possibility for the
existance of higher life forms.
> But if it is in the unknown, the god(s) you've
> created is(are) nothing but an imaginary thing,
> with limits you've set, a reflection of you, and
> anyone and everyone can do the same exact
> procedure, and you're faced with the same
> problem iterated above, that being god(s) =
> impossibility and that's the same as "there is
> no god".
>
> Imaginary things cannot defeat the "there is
> no god" statement, because it must become
> known in order to leave the unknown. If it
> becomes known, it defeats the "there is no
> god" statement but even so, unless it dem-
> onstrates the ability of all inclusiveness, the
> ability to be all, there would always be doubt
> regarding what resides beyond the limits of
> comprehension ...
>
> In other words, on this earth, in this life,
> "there is no god" cannot be defeated unless
> the god becomes known and the god be-
> comes all. Until it does, it's imaginary and
> "there is no god" cannot be defeated by
> any imaginary entity, no matter how much
> one may wish it were so.
I don't see what this has to do with my question.
> Now, you might submit, when you die,
> you meet god(s) and therein resides a
> defeat of "there is no god". My reply is
> simple, claims of god(s) do not god(s)
> make, and for you to defeat "there is no
> god" you must provide evidence as iter-
> ated above.
I'm not going to cite evidence I don't have at this time. However I'm
not going to exclude the possibility that we won't have better
evidence later.
I still don't see why you keep talking about defeating "there is no
god".
> You can claim there is evidence in another
> world or an afterlife and you can create
> all sorts of fanciful notions regarding that
> world (many have - see religions for a long
> list of claims), but in all of that, without
> one shred of evidence, all you have are
> claims (irreconcilable claims) and no claim,
> no matter how cleverly guised, can defeat
> the "there is no god" statement unless it
> can cross the bridge from imagination to
> reality.
>
> Until then, "there is no god" is irrefutable
> as described above.
This is getting rather long as a set up.
> If god(s) exist in the unknown, it / she /
> he / they have demonstrated to-date an
> amazing ability to remain there.
>
> If we go to the unknown, I hope we know
> we're there. To presume a human can know
> that there is a there,
For this conversation "know" would be the scientific/logic context. I
will use fath when I mean the faith context.
Know = you have evidence to reasonably believe something is true and
that something is in fact true.
Without that evidence we can only believe even if that something is in
fact true.
> . . . and furthermore, to
> presume a human can comment intelligently
> on god(s) and other entities there stretches
> human imagination to the breaking point,
> a point beyond which exists nothing but
> hopes, dreams, fantasies, and fears.
Are you going to answer my question in another post?
What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
exists? Please provide that information now.
Our ignorance does not prove that a higher being does not exist.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
brainwashed Pro-Humanist to believe it instead of his dad:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5f6ca8a70d9e98d0?
May GOD soften your heart, Pro-Humanist, so that you would come to
truth the truth, Who is Jesus:
t
If you need to believe in an imaginary "god", go ahead and do so. DO NOT,
push your weakness onto other people. DO NOT, brainwash children with your
imaginary "god". ( to do so is child abuse) DO NOT think that your imaginary
"god" is better, stronger, nicer, etc. than any other weak persons imaginary
"god" is. AND mostly, keep it to yourself.
t
Dr. House
> If you need to believe in an imaginary "god", go ahead and do so.
If you do not respect my right to free speech then why do you respect
my right to believe?
> DO NOT,
> push your weakness onto other people.
As if it is even possible to push a belief onto someone who doesn't
want to believe it. That is funny.
> DO NOT, brainwash children with your
> imaginary "god". ( to do so is child abuse)
Define brainwashing children. Be specific. What does it entail
besides beliefs that differ from your beliefs?
> DO NOT think that your imaginary
> "god" is better, stronger, nicer, etc. than any other weak persons imaginary
> "god" is.
Ah so you will wander into the relm of the Thought Police. Yes, hunt
down and punish those wrong thinkers.
> AND mostly, keep it to yourself.
Why do you feel the need to tell others what to do and what to think?
Regards,
House
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> [...]
>
> What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
> exists? Please provide that information now.
>
> Our ignorance does not prove that a higher being does not exist.
Naturalism reveals nary an iota of evi-
ence regarding a supposed 'higher being'.
You obviously don't care, and you ob-
viously are willing to believe anything
'could' exist, but even so, do you want
to disassociate from the way that belief
has caused havoc on earth when people
are raised to believe in a selected version
of such a thing, are taught the bible or
quran or other religious document are
the word of that thing, and are taught to
believe or else.
So, why do people believe? Certainly not
because they think a 'higher being' could
exist, no, it's because they've been brain-
washed by the particular culture they were
raised in to believe that -if- they dare to
disbelieve, they'll suffer eternal death -or-
eternal torment -and- if they dare to believe,
they'll enjoy a pleasant immortality -and-
in this particular life, there's also the social
pressures (in many instances) to express
belief or to appreciate silence about dis-
belief or doubt or to openly oppose any
who dare to disbelieve or doubt and who
dare to speak up about it.
