A vote for DADA is a vote for REASON!
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades,
>>>and probably won't until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by
>>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
>>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
>>>about it.) Whatever.
>>>
>>> Michael H.
>>
>>
>>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>>
>>
>>--ZRTLM
>
>
>So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
>art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
>can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
>not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
>how you look at religious art.
>
>
>
>scott
>
>
Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma. (A good name
for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol) Art is the direct,
intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
act, with a conscious, intended message.
Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
Michael H.
> On 22 Oct 98 23:58:51 -0400, "scott hand"
> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >>wrote:
> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
> >>>about it.) Whatever.
> >>> Michael H.
> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
> >>--ZRTLM
> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
> >how you look at religious art.
> >scott
No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings. You must have
seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
the forms on the cave walls/ceilings. The main parts of the shapes
follow the natural lines of the rock formations. That is why I changed
the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
clouds is a lot like hallucinating, and same thing for the cave
drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
but that you can somehow see. The question of how that can happen is
very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
paisleys in there?
> Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
> things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
> WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma.
Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
of some experience that leaves them no choice. Religion isn't always the
picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
concentration camps. It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
does wake people up in some way. It strikes me as being simultaneously
about living in the instant yet having a cosmic perspective about human
mortality. I don't know if Coltrane was specifically Christian, or of
another religion, but his phrase "A Love Supreme," captures it very well
for me.
>(A good name
> for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol)
hahaha!! I like it. Then their fans could shorten it to BAD!
>Art is the direct,
> intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
> Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
> act, with a conscious, intended message.
It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
itself may not be rational, obviously.
> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
??? That one is over my head.
Michael H.
> --ZRTLM
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
>things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
>for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol) Art is the direct,
>intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
>Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
>act, with a conscious, intended message.
What about the difference of art "depicting" religion and art "expressing"
religion? I mostly agree with what you are saying about religion, but I
don't think the dogma has to be accepted blindly. Most of the time it is,
but it doesn't have to be. Everybody has cetain rules they live by,
definitions of the universe so they know where to put their feet in the
morning, no different from dogma. I do have more respect for people that
come up with their own rules, though.
>Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
Sure, surrealism is inherently paradoxical because it is a product of the
rational human mind. You have to intend to use surrealism to circumvent
reason. I'm guessing this is what you are getting at. In the same way,
religion can be used to pull a person to the same place. I think
Christianity is a particularly crappy method, but it can be done.
scott
scott hand
>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> >>wrote:
>
>> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but
art
>> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa?
(Think
>> >>>about it.) Whatever.
>
>> >>>
Michael H.
I think I know what you mean, but unless you are using a VERY broad
definition of religion, I don't think it's necessary.
>> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>
>> >>--ZRTLM
>
>> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the
earliest
>> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that
art
>> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm,
I'm
>> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to
hear
>> >how you look at religious art.
>
>> >scott
>
> No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
>I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings. You must have
>seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
Yes, that was part of what I was referring to. There was a proto-religious
significance to those paintings. If I had read you're response to that
post, I wouldn't have bothered with mine. You got it pretty well.
>The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
>around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
>near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
>forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
>the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
>telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
>the forms on the cave walls/ceilings. The main parts of the shapes
>follow the natural lines of the rock formations. That is why I changed
>the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
>clouds is a lot like hallucinating, and same thing for the cave
>drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
>related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
>but that you can somehow see.
Yeah, the human specialty of abstraction. The capability of relating
seemingly unrelated things. I think that is where both religion and art
come from.
The question of how that can happen is
>very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
>pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
>or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
>patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
>built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
>living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
>paisleys in there?
Hahaha, I have wondered that many times myself, and I wasn't even around
for the sixties (for anyone who hasn't checked in a while, they are still
there). I don't know if they are built into the brain or something
environmental. Weird stuff for sure, there is still much we don't know.
This all brings up the question, "Are hallucinations real?". Of course they
are, they're just hard to reach.
>
>
>> Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
>> things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
>> WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma.
>
> Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
>of some experience that leaves them no choice. Religion isn't always the
>picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
>persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
>concentration camps. It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
>issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
>under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
>big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
>words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
>does wake people up in some way. It strikes me as being simultaneously
>about living in the instant yet having a cosmic perspective about human
>mortality. I don't know if Coltrane was specifically Christian, or of
>another religion, but his phrase "A Love Supreme," captures it very well
>for me.
I think christianity is indeed intended as a big teddy bear in the sky.
There can be more if you like, but for most people, that's all they want.
The spiritual aspects you mention are there, but there is also the "lite"
version for simple comfort and political manipulation. Atheists are just
christians in denial. I get the impression that Coltrane was beyond
everyday christianity, though I don't know that much about him.
> >(A good name
>> for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol)
>
> hahaha!! I like it. Then their fans could shorten it to BAD!
>
> >Art is the direct,
>> intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
>> Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
>> act, with a conscious, intended message.
>
> It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
>itself may not be rational, obviously.
>
>> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
> ??? That one is over my head.
It's a conscious decision to be surreal.
> Michael H.
>
>> --ZRTLM
>
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:58 PM, Michael H. <mailto:zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
>>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>>> >>wrote:
>>
>The point of
>>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
>>big momma's breast in the sky.
I like breasts and teddy bears. If God has a pussy department, count
me in! :P~~~
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
Michael H.
> On 23 Oct 98 12:46:34 -0400, "scott hand"
> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:58 PM, Michael H. <mailto:zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> >>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >>> >>wrote:
> >The point of
> >>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> >>big momma's breast in the sky.
> I like breasts and teddy bears. If God has a pussy department, count
> me in! :P~~~
Think of that beetle tune, "Pussy In the Sky With Diamonds." That
pretty well sums it up, doesn't it.
Michael
Hanzo
"Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
of some experience that leaves them no choice.
Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
Religion isn't always the
> picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> concentration camps.
Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> does wake people up in some way.
Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
>
There is no Hell Hanzo
Michael H.
> In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
> of some experience that leaves them no choice.
> Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
> Religion isn't always the
> > picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> > persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> > concentration camps.
> Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
> out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
> Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
> It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> > issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> > under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> > Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> > big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> > words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> > does wake people up in some way.
> Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
Michael H.
Hanzo
"Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Hanzo wrote:
>
> > In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
> > Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
> > of some experience that leaves them no choice.
>
> > Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
>
> > Religion isn't always the
> > > picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> > > persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> > > concentration camps.
>
> > Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
> > out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
> > Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
>
> > It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> > > issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> > > under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> > > Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> > > big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> > > words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> > > does wake people up in some way.
>
> > Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
>
> I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
>
> Michael H.
Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
Hanzo
Archie Leach
[...]
> It's a conscious decision to be surreal.
No, it is most definitely NOT a conscious decision.
Archie Leach
****************************
In alt.fan.art-bell, Leon Lickspittle wrote:
"It is not bigotry to hate the French. It is common sense."
******************************
What happened to my .sig?
No matter. You're still sending psychic messages to the Space Buddhas
to show up on 2 February 1999. Thank you.
Archie Leach
[...]
> You have to intend to use surrealism to
> circumvent reason.
Your claim is absolutely wrong-ola, buckaroo.
Michael H.
> In article <363585...@netcom.ca>
> "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> > Hanzo wrote:
> > > In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> > > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
<snip>
> > > Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
> > I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
> > Michael H.
> Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
> fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
should be more open-minded and tolerant.
Michael H.
scott hand
>Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
>fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
>
>
I don't know, but I'll take your word for it.
You're concept of god may be much different from another's concept. They
may have very little in common. I think Zappa's problem was with evangelism
and rip-off artists. I'm sure he would be just as annoyed by evangelistic
atheists.
scott
Tony Rigby
>Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
>Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
>you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
>safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
>surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
>about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
>just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
>people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
>door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
>should be more open-minded and tolerant.
