FYI: Frank Zappa-- atheist
Andrew Kariger
Check out: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
On this page Mark Gilbert claims that FZ is an atheist.
--Andy
Bill
You sound as though you don't believe that FZ
1) didn't believe that an intelligence over-saw the universe, and
2) believed that there was no after-life.
Sounds *at least* agnostic to me. :-)
Don't tell me you buy his God as "Big Note" spiel as
his theistic crede ....
DZappa
Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
DZ
Andrew Fignar Jr.
> Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
I guess you never saw his interview on Freeman reports?
"Are you Religious?" -Freeman
"Absolutely!" -FZ
Once Again gentleman pick your quotes!
stronzo
In article <19970224002...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, dza...@aol.com
(DZappa) wrote:
> Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
>
> DZ
But he believed in the OSFA Universe, so I'd say Agnostic, or Believe it
when I see it.
--
żi------------------------------Ché cazzo--------------------------!?
John Hopkins
Andrew Fignar Jr. wrote:
>
> > Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
Not being religious ain't the same thing as not believing in a
deity; just ask Voltaire.
Just guessing here, but I think Frank avoided making statements
as to the existence of a 'god' deliberately, wanting as usual
for folks to make up their own minds.
Yers,
John
Peter de B. Harrington
It may sound surprising but on several occasions Zappa
stated that he was very religous. Another quote went
something like
I am very religous and that is why I'm so offended by these
televangelists.
He also stated that he thought '71 Sofa Suite may have
been responsible for the "bad luck," he had on the tour, and
went onto to say the he was raised a Catholic.
IMNSHO, I think FZ believed that humor also belonged in
religon, and God would not take offense to songs about
relious stupidity, such as Original Sin.
Pete -- "Bring unto me the short girl"
Children are naive -- they trust everyone.
School is bad enough, but, if you put a child
anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're
asking for trouble. -- FZ
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
John Hopkins wrote:
>
> Andrew Fignar Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
>
> Not being religious ain't the same thing as not believing in a
> deity; just ask Voltaire.
"I'm certainly not a devouter, but I did used to be. I was pretty
devout up until the time I was 18...Sure, I had religious feelings,
but that's not something that you quantize by whether or not Jesus, or
a replica or representative thereof, is whispering in your ear...I
would consider myself to be religious but unchurched. I intend to
remain that way, and I'm going to continue to raise my children that
way. And I would advise anybody who has the chance to escape from an
organized religion right now to get his ass out as soon as possible."
--Frank Zappa, quoted in Once A Catholic by Petter Occhiogrosso.
Thanks, Andy, for the photocopy!
Yoru pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
Dominus vo-bisque-'em, et come spear a tutu, oh!
Bill
I think that one can be religious and agnostic.
IMO, Frank was continued to be "religious" in that he lived his
life by a set of rules in which he believed
fervently. As an ex-Catholic and agnostic, I think I can
understand and appreciate that.
Re: The Sofa Suite - I see FZ felt so bad and superstitious
about it that he included parts of it in Joe's Garage and YCDTOSA.
I don't doubt that Frank made a comment about God's
being angry at him for the Sofa suite. I just
would take it as seriously as any comment I would make about
God causing the auto accident I was in 5 years ago.
Not very seriously at all.
I think Frank thought the concept of a God interesting
and it returns again and again in his work. Again,
as an ex-Catholic who endured years of catechism,
Baltimore and post Vatican II, this is very understandable -
but it doesn't make Frank a theist.
guarranteed over-night delivery
"If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people
love you, fine- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The
Cloud Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good- and
cares about any of it- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee
part of the brain working." FZ from "The Real Frank Zappa Book" page 301.
--
GODREX------------------------Go Drechsel
gar...@ptd.net
Chris Opperman
Peter de B. Harrington wrote:
> It may sound surprising but on several occasions Zappa
> stated that he was very religous. Another quote went
> something like
>
> I am very religous and that is why I'm so offended by these
> televangelists.
>
> He also stated that he thought '71 Sofa Suite may have
> been responsible for the "bad luck," he had on the tour, and
> went onto to say the he was raised a Catholic.
>
> IMNSHO, I think FZ believed that humor also belonged in
> religon, and God would not take offense to songs about
> relious stupidity, such as Original Sin.
>
According to the interview with FZ in the Apocrypha booklet, Frank Zappa calimed
to be a "pagan..." whatever that entailed I dunno.
--Chris
http://www.toto.com/oppyland
Andy Hollinden
In his section of Once A Catholic by Peter Occhiogrosso, Frank said, "I
Andy Hollinden
Robert Garvey
In alt.fan.frank-zappa (<01bc2202$07cbb180$8d8ddccf@drew40>)
Andrew Fignar Jr. (dre...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
> I guess you never saw his interview on Freeman reports?
> "Are you Religious?" -Freeman
> "Absolutely!" -FZ
> Once Again gentleman pick your quotes!
There are important differences distinguishing:
1. being spiritual
2. being religious
3. being a member of an organized religion
A case could be made for the phrase "organized religion" being an
oxymoron. There is certainly no shortage of morons in organized
religions.
For further treatment of this, I would recommend any number of Luis
Bunuel's movies, especially The Milky Way.
On a related point, I'd read not too long ago that Frank Zappa thought
that love was a foundation, a starting point on which you built. It
puts the lyrics of "Oh No" in a different light.
= Robert
robert...@sybase.com
chunga
Speaking of Apocrypha, how can that be aquired?
David F Lynch
guarranteed over-night delivery (gar...@ptd.net) wrote:
: "If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people
: love you, fine- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The
: Cloud Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good- and
: cares about any of it- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee
: part of the brain working." FZ from "The Real Frank Zappa Book" page 301.
True, but keep in mind this is just one way of seeing God. Just because he
(rightly, in my opinion) rejects these ideas doesn't mean he doesn't see
any God at all.
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu "Pauschalisierungen sind doof!" - Neil Peart
For a bad time see http://www.rlabs.com/lynch (.)(.) Please email followups
PERFECT SLACK FOREVER|ROUND THINGS ARE BORING|I'M SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Cliff Heller
John Hopkins <Dar...@aol.com> writes:
> Just guessing here, but I think Frank avoided making statements
> as to the existence of a 'god' deliberately, wanting as usual
> for folks to make up their own minds.
>
whaddaya mean avoided?
From Frank we know that
1) The poodle was one of God's three Big Mistakes
2) God speaks German whenever its *serious business*
--
/ \ Left Reverend Nigh Invulnerable fn...@panix.com
/<0>\ Church of the Subverted Paradigm
/ \ God Plays Dice!
/_______\ --> FIVE TONS OF FLAX <-- Death To All Fanatics!
Cliff Heller
"Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
>
> I guess you never saw his interview on Freeman reports?
> "Are you Religious?" -Freeman
> "Absolutely!" -FZ
> Once Again gentleman pick your quotes!
"Those people with the fish on the back of the car? They're the *enemy*"
I wish I could remember the source, but I read the goddamn thing and it was
an interview between FZ and an actual publication.