Brainwashing, not evidence, undergirds
your 'higher being' ideology, and such
stuff is human-concocted, has been and
continues to be anti-human in nature, and
continues to be a risk to human civiliza-
tion.
Why do you believe that a 'higher being'
could exist despite your admitted 'ignor-
ance' of it? Define what it is, exactly,
that you're referencing when you use
the phrase 'higher being'?
Do you believe we should worship it,
fear it, love it, talk about it as if it was
'true' even when you, by your own ad-
mission are 'ignorant' of it, talk about
it as if believing in it will yield eternal
life (pleasant?) and disbelieving in it
will yield eternal death (or even worse,
eternal torment)?
Do you believe we should talk to it
(through prayer) even though we're,
by your own admission, ignorant of
it?
As ignorant as we are of it, per your
own admission, we certainly have no
way of knowing if it exists, if it listens,
if it's there, what it is, what it does/did,
or if it's simply a tool people use to try
to control/manipulate/deceive/brainwash
and which some use to invoke violence
on others in the name of the supposedly
'real' 'higher being' -- evidence is very
strong on that last point, dramatically
demonstrating the risks inherent in your
concept.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
What does one tell children when/if given the opportun-
ity to speak to children about myths?
How about starting off by letting the children know the
discussion is about myths and the difference between
"make believe" and what's real?
For example, do any children really believe in ghosts or
goblins or hellfire and brimstone or creepie crawlies that
are going to come out of the dark and eat them? I would
hope that one would feel comfortable in sharing the "make
believe" nature of those concepts, the way they can be
used for fun only if they're treated as "make believe"
rather than realities.
Also, important to address, the way "make believe" can
be used for harm by adults or children who either:
1) are uneducated about the differences between what's
"make believe" and what's real
-or-
2) were never taught about those differences.
As for the myths of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the
Tooth Fairy, angels, magic dragons, gods, demons,
spirits, etc., it would be helpful to the children if, as
above, they were informed of the difference between
"make believe" which can be fun or scary, depending
on how the "make believe" is treated, and reality, which
must be treated in a manner corresponding to physical
laws. For example, children should know not to believe
someone who tells them to stick their hand in the fire,
because "make believe" won't save them.
The pressure to lie to children comes direct from adults,
not children, especially as pertains to the social/cultural
influences for parents to treat certain aspects of "make
believe" as truths.
No child walks up to an adult and says, "Will you please
tell me a lie?" No, they yearn for "make believe" treated
as "make believe fun for imagination", not "make believe"
treated as if someone was trying to trick them or threaten
them, in the long term (if not the short term) coming across
as manipulation/deceit (insert long list here, from concepts
adults agree are "make believe" to concepts many adults
have difficulty addressing as "make believe").
No matter what self-serving pleasure or sense of "greater
good" it brings the adults, the harm, short-term and long-
term, in the encouragement of deceit/delusion/manipulation
of the vulnerable far outweighs the pretentious notions of
"lying for goodness" that adherents to social customs
desire.
Verity respected is verity esteemed.
Apply the above to any myth you can imagine that adults
treat as reality towards children, be it holiday myths which
can be honest fun if honestly treated as "make believe" -or-
afterlife/super-being myths which can be injurious to chil-
dren if used for threats/manipulation/control/devaluation
of the child's right to happiness.
For those that claim that the faith messages are worthy
of belief to be true, whether they really are or not, that the
"core message" of faith is estimable, I would ask the fol-
lowing questions ...
o The "core message" of "believe or else"?
o The "core message" of authoritarianism/revenge?
o The "core message" of enslave yourself to faith, in the mind
and the heart, whether it's true or not?
o The "core message" of pretend the old/new testamyths are
good and pretend all of the anti-humanism in them isn't there
unless, of course, you can use it to guilt-trip folks?
- - -
For those who wish folks would just "go along" with the
"core message" of faith, being silent about alternate views,
I'd say ...
Y'all are proponents of closed-mindedness and inalter-
ability of perceptions, wishing for the faith-steeped to
follow the dictates of church or other authorities and not
be exposed to alternatives which are requisite to truly
allow them to choose.
Can people choose?
Only if given the cases on the many sides of the issue.
I submit that well-made cases made by those not of faith
provides the possibility for those of faith (who are willing
to listen) to use their minds for thinking, logic, and reason
(although that can be, due to the emotional nature of the
faith gig, quite challenging), truly providing them a free
choice as to what path to follow.
- - -
For those who wish folks would just "go along" with the
"core message" of faith, being silent about alternate views,
I'd say ...
Are y'all as willing to talk to those of faith and encourage
them to be silent about their faith? After all, spreading their
faith is a critical component contained within the new testa-
myth ...
... _______ Insert long list of techniques those of faith use
to influence others to "be like them", not the least of which is
conformity pressures inside the social clubs known as places
of worship ...