Indeed. Militant atheists have a hysteria about them quite as unpleasant
as the headbanging evangelists - and they're even less rational too.
Bye... T.
--
Tony Rigby Internet: tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk
Edmonton, London, England
Michael Pierry
Tony Rigby wrote:
>
>
> Indeed. Militant atheists have a hysteria about them quite as unpleasant
> as the headbanging evangelists - and they're even less rational too.
>
To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "Who are these people?" Communists? I don't
know any militant atheists.
Michael H.
> Tony Rigby wrote:
No fanatic, religious or atheist, preaches to the converted. So if you
are an atheist you wouldn't see that ugly side. The side that crawls
around like a slug and jumps out from behind bushes and frightens little
old ladies on their way to church. There is a whole other world out
there that you don't know about, things that go bump in the daytime.
Michael H.
scott hand
wrote:
>Tony Rigby wrote:
>>
>>
>> Indeed. Militant atheists have a hysteria about them quite as unpleasant
>> as the headbanging evangelists - and they're even less rational too.
>>
>
>To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "Who are these people?" Communists? I don't
>know any militant atheists.
>
They're around. A few years ago, a whole bunch of card carrying atheists
came to my hometown led by their leader atheist woman. Her son lives here
and rejects her beliefs, being some sort of christian. There was much
hoopla with the atheists marching around downtown and a lot villification
this way and that with the reporters and the cameras and the signs and the
rhetorics...
A big silly mess.
scott
Michael H.
> A big silly mess.
Sounds like a Monty Python skit, doesn't it?
Michael H.
Darkhop
"Come join us in not believing in something!" These guys are probably closet
believers -- they grew up having religious ideas drilled into them, and now
as adults they don't find these ideas believable anymore but it's difficult
to just think away nearly two decades of personal experience. They can't get
rid of a certain amount of Believer residue, so they get pissed off and join
what are essentially support groups. Unfortunately, that's the same thing
that makes religions suspicious: they can't leave well enough alone; they
organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
brought back exclusively for them.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Michael H.
> To this atheist, fewer things seem more pointless than organized atheists.
> "Come join us in not believing in something!" These guys are probably closet
> believers -- they grew up having religious ideas drilled into them, and now
> as adults they don't find these ideas believable anymore but it's difficult
> to just think away nearly two decades of personal experience. They can't get
> rid of a certain amount of Believer residue, so they get pissed off and join
> what are essentially support groups.
Atheism as a twelve-step recovery program to help people addicted to
religion? That is a wild idea. It would probably be a good idea for some
people, e.g. people who send money to televangelists.
>Unfortunately, that's the same thing
> that makes religions suspicious: they can't leave well enough alone; they
> organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
> brought back exclusively for them.
It's all so tribalistic.
Michael H.
Hanzo
"Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Hanzo wrote:
>
> > In article <363585...@netcom.ca>
> > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
> > > Hanzo wrote:
>
> > > > In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> > > > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
>
> > > I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
>
> > > Michael H.
>
> > Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
> > fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
>
> Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
> Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
> you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
> safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
> surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
> about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
> just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
> people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
> door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
> should be more open-minded and tolerant.
>
> Michael H.
I'm certainly no void worshipper. My life is full of music, love, work
etc. etc. I don't kill, I don't steal, and I honor my parents. Really,
it's all possible without religion.
Hanzo
Geir Corneliussen
>
> To this atheist, fewer things seem more pointless than organized atheists.
> "Come join us in not believing in something!" These guys are probably closet
> believers -- they grew up having religious ideas drilled into them, and now
> as adults they don't find these ideas believable anymore but it's difficult
> to just think away nearly two decades of personal experience. They can't get
> rid of a certain amount of Believer residue, so they get pissed off and join
> that makes religions suspicious: they can't leave well enough alone; they
> organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
> brought back exclusively for them.
>
> John
> http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
True. He is let alone in the dark, mr.Hop...
In Norway, we have this atheistic group called "human etical union",
wich is just crap. They incorporate those old Theistic traditions,
calling them something slightly different, like an alternate. How lame.
It's like a church with no God. So what's the point?
If I ever say I am an atheist, it's just to shut the mouth of the
religious people. Because...One cannot discuss religion. It goes
nowhere. People only get hurted, and let you stand there feeling guilty.
It's not your fault, you think. But those Christians think you are the
devil, or some even feel sorry for yah,'cause you can't go with them to
heaven and party with them and such...So I better shut up.
Geir Corneliussen
The First Church of Appliantology
http://home.sol.no/~corn
Michael Pierry
>
> In article <3635F5...@netcom.ca>
> "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
> > Hanzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
> > > fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them. Searching for
deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering. At the very least,
studying religion helps us to understand ourselves. I see nothing wrong with
being a religious Zappa fan, but I see a lot wrong with making silly blanket
statements like "I detest religious Zappa fans." I think what Michael H.
might be getting at in this thread is that some people might choose atheism as
an easy way out, so they don't have to think about the really hard stuff.
> >
> > Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
> > Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
> > you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
> > safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
> > surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
> > about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
> > just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
> > people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
> > door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
> > should be more open-minded and tolerant.
But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
Michael Pierry
>
> To this atheist, fewer things seem more pointless than organized atheists.
They have atheist organizations? That gives me a fuckin' headache!
scott hand
<mailto:johnh...@BEST.GUESSdarkhop.com> wrote:
>To this atheist, fewer things seem more pointless than organized atheists.
closet
>believers -- they grew up having religious ideas drilled into them, and
now
>as adults they don't find these ideas believable anymore but it's
difficult
>to just think away nearly two decades of personal experience. They can't
get
>rid of a certain amount of Believer residue, so they get pissed off and
join
>what are essentially support groups. Unfortunately, that's the same thing
>that makes religions suspicious: they can't leave well enough alone; they
>organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
>brought back exclusively for them.
>
>Yers,
>John
>http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
>
Yup. Perhaps you refer to yourself as atheist for lack of anything better
to say when the question comes up? It just seems irrelevant to me. Too much
trouble to be atheistic.
scott
Jason Arvey
>
>
> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
gripe.
--Jason Arvey
Mike Dickson
> I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them.
> Searching for deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering.
That is patently what religion is not all about. Religion gives you all
the answers without actually having any need to prove anything. This is
called 'faith'. If anything it positively discourages the sort of
'searching' you are describing.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
Uncle Remus
Zeal against zeal would perhaps make them hypocrites. Zeal against
faith probably wouldn't.
--Uncle Remus
d...@apk.net
Michael Pierry
But you're not answering my question, which is: who and where the fuck
are these atheistic zealots?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Michael Pierry
Mike Dickson wrote:
>
> In article <36395960...@home.com> still...@home.com wrote...
>
> > I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them.
> > Searching for deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering.
>
> That is patently what religion is not all about. Religion gives you all
> the answers without actually having any need to prove anything. This is
> called 'faith'. If anything it positively discourages the sort of
> 'searching' you are describing.
>
Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism! If your
religion discourages your thirst for knowledge, you ain't got true
religion, if'n ya ask me. But what do I know, I'm some weird
hippie-lookin' kid with developing dyslexia.
Michael Pierry
Darkhop wrote:
>
> organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
> brought back exclusively for them.
>
Auto da fe? What's an auto da fe?
It's what you oughtn't to do, but you do anyway!
Ron Spiegelhalter
<still...@home.com> mumbled something like...
Hey Torquemada, whadda ya say?
Sorry, it's out of order, I know, I just wanted to demonstrate that I got
the reference. Okay fine, I'll go away now. Jeez, I didn't expect a
sort of Spanish Inquisition...