Biffyshrew
chunga <bu...@suck.com> wrote:
>Speaking of Apocrypha, how can that be aquired?
At your local drug store.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Information on THE BRANDNEWBUG CONCERTOS (voted the 606th best album
of all time!) at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
Laugh now.
Cliff Heller
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch) writes:
>
> True, but keep in mind this is just one way of seeing God. Just because
> he (rightly, in my opinion) rejects these ideas doesn't mean he doesn't
> see any God at all.
After hearing this sort of argument for many years and even making it
myself for a few of them (the early ones), I am now completely fed up with
it.
There's a difference between having a morality (that there are "right"
things and "wrong" things), believe that there is an order and purpose to
the universe, and believing that all of this is organized by an
anthropomorphized "God".
Many people believe in the second option but still call it "God" or their
version of "God". I don't know where Frank actually stood on this issues.
The tendency to anthropomorphize the forces of nature is very very human.
Add to that that it has been done throughout recorded human history and it
is very hard not to fall back into expressions that evoke God.
Any rational thought though cannot bear this out. The universe
evolved. There is no Prime Mover, and if there's a design to the universe
and human beings, it's pretty poor and not worthy of worship. That's not
to say that life isn't endlessly fascinating, just that anrhopomorphic
notions of a creator father (or mother in some cases) have no rational
foundation other than that we as humans take comfort in this imagery.
I hope that Frank would agree with this if he ever genuinely contemplated
it. Then again he was raised Catholic and that's a powerful indoctinary
system.
In my religion, Secular Atavism, we worship the very random nature of the
universe. Pray to fossils, pray to the senseless vector!
We even have scientific proof that failure to follow the medically
recommended dose of masturbation causes a buildup of throntum wax that
impedes regulation of the emmanuin hormone causing the victim to begin to
percieve order and purpose in the universe. No website yet, presumably
because we're too busy jerking off.
chunga
Cliff Heller wrote:
>
> "Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > > Frank felt religion was for suckers. Definitly an atheist.
> >
> > I guess you never saw his interview on Freeman reports?
> > "Are you Religious?" -Freeman
> > "Absolutely!" -FZ
> > Once Again gentleman pick your quotes!
>
> "Those people with the fish on the back of the car? They're the *enemy*"
>
> I wish I could remember the source, but I read the goddamn thing and it was
> an interview between FZ and an actual publication.
>
Zappa writes about those fish people in his autobiography, The Real
Frank Zappa book. I don't have it here, so I can't tell you which page,
but I recall he mentions that when you see the fish, think 'Harpoon'.
fzdo...@aol.com
>>Speaking of Apocrypha, how can that be aquired?
>
>At your local drug store.
>
>
It's from Kansas?
As you were.
Mark
"Futuaris Non Irresus Ridebis"
fzdo...@aol.com
>"Those people with the fish on the back of the car? They're the *enemy*"
>
>I wish I could remember the source, but I read the goddamn thing and it was
>an interview between FZ and an actual publication.
If memory serves, I believe this quote is also used on one of the Kill Ugly Radio promos.
DZappa
Ok Ok Ok, so I read the 17 or so posts that disagree with my statement
that FZ was an athiest. From my point of view (a Methodist liberal
definitly beileving in the power of Jesus) Frank seemed an awful lot like
an athiest. After re-reading the religion portion of TRFZB I have
reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still won't
get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
DZ
guarranteed over-night delivery
"Every time you see The Fish, think about using The Harpoon." The Real FZ
Book, page 307.
--
GODREX------------------------Go Drechsel
gar...@ptd.net
Darkhop
Cliff, we were talking specifically about FZ's stand on the religious
question.
Personally, all I'll say is that I'm stongly towards the atheistic end,
but I'm
keeping my eyes open.
Yers,
John "Bwana Savior" Darkhop
Andrew Fignar Jr.
DZappa <dza...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970227040...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
(FLAME THROWER ON!)
Well......
(FLAME THROWER OFF)
I think we had enough flames around here lately.
What always gets me is Christianity is has like the third largest
following behind Hindu's and Muslims, yet they think their book is right.
I love the line in Dumb All Over!
Personally, the older I get, the more agnostic I become. I remember ,just
in case (I was raised Catholic) I wanted my kids baptized. But no priest,
Minister would do it unless I was a member of the church they governed. I
tried about ten. I gave up. My mother in law found a Catholic Priest who
would do it. Way in upper Michigan. This experience really hit home in
what the church is all about. It's not about saving souls, it's about
money and controlling people.
I have always been a good person, honest, moral, if their is a God, and
that's not good enough for him, then I don't want to go to heaven.
Paul Hinrichs
akar...@interaccess.com (Andrew Kariger) wrote:
>Check out: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
>On this page Mark Gilbert claims that FZ is an atheist.
The Big Note theory is Closet Presbyterianism if I've ever seen it.
(then again, it's very dark in the closet and, even if there were
light, you have to dig through all those schnozzes and schmeagulls,
which makes finding things as small as mustard seeds very difficult.
That's why I keep all my yellow, brown, and black mustard seeds
separated and in the spice cabinet. You can find them there pretty
quick and you'll never mistake any of them for deviant Laridae or
overly large olafactory or Farfisa organs. Caveat Empty, where's my
waitress?)
Fred H. Banta
paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) said, :
>akar...@interaccess.com (Andrew Kariger) wrote:
>>Check out: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
I hear Vagino-American schmeagulls have very nice schnozzes.
Fred H. Banta
Michael Forrest Zink
> After re-reading the religion portion of TRFZB I have
> reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still won't
> get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
Well, apparently, masturbation doesn't getcha into heaven either, so...
-MZ-
Mark Clark
Fred H. Banta wrote:> >waitress?)
>
> I hear Vagino-American schmeagulls have very nice schnozzes.
>
silver" bit! :)
--
Mark (AOL Defector)
"Futuaris Non Irresus Ridebis"
Dana Paterson
DZappa wrote:
>
> Ok Ok Ok, so I read the 17 or so posts that disagree with my statement
> that FZ was an athiest. From my point of view (a Methodist liberal
> definitly beileving in the power of Jesus) Frank seemed an awful lot like
> reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still won't
> get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
>
--------------------------------------------------
Agnostic: Unbeliever, Doubter, Skeptic.
- Roget's Thesaurus
Strike 2!, as the 17 or so posts indicate collectively, Uncle Frank was
anti-religious; not atheist and not agnostic.
There is no evidence to suggest that Uncle Frank doubted the existance
of the "the great mystery" some of us conveniently label with the
three-letters "G", "O" & "D". There is evidence to suggest that he was
skeptical of the notion that the "motivation for the universe" came in
the form of some gray-bearded guy sitting on a throne floating somewhere
out there. I'm sure he believed that the form and substance of the
"ultimate truth" was more complicated than that. And finally, I believe
that, to Uncle Frank, the idea of actually paying to have someone preach
to us in pious tones while schtupping the members of the church
(emotionally, financially, and sometimes literally) was a sore spot.
There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the ultimate
explanation". However, given the quality of many in the clergy, it's
frequently hard to believe that the polyester-clad guy on TV or the
literalist delivering the homily really knows as much about it as he
tries to make us think he does. In my opinion, these people give
religion a bad name.