... Well, maybe y'all are OK with *that* since, hey, that's
really where the pressure/influences/demands are invoked to
be quiet about thinking/speaking in terms not one with faith ...
... Also, add immortality promises, promises the creator of
the earth listens and acts upon requests/demands from
humans, threats of hell and damnation, manipulative asso-
ciations of belief with good, manipulative associations of
disbelief with evil, etc. etc. etc. ...
... And, perhaps, y'all might be well-served to consider that
by asking everyone to be quiet, if you're truly successful,
all faith would twiddle away, so really, perhaps, all you're
interested in is for those *not* of faith to be quiet, leaving
the playing field wide open for those who are more than
willing to seduce/threaten folks into faith, starting with the
children and guilt-tripping/manipulating them their entire
lives.
Am I close there?
- - -
If the brainwash efforts of those of faith aren't countered,
nothing will ever change, and the world will slip deeper
into the abyss of "faith at all cost".
For a better way, a way which respects and admires open-
minded search for verity (but not so open that our brains
fall out), further elucidation follows ...
Some parents inform their children of the imaginary nature
of all imaginary beings, and enjoy sharing and telling stories
about them in a fun and non-threatening way, from the ima-
ginary Puff the Magic Dragon and the imaginary Santa Claus
all the way up to (or down to, depending on your point of
view) the imaginary God.
Some folks find verity and the search for verity to be one
of the most estimable pursuits in life. Thank goodness, as
without that search for verity, we'd still be stuck in the abyss
of a theistic-ruled world (what Carl Sagan referred to as a
demon-haunted world).
Also, see ...
Why Promote Freedom From Faith?
(022701)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/philosophy_freelover/freedom_from_faith.htm
"... We, the pro-human pro-free-speech
folks of the disbelief community, bother to
take the time and make the effort to connect
with the faithful in order to help people live
free, seek verity, and live out their one and
only sure shot at life in a full and meaningful
manner, for the good of the many and the
now, with respect to the truth of whatever
ultimate destiny nature has provided us
with..."
- - -
The Problem of Silence (070100)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/philosophy_freelover/problem_of_silence.htm
"So, a bunch of people are gathered together
and someone says 'Thank god ....' and the
conversation continues and discussions
about church and making sure the children
go to church and so on and so forth and ..."
Dr. House
wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > [...]
>
> > What information could threaten the possibility that a supreme being
> > exists? Please provide that information now.
>
> > Our ignorance does not prove that a higher being does not exist.
>
> Naturalism reveals nary an iota of evi-
> ence regarding a supposed 'higher being'.
You said "Blind belief, on the other hand, is the absolute end of the
journey, ever-defensive and on guard against any information which
might threaten the belief"
I asked you to provide that information and it would seem that the
only information you have is that we can't prove gods exist. All we
have is ignorance and ignorance isn't going to prove anything.
> You obviously don't care, and you ob-
> viously are willing to believe anything
> 'could' exist, but even so, do you want
> to disassociate from the way that belief
> has caused havoc on earth when people
> are raised to believe in a selected version
> of such a thing, are taught the bible or
> quran or other religious document are
> the word of that thing, and are taught to
> believe or else.
Why are you trying to make this about me or my motives?
You don't have the information you refered to. Otherwise you would
have provided it.
> So, why do people believe? Certainly not
> because they think a 'higher being' could
> exist, no, it's because they've been brain-
> washed by the particular culture they were
> raised in to believe that -if- they dare to
> disbelieve, they'll suffer eternal death -or-
> eternal torment -and- if they dare to believe,
> they'll enjoy a pleasant immortality -and-
> in this particular life, there's also the social
> pressures (in many instances) to express
> belief or to appreciate silence about dis-
> belief or doubt or to openly oppose any
> who dare to disbelieve or doubt and who
> dare to speak up about it.
That is an interesting theory you have there. Of course if it were
true then we would have no religion to begin with for your "brainwash
only" theory allows for no new religion to start up.
> Brainwashing, not evidence, undergirds
> your 'higher being' ideology, and such
> stuff is human-concocted, has been and
> continues to be anti-human in nature, and
> continues to be a risk to human civiliza-
> tion.
>
> Why do you believe that a 'higher being'
> could exist despite your admitted 'ignor-
> ance' of it?
Are you really interested in a conversation on that? It seems that
you have already made up you mind about me. Perhaps the idea appeal
to me most because life is harsh and I wish that injustice would be
ballanced out in the end.
> Define what it is, exactly,
> that you're referencing when you use
> the phrase 'higher being'?
A higher order of life. In order for such life to have theological
meaning it would have to be awair of humans and be able to access the
dimentions where we exist. Without those two requirements higher life
would just be alien.
> Do you believe we should worship it,
> fear it, love it, talk about it as if it was
> 'true' even when you, by your own ad-
> mission are 'ignorant' of it, talk about
> it as if believing in it will yield eternal
> life (pleasant?) and disbelieving in it
> will yield eternal death (or even worse,
> eternal torment)?