--
ron
<ron2112 at empire dot net>
"Once upon a time when you saw roadkill you said "aw"
Now you say "good for you"
Maybe it's a certain enzyme you lack
And may all your T-shirts be black"
-Mike Keneally, "Top of Stove Melting"
www.moosenet.com/keneally.html
Uncle Remus
--Uncle Remus
d...@apk.net
Jason Arvey
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
> <jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >Michael Pierry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
> >> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
> >> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
> >
> > They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
> >possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
> >society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
> >zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
> >bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
> >gripe.
> > --Jason Arvey
>
> Zeal against zeal would perhaps make them hypocrites. Zeal against
> faith probably wouldn't.
I was refering to zeal against zeal, but I didn't communicate myself
terribly well. Thank you for pointing that out. (I really do try not
to be imprecise.)
-_Jason Arvey
> --Uncle Remus
> d...@apk.net
Darkhop
:But you're not answering my question, which is: who and where the fuck
:are these atheistic zealots?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Well there's one in the next town from me. Seems to find at least one thing
a year to get himself into the local papers. These guys are pretty much
typified by fights to get nativity scenes off of town hall lawns during
Christmas, which I'm told was the first thing this guy did.
They can't compete with religious zealouts who obviously far outnumber them,
but they try to make up for it in sheer obnoxiousness.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Darkhop
Ron Spiegelhalter wrote in message ...
:In article <363A35D1...@home.com>, Michael Pierry
:<still...@home.com> mumbled something like...
:> Darkhop wrote:
:> > organize, make noise and treat 'apostates' as if auto da fe's should be
:> > brought back exclusively for them.
:>
:> Auto da fe? What's an auto da fe?
:> It's what you oughtn't to do, but you do anyway!
:
:Hey Torquemada, whadda ya say?
:
:Sorry, it's out of order, I know, I just wanted to demonstrate that I got
:the reference. Okay fine, I'll go away now. Jeez, I didn't expect a
:sort of Spanish Inquisition...
NOBODY EXPECTS THE--
Yers,
John
Oh, bugger
mog...@cais.net
<still...@home.com> wrote:
>Uncle Remus wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
>> <jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Pierry wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the
holy books
>> >> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist
zealot in my
>> >> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
>> >
>> > They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
>> >possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
>> >society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
>> >zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
>> >bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
>> >gripe.
>> > --Jason Arvey
that is not true. i am an atheist (meaning one who believes that there is
no god), and i am the most anti-religion person that you could ever meet.
but it has nothing to do with "freedoms" being "stunted." "zealously" or
not, that is not hypocritical.
as george carlin has said (and i agree) religion is mass-mental illness.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>
>Count yourself lucky to never have met a zealous athiest. I had the
>pleasure (grrrr) of meeting one Rob (Ron?) Sherman of Illinos, infamous
>for suing the city of Zion for the cross emblem on their watertower and
>for taking the town of Mundelein (86% Roman Catholic, 10% other Christian
>religions) to the US Supreme Court over the nativity set in front of
>Village Hall. Mundelein sort of won. They were allowed to keep the naivity
>set as long as they put up decorations for other beliefs. Now they have a
>nativity, a menorah, an African flag (for Kwanzaa), a Santa Claus, and a
>Snowflake. But the nativity is biggest, and it's in the middle.
>
>This guy complained to my manager at the theatre over a small cross worn
>by one of my coworkers ("People shouldn't be forced to look at that trash!
>I am never visiting this theatre again!!!"), has vanity plates that read
>ATHIEST, and curiously enough, married a devout Jewish woman who has
>raised all of their children in the Jewis faith.
>
>Also I work with two ex-Jews that are now athiests who flick off churches
>as they drive by them.
>
>Peace,
>Sarah
>
Some people, like me, hate the very ideas of God, Religion and Faith,
because I feel it undermines the goodness (whatever there might be of
it) of the human race. These concepts are anti-human. As
misanthropic as I am, I still believe in the human race's POTENTIAL
FOR GREATNESS. I've seen it. I've seen true heroes who have used
their minds and will to do great things--things that benefited both
themselves and the world around them. I admire them, and I envy them.
I want to be one of those people. My first wife once complained to me
"Do you know how annoying to be around somebody who's trying to be
perfect all the time?" My reply was, "Do you know how annoying it is
to live in a world that DOESN'T?" God, religion and faith are nothing
but excuses people use for their failures--an avoidance of
responsibility. As a child, growing up as a Catholic, I was taught
that I could lie, cheat, steal, and even murder, but if I accepted
Jesus as my personal savior (i.e., if I was "born again"), when I died
I would be accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. What a crock of holy
horseshit.
Believe me, I'd rather live in a world of zealous athiests than a
bunch of hypocritical, violent jerkoff "do-gooding" religious fantaics
who start wars, bomb abortion clinics, ruin my Sunday morning TV
enjoyment, etc. At the risk of being hit by lightning, I've said it
before and I say it again: FUCK GOD! Sometimes I wish the bastard
DID exist, so on Judgment Day, when I stand before "him," I can kick
that sucker right in the groin! THANK YOU GOD, for putting me on a
planet of pain, torture, humiliation, frustration and misery TO TEST
MY DEVOTION TO YOU. Fucking cosmic PRICK.
I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael H.
I think you figured it one nail to few maybe. I don't know. I'm comfy.
> Believe me, I'd rather live in a world of zealous athiests than a
> bunch of hypocritical, violent jerkoff "do-gooding" religious fantaics
> who start wars, bomb abortion clinics, ruin my Sunday morning TV
> enjoyment, etc. At the risk of being hit by lightning, I've said it
> before and I say it again: FUCK GOD! Sometimes I wish the bastard
> DID exist, so on Judgment Day, when I stand before "him," I can kick
> that sucker right in the groin! THANK YOU GOD, for putting me on a
> planet of pain, torture, humiliation, frustration and misery TO TEST
> MY DEVOTION TO YOU. Fucking cosmic PRICK.
How could any sensible God not appreciate that honest sentiment? God
has got a bad rap. Everybody thinks he/she/it counts raindrops. I
suppose that in the land of the boob toob, TV evangelism has taken it's
toll. Case in point, perhaps.
> I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
> that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
It is so rare to find people who care one way or the other. Better to
kick God in the nuts than to be indifferent.
Michael H.
scott hand
>On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
><jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>Michael Pierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the
holy books
>>> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist
zealot in my
>>> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
>>
>> They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
>>possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
>>society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
>>zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
>>bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
>>gripe.
>> --Jason Arvey
>
>faith probably wouldn't.
>d...@apk.net
>
What's the difference?
scott
scott hand
<mailto:mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk> wrote:
>> I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them.
>> Searching for deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering.
>
>That is patently what religion is not all about. Religion gives you all
>the answers without actually having any need to prove anything. This is
>called 'faith'. If anything it positively discourages the sort of
>'searching' you are describing.
>
>fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
>
Unless you choose to do research for them. Archive, monkify, whatever.
Popular religions don't really demand anything but fealty. Still, they have
the R&D back behind all the marketing.
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>In article <363A307E...@home.com>, Michael Pierry
><still...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Remus wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
>>> <jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Michael Pierry wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the
>holy books
>>> >> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist
>zealot in my
>>> >> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
>>> >
>>> > They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
>>> >possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
>>> >society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
>>> >zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
>>> >bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
>>> >gripe.
>>> > --Jason Arvey
>
>that is not true. i am an atheist (meaning one who believes that there is
>no god), and i am the most anti-religion person that you could ever meet.
>but it has nothing to do with "freedoms" being "stunted." "zealously" or
>not, that is not hypocritical.
>
>as george carlin has said (and i agree) religion is mass-mental illness.
>
>--
>mog...@cais.net
And as my friend John Trubee just said to me on the phone, "Religion
is for people who are afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the
boogeyman, so they invent a savior to protect them."
God, I wish Trubee owned a computer.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
John Scialli
"The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
/snat/
>
>I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
>that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
>
>
>--ZRTLM
> http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
>
did he have a blue dress with a stain?