Dear Friend Who Art In Heaven,
Frank Zappa be thy name.
Please forgive me if I have misrepresented you. Amen.
Dana Paterson
40 Year Old Roman Catholic Since Birth
Bill
Andrew Fignar Jr. wrote:
>
> DZappa <dza...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19970227040...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> > that FZ was an athiest. From my point of view (a Methodist liberal
> > definitly beileving in the power of Jesus) Frank seemed an awful lot
> like
> > an athiest. After re-reading the religion portion of TRFZB I have
> > reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still
> won't
> > get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
>
>
> Well......
> (FLAME THROWER OFF)
>
> I think we had enough flames around here lately.
> What always gets me is Christianity is has like the third largest
> following behind Hindu's and Muslims, yet they think their book is right.
> I love the line in Dumb All Over!
> Personally, the older I get, the more agnostic I become. I remember ,just
> in case (I was raised Catholic) I wanted my kids baptized. But no priest,
> Minister would do it unless I was a member of the church they governed. I
> tried about ten. I gave up. My mother in law found a Catholic Priest who
> would do it. Way in upper Michigan. This experience really hit home in
> what the church is all about. It's not about saving souls, it's about
> money and controlling people.
> I have always been a good person, honest, moral, if their is a God, and
> that's not good enough for him, then I don't want to go to heaven.
Amen to that.
Paul Hinrichs
Michael Forrest Zink <dpg...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>> After re-reading the religion portion of TRFZB I have
>> reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still won't
>> get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
>Well, apparently, masturbation doesn't getcha into heaven either
Only temporarily.
David F Lynch
Fred H. Banta (fhb...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: I hear Vagino-American schmeagulls have very nice schnozzes.
Are there Peno-American schmeagulls?
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/"Como un bocadillo de jamon y queso!"-N.Peart
David F Lynch
DZappa (dza...@aol.com) wrote:
: Ok Ok Ok, so I read the 17 or so posts that disagree with my statement
: that FZ was an athiest. From my point of view (a Methodist liberal
: definitly beileving in the power of Jesus) Frank seemed an awful lot like
: reversed my initial feeling to agnostic, Frank was agnostic. Still won't
: get ya into heaven...... (please flame me now.....)
Depends on what you mean by "agnostic" and "religious" and all that stuff.
There are some people who think that if it's not SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, it's
not worth bothering with or thinking about. Frank wasn't one of those.
Similarly there are some people who think that if you don't accept
Jay-sus as your personal savior, you're doomed to burn in the lake of fire
forever. He obviously wasn't one of those either. Agnostic, though,
implies to me a lack of spiritual, philosophical, or religious beliefs,
and I can't see how he was ever lacking in convictions.
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/FILLER/"Bebi demasiado limonada!"- Neil Peart
Mark Clark
Dana Paterson wrote:
>
> Agnostic: Unbeliever, Doubter, Skeptic.
>
> - Roget's Thesaurus
>
> Strike 2!, as the 17 or so posts indicate collectively, Uncle Frank was
> anti-religious; not atheist and not agnostic.
>
Not so fast. Roget's definition means that it can be any one of the
three words, not necessarily ALL three. I would not call Frank an
unbeliever, or a doubter, but by all means a skeptic.
I myself am not a religious person. I believe that there is some sort of
higher power in the whole scheme of things, but I am very skeptical when
it comes to the bible, etc., and I consider myself an Agnostic.
Mark Edmonds
In article <33165B...@sprintmail.com>, Mark Clark
<fzdo...@sprintmail.com> writes
>Fred H. Banta wrote:> >waitress?)
>>
>>
>silver" bit! :)
I`m using the hi-ho silver to measure it =}
(attempting to pre-empt the next Kittiman post)
Mark Edmonds
The LOAHSOME Webmeister
On 27 Feb 1997 18:28:04 GMT, "Andrew Fignar Jr."
<dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What always gets me is Christianity is has like the third largest
>following behind Hindu's and Muslims, yet they think their book is right.
Christianity has no monopoly on that! And since when did being a
minority guarantee that someone was wrong? This is carrying democracy
to it's logical conclusion, I realize, but the conclusion is a fairly
absurd one.
Religion by its nature fosters bigotry and a narrow mind in its
adherents. I can't account for it but all my experience demonstrates
that it is true. Even among new-agers and so-called pagans, I see
enormous contempt for those who do not subscribe to the path that they
seem to believe will bring them to their personal salvation.
>I love the line in Dumb All Over!
Which one? I believe there were several . . .
>Personally, the older I get, the more agnostic I become. I remember ,just
>in case (I was raised Catholic) I wanted my kids baptized.
If you are an agnostic, why would you want to do such a thing?
But no priest,
> It's not about saving souls, it's about
>money and controlling people.
That's because religion is about co-opting people's authentic yearning
for a spiritual connection to something (maybe anything) and using it
to promote and entrench their own power and bureaucracy. This is just
politics. Tyranny pays.
>I have always been a good person, honest, moral, if their is a God, and
>that's not good enough for him, then I don't want to go to heaven.
Ok, totally off the subject: Who would want to go to Heaven anyway?
Every description I've ever heard or read makes it sound like a
terminally boring place. Hell may hurt but I bet it isn't boring!
Luckily I don't subscribe to either belief but I certainly don't grasp
the attraction.
----------
Marion Francis O'Shaughnessy
http://www.iserv.net/~fenian
The LOATHSOME Web Page
'Give me ambiguity or give me something else!'
- Adam Henry
Rolf Maurer
So then biffy...@aol.com (Biffyshrew) sez ...
>chunga <bu...@suck.com> wrote:
>
>>Speaking of Apocrypha, how can that be aquired?
>
>At your local drug store.
How much?
================================================
Rolf Maurer
rma...@pinc.com
================================================
Andrew Fignar Jr.
> Not so fast. Roget's definition means that it can be any one of the
> three words, not necessarily ALL three. I would not call Frank an
> unbeliever, or a doubter, but by all means a skeptic.
> I myself am not a religious person. I believe that there is some sort
of
> higher power in the whole scheme of things, but I am very skeptical
when
> it comes to the bible, etc., and I consider myself an Agnostic.
Same here! Except for higher power statement, I'm skeptical here too!
Nothing is a possibility for sure. Actually makes the most sense. Going
back to if a higher power exists, how did they come about? One argument I
guess is they didn't have to come about, always was, as time is a
physical property that only exists in a universe. Before the universe,
time did not exist, no way to measure it anyway!
Andrew Fignar Jr.
> >What always gets me is Christianity is has like the third largest
> >following behind Hindu's and Muslims, yet they think their book is
right.
>
> Christianity has no monopoly on that! And since when did being a
> minority guarantee that someone was wrong? This is carrying democracy
> to it's logical conclusion, I realize, but the conclusion is a fairly
> absurd one.
Well, I'm not concluding they're wrong, just wanted to point out what a
small sect they are in the world population. I guess you're right about
the minorities!
They rule here in the US. That's for sure!