Yes on most, I'm not sure about the last two.
> Do you believe we should talk to it
> (through prayer) even though we're,
> by your own admission, ignorant of
> it?
Sure
> As ignorant as we are of it, per your
> own admission, we certainly have no
> way of knowing if it exists, if it listens,
> if it's there, what it is, what it does/did,
> or if it's simply a tool people use to try
> to control/manipulate/deceive/brainwash
> and which some use to invoke violence
> on others in the name of the supposedly
> 'real' 'higher being' -- evidence is very
> strong on that last point, dramatically
> demonstrating the risks inherent in your
> concept.
Uh controling, manipulating, deceing, branwashing and invoking others
to violence is not _my_ concept.
Please do not blame me for things I have not done. Should we demonize
everything known to man that was ever misused?
Regards,
House
t
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d23ab91a-fd22-46e2...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 18, 7:29 am, "t" <t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you need to believe in an imaginary "god", go ahead and do so.
If you do not respect my right to free speech then why do you respect
my right to believe?
You cannot yell "fire" in a theater unless it is true too.
> DO NOT,
> push your weakness onto other people.
As if it is even possible to push a belief onto someone who doesn't
want to believe it. That is funny.
Strange sense of "funny" you have there.
> DO NOT, brainwash children with your
> imaginary "god". ( to do so is child abuse)
Define brainwashing children. Be specific. What does it entail
besides beliefs that differ from your beliefs?
Brainwashing is what happened to you.
> DO NOT think that your imaginary
> "god" is better, stronger, nicer, etc. than any other weak persons
> imaginary
> "god" is.
Ah so you will wander into the relm of the Thought Police. Yes, hunt
down and punish those wrong thinkers.
> AND mostly, keep it to yourself.
Why do you feel the need to tell others what to do and what to think?
Back at ya.
Regards,
House
Dr. House
[...]
> > DO NOT,
> > push your weakness onto other people.
>
> As if it is even possible to push a belief onto someone who doesn't
> want to believe it. That is funny.
> Strange sense of "funny" you have there.
You say a bunch of random things that have no bearing on anything.
Yeah it's funny.
> > DO NOT, brainwash children with your
> > imaginary "god". ( to do so is child abuse)
>
>> Define brainwashing children. Be specific. What does it entail
>> besides beliefs that differ from your beliefs?
> Brainwashing is what happened to you.
So you can't define it.
>> > DO NOT think that your imaginary
>> > "god" is better, stronger, nicer, etc. than any other weak persons
>> > imaginary
>> > "god" is.
>>
>> Ah so you will wander into the relm of the Thought Police. Yes, hunt
>> down and punish those wrong thinkers.
>>
>> > AND mostly, keep it to yourself.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to tell others what to do and what to think?
>
> Back at ya.
Yet I don't tell you what to think. When have I told you to do
anything?
Regards,
House
guardian Snow
That's a very logical position and very good posting Dr. House. A
good read as always...
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> On Mar 18, 11:02 am, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <prohu...@ghg.net> wrote ...
> > [...]
> >
> > Why do you believe that a 'higher being'
> > could exist despite your admitted 'ignor-
> > ance' of it?
> Are you really interested in a conversation on that? It seems that
> you have already made up you mind about me. Perhaps the idea
> appeal to me most because life is harsh and I wish that injustice
> would be ballanced out in the end.
Wishes don't represent reality, whether
you call them prayers or worship or
blind faith or baptism or any of the
other "sit still and let a preacher or
rabbi or mullah or some other religious
type fill your head with ancient delu-
sions -and- believe all of it, without
doubt *or else*" approaches the reli-
gious use to perpetuate blind faith.
> > Define what it is, exactly,
> > that you're referencing when you use
> > the phrase 'higher being'?
> A higher order of life.
With a vast space-time continuum,
naturalistic evolved life may very
well exist. It's unknown how much
approximates our naturalistic evo-
lution, but since it took a very long
time for humans to evolve, and
we're just as at risk as is other
life regarding extinctions, it's un-
clear whether our particular evo-
lutionary path will result in sur-
vival.
Quite possible that it won't, due
to the extremely risky naturalistic
realm we exist in, and due to the
risks inherent in our level of intel-
ligence (capable of both human
advancement and human deceit,
human good and human harm).
As for supernaturalism, there's
no evidence for such a thing,
and it's antithetical to natural-
ism to believe that such a thing
interacts with naturalism and
counters the laws of physics.
> In order for such life to have theological
> meaning it would have to be awair of
> humans and be able to access the dimen-
> tions where we exist.
Naturalistic life, interacting but
hiding? As for supernaturalism,
the evidence is clear -- it's human
imagination, no more, no less,
that's at play, along with a heavy
dose of social/cultural brain-
washing from birth that most
experience (in assorted forms)
based on who their parents are
and which religion has trapped
their parents into some type of
blind faith in some type of super-
naturalistic fantasy world.