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>> I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
>> that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
>
> It is so rare to find people who care one way or the other. Better to
>kick God in the nuts than to be indifferent.
>
> Michael H.
I certainly agree with that. If God were a real thing, I'd certainly
succumb and play by the rules. But the whole thing just doesn't make
any damn sense to me, and I just can't accept even the simplest
foundation of it. If other people believe in a god, that's certainly
their right, and I respect that right. But I don't respect their
decision.
A number of people in these few newsgroups HAVE been sending me
donations to help me pay my rent this month. I really do appreciate
it, because it shows respect and support of what I do and what I'm all
about. I owe them my gratitude and allegiance, and they have it. As
for any god, however--I'm in too much pain and misery all the time to
overlook HIS/HER/ITS indifference toward ME.
God should not let people age, or fight in ridiculous wars, or lie to
children, or let people starve or be homeless or lonely. I believe in
GOODNESS--why doesn't God??????.........
"I'm just standing in the rain, talking to myself."
--Paul Newman as COOL HAND LUKE
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Geir Corneliussen
> I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
> that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
>
What a great post , Zoogz. You said everything I would if I weren't such
a lamer nowadays.
I live my life, trying to do everything as good as I can. It's not easy,
but the only way.
To be serious, I don't mind if there is a God or not. I have done my
best, and will try to continue to do so.
Then I will grow old and die. Please don't wake me up just to tell me I
was wrong, Mr.God. Let me sleep.
I am sick of you. Keep your mistakes on your own, Mr. God, and stop
bugging me. What, am I going to Hell?
Am I not going to heaven 'cause I didn't belive in your exsistence? Oh
spare me please! I don't want to go there, do you hear! Leave me alone.
I want to sleep in peace. Ough! That hurts! You gonna burn me with a
stick? Fuck you, You bastard God! Leave me
aloooooone............(Luckily, it was just a bad dream...)
Geir Corneliussen
> It is so rare to find people who care one way or the other. Better to
> kick God in the nuts than to be indifferent.
Unfortunately, God has no nuts.
Mike Dickson
> Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism!
Okay, so tell me of any religious delusion that doesn't suggest it has
all the answers.
John Scialli
"The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>And as my friend John Trubee just said to me on the phone, "Religion
>is for people who are afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the
>boogeyman, so they invent a savior to protect them."
>
>God, I wish Trubee owned a computer.
>
>
>--ZRTLM
> http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
>
the telephone is the tool of the ill-begrotten devil children!
Jerry Hull
wrote:
>But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
>of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
>life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
Why, we spend hours upon hours rejoicing in the fact that there is no
ultimate meaning to life (apart from the very content of life), & that
death will bring an eternity of not-being-around-to-do-stuff.
--
Jer
"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe,
the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above
me and the moral law within me." -- I. Kant
Michael Pierry
>
>
> And as my friend John Trubee just said to me on the phone, "Religion
> is for people who are afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the
> boogeyman, so they invent a savior to protect them."
>
And I suppose science is for people who are afraid of the light?
Therefore, all scientists are really vampires!
No, but seriously, not all religions have a savior. Besides, you can read
about all the different religions without actually believing in Krishna,
Buddha, Allah, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. I think there's little nuggets of truth
in every religion. But don't get me wrong, obviously I don't think blind
faith in a God is going to really get you anywhere. I'm more interested in
the philosophical side of religions. The humanist side. All the culture and
art, stuff like that.
Jason Arvey
>
> In article <363A343D...@home.com> still...@home.com wrote...
>
> > Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism!
>
> Okay, so tell me of any religious delusion that doesn't suggest it has
> all the answers.
Unitarianism. Their religion is based on the idea that they might be
wrong, or at least that's the impression I get from my Unitarian
friends.
--Jason Arvey
Michael H.
You must like Carl Jung, then. His fascinating to read on those sorts
of topics.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> Uncle Remus wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
> > <jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
> > >> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
> > >> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
> > >
> > >possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
> > >society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
> > >zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
> > >bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
> > >gripe.
> > > --Jason Arvey
> > Zeal against zeal would perhaps make them hypocrites. Zeal against
> > faith probably wouldn't.
> I was refering to zeal against zeal,
...which often happens on the ice floes during mating zeazon.
Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 06:54:45 GMT, moam...@earthlink.net (Zoogz Rift
>"The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>
>>And as my friend John Trubee just said to me on the phone, "Religion
>>is for people who are afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the
>>boogeyman, so they invent a savior to protect them."
>>
>>God, I wish Trubee owned a computer.
>>
>>
>>--ZRTLM
>> http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
>> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
>>
>
>the telephone is the tool of the ill-begrotten devil children!
Well thank god for that.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael H.
> >Peace,
> >Sarah
> Believe me, I'd rather live in a world of zealous athiests than a
> bunch of hypocritical, violent jerkoff "do-gooding" religious fantaics
> who start wars, bomb abortion clinics, ruin my Sunday morning TV
> enjoyment, etc. At the risk of being hit by lightning, I've said it
> before and I say it again: FUCK GOD! Sometimes I wish the bastard
> DID exist, so on Judgment Day, when I stand before "him," I can kick
> that sucker right in the groin! THANK YOU GOD, for putting me on a
> planet of pain, torture, humiliation, frustration and misery TO TEST
> MY DEVOTION TO YOU. Fucking cosmic PRICK.
> I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
> that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
Now now. You know, I was once going to get a bumper sticker saying,
"Honk if you love Judas!" But the reason for that is because I love that
Jorge Luis Borges story, Three Versions Of Judas, about a guy that
claimed that Judas made a bigger sacrifice than Jesus because he not
only gave up his life, but also his honour and his place in heaven. To
interpret Judas as a genuine scoundrel is to say that Jesus goofed when
he picked the disciples, so the argument is that Judas was actually a
heroic figure playing the role of scapegoat.
I just finished reading Slaughter-House Five (or The Children's
Crusade) by Kurt Vonnegut, jr. It shook me to the core. There are some
phrases and images that remind me a little of Beefheart...well, the
whole anti-war message, obviously, but also phrases..."up and down, up
and down"...and some others. I doubt an influence because they both were
done about the same time. Synchonity, I guess. One of the best things I
have ever read about Christianity is on pp 108-110.
Also in the book, the character Kilgore Trout (eccentric sci-fi writer)
could have been Zoogz' second cousin (if you delete the scene where he
cheats the newspaper deliverers).
I am not very well-read in fiction, so I have a 20 year backlog. If you
have that book, check out pp. 108-110.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> I certainly agree with that. If God were a real thing, I'd certainly
> succumb and play by the rules. But the whole thing just doesn't make
> any damn sense to me, and I just can't accept even the simplest
> foundation of it. If other people believe in a god, that's certainly
> their right, and I respect that right. But I don't respect their
> decision.
> As for any god, however--I'm in too much pain and misery all the time to
> overlook HIS/HER/ITS indifference toward ME.
> God should not let people age, or fight in ridiculous wars, or lie to
> children, or let people starve or be homeless or lonely. I believe in
> GOODNESS--why doesn't God??????.........
Those are the toughest questions. Why pain? Why evil?
I remember when I was a kid, I read a Superman comic that told about
when Superman's parents died, and there was a cartoon drawing of
Superman in his blue and red outfit crying like a baby and I thought
,"Wha? Superman crying? I thought he could fix everything?" I guess what
I'm trying to say, in a perhaps mawkish way, is that maybe there are
certain things involved in setting up a universe that even a Supreme
Being can't get around. Like 2+2=4 whether God likes it or not. Maybe
there can be no light without darkness to contrast it with. Things like
that.