> Religion by its nature fosters bigotry and a narrow mind in its
> adherents. I can't account for it but all my experience demonstrates
> that it is true. Even among new-agers and so-called pagans, I see
> enormous contempt for those who do not subscribe to the path that they
> seem to believe will bring them to their personal salvation.
I still find most religions fascinating! I subscribe to none.
>
> >I love the line in Dumb All Over!
>
> Which one? I believe there were several . . .
Referring to the books, you pulled that quote from the sentence after
"yet they think their book is right"
Granted it was not written well, the "book is right" sentence was
referring to Dumb all Over, not the minority status of Christians.
Anyway, I don't know the exact quote, but the one about whose book is
right. Seems to be what you were pointing out too in your paragraph about
bigotry.
>
> >Personally, the older I get, the more agnostic I become. I remember
,just
> >in case (I was raised Catholic) I wanted my kids baptized.
>
> If you are an agnostic, why would you want to do such a thing?
Because agnostics don't know! I was Catholic, it's called for, since I
don't know, I didn't want to take a chance! It's called peace of mind. I
don't have to worry if I made a mistake. If it's not necessary, it
doesn't hurt. Foolish? maybe? harmful? Not in the least.
> Ok, totally off the subject: Who would want to go to Heaven anyway?
> Every description I've ever heard or read makes it sound like a
> terminally boring place. Hell may hurt but I bet it isn't boring!
> Luckily I don't subscribe to either belief but I certainly don't grasp
> the attraction.
Well, you haven't read enough descriptions! I like what the Indians of
the Peyote cult, I can't remember what they call themselves? But the
description of "the Nagel", is interesting. High priests have the ability
to go to the Nagel while still alive. Peyote is used as a training aid.
Once you reach this level, you don't need it anymore. Anyway the Nagel or
where you go when you die is described as becoming one with everything,
you are everywhere all at once, throughout the universe. You are a small
cell, who joins the others when you die. Become part of the whole again.
It really is a lot more complex, than what I have stated here, but you
get the gist! Interesting stuff! Other religions have this belief too.
Another interesting fact is the power of prayer does work, and has been
documented. Actually extreme concentration, it doesn't matter what you
say, it's the focus that has the power. I remember one study with rats
on faith healing too, or the laying on of hands. The study confirmed the
difference was significant. I can't remember what study, so I can't
confirm this. I do know my wife who has a BSN, was trained in
therapeutic touch as part of her nursing degree at MSU. MSU probably has
info on this subject, since they teach it.
guaranteed over-night delivery
O.K - Here the official religion chart - according to Encarta 96 (so it's
probably wrong, eh?) Numbers are approximate (great tune) since I was
reading it off a chart.
1.7 billion - Christianity
(1.0 Roman Catholic)
(.38 Protestant)
(.12 Orthodox)
(.12 other Xians)
(.08 Anglican)
.95 - Muslims
.85 - Non-Religious
.75 - Hindus
.35 - Buddhist
.25 - Atheist
.20 - Chinese folk religions
.10 - New Religionists
.09 - Tribal Religionists
.08 - Sikhs
.08 - Jews
.06 - Shamanists
.04 - Baha'is
.03 - Jains
.04 - Shintoists
.04 - Other Religions
five people - Drechselism
--
GODREX------------------------Go Drechsel
gar...@ptd.net
guaranteed over-night delivery
I'm not a Christian, but I thought I should point out that if Christianity
isn't the largest (I have reason to believe there are more people in the
world who call themselves "Christian" than any other major religion) it
certainly is the most wide-spread. It's like a fucking plague! Look it up!
--
GODREX------------------------Go Drechsel
gar...@ptd.net
Andrew Fignar Jr. <dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bc25a4$2d7d9380$51a7bacd@drew40>...
:
: > >What always gets me is Christianity is has like the third largest
:
Paul Hinrichs
"Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>Nothing is a possibility for sure.
<<<
Nothing is what I want.
Hanzo
In article <331664...@eagle1.eaglenet.com>
Dana Paterson <dpat...@eagle1.eaglenet.com> writes:
> There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the ultimate
> explanation".
Can't live without that can you, the idea that there's an explanation
for everything. I for my part never heard a logical argument that an
ultimate explanation exists. And I don't care, for that matter.
hanzo
RRAALLFF
From: cal...@RALF.com (Cal Schenkel)
>>
paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) wrote:
>Nothing is what I want.
Sorry, that selection has been taken.
--calvin
(.85% Non-Religious, .35% Buddhist, .25% Atheist, .04% Flipist)
===================
http://www.RALF.com
===================
life&death IS nirvana --Nichiren
Fred H. Banta
h...@xs4all.nl (Hanzo) wrote:
>hanzo
I think one of man's biggest problems is that he fails to view the
universe any other way other than through his own eyes. The folly is
that he thinks there has to be some anthropomorphic explanation for
everything, and if there is none, the issue then becomes that there is
some evil force at work which we must rectify with religion. However
the most powerfully evil force I've ever come across in the universe
is man. (a bloody shoot-out/bank robbery that occurred in North
Hollywood yesterday morning comes to my mind...)
I consider myself a religious person, but instead of joining some
organization, I explore my beliefs through music and nature. My kitty
cats sure don't give a damn whether there is a god or not, and for the
most part these creatures live their lives in a state of bliss. Not
that they aren't concious of a force that is more powerful than them,
e.g., the Northridge earthquake a few years back sent them hiding
under the bed for three days.
In the Real FZ Book (which incidentally the aforementioned kitty cats
have chewed up to their hearts' content, subsequently resulting in its
current dog-eared and tooth-marked state), FZ provides some quotes
concerning the founding father's (of the USA) religious beliefs. I
think these are similar to Frank's own beliefs in religion. One of
the fallacies of this thread is the belief that if one is critical of
formal religions, its trespasses and stupidities, then one is
"atheist". Break the word down by the roots and you have: "a"=
against and "theist" = god person; against-god-person: one who
believes he has evidence that god doesn’t exist.
Strangely, my wife is at the moment listening to XTC Skylarking, the
Dear God track is playing...
Fred H. Banta
Fred H. Banta
rraa...@aol.com (RRAALLFF) wrote:
>--calvin
>(.85% Non-Religious, .35% Buddhist, .25% Atheist, .04% Flipist)
So let's see... that would make you 98.51% Artist...
>===================
>http://www.RALF.com
>===================
>life&death IS nirvana --Nichiren
Fred H. Banta
Paul Hinrichs
Hanzo wrote:
>
> In article <331664...@eagle1.eaglenet.com>
> Dana Paterson <dpat...@eagle1.eaglenet.com> writes:
>
> > There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the
ultimate
> > explanation".
>
> Can't live without that can you, the idea that there's an explanation
> for everything. I for my part never heard a logical argument that an
> ultimate explanation exists. And I don't care, for that matter.
explaining everything but itself.
David F Lynch
RRAALLFF (rraa...@aol.com) wrote:
: Sorry, that selection has been taken.
So do you like apple or cherry pie better?