> Without those two requirements higher life
> would just be alien.
As would lower life or similar
life, but as we explore and as
we search, it would be a fas-
cinating event to discover life,
and an expecially dramatic
event to discover intelligent
life (apart, of course, from
the intelligence we've dis-
covered in non-human spe-
cies on earth). Supernatural-
ism? Nothing but manifesta-
tions of wishes and desire
and fear and deceit are ex-
pressed there.
> > Do you believe we should worship it,
> > fear it, love it, talk about it as if it was
> > 'true' even when you, by your own ad-
> > mission are 'ignorant' of it, talk about
> > it as if believing in it will yield eternal
> > life (pleasant?) and disbelieving in it
> > will yield eternal death (or even worse,
> > eternal torment)?
> Yes on most, I'm not sure about the last two.
Which religion undergirds your
belief, or do you 'worship', 'fear',
'love', and talk about it as if it was
'true' far removed from others who
do that at churches, synagogues,
mosques, temples, and other places
of worship?
> > Do you believe we should talk to it
> > (through prayer) even though we're,
> > by your own admission, ignorant of
> > it?
> Sure
Why? Do you use it as if it was a
wishing well? Why not just use
a wishing well, or a 'magic' charm,
if wishing is all you do with it?
> > As ignorant as we are of it, per your
> > own admission, we certainly have no
> > way of knowing if it exists, if it listens,
> > if it's there, what it is, what it does/did,
> > or if it's simply a tool people use to try
> > to control/manipulate/deceive/brainwash
> > and which some use to invoke violence
> > on others in the name of the supposedly
> > 'real' 'higher being' -- evidence is very
> > strong on that last point, dramatically
> > demonstrating the risks inherent in your
> > concept.
> Uh controling, manipulating, deceing, branwashing and
> invoking others to violence is not _my_ concept.
>
> Please do not blame me for things I have not done.
> Should we demonize everything known to man that
> was ever misused?
Things that say the things that religion says,
we should 'grow up', stop brainwashing
children with it, stop being silent about the
anti-humanism in it, stop using it as a
'wishing well', stop being superstitious,
and face up to the challenges inherent in
living in a naturalistic realm of beauty and
wonder and mystery and enormous risk
and danger.
Dr. House
wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > On Mar 18, 11:02 am, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> > > [...]
>
> > > Why do you believe that a 'higher being'
> > > could exist despite your admitted 'ignor-
> > > ance' of it?
> > Are you really interested in a conversation on that? It seems that
> > you have already made up you mind about me. Perhaps the idea
> > appeal to me most because life is harsh and I wish that injustice
> > would be ballanced out in the end.
>
> Wishes don't represent reality,
I know. I see no reason for you to mention what is already known.
> . . . whether
> you call them prayers or worship or
> blind faith or baptism or any of the
> other "sit still and let a preacher or
> rabbi or mullah or some other religious
> type fill your head with ancient delu-
> sions -and- believe all of it, without
> doubt *or else*" approaches the reli-
> gious use to perpetuate blind faith.
You make some rather strange and blind assumptions here.
No evidence for something is not the same as proof that it does not
exist.
> > In order for such life to have theological
> > meaning it would have to be awair of
> > humans and be able to access the dimen-
> > tions where we exist.
>
> Naturalistic life, interacting but
> hiding?
We don't hide from the microbes we study. They simply lack the
capacity to perceive or understand us. Should such a relationship
exist in reverse order between us and some higher life we would have
no way to know it.
> As for supernaturalism,
> the evidence is clear -- it's human
> imagination, no more, no less,
Why do you assert what you cannot prove?
> . . . that's at play, along with a heavy
> dose of social/cultural brain-
> washing from birth that most
> experience
Your argument would have more weight with refined readers if you
didn't use loaded words. Mischaracterizing socialization as
'brainwashing' isn't doing you any favors. Every child is socialized
into the culture in which they are raised. Humans are social
creatures.
> . . . (in assorted forms)
> based on who their parents are
> and which religion has trapped
> their parents into some type of
> blind faith in some type of super-
> naturalistic fantasy world.
>
> > Without those two requirements higher life
> > would just be alien.
>
> As would lower life or similar
> life, but as we explore and as
> we search, it would be a fas-
> cinating event to discover life,
> and an expecially dramatic
> event to discover intelligent
> life (apart, of course, from
> the intelligence we've dis-
> covered in non-human spe-
> cies on earth). Supernatural-
> ism? Nothing but manifesta-
> tions of wishes and desire
> and fear and deceit are ex-
> pressed there.
Again you assert what you cannot prove.
> > > Do you believe we should worship it,
> > > fear it, love it, talk about it as if it was
> > > 'true' even when you, by your own ad-
> > > mission are 'ignorant' of it, talk about
> > > it as if believing in it will yield eternal
> > > life (pleasant?) and disbelieving in it
> > > will yield eternal death (or even worse,
> > > eternal torment)?