I respect people that reject religion completely. In Harkleroad's book,
he says that Don couldn't understand how John French could be a
Christian. Of course, in the US, Christianity is very weird west of the
Mississippi (even though they only burned "witches" in the east), i.e.
the gun-lobby, the ultra-right, televangelists that smile funny and talk
funny. And the shameless support of the Republicans. As a Canadian, I
don't want to get embroiled in US politics, but the US is way to the
right of Canada, and the Democrats would be considered moderate
conservatives on the spectrum. The Republicans strike me as having a lot
of support from the hee-haw guns, bibles and ammo lobby. In other words,
any American who is a Democrat (which I suspect Don is, given some
things he's said...although he does officially adopt a non-political
stance as an entertainer/artists, other than speaking up for the
environment/animals) - uh, any American who is a Democrat would
automatically be down on "Christians" for that reason.
Since this is cross-posted to affz, I read a story about Zappa having
Bob Dylan over to the house, and unbeknownst to Zappa, Dylan was
allegedly a born-again Christian at the time, and when he arrived,
Zappa's dog went up to Dylan and growled at him, and Zappa said
something like, "That's funny, he usually only growls at Christians." I
may have the quote wrong, but geez it's funny!
Speaking of Dylan, there is apparently a CD out of him with The Hawks
(later "The Band") playing in England in 66. I saw a concert of that
tour in late 65 (I was taken there in a stroller) and it was utterly
incredible. I think I will try to pick that one up.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Michael H. wrote:
> > It is so rare to find people who care one way or the other. Better to
> > kick God in the nuts than to be indifferent.
> Unfortunately, God has no nuts.
I won't shop for a chocolate sundae at His ice cream parlour then.
Okay, my statement was crude. I'm guilty. I meant to say, "Better to
kick the concept of 'God' in the nuts than to be indifferent." I was
alluding to Zoogz' hostile comments about religion. He isn't just
sitting back and saying, "Whatever," about it, the way so many people
do. He has thought it right through and has come to a strong opinion,
and I do admire that more than I admire people who wander aimlessly into
church, or equally mindlessly into non-belief. I can tell that Zoogz
finds the issues important, and is actually angry about religion because
it is so lame, I guess, in its common forms.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:31:42 GMT, moam...@earthlink.net (Zoogz Rift
> "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
> >
> >I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
> >that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
> >
> >
> > http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
> > alt.fan.zoogz-rift
> >
> did he have a blue dress with a stain?
You are so vulgar.
"dut-dut-dut-dut-dut-dut 'Woman with the blue dress, woman with the
blue dress, woman with the blue dress on!"
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
> > I wonder how long my car would last if I had a sticker on my bumper
> > that read "JESUS SUCKS"... Yeah, right. Peace be with ye, brethern.
> What a great post , Zoogz. You said everything I would if I weren't such
> a lamer nowadays.
> I live my life, trying to do everything as good as I can. It's not easy,
> but the only way.
> To be serious, I don't mind if there is a God or not. I have done my
> best, and will try to continue to do so.
> Then I will grow old and die. Please don't wake me up just to tell me I
> was wrong, Mr.God. Let me sleep.
> I am sick of you. Keep your mistakes on your own, Mr. God, and stop
> bugging me. What, am I going to Hell?
> Am I not going to heaven 'cause I didn't belive in your exsistence? Oh
> spare me please! I don't want to go there, do you hear! Leave me alone.
> I want to sleep in peace. Ough! That hurts! You gonna burn me with a
> stick? Fuck you, You bastard God! Leave me
> aloooooone............(Luckily, it was just a bad dream...)
I think that the Lord is widely misunderstood. Jesus forgave virtually
everybody for everything, even the poor guys that had to nail him up. He
forgave them all. He didn't do anything but everything he could for
people in need. Geez, I wonder if he could forgive those fundamentalists
for portraying him as some kind of sadistic bastard! This really upsets
me.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Mike Dickson wrote:
> > In article <36395960...@home.com> still...@home.com wrote...
> > > I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them.
> > > Searching for deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering.
> > That is patently what religion is not all about. Religion gives you all
> > the answers without actually having any need to prove anything. This is
> > called 'faith'. If anything it positively discourages the sort of
> > 'searching' you are describing.
> Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism! If your
> religion discourages your thirst for knowledge, you ain't got true
> religion, if'n ya ask me. But what do I know, I'm some weird
> hippie-lookin' kid with developing dyslexia.
Tommy Smothers is/was dyslexic. It is amazing how many creative people
have either dyslexia, cross-dominance, or are left handed. Einstein was
a southpaw.
Personally, I was one of those kids that wrote N the wrong way, i.e.
mirror reflection, but I just trained myself. I have met Ph.D.'s in math
that cannot tell left from right. Don't fall into the trap of thinking
of yourself as having a mental "disability." That's bullshit.
Everybody's brain works differently, and many of history's greatest
minds would probably have come out with various weird "disabilities."
Mental dysfunction is the fastest growing cottage industry. It's a money
maker. Think about cats, for example. If they were subject to the bs of
modern psychology, probably half of all cats would be in mental
institutions. So many of them are just plain nuts! But they are so cool.
They define cool.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 06:15:00 GMT, Michael Pierry <still...@home.com>
> wrote:
> >But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
> >of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
> >life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
> Why, we spend hours upon hours rejoicing in the fact that there is no
> ultimate meaning to life (apart from the very content of life), & that
> death will bring an eternity of not-being-around-to-do-stuff.
For many people, that is more of a teddy bear than the idea of living
for ever and ever.
Michael H.
Jerry Hull
wrote:
>Jerry Hull wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 06:15:00 GMT, Michael Pierry <still...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
>> >of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
>> >life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
>
>> Why, we spend hours upon hours rejoicing in the fact that there is no
>> ultimate meaning to life (apart from the very content of life), & that
>> death will bring an eternity of not-being-around-to-do-stuff.
>
> For many people, that is more of a teddy bear than the idea of living
>for ever and ever.
I have spend my whole life trying to overcome my fear of death.
Sounds kind of pointless, now that you mention it.
--
Jer
"Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth
is not even to think." -- Sakyamuni
Michael H.
> Michael H. heeft geschreven in bericht <363B09...@netcom.ca>...
> > Tommy Smothers is/was dyslexic. It is amazing how many creative people
> >have either dyslexia, cross-dominance, or are left handed. Einstein was
> >a southpaw.
> > Personally, I was one of those kids that wrote N the wrong way, i.e.
> >mirror reflection, but I just trained myself. I have met Ph.D.'s in math
> >that cannot tell left from right. Don't fall into the trap of thinking
> >of yourself as having a mental "disability." That's bullshit.
> >Everybody's brain works differently, and many of history's greatest
> >minds would probably have come out with various weird "disabilities."
> >Mental dysfunction is the fastest growing cottage industry. It's a money
> >maker. Think about cats, for example. If they were subject to the bs of
> >modern psychology, probably half of all cats would be in mental
> >institutions. So many of them are just plain nuts! But they are so cool.
> >They define cool.
> I have no scientific evidence backing this, but I've heard say on more than
> occasion that often a "handicap" or "disability" gets compensated by a big
> talent.
> I don't agree on the cats bit though. IMHO they are proof of alien
> lifeforces.:-)
They are clearly a superior life form.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> Michael H. wrote:
> >
> > Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>
> >
> > I remember when I was a kid, I read a Superman comic that told
>
> that your hand is too close to an open flame before it catches on fire,
> or that there's something wrong with your stomach, so you should stop
> eating spicy food before you poke a hole in it, or that you shouldn't
> lift heavy object like that, or you could hurt a muscle. Without pain,
> I'm sure every human being would have done something crippling to their
> bodies between the age of 2 and 16 due to long-term exposure to an
> otherwise minor source of damage.
> --Jason Arvey
Well exactly. Pain is a monitoring system. I guess where it breaks down
is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
situation? That is a valid question. I think Christianity answers it,
but who cares? Even Christians don't read the Gospel of John anymore,
let alone atheists.