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/"Como un bocadillo de jamon y queso!"-N.Peart
Mark Clark
Hanzo wrote:
>
> In article <331664...@eagle1.eaglenet.com>
> Dana Paterson <dpat...@eagle1.eaglenet.com> writes:
>
> > There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the ultimate
> > explanation".
>
> Can't live without that can you, the idea that there's an explanation
> for everything. I for my part never heard a logical argument that an
> ultimate explanation exists. And I don't care, for that matter.
Now THAT is an agnostic! ;)
Paul Hinrichs
rraa...@aol.com (RRAALLFF) wrote:
>From: cal...@RALF.com (Cal Schenkel)
>>>
>paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) wrote:
>>Nothing is what I want.
>Sorry, that selection has been taken.
Okay then, I'll settle for "Something" by George Harrison.
Michael Forrest Zink
> > > There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the ultimate
> > > explanation".
What about "the ultimate solution"? It's the ocean isn't it?
-MZ-
overcooked
On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 19:15:58 GMT, fhb...@mindspring.com (Fred H.
Banta) wrote:
>h...@xs4all.nl (Hanzo) wrote:
>
I tried to resist this thread but...
>
>>> There can be no logical argument denying the existance of "the ultimate
>>> explanation".
>
>>Can't live without that can you, the idea that there's an explanation
>>for everything. I for my part never heard a logical argument that an
>>ultimate explanation exists. And I don't care, for that matter.
>
>>hanzo
snrip
There is not a logical explanation for everything. (Forgive them for
they know not what they've done) It is a logically proven fact of
logic that in every logical system there exist statements that cannot
be logically proven or disproven. Snake eating its tail type paradox.
>I consider myself a religious person, but instead of joining some
>organization, I explore my beliefs through music and nature. My kitty
snrip
No, and forgive me for getting denotative, but that is a self
contradicting statement because a religion is an organization. There
are no private religions, only private beliefs. You can be deeply
spiritual without being part of an organization.
>Dear God track is playing...
>
>
>Fred H. Banta
btw I'm glad for this thread because a while back I tried to start
such a thread by asking if there was any evidence of Mr. Zappa's
spiritual beliefs. It was a dead thread, no response. Next time I
want to know about something I won't ask, I'll just post a statement
that appears to be written by a conclusion jumper then cut the
parachute strings, sit back and watch.
--------overcooked
"Don't believe what people say about the Bible."
-some guy trying to hoodwink me into coming to his Bible class
I took his advice and stayed far away from his crap
Biffyshrew
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch) wrote:
>RRAALLFF (rraa...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Sorry, that selection has been taken.
>
>So do you like apple or cherry pie better?
I had to settle for apple; 'cos when I got inside they didn't have no
cherry pie.
Your pal,
Biffy the Sun Pig @}-`--}----
Information on THE BRANDNEWBUG CONCERTOS (voted the 606th best album
of all time!) at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
"She spat playfully, 'I'm ahead of you, Johnny'...I studied the swell of her
enormous boobs and said, 'Baby, you're so far ahead it's BEAUTIFUL!'"
--Vivian Stanshall, "Big Shot"
Mark Edmonds
In article <3318CD...@mindspring.com>, Paul Hinrichs
<paul...@mindspring.com> writes
>There is a penultimate explanation, however, which is capable of
>explaining everything but itself.
The revelation of infinity-1 leads to a new series of unknowns (I
think).
Mark Edmonds
Peter de B. Harrington
Fred H. Banta wrote:
>
> h...@xs4all.nl (Hanzo) wrote:
>
> >In article <331664...@eagle1.eaglenet.com>
> >Dana Paterson <dpat...@eagle1.eaglenet.com> writes:
>
> >> explanation".
>
> >Can't live without that can you, the idea that there's an explanation
> >for everything. I for my part never heard a logical argument that an
> >ultimate explanation exists. And I don't care, for that matter.
>
> >hanzo
>
snip
> One of
> the fallacies of this thread is the belief that if one is critical of
> formal religions, its trespasses and stupidities, then one is
> "atheist". Break the word down by the roots and you have: "a"=
> against and "theist" = god person; against-god-person: one who
> believes he has evidence that god doesn’t exist.
>
snip
>
> Fred H. Banta
Zappa was not an atheist. He did recognize that Churches had
evolved to a form for mass control. Zappa also thought
the idea of Guilt, a key component to Judeo-Christian thinking
is in part responsible for "bad mental health."
I am curious about the statement that atheists are defined as
"one who believe he has evidence that god doesn't exist." This
statement is silly. An atheist doesn't believe in God, and as far as
I'm concerned there is no need to prove the existence of God
to anyone. Maybe a better philostopherical question for those
concerned about the big G is "why are all Gods mysterious?"
Pete
Fred H. Banta
"Peter de B. Harrington" <har...@helios.phy.ohiou.edu> said, :
>I am curious about the statement that atheists are defined as
>"one who believe he has evidence that god doesn't exist." This
>statement is silly. An atheist doesn't believe in God, and as far as
>I'm concerned there is no need to prove the existence of God
>to anyone.
There is a distinct semantic difference between "agnostic" and
"atheist". Those who feel they need not prove nor disprove god's
existence would be classified as agnostic.
Fred H. Banta
Chris
rma...@pinc.com (Rolf Maurer) writes:
>So then biffy...@aol.com (Biffyshrew) sez ...
>>chunga <bu...@suck.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Speaking of Apocrypha, how can that be aquired?
>>
>>At your local drug store.
>
>How much?
-Chris
Peter de B. Harrington
Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it
Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny
the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presupposing
such existence
From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
evidence required to be an atheist?
Pete
Chris
paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) writes:
>rraa...@aol.com (RRAALLFF) wrote:
>>From: cal...@RALF.com (Cal Schenkel)
>>paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) wrote:
>
>>>Nothing is what I want.
>
>
For your love, my heart cries
-Chris
Paul Hinrichs
Mark Edmonds <mm...@mmje.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The universe would be a much different place if we subtracted one from
all numbers. How big would a circle be if Pi were 2.14~etc? What would
natural logrithms mean if Euler's constant were 1.78~etc? What about
Avogadro's number? My checking account? The Big Note Theory? Zero is
the loneliest number? A 39-dollar bill? FZPTMOFZ for $26?
Mark Edmonds
In article <5fiv9p$c...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Paul Hinrichs
<paul...@mindspring.com> writes
>Mark Edmonds <mm...@mmje.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <3318CD...@mindspring.com>, Paul Hinrichs
>><paul...@mindspring.com> writes
>>>There is a penultimate explanation, however, which is capable of
>>>explaining everything but itself.
>
>>The revelation of infinity-1 leads to a new series of unknowns (I
>>think).
>
>The universe would be a much different place if we subtracted one from
>all numbers. How big would a circle be if Pi were 2.14~etc? What would
>natural logrithms mean if Euler's constant were 1.78~etc? What about
>Avogadro's number? My checking account? The Big Note Theory? Zero is
>the loneliest number? A 39-dollar bill? FZPTMOFZ for $26?
Sort of proves the point don't it!