> > Yes on most, I'm not sure about the last two.
>
> Which religion undergirds your
> belief, or do you 'worship', 'fear',
> 'love', and talk about it as if it was
> 'true' far removed from others who
> do that at churches, synagogues,
> mosques, temples, and other places
> of worship?
I'm a Non-Subscribing Protestant, aka a Free Christian as in
theologically free. Thanks for asking.
> > > Do you believe we should talk to it
> > > (through prayer) even though we're,
> > > by your own admission, ignorant of
> > > it?
> > Sure
>
> Why? Do you use it as if it was a
> wishing well?
No.
> Why not just use
> a wishing well, or a 'magic' charm,
> if wishing is all you do with it?
See above.
You have fallen into the trap of over generalizing. Why arbitrarily
pick religion as the category? We could just as easily pick
vertebrates or say land dwellers to blame. Of course the category you
picked separates you and I into "us" and "them", making you an "us"
and me a "them". As one of the "them"s I must be bad.
Regards,
House
Dr. House
[...]
> That's a very logical position and very good posting Dr. House. A
> good read as always...
Thank you
God bless,
House
Kook Monitor
> Our ignorance does not prove that a higher being does not exist.
But our knowledge might do the trick...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm
maybe not "proof", but certainly food for thought.
Kooky
Dr. House
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:38:50 -0700, Dr. House wrote:
> > Our ignorance does not prove that a higher being does not exist.
>
> But our knowledge might do the trick...
If we had knowledge that _would_ do the trick.
> http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existan...
>
> maybe not "proof", but certainly food for thought.
Yes, it is food for thought.
Of course one can prove a negative under the right circumstances
(paramount of which is that the negative in question is the case - but
also one needs access to the appropriate evidence) using a proof by
contradiction. This can and has been done with specific theology as
Schick mentions. A classic example would be the problem of evil.
Regards,
House
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> [an ineffectual argument, loaded with misrepre-
> sentations entailing inappropriate skips]
Are you OK with threatening folks with immortal
death or torment? If not, what (if anything) do
you offer to dissuade folks from indoctrinating
their children to believe in that? Keep in mind
that most leverage their threats off belief in a
God and in ancient stories about that God that
there's no evidence for.
On the following scale of 1 to 7, which do you
categorize your belief in the innumble versions
of God as?
1 = Know there is at least 1 version of a God
4 = 50/50 chance of there being at least 1 ver-
sion of a God
7 = Know there is no version of a God
On the following scale of 1 to 7, which do you
categorize your belief in the christian God as?
1 = Know there is a christian God
4 = 50/50 chance of there being a christian God
7 = Know there is no christian God
On the following scale of 1 to 7, which do you
categorize your belief in the muslim God as?
1 = Know there is a muslim God
4 = 50/50 chance of there being a muslim God
7 = Know there is no muslim God
On the following scale of 1 to 7, which do you
categorize your belief in the Jewish God as?
1 = Know there is a Jewish God
4 = 50/50 chance of there being a Jewish God
7 = Know there is no Jewish God
On the following scale of 1 to 7, which do you
categorize your belief in the Hindu Gods as?
1 = Know there are Hindu Gods
4 = 50/50 chance of there being Hindu Gods
7 = Know there are no Hindu Gods
Dr. House
wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > [an ineffectual argument, loaded with misrepre-
> > sentations entailing inappropriate skips]
>
> Are you OK with threatening folks with immortal
> death or torment?
I'm not threatening anybody or anything.
If I were to tell you that I believe that the asteroid 1950 DA is
going to hit earth in March of 2880 that does not make me
_responsible_ for whatever fate may hold. I'm not threatening you
with it. It's just a bad event I believe will happen and my sharing
this view would only be a friendly warning.
The same can be said for whatever fate a higher being might have
planed for us should such a being exist.
> If not, what (if anything) do
> you offer to dissuade folks from indoctrinating
> their children to believe in that?
I'm not going to even try to prevent people from being socialized. I
don't see how that is possible.
> Keep in mind
> that most leverage their threats off belief in a
> God and in ancient stories about that God that
> there's no evidence for.
If 1950 DA is really going to slam into us in 2880 then telling people
to not worry about it and not prepare will result in great loss.
Developing asteroid-moving technology and the required space ships
would be prudent. The only way we would do that is if we believe the
threat.
Oh and 1950 DA was on a path to slam into earth back in 1949 before we
knew it existed.
Now if someone wants to tell their own kids that they have to face
east and pray every four hours to save them from a spiritual threat
they believe is real how is that my business? If they are willing to
live at peace with me (and most are regardless of their religion) then
we shall live and let live. The problem is not the flavor of religion
but the fringe groups who seek to abuse religion.
I've already told you my theological position. I'm a (theologically)
Free Christian. However, whatever higher being exists, if any, is not
altered one bit by my belief.