Michael H.
Tal
Yours,
--Tal
_______________________
e-mail: an...@cidanka.nl
website: http://www.cidanka.nl
visit the MK-BFD Review-o-rama: http://www.cidanka.nl/keneally/
Jason Arvey
Jason Arvey
>
> I just finished reading Slaughter-House Five (or The Children's
> Crusade) by Kurt Vonnegut, jr. It shook me to the core. There are some
> phrases and images that remind me a little of Beefheart...well, the
> whole anti-war message, obviously, but also phrases..."up and down, up
> and down"...and some others. I doubt an influence because they both were
> done about the same time. Synchonity, I guess. One of the best things I
> have ever read about Christianity is on pp 108-110.
> Also in the book, the character Kilgore Trout (eccentric sci-fi writer)
> could have been Zoogz' second cousin (if you delete the scene where he
> cheats the newspaper deliverers).
> I am not very well-read in fiction, so I have a 20 year backlog. If you
> have that book, check out pp. 108-110.
>
> Michael H.
Next, read Mother Night by Vonnegut. Similar messages, more
heart-rending, and much less funny. Not that funny is bad -- humor is
very useful. However, it's lack of silliness makes the book twice,
three times as chilling, in a similar amount of space and without
alienating the reader. Also, despite being about Nazis, Vonnegut
somehow manages not to make anyone a villain (an amazing ability he
manages to keep throughout all his books.)
--Jason Arvey
Geir Corneliussen
> I think that the Lord is widely misunderstood. Jesus forgave virtually
> everybody for everything, even the poor guys that had to nail him up. He
> forgave them all. He didn't do anything but everything he could for
> people in need. Geez, I wonder if he could forgive those fundamentalists
> for portraying him as some kind of sadistic bastard! This really upsets
> me.
I can tell you, that Jesus was a guy that claimed to be the son of God.
A mad man. Ding Dong!
It was The Old senior Mr.God I was referring to. Not a crazy, lying
bastard calling himself his son!
My God my God why hast thou left me? Well, just another prophet from way
down there. Luckily for him, his disciples were good writers. Or else we
would never heard of him! Forgive me this forgive me that!
Now, I don't think it's funny to hang on a cross, telling people walking
by: "I forgive you!"
I would have smashed a stone at him to make him shut the fuck up. He
nailed himself up, that idiot.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Geir Corneliussen wrote:
It's not the lameness, as much as it is the deception, absurd
superstition, traditional conformity and the de-emphasizing of one's
self.
I try to take all evidence into account when making decisions.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
msouthg
Dickson <mike@blackcat.?.demon.?.co.?.uk> writes
>In article <36395960...@home.com> still...@home.com wrote...
>
>> I find that all religions have something worthwhile in them.
>> Searching for deeper truths, stuff that science has no way of answering.
>
>That is patently what religion is not all about. Religion gives you all
>the answers without actually having any need to prove anything. This is
>called 'faith'. If anything it positively discourages the sort of
>'searching' you are describing.
>
My recollections of Scientology from 25 years ago are that it is not a
religion where you 'attend', it is something you 'do' and 'experience', the
latter making 'faith' unnecessary.
Although the search was too difficult for me and I fell by the wayside, I
have no doubts about the axioms on which it is (was?) based.
--
Mick Southgate MAG: 11034
Relevant responses to mick <at>msouthg<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
msouthg
et>, Ron Spiegelhalter <r...@mk.bfd.rules> writes
> Okay fine, I'll go away now. Jeez, I didn't expect a
>sort of Spanish Inquisition...
All together: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".
msouthg
Dickson <mike@blackcat.?.demon.?.co.?.uk> writes
>
>> Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism!
>
>all the answers.
>
>fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
>
>
"To boldly go ..."
msouthg
<ZZZg...@stny.lrun.com> writes
>I have spend my whole life trying to overcome my fear of death.
>Sounds kind of pointless, now that you mention it.
Maybe being dead is like not having been born.
Maybe the act of dying is the heavy one.
I apologise for inflicting the following on this newsgroup.
Since last Tuesday I have been watching my father die. After being
hospitalised for a stroke, he developed pneumonia, something that was
previously only a word to me.
They removed the drip when his veins collapsed Monday night. He has
had no (physical) nourishment since then and has not been
conscious(?) for 6 days. (No, I'm not going religious.)
I sit and watch him gasping for breath, drowning in his own phlegm.
I've timed his breathing at around 53 breaths per minute.
I've thought about helping him on his way.
Fucked if I know what I'm trying to say.
His name is Harry and his wife, Irene. So I guess it's on-topic?
Maybe it means something to me that his name, in the form of electrons,
will hurtle around the globe, as another form of energy leaves his body.
andy roberts
<CheetahPRO_...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> :
>In article <363A343D...@home.com> still...@home.com wrote...
>
>> Wrong-o bongo! That's not religion, that's fundamentalism!
>
>Okay, so tell me of any religious delusion that doesn't suggest it has
>all the answers.
Bokononism, but it's more of a pretence than a delusion.
Andy R
--
Now at home on andy D0T Roberts HAT zetnet.co.uk
simon smith
writes
>Well exactly. Pain is a monitoring system. I guess where it breaks down
>is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
>further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
>situation? That is a valid question. I think Christianity answers it,
>but who cares? Even Christians don't read the Gospel of John anymore,
>let alone atheists.
I've always thought that the existence of 'wisdom' teeth was a
comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
to contradict me.
--
Simon
--
Paul Hinrichs
>I can tell you, that Jesus was a guy that claimed to be the son of God.
>A mad man. Ding Dong!
>It was The Old senior Mr.God I was referring to. Not a crazy, lying
>bastard calling himself his son!
>My God my God why hast thou left me? Well, just another prophet from way
>down there. Luckily for him, his disciples were good writers. Or else we
>would never heard of him!
You're right, Geir - Jesus invented Public Relations! Those guys not
only went around promoting him, they wrote press releases that people
still read!
Bill
Michael H.
Oh man. I've been so lucky so far.
Michael H.
>
> Michael H. wrote:
>
> > everybody for everything, even the poor guys that had to nail him up. He
> > forgave them all. He didn't do anything but everything he could for
> > people in need. Geez, I wonder if he could forgive those fundamentalists
> > for portraying him as some kind of sadistic bastard! This really upsets
> > me.
>
> A mad man. Ding Dong!
> It was The Old senior Mr.God I was referring to. Not a crazy, lying
> bastard calling himself his son!
> My God my God why hast thou left me? Well, just another prophet from way
> down there. Luckily for him, his disciples were good writers. Or else we
> Now, I don't think it's funny to hang on a cross, telling people walking
> by: "I forgive you!"
> I would have smashed a stone at him to make him shut the fuck up. He
> nailed himself up, that idiot.
No, you did.
Michael Pierry
simon smith wrote:
>
>
> I've always thought that the existence of 'wisdom' teeth was a
> comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
> utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
> to contradict me.
And what is wrong with a little meaningless suffering? Or a lot of it?
What makes you think God is on your side? Maybe human beings are the
scum of the earth, and elephants are God's chosen people. Therefore,
God laughs at all our suffering. You can be sure that the most horrific
fate possible awaits all those who kill or exploit elephants.
And then, of course, if you think it's some other creature and not
elephants, just fill in the blank. Maybe it's an alien race in other
galaxy, and our whole planet doesn't even count. Maybe the whole reason
the Earth exists is for these alien dudes to do experiments on us.
Michael Pierry
msouthg wrote:
>
>
> I apologise for inflicting the following on this newsgroup.
> Since last Tuesday I have been watching my father die. After being
> hospitalised for a stroke, he developed pneumonia, something that was
> previously only a word to me.