Mark Edmonds
Martin Gregorie
pope...@aol.com (Popeye41) wrote:
>
>Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too pseudo-intellectual
>to call themselves athiests.
Where does that leave the Zen Buddhists? AFAIK they don't believe in
Buddha, just in the philosophy. So there's a whole religion devoted to
agnosticism. They aren't wish-washy - just dont see the need for a
deity, but I don't think that makes them atheists.
Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
Greg...@logica.com |All opinions expressed are solely those
+44 (0171) 637 9111 |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred H. Banta
"Peter de B. Harrington" <har...@helios.phy.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
>decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
>evidence required to be an atheist?
From the perspective of the atheist, that which makes it evident that
there is no god is "evidence".
Fred H. Banta
Popeye41
<Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it
Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny
the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presupposing
such existence
From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
evidence required to be an atheist?>
Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too pseudo-intellectual
to call themselves athiests.
Andrew Fignar Jr.
>
> Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it
> Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny
> the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presupposing
> such existence
>
> From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
> decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
> evidence required to be an atheist?
What if Agnostics decide that God exists? Would they still be atheists.
Your statement "Agnostics are Atheists...", They don't deny the existence
of God, just question it. Agnostics are not atheists, if they were, we
wouldn't need the word agnostic.
Andrew Fignar Jr.
> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
pseudo-intellectual
> to call themselves athiests.
Afraid of what? Can't be God, because you say they are athiests. Society?
Give me a break!
Andrew Fignar Jr.
> >Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
pseudo-intellectual
> >to call themselves athiests.
>
> Where does that leave the Zen Buddhists? AFAIK they don't believe in
> Buddha, just in the philosophy. So there's a whole religion devoted to
> agnosticism. They aren't wish-washy - just dont see the need for a
> deity, but I don't think that makes them atheists.
Zen is a sect of Buddhism, And from what I understand they certainly do
believe in a higher power. At least originally anyway.
Darkhop
RRAALLFF wrote:
> I think the real distinction is that rather than theorize that "ultimate
> truth" (i.e.: God*) "transcends" the physical reality (is "supernatural"),
> in Buddhism any "ultimate truth" (while still perhaps fundamentally a
> "mystery") is found only "within" the physical reality (there is no
> "supernatural").
Indeed. And I've always wondered, for example, just where one goes in
the
universe to find something outside it. More clearly: exactly what is
"unnatural" or even "supernatural" in a reality where nature is the
Entire
House? One of Nietzsche's big points was that our language shoehorns us
into concepts practically dictated by grammar. Thus: "ultimate truth"?
Whatever,
John
"Adventavit asinus, pulcher et fortissimus"
arc4786
: Andrew Fignar Jr. wrote:
: > This experience really hit home in what the church is all about. It's
: > not about saving souls, it's about money and controlling people.
: > I have always been a good person, honest, moral, if their is a God, and
: > that's not good enough for him, then I don't want to go to heaven.
As a Christian in a ".edu" zone, and having grown up in a
Somnambulist,...er, Methodist church, I can assure you that a vast
majority of the "mainline" churches in America are guilty as charged. They
are grossly materialistic and don't do their jobs as community and
ministry centers for the people of God. Instead, people go against the
teaching that Jesus himself gave (FYI Mark 10:42-45) and use their power
for their own gain. There is also a dependence on things rather than of
God. This is a Violation of Commandments 1&2 (Exodus 20:3-6) and idolatry.
And, yet, throughout all of these and all other horrid things the
global Church has committed throughout history, God is still willing to
honor believers with gifts. Go figure. Kinda gives new meaning to
Ephesians 5:25, doesn't it?
Whether or not the Bible is true, whether or not i'm responsible for the
Spanish Inquisition, God still loved me enough save me from the sin that I
had and turn my life around. I hope I never "get over" that.
--
"All this and more can be yours Howie, including an ELECTRIC-COOLED PONY
HARNESS!! With fuel injection, fuel injection..."
-Mark Volman (of Flo & Eddie)
PS. Baptism is a remembrance of the redemption of all sinners by Christ,
and can't save people. If you & your sons don't believe, the baptism is
just another dunking (or dumping) in water. Salvation is a pure gift.
God's grace through faith that he will do what he says (Galatians 3:12).
PPS-Sorry y'all about the big tangent.
Jay C
"Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Where does that leave the Zen Buddhists? AFAIK they don't believe in
>> Buddha, just in the philosophy
Zen Buddhists "believe" that the Buddha is not some sort of deity to
be worshipped but simply a label that designates the ego-free
consciousness that has been stripped of illusion. In other words, our
own mind as it really is.
>Zen is a sect of Buddhism, And from what I understand they certainly do
>believe in a higher power. At least originally anyway.
As a matter of fact they believe in the existence, or relative
existence to be exact, of innumerable demons and gods. Zen treats
these beings not as higher powers in theistic sense. They are
considered sentient beings just like us in that they eventually die.
The only difference is that they live much longer than us humans and
can exercise various levels of supernatural powers. They are, however,
also trapped in the world of cyclic existence just like us. Buddhas
(note the plural) are beyond this cycle, but again not to be blindly
worshipped because Zen holds that all of us are Buddhas anyway.The
only thing to do then is to remove the veil of illusion or ignorance
that seems to hide our true nature through the practice of meditation.
Zen is not atheistic, it is non-theistic.
Jay
Paul Hinrichs
"Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
>pseudo-intellectual
>> to call themselves athiests.
>Afraid of what? Can't be God, because you say they are athiests. Society?
>Give me a break!
I be wit' da 'Drew on this one. If there is a God, he cursed a major
segment of the population with the classic scientific/analytical mind
that does not draw conclusions without sufficient evidence. The
advances brought about by this type of mind has brought humanity out
of the dark ages into a more reasonable and more comfortable existence
- regardless of the downside we experience in the form of pollution,
overpopulation, and modern day stress. Most of us live in a manner
that would be the envy of any 18th century King, even if it pinches us
a bit to shell out 27 bucks for FZptmoFZ.
I'm not saying all scientific minds are agnostic because that is not
true. What I'm sayin', and sayin' again, is that minds based on reason
must either question the existence of God or compartmentalize their
faith in a special place where science and reason do not exist. They
are not wimps, they have advanced civilization to the point where we
can discuss these matters across continents nearly instantaneously,
while simultaneously eliminating the plagues and superstition
previously attributed to the same Divine Being everybody spends their
newly-found leisure time arguing about.
Paul Hinrichs
"Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What if Agnostics decide that God exists? Would they still be atheists.
>Your statement "Agnostics are Atheists...", They don't deny the existence
>of God, just question it. Agnostics are not atheists, if they were, we
>wouldn't need the word agnostic.
<briefly stepping back into the role of Professor Paul>
Fantastic, Andrew! You are now officially an Honor Student in the
school of word usage. I'll be sending you your bumper sticker
forthright.
Bringing this back around to FZ, didn't he express a fascination with
a certain religion where all the things you have names for will follow
you to the afterlife? I vaguely recall him saying that, as the reason
he gave odd names to things, kinda jokingly.