Regards,
House
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
On Mar 20, 9:25 am, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
>> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>> > [an ineffectual argument, loaded with misrepre-
>> > sentations entailing inappropriate skips]
>> Are you OK with threatening folks with immortal
>> death or torment?
> I'm not threatening anybody or anything.
That wasn't the question. The question was
"Are you OK with those that do threaten folks
with immortal death or torment?"
> If I were to tell you that I believe that the asteroid 1950 DA is
> going to hit earth in March of 2880 that does not make me
> _responsible_ for whatever fate may hold. I'm not threatening you
> with it. It's just a bad event I believe will happen and my sharing
> this view would only be a friendly warning.
Do you have any evidence that asteroid 1950 DA
is going to hit earch in March of 2880? If so, I'd
suggest you submit that evidence so that humans
will be aware of it, but since that's in the far future,
it might be difficult to raise much concern. How-
ever, on a theological level, have no doubt that
theologians and religious types would use that as
a prop to promote their assorted Apocalypses.
> The same can be said for whatever fate a higher being might have
> planed for us should such a being exist.
So, you *are* OK with threatening folks with im-
mortal death or torment. If so, why don't just
state it, outright, and stop beating about the
bush.
>> If not, what (if anything) do
>> you offer to dissuade folks from indoctrinating
>> their children to believe in that?
> I'm not going to even try to prevent people from being socialized. I
> don't see how that is possible.
Socialized? Is that what you call childhood
brainwashing, and threats against children
regarding immortal death and torment? I
call it religion, so whatever spin you put
on it, it's religion that's to blame for it.
>> Keep in mind
>> that most leverage their threats off belief in a
>> God and in ancient stories about that God that
>> there's no evidence for.
If 1950 DA is really going to slam into us in 2880
Again with 1950 DA. Do you have any evi-
dence on that, or are you just using your
typical distraction to try to avoid discussing
the topic forthrightly.
> then telling people
> to not worry about it and not prepare will result in great loss.
Evidence, something you're extremely weak
in, but whatever, you obviously are avoiding
discussing the topic. Probably, you don't
wish to threaten children, but you also wish
to prop up the 'good' God notions, and find
that conflict to be irreoncilable, illogical, and
contradictory.
> Developing asteroid-moving technology and the required space ships
> would be prudent. The only way we would do that is if we believe the
> threat.
> Oh and 1950 DA was on a path to slam into earth back in 1949 before we
> knew it existed.
>
> Now if someone wants to tell their own kids that they have to face
> east and pray every four hours to save them from a spiritual threat
> they believe is real how is that my business? If they are willing to
> live at peace with me (and most are regardless of their religion) then
> we shall live and let live. The problem is not the flavor of religion
> but the fringe groups who seek to abuse religion.
Hellfire and damnation, psychologically horren-
dous burdens to place on the young and innocent,
but if you wish to babble on about an asteroid
hitting Earth in 2880, to try to distract from the
religious threats, well, spin away, but you won't
get any kudos from me on that.
Christians, by and large, disagree with you. Hence,
their threats that if you don't believe in the "right
way", you're gonna be theologically and immortally
dead -or- you're gonna be theologically and immor-
tally tormented.
Yet you defend them as if by tap-dancing and act-
ing irresponsibly towards childrens' welfare you
can be OK with all that religious threat machine.
Obviously, your answer to the above questions,
if you characterize yourself as christian, would
be close to '1' regarding the christian God and
close to '7' regarding the other questions, -but-
if you wish to place yourself near '1' for all of
the questions, you're theologically much closr to
a deist or ecumenical "any God will do" type
than you are to a christian, a nomenclature you
probably use 'cause you were influenced to be-
lieve in it by the social cultural milieu dominated
by christians.
Dr. House
wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> On Mar 20, 9:25 am, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
>
> > Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
> >> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >> > [an ineffectual argument, loaded with misrepre-
> >> > sentations entailing inappropriate skips]
> >> Are you OK with threatening folks with immortal
> >> death or torment?
> > I'm not threatening anybody or anything.
>
> That wasn't the question. The question was
> "Are you OK with those that do threaten folks
> with immortal death or torment?"
Your question does not make much sense since only dietys can do that.
Are you asking if I approve of a given deity's threat?
> > If I were to tell you that I believe that the asteroid 1950 DA is
> > going to hit earth in March of 2880 that does not make me
> > _responsible_ for whatever fate may hold. I'm not threatening you
> > with it. It's just a bad event I believe will happen and my sharing
> > this view would only be a friendly warning.
>
> Do you have any evidence that asteroid 1950 DA
> is going to hit earch in March of 2880? If so, I'd
> suggest you submit that evidence so that humans
> will be aware of it, but since that's in the far future,
> it might be difficult to raise much concern.
We may very well wait until it is too late.
> How-
> ever, on a theological level, have no doubt that
> theologians and religious types would use that as
> a prop to promote their assorted Apocalypses.
>
> > The same can be said for whatever fate a higher being might have
> > planed for us should such a being exist.