> They removed the drip when his veins collapsed Monday night. He has
> had no (physical) nourishment since then and has not been
> conscious(?) for 6 days. (No, I'm not going religious.)
> I sit and watch him gasping for breath, drowning in his own phlegm.
> I've timed his breathing at around 53 breaths per minute.
> I've thought about helping him on his way.
>
My mother's mother died in a similar way to this, a few years ago. It
was very sudden, so my mom really did not take it very well at all. She
went to the hospital just to visit her mommy, and by the time she left,
found out that she would most likely be dead in a week or so. I was the
only one there to comfort her. Eventually we made it home. A few days
later, my mom went out to the bank. The phone rang, and I had to answer
it. It was a doctor, telling me my grandma was dead. So it goes. My
mom came back home. Now I had to tell her that her mommy was dead.
That was probably the worst day of my life (well, so far anyway-- why be
needlessly optimistic?).
0vercooked
wrote:
>Uncle Remus wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:54:20 GMT, Jason Arvey
>> <jar...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> >Michael Pierry wrote:
>> >> But really though, who are these "atheist zealots"? I swear on the holy books
>> >> of a thousand different religions that I've never seen an atheist zealot in my
>> >> life. What the hell would they have to be zealous about?
>> > They could be zealously against the zealousness of religious groups.
>> >possibly, they could imply that the pervasion of religious sentiments in
>> >society is stunting their freedoms, or something. However, their
>> >zealous anti-religiosity would, in this instance, make them a whole
>> >bunch of hot steaming hypocrites, whether or not they had a legitimate
>> >gripe.
>> > --Jason Arvey
>> Zeal against zeal would perhaps make them hypocrites. Zeal against
>> faith probably wouldn't.
>> --Uncle Remus
>> d...@apk.net
>But you're not answering my question, which is: who and where the fuck
>are these atheistic zealots?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
According to my mother she had an uncle who was determine to spread the
word of atheism. She described him more a enthusiastic, no zealous.
Now, I would call Madeline O'Hare (I'm too lazy to check the spelling) a
zealot.
- --- ---- - - 0vercooked
Tom
>> Now, I don't think it's funny to hang on a cross, telling people walking
>> by: "I forgive you!"
I'd say that's one of the funnier things you can do while nailed up on a
cross.
Sort of Monty Python, "No, I'm OK, really. Pity about you though."
Paul Hinrichs
>Now, I would call Madeline O'Hare (I'm too lazy to check the spelling) a
>zealot.
While you're paddlin' Madelyn home (not sure of that spellink
either), please bear in mind that there are at least 100 Robert
Tiltons for every psycho-atheist in Texas or anyplace else on this
planet. If anything, we need more!
Tony Rigby
<cl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
> I've always thought that the existence of 'wisdom' teeth was a
>comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
>utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
>to contradict me.
Perhaps they're a comprehensive argument against evolution then, too :-)
Bye... T.
--
Tony Rigby Internet: tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk
Edmonton, London, England
Paul Hinrichs
>God enjoys peoples' suffering.
Yes. True understanding. If you were God and people were flies,
wouldn't you make a little flypaper just outta curiosity if nothing
else, just to see how the little fuckers adjusted to it, if nothing
else, I mean, what the fuck, if you're God it's gotta get boring
knowing Everything that's gonna happen and maybe you gotta invent a
few perverse diversions just to keep from going fucking insane.
Imagine yourself, a fraction of the greatness of this incredible
creature, having only the equivalent of Pocket Fisherman infomercials
to entertain yourself for Eternity and here you have wisdom like
infinite magnitudes greater than the collective knowledge of all these
pissants and you just gotta watch 'em, day after eternal day, just
building the same ant hills, over and over, over and fucking over
again, only to watch them getting burned up by the magnifying glasses
of bucktoothed twerps who are too young to get into really serious
wanking, and then there's other lesser Gods like the winds and waters
you created, what the fuck, all creations are equal, you just tricked
this one species into rewarding you with philosophical blowjobs and
televangelistic handjobs, but there's still all this other shit you've
created that spins around like more predictable clockwork, but, still,
it's all predictable, even the cancer-ridden young mother of 3 who
sends a check to Jerry Falwell in your name and the poor sumbitch
steppin' on a land mine is Kosovo, what the fuck, you knew it was all
gonna happen so how the fuck can you care? The only excitement in town
in to throw in a plague or some sneaky genocide in there just to see
who is GENUINELY evil and kinda gets into it or maybe give some
asshole like Bill Gates riches beyond human comprehension while you
fuck with some infant potential-saint in a third-world country and
kill her with some disease that have had cures since Pasteur even
though the bitch coulda trained thousands and thousands of souls to
make heebee-jeebee voodoo noises and admire you with great Hosannahs
for decades to come and now you just let let her suffocate on her own
bodily fluids, infecting her whole village in the process, just
because it's a break in this fucking endless monotonous never-ending
routine of totally predictable behavior. Take it easy on the Old Fart,
I mean, what the fuck would you do?
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Paul's right. God needs to take one of his ribs and create a
cutie-pie partner for himself. Maybe he'd stop acting like an
obnoxious retard if he got laid once in a while.
I think that's sound advice.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Since last Tuesday I have been watching my father die. After being
>hospitalised for a stroke, he developed pneumonia, something that was
>previously only a word to me.
>They removed the drip when his veins collapsed Monday night. He has
>had no (physical) nourishment since then and has not been
>conscious(?) for 6 days. (No, I'm not going religious.)
>I sit and watch him gasping for breath, drowning in his own phlegm.
>I've timed his breathing at around 53 breaths per minute.
>I've thought about helping him on his way.
>
>Fucked if I know what I'm trying to say.
I've been through this, too. My father died in 1974, and it's a
terrible experience. I was in college at the time, and in December of
1973 my father (at age 53) suffered his second massive heart attack
and was hospitalized. By Christmas day, he was still laying there
with tubes and all those machines keeping him alive, and the doctors
said he had NO chance of living through this. My dad was too weak to
speak, but scribbled on a piece of paper to PLEASE let him die. I had
no control over any of it. By January 1 (his birthday), he was still
there, suffering in torment. On January 8, they were getting him
ready for an actual heart transplant, but he died. It was a relief,
but a terrible one for me--I loved my father.
To make matters worse, in Dec. it was final exam time, and because of
all the stress and distraction, I asked all my teachers if I could
take the exams a few weeks late, since I couldn't study. They all
refused, and I failed all my courses (including music!). I said fuck
you to all of them, quit college, and decided to do things MY way from
that time on.
p.s. It's the first of the month today, and I'M STILL HERE. Thanks
to four people who sent me donations these past two weeks to pay my
rent. The rent still isn't completely covered, but it's enough for me
to give to my landlord to stall for another week, and hopefully I'll
be able to somehow raise the difference. Thanks again to those who
helped out, or are about to help out, or who would help out if they
could.
My sincerest best wishes to Mick Southgate.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
andy roberts
<onaELeA2...@msouthg.demon.co.uk> :
>Maybe that depends on what you regard as religion.
>My recollections of Scientology from 25 years ago are that it is not a
>religion where you 'attend', it is something you 'do' and 'experience', the
>latter making 'faith' unnecessary.
>
>Although the search was too difficult for me and I fell by the wayside, I
>have no doubts about the axioms on which it is (was?) based.
So you don't have to accept that Ron Hubbard is the living God.
Or even John Travolta?
Well what kind of half baked methodology is that?
andy roberts
>In article <MPG.10a402aa7...@news.newengland.verio.n
>et>, Ron Spiegelhalter <r...@mk.bfd.rules> writes
>> Okay fine, I'll go away now. Jeez, I didn't expect a
>>sort of Spanish Inquisition...
>
>All together: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".