Martin Gregorie
ja...@virgin.net (Jay C) wrote:
>As a matter of fact they believe in the existence, or relative
>existence to be exact, of innumerable demons and gods. Zen treats
>these beings not as higher powers in theistic sense.
I think you're referring to Tibetan Bhuddism, which is an offshoot
that incorporated much of the previous animistic Tibetan religion.
Both it and Hinduism, which Bhuddism was derived from, have whole
pantheons of deities but true Bhuddism has only the Bhudda and the Zen
crowd dispensed even with him as a deity.
The various western Bhuddist groups seem to be either Zen or Tibetan
flavours.
Biffyshrew
>> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
>pseudo-intellectual
>> to call themselves athiests.
Nonsense. Agnostics are not atheists, and they are not "wishy-washy."
Their belief is that the existence of God is *unknowable.* Atheists are
convinced that God does not exist. Two different belief systems. It's
that simple.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Paul Davis
On 04-Mar-97 23:48:24, Peter de B. Harrington (har...@helios.phy.ohiou.edu) wrote:
Hi Peter :)
>> There is a distinct semantic difference between "agnostic" and
>> "atheist". Those who feel they need not prove nor disprove god
>> existence would be classified as agnostic.
PdB> Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presuppo
PdB> Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or
PdB> the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presuppos
PdB> such existence
PdB> From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to mak
PdB> decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why i
PdB> evidence required to be an atheist?
AIUI, an Atheist is neutral on God. Doesn't care in fact, one way or
the other. Anti-religionists are self-defined by title. Agnostics
believe that no-one can ever know the true reality of *anything* much
less God. ie. Agnostics don't know and think no-one can ever know for
sure.
--
Paul Davis <musi...@theplot.demon.co.uk>
2:254/524.18 <FidoNet> 2:402/302.32
--
Just me and the pygmy pony, over by the dental floss bush...
Paul Davis
On 05-Mar-97 02:33:27, Fred H. Banta (fhb...@mindspring.com) wrote:
Hi Fred :)
>>From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to ma
>>decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why
>>evidence required to be an atheist?
FHB> From the perspective of the atheist, that which makes it evident
FHB> there is no god is "evidence".
Can you provide some evidence then?
--
Paul Davis <musi...@theplot.demon.co.uk>
2:254/524.18 <FidoNet> 2:402/302.32
--
Roses become compost; compost feeds the garden for the growth of new
roses.
Cal Schenkel
<<<
paul...@mindspring.com (Paul Hinrichs) wrote:
>Nothing is what I want.
Sorry, that selection has been taken.
--calvin
(.85% Non-Religious, .35% Buddhist, .25% Atheist, .04% Flipist)
===================
http://www.RALF.com
===================
life&death IS nirvana --Nichiren
Popeye41
>>
>>Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it
>> Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny
>> the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presupposing
>> such existence
>>
>> From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
>> decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
>> evidence required to be an atheist?
>What if Agnostics decide that God exists? Would they still be atheists.
>Your statement "Agnostics are Atheists...", They don't deny the existence
>of God, just question it. Agnostics are not atheists, if they were, we
>wouldn't need the word agnostic.
If an agnostic decides that God exists, then he will simply not be an
athiest anymore. Just like a person who is a Democrat and comes to his
senses :) and becomes a Republican, a person can be an athiest and then
become a believer later on (without stopping to rest at the agnostic
"way-station") Declaring yourself an agnostic is kind of like declaring
yourself an Independent--you are really a Democrat or Republican but you
fudge because either you don't want the other person(s) to know your party
affiliation because of social reasons, or you're so wishy-washy or
confused you don't know your head from your ass, or you snootily fancy
yourself "above" politics and ideology. Not surprisingly some of those
who fancy themselves above politics are also the ones who really don't
know their head from their ass (like some so-called "swing voters"--i.e.
soccer moms, Reagan Democrats).
I fancied myself an agnostic for a long time, for all of the above
reasons. Then I went through a stage trying to rationalize it by saying,
"Okay, there is a God, but he's really a vengeful type God and not the God
they talk about in the Bible." But sooner or later one has to come to
realization God is not going appear on earth to "prove" to the "agnostics"
that he exists.
Darkhop
Popeye41 wrote:
> Declaring yourself an agnostic is kind of like declaring
> yourself an Independent--you are really a Democrat or Republican but you
> fudge because either you don't want the other person(s) to know your party
> affiliation because of social reasons, or you're so wishy-washy or
> confused you don't know your head from your ass, or you snootily fancy
> yourself "above" politics and ideology.
Nice try, but the world's a tad more complex than that. There are plenty
of reasons not to be 'established' with any party at all, as we are all
individuals, and (as FZ fans should perhaps understand better than most)
no committee drivel that a whole big bunch of people have to vote on as
their 'platform' is ever going to get everything 'right', if ya follow.
I'm opposed to the stupid shit that goes on in any & every political
party, which handily renders party affiliation pointless. Wishy-washy
it ain't; it's called thinking for yourself.
But what do I know?
Yers,
Peter de B. Harrington
Andrew Fignar Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > Atheist = one who denies the existence of God or tenets presupposing it
> > Agnostics = an unwillingness on available evidence to affirm or deny
> > the existence of God or subscribe to tenets presupposing
> > such existence
> >
> > From the dictionary. Agnostics are atheists who have yet to make a
> > decision. No one needs evidence of God to be religous, so why is
> > evidence required to be an atheist?
>
> What if Agnostics decide that God exists? Would they still be atheists.
> Your statement "Agnostics are Atheists...", They don't deny the existence
> of God, just question it. Agnostics are not atheists, if they were, we
> wouldn't need the word agnostic.
Precisely, the point I was making, they are undecided and the ones
that are looking for evidence.
Pete
David F Lynch
Andrew Fignar Jr. (dre...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Zen is a sect of Buddhism, And from what I understand they certainly do
: believe in a higher power. At least originally anyway.
Not necessarily. Some Buddhists are theistic, but others don't base their
ideology on the existence of a "higher power".
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu "Pauschalisierungen sind doof!" - Neil Peart
For a bad time see http://www.rlabs.com/lynch (.)(.) Please email followups
PERFECT SLACK FOREVER|ROUND THINGS ARE BORING|I'M SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Mark Clark
Biffyshrew wrote:
Agnostics are not atheists, and they are not "wishy-washy."
> Their belief is that the existence of God is *unknowable.* Atheists are
> convinced that God does not exist. Two different belief systems. It's
> that simple.
>
Ditto.
--
Mark (AOL Defector)
"Futuaris Non Irresus Ridebis"
mog...@band.com
as someone who doesn't *believe* in ANY metaphysical/supernatural stuff, be
it esp, reincarnation, ghosts, or uri geller, i lump any *GOD* in with that
lot. and i consider myself an atheist. there is no *test* or *membership
fee* to be an atheist. words will be defined by how they is used.
Cal Schenkel
Cal Schenkel
David F Lynch
Popeye41 (pope...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too pseudo-intellectual
: to call themselves athiests.
What a load of HORSESHIT! Agnostics are people without the gall, stupidity,
and dogmatism to presume the existence of God can be proved one way or
another.