>
> So, you *are* OK with threatening folks with im-
> mortal death or torment.
You are asking me to judge a diety?
> If so, why don't just
> state it, outright, and stop beating about the
> bush.
You seem to be operating under a number of fase assumptions. I'm
under no obligation to redefine reality the way you see it. Someone
warning you about something a third party may do is not threatening
you with it. Your loaded words and loaded questions won't change
that.
In my last post I made it clear that if someone else wants to raise
their children in a religion to counter a threat they believe in from
a diety they believe in that is not my business. However this does
not make it their threat.
> >> If not, what (if anything) do
> >> you offer to dissuade folks from indoctrinating
> >> their children to believe in that?
> > I'm not going to even try to prevent people from being socialized. I
> > don't see how that is possible.
>
> Socialized? Is that what you call childhood
> brainwashing, and threats against children
> regarding immortal death and torment?
No, I call socialized "socialized". You are the one who calls
socialized "childhood brainwashing and threats against children
regarding immortal death and torment. You can rail against the human
condition all you like but you are not going to change it.
> I
> call it religion, so whatever spin you put
> on it, it's religion that's to blame for it.
I'm not putting spin on it. I'm using neutral terms. You would do
well to do the same.
> >> Keep in mind
> >> that most leverage their threats off belief in a
> >> God and in ancient stories about that God that
> >> there's no evidence for.
>
> If 1950 DA is really going to slam into us in 2880
>
> Again with 1950 DA. Do you have any evi-
> dence on that, or are you just using your
> typical distraction to try to avoid discussing
> the topic forthrightly.
I'm using it as an example to illustrate the flaw in your logic. If I
warn you about something that is not _my_ threat unless I am the one
who caused or will cause the thing I'm warning you about.
Warning you about Zeus shooting lightning at you is not _my_ threat.
It would be Zeus' threat. If someone warns you that God is going to
send you the hell that is God's threat, not the guy who believes it.
> > then telling people
> > to not worry about it and not prepare will result in great loss.
>
> Evidence, something you're extremely weak
> in, but whatever, you obviously are avoiding
> discussing the topic.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm just not allowing you to
redefine all the terms.
> Probably, you don't
> wish to threaten children, but you also wish
> to prop up the 'good' God notions, and find
> that conflict to be irreoncilable, illogical, and
> contradictory.
I don't send anybody to hell. I never have and I never will. It's
not my threat.
If you are refering to the Problem with Evil I have found no
theological solution for it. On a personal level I have abandoned
certain theologies due to the contradictions.
> > Developing asteroid-moving technology and the required space ships
> > would be prudent. The only way we would do that is if we believe the
> > threat.
> > Oh and 1950 DA was on a path to slam into earth back in 1949 before we
> > knew it existed.
>
> > Now if someone wants to tell their own kids that they have to face
> > east and pray every four hours to save them from a spiritual threat
> > they believe is real how is that my business? If they are willing to
> > live at peace with me (and most are regardless of their religion) then
> > we shall live and let live. The problem is not the flavor of religion
> > but the fringe groups who seek to abuse religion.
>
> Hellfire and damnation, psychologically horren-
> dous burdens to place on the young and innocent,
> but if you wish to babble on about an asteroid
> hitting Earth in 2880, to try to distract from the
> religious threats, well, spin away, but you won't
> get any kudos from me on that.
I'm not distracting you from anything. I brought it up to illustrate
that damnation is a threat from deities and not from people. Mortals
cannot send anybody to hell. The only way the threat can be _from_ a
mortal is if that person is _not_ a believer but posing as one. If
they know it is a fraud _then_ that would be as you describe.
I know.
> Hence,
> their threats that if you don't believe in the "right
> way", you're gonna be theologically and immortally
> dead -or- you're gonna be theologically and immor-
> tally tormented.
You keep blaming humans for threats that come from immortals. This
does not make sense. If the deity in question does not exist then it
is an empty threat (Zeus can't shoot you with lighting if he isn't
real) but the threat still comes from the deity and not from the
believer.
> Yet you defend them . . .
No. Pay attention. That I take issue with you demonizing theists
does not mean I defend them. I'm asking you to keep your accusations
against them realistic. I do not defend or condone those who abuse
religion. I have been quite outspoken in my criticisms of those in my
own religion who in my opinion crossed that line.
> . . . as if by tap-dancing and act-
> ing irresponsibly towards childrens' welfare you
> can be OK with all that religious threat machine.
>
> Obviously, your answer to the above questions,
> if you characterize yourself as christian, would
> be close to '1' regarding the christian God and
> close to '7' regarding the other questions, -but-
> if you wish to place yourself near '1' for all of
> the questions, you're theologically much closr to
> a deist or ecumenical "any God will do" type
Existence is paramount.
> than you are to a christian, a nomenclature you
> probably use 'cause you were influenced to be-
> lieve in it by the social cultural milieu dominated
> by christians.
Correct