And we're certainly not going to apologize for it now.
andy roberts
geschreven in bericht <363BADA8...@midway.uchicago.edu> :
A lot of Beefheart fans seem to read Vonnegut,
Cat's Cradle is just about the height of his genius, but Breakfast of Champions
is the definitive work to accompany a Trout Mask. Don't worry about the next 20
years after that, nothing much happens.
andy roberts
<363B30...@netcom.ca> :
>Jason Arvey wrote:
>>
>> Michael H. wrote:
>> >
>> > Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>> > Those are the toughest questions. Why pain? Why evil?
>> >
>> > I remember when I was a kid, I read a Superman comic that told
>>
>> Evil's a toughy, but I understand pain. Pain is there to let you know
>> that your hand is too close to an open flame before it catches on fire,
>> or that there's something wrong with your stomach, so you should stop
>> eating spicy food before you poke a hole in it, or that you shouldn't
>> lift heavy object like that, or you could hurt a muscle. Without pain,
>> I'm sure every human being would have done something crippling to their
>> bodies between the age of 2 and 16 due to long-term exposure to an
>> otherwise minor source of damage.
>> --Jason Arvey
>
> Well exactly. Pain is a monitoring system. I guess where it breaks down
>is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
>further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
>situation? That is a valid question.
Then there's sciatica, tinnitus, migraine , arthritis - none of these seem to
have any pre-emptive purpose.
>I think Christianity answers it,
>but who cares? Even Christians don't read the Gospel of John anymore,
let alone Job.
>let alone atheists.
>
> Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
roberts) wrote:
>Michael H. van "Netcom Canada" heeft geschreven in bericht
><363B30...@netcom.ca> :
>
>>Jason Arvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael H. wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>>
>>> > Those are the toughest questions. Why pain? Why evil?
>>> >
>>> > I remember when I was a kid, I read a Superman comic that told
>>>
>>> Evil's a toughy, but I understand pain. Pain is there to let you know
>>> that your hand is too close to an open flame before it catches on fire,
>>> or that there's something wrong with your stomach, so you should stop
>>> eating spicy food before you poke a hole in it, or that you shouldn't
>>> lift heavy object like that, or you could hurt a muscle. Without pain,
>>> I'm sure every human being would have done something crippling to their
>>> bodies between the age of 2 and 16 due to long-term exposure to an
>>> otherwise minor source of damage.
>>> --Jason Arvey
>>
>> Well exactly. Pain is a monitoring system. I guess where it breaks down
>>is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
>>further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
>>situation? That is a valid question.
>
>Then there's sciatica, tinnitus, migraine , arthritis - none of these seem to
>have any pre-emptive purpose.
>
TWO OF WHICH, I HAVE (sciatica and arthritis, among other nightmarish
maladies), and which torture the hell out of me on a daily basis. At
the risk of repeating myself: FUCK GOD.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
simon smith
<still...@home.com> writes
>
>
>simon smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've always thought that the existence of 'wisdom' teeth was a
>> comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
>> utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
>> to contradict me.
>
>What makes you think God is on your side? Maybe human beings are the
>scum of the earth, and elephants are God's chosen people. Therefore,
>God laughs at all our suffering. You can be sure that the most horrific
>fate possible awaits all those who kill or exploit elephants.
>
>And then, of course, if you think it's some other creature and not
>elephants, just fill in the blank. Maybe it's an alien race in other
>galaxy, and our whole planet doesn't even count. Maybe the whole reason
>the Earth exists is for these alien dudes to do experiments on us.
You're right - I should have said the New Testament Christian God. Long
before this new 'Truman' film came out, I wrote a story suggesting that
the Earth was just a giant soap opera run for the benefit of an alien TV
station. Still makes sense to me.
Your postings have taken a sudden nihilist turn. I will monitor future
developments closely.
--
Simon
--
Michael H.
>
> wrote:
>
> >Geir Corneliussen wrote:
> >
> >> Michael H. wrote:
> >
> >> > kick God in the nuts than to be indifferent.
> >
> >> Unfortunately, God has no nuts.
> >
> > I won't shop for a chocolate sundae at His ice cream parlour then.
> >
> > Okay, my statement was crude. I'm guilty. I meant to say, "Better to
> >kick the concept of 'God' in the nuts than to be indifferent." I was
> >alluding to Zoogz' hostile comments about religion. He isn't just
> >sitting back and saying, "Whatever," about it, the way so many people
> >do. He has thought it right through and has come to a strong opinion,
> >and I do admire that more than I admire people who wander aimlessly into
> >church, or equally mindlessly into non-belief. I can tell that Zoogz
> >finds the issues important, and is actually angry about religion because
> >it is so lame, I guess, in its common forms.
> >
> > Michael H.
>
> It's not the lameness, as much as it is the deception, absurd
> superstition, traditional conformity and the de-emphasizing of one's
> self.
>
> I try to take all evidence into account when making decisions.
Picky picky.
Michael H.
>
> simon smith wrote:
> >
> > In article <363B30...@netcom.ca>, Michael H. <zol...@netcom.ca>
> > writes
> > >is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
> > >further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
> > >but who cares? Even Christians don't read the Gospel of John anymore,
> >
> > I've always thought that the existence of 'wisdom' teeth was a
> > comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
> > utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
> > to contradict me.
> > Simon
> > --
> God enjoys peoples' suffering.
that is silly
Michael H.
It sounds like you won and participated in a God-for-a-day contest.
Where in hell do you get all these ideas of what it would be like to be
god?
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> cutie-pie partner for himself. Maybe he'd stop acting like an
> obnoxious retard if he got laid once in a while.
>
> I think that's sound advice.
I think it's road kill.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> In article <363C9052...@home.com>, Michael Pierry
> <still...@home.com> writes
> >
> >
> >simon smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> comprehensive argument against God. I charge anyone who has endured the
> >> utterly meaningless suffering from these useless evolutionary leftovers
> >> to contradict me.
> >
> >What makes you think God is on your side? Maybe human beings are the
> >scum of the earth, and elephants are God's chosen people. Therefore,
> >God laughs at all our suffering. You can be sure that the most horrific
> >fate possible awaits all those who kill or exploit elephants.
> >
> >And then, of course, if you think it's some other creature and not
> >elephants, just fill in the blank. Maybe it's an alien race in other
> >galaxy, and our whole planet doesn't even count. Maybe the whole reason
> >the Earth exists is for these alien dudes to do experiments on us.
>
> You're right - I should have said the New Testament Christian God. Long
> before this new 'Truman' film came out, I wrote a story suggesting that
> the Earth was just a giant soap opera run for the benefit of an alien TV
> station. Still makes sense to me.
> Your postings have taken a sudden nihilist turn. I will monitor future
> developments closely.
The Truman Show is a cool film.
> --
> Simon
> --
Michael H.
>
> Michael H. van "Netcom Canada" heeft geschreven in bericht
> <363B30...@netcom.ca> :
>
> >Jason Arvey wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael H. wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I remember when I was a kid, I read a Superman comic that told
> >>
> >> Evil's a toughy, but I understand pain. Pain is there to let you know
> >> that your hand is too close to an open flame before it catches on fire,
> >> or that there's something wrong with your stomach, so you should stop
> >> eating spicy food before you poke a hole in it, or that you shouldn't
> >> lift heavy object like that, or you could hurt a muscle. Without pain,
> >> I'm sure every human being would have done something crippling to their
> >> bodies between the age of 2 and 16 due to long-term exposure to an
> >> otherwise minor source of damage.
> >> --Jason Arvey
> >
> >is when people are completely broken and there is no hope. There is no
> >further lesson that pain can teach. So why should it be there in that
> >situation? That is a valid question.
>
> have any pre-emptive purpose.
People can carry religion to the point of thinking that the creator of
everything should tie their shoelaces if they should happen to become
undone. That is silly.
> >I think Christianity answers it,
> >but who cares? Even Christians don't read the Gospel of John anymore,
> let alone Job.
Exactly.