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu "Ja, ja, tis weer sokken in de lucht!"- Peart
Cal Schenkel
Bill
cyber-god wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:06:10 -0500, in alt.fan.frank-zappa you wrote:
>
> >Peter de B. Harrington wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Andrew Kariger wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Check out: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
> >> > >
> >> > > On this page Mark Gilbert claims that FZ is an atheist.
> >> > >
> >> > > --Andy
> >> >
> >> > You sound as though you don't believe that FZ
> >> > 1) didn't believe that an intelligence over-saw the universe, and
> >> > 2) believed that there was no after-life.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds *at least* agnostic to me. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Don't tell me you buy his God as "Big Note" spiel as
> >> > his theistic crede ....
> >>
> >> It may sound surprising but on several occasions Zappa
> >> stated that he was very religous. Another quote went
> >> something like
> >>
> >> I am very religous and that is why I'm so offended by these
> >> televangelists.
> >>
> >> He also stated that he thought '71 Sofa Suite may have
> >> been responsible for the "bad luck," he had on the tour, and
> >> went onto to say the he was raised a Catholic.
> >>
>
> WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU READ THIS IN A COMIC BOOK
Shit for brains, why don't you just fuck off.
You didn't even respond to the right person.
Get your head out of your ass.
Drop dead.
Twice.
<snip>
overcooked
On 5 Mar 1997 06:02:02 GMT, pope...@aol.com (Popeye41) wrote:
snrip
>Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too pseudo-intellectual
>to call themselves athiests.
agnostics are not theists
theists are not animists
animals are not plants
plants don't eat breakfast
---___---___---___overcooked
"Please turn that off!"
-my mother in-law after listening to Grateful Dead for 3 minutes
RRAALLFF
From: cal...@RALF.com (Cal Schenkel)
greg...@see.sig.for.address (Martin Gregorie) wrote:
>Where does that leave the Zen Buddhists? AFAIK they don't believe in
>Buddha, just in the philosophy. So there's a whole religion devoted to
>agnosticism. They aren't wish-washy - just don't see the need for a
>deity, but I don't think that makes them atheists.
Re Buddhism:
(words in "quotes" to be followed by "(whatever THAT means)").
I think the real distinction is that rather than theorize that "ultimate
truth" (i.e.: God*) "transcends" the physical reality (is "supernatural"),
in Buddhism any "ultimate truth" (while still perhaps fundamentally a
"mystery") is found only "within" the physical reality (there is no
"supernatural").
*(not meant to characterize anyone's personal view of any God, god, gods
or lack thereof). And yes, there are many different forms of Buddhism with
alternate viewpoints.
--Calvin
Fred H. Banta
Paul Davis <musi...@theplot.demon.co.uk> said, :
>On 05-Mar-97 02:33:27, Fred H. Banta (fhb...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> FHB> From the perspective of the atheist, that which makes it evident
> FHB> there is no god is "evidence".
>Can you provide some evidence then?
I have none. I am neither atheist nor agnostic. The problem some
folks seem to be having in understanding my original assertion on this
matter is that they don't know the definition of the word "evidence".
It is not just "what judges allow in the court room" on TeeVee.
Check a dictionary, preferably the OED.
Fred H. Banta
Paul Hinrichs
fhb...@mindspring.com (Fred H. Banta) wrote:
>Paul Davis <musi...@theplot.demon.co.uk> said, :
>>Can you provide some evidence then?
>I have none. I am neither atheist nor agnostic. The problem some
>folks seem to be having in understanding my original assertion on this
>matter is that they don't know the definition of the word "evidence".
>It is not just "what judges allow in the court room" on TeeVee.
>Check a dictionary, preferably the OED.
Not too sure about God, but the Pittsburgh Pirates had at least two
guys named "Jesus" on their payroll during the 1980s - and I can prove
that! 'Course they didn't get into the World Series during those years
but, hey, blessed are the meek.
...and the cheesemakers.
Popeye41
>So do you like apple or cherry pie better?
I had to settle for apple; 'cos when I got inside they didn't have no
cherry pie.
I prefer Custard Pie on Physical Graffiti
The LOATHSOME Webmeister
On 5 Mar 1997 23:30:09 GMT, "Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
>pseudo-intellectual
>> to call themselves athiests.
>
>Afraid of what? Can't be God, because you say they are athiests. Society?
>Give me a break!
>
Since neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved
*scientifically* (now there's a religion to reckon with), becoming an
atheist requires an act of faith as profound as any performed by a
Hindu, Christian, Sufi, or Zoroastrian. Therefore one may assume from
the above remark that an agnostic fears the spiritual commitment of
being an atheist.
Arf.
----------
Marion Francis O'Shaughnessy
http://www.iserv.net/~fenian
The Loathsome Web Page
"What I want to know is who's plooking the monkeys?"
-Frank Zappa, 1985
Martin Gregorie
fen...@iserv.net (The LOATHSOME Webmeister) wrote:
>On 5 Mar 1997 23:30:09 GMT, "Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
>>pseudo-intellectual
>>> to call themselves athiests.
>>
>>Afraid of what? Can't be God, because you say they are athiests. Society?
>>Give me a break!
>>
>Since neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved
>*scientifically* (now there's a religion to reckon with), becoming an
>atheist requires an act of faith as profound as any performed by a
>Hindu, Christian, Sufi, or Zoroastrian. Therefore one may assume from
>the above remark that an agnostic fears the spiritual commitment of
>being an atheist.
>
>Arf.
>
Well put.
Paul Hinrichs
greg...@see.sig.for.address (Martin Gregorie) wrote:
>fen...@iserv.net (The LOATHSOME Webmeister) wrote:
>>On 5 Mar 1997 23:30:09 GMT, "Andrew Fignar Jr." <dre...@ix.netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> Agnostics are athiests who are afraid/wishy-washy/too
>>>pseudo-intellectual
>>>> to call themselves athiests.
>>>
>>>Afraid of what? Can't be God, because you say they are athiests. Society?
>>>Give me a break!
>>>
>>Since neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proved
>>*scientifically* (now there's a religion to reckon with), becoming an
>>atheist requires an act of faith as profound as any performed by a
>>Hindu, Christian, Sufi, or Zoroastrian. Therefore one may assume from
>>the above remark that an agnostic fears the spiritual commitment of
>>being an atheist.
>>
>>Arf.
>>
>Well put.
But wrong.
There is no fear involved if you avoid an argument where neither side
has anything to back up their claims.
Mark Edmonds
Whilst going through the Concise Oxford Dictionary, I came across this:
"God's own country: an earthly paradise, esp. the United States."
Food for thought perhaps?
Mark Edmonds
Paul Hinrichs
greg...@see.sig.for.address (Martin Gregorie) wrote:
>Mark Edmonds <mm...@mmje.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Whilst going through the Concise Oxford Dictionary, I came across this:
>>
>>"God's own country: an earthly paradise, esp. the United States."
>>
>Interesting, but wrong. Everybody knows NewZealand is Godzone Country
>(Godzonia for short).
Because of all the sheep?