Re: Dear Lord, Babylon The Harlot Has Reborn In America

[Onion]

On Mar 30, 4:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Vinegar
> <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 30, 10:29 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Vinegar
> >> <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >On Mar 29, 1:15 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 3/29/13 10:32 AM, Vinegar wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >> > EQUAL PROTECTION LAW IS DISCRIMINATORY
>
> >> >> You don't have to shout.  I can hear every crazed thing you say just fine.
>
> >> >> Please explain how the mandate that laws be applied equally across
> >> >> classes of people is discriminatory.
>
> >> >> Do you even know what equal protection means?
>
> >> >No, I don't... Yet I still think that only PAGAN LAW
> >> >can seek to protect a devious life style.
>
> >> Pagan is a collection of religious beliefs. Why do you allege that our
> >> law is based on religious beliefs?
>
> >No, pagans believe anything and nothing at the same time.
>
> Your ignorance of the meaning of the word is noted.

If it is not the definition that I provided then it is not the correct
one.
Paganism includes anismism, polytheism, spirit worship, idol worship,
reason worship... and so on and so on



>
> >It is another form of atheism or secularism.
>
> It is not, but you clearly do not care. If you cared, you would learn
> and admit your mistake.
>
> > Consequently
> >the Government that gives rise is a pagan Government
> >and its Laws pagan Law
>
> Wrong.

The Godless constitution of the Unites States is a PAGAN constitution
get over it.
----------
There is no God but Jesus and Madiba is his Messenger

[Onion]

On Mar 30, 2:55 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> On 3/30/13 1:12 PM, Vinegar wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 10:29 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Vinegar
> >> <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>> On Mar 29, 1:15 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/29/13 10:32 AM, Vinegar wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>> EQUAL PROTECTION LAW IS DISCRIMINATORY
>
> >>>> You don't have to shout.  I can hear every crazed thing you say just fine.
>
> >>>> Please explain how the mandate that laws be applied equally across
> >>>> classes of people is discriminatory.
>
> >>>> Do you even know what equal protection means?
>
> >>> No, I don't... Yet I still think that only PAGAN LAW
> >>> can seek to protect a devious life style.
>
> >> Pagan is a collection of religious beliefs. Why do you allege that our
> >> law is based on religious beliefs?
>
> > No, pagans believe anything and nothing at the same time.

> > It is another form of atheism or secularism.
>

> Sadly, no.  The word "pagan" comes from the Latin word meaning a rustic.
>   Perhaps "rube" conveys better the contemptuous connotation.  Paganism
> came to refer to the local, ethnic religious beliefs opposed by the
> established Abrahamic religions.  "Heathen" and "infidel" have much the
> same meaning.

>
> > Consequently
> > the Government that gives rise is a pagan Government

> > and its Laws pagan Law.
>
> This is nonsense, as your premise is wrong.  In the US, all binding law
> is secular, which is to say non-religious, based on neither Paganism nor
> Christianity.

Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws

[deadrat]

Well, there's your basic problem. You're as dumb as a box of ball-peen
hammers.

Pagans aren't godless. They just worship gods different from yours.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<63628c27-a422-4ff4...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Pagans aren't godless.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Onion <kolw...@astromail.com>

Pagan refers to a number of different religious beliefs. It has nothing
to do with secular.

Stop celebrating your ignorance or being so proud of the lies you tell.

[duke]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:59:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

A bottle of bourbon is not what he had in mind.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Onion]

On Apr 1, 10:08 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com>

Secularism according to the BIBLE is a form of paganism.
A wrong belief... A belief of those who put REASON before God
Or those who worship themselves and their pagan Laws


>
> Stop celebrating your ignorance or being so proud of the lies you tell.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Onion]

On Apr 1, 7:59 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <63628c27-a422-4ff4-91a6-85a54f9d3...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Pagan worship Idols and not the True God



>
> --
>
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden- Hide quoted text -

[deadrat]

Please quote the passage.

> A wrong belief...

Secularism isn't a belief.

> A belief of those who put REASON before God

Sorry, no.

> Or those who worship themselves and their pagan Laws

Very sorry, no.

Didn't Jesus say "Render unto Caesar...."?

[deadrat]

On 4/2/13 9:22 AM, Onion wrote:

Pagans say essentially the same thing about you. Both of you can't be
right, but both of you are worshiping gods. Secular law doesn't involve
gods.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<d4fd2b28-4cb6-449d...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

They still worship gods, so they aren't godless.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT), Onion <kolw...@astromail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to offer
any actual evidence to support their allegation.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:22:05 -0700 (PDT), Onion <kolw...@astromail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Where does the Bible say that? The closest it says to anything about
secularism is "render onto Caesar..."

[Bill Graham]

The writers of the bible had an ax to grind, so anything they say must be
taken with a grain of salt. They were pushing their own religious beliefs,
and their bias is evident throughout the text.

[Bill Graham]

To any member of any religion, all the members of all the other religions
are, "Godless". Religion, in fact, is the personification of prejudice. The
world would be much better off without it. It is a fairy tale made up to
pacify children that got out of hand and became a pacifier for everyone who
should know better.

[Bill Graham]

"My God is the only true God. Everyone else's God is an imposter." - is the
universal cry of the religious person.

[K Wills]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT), Onion

<kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> > > This is nonsense, as your premise is wrong. �In the US, all binding law
>> > > is secular, which is to say non-religious, based on neither Paganism nor
>> > > Christianity.
>>
>> > Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
>>
>> Pagans aren't godless.
>
>Pagan worship Idols and not the True God

When Cthulhu awakes, he will be pleased to know you've remained
true to him.

--
Heartbreak is a burden to us all. Pity the man with two.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 03:48:17 -0500, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:34:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:

>
>>>> > Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
>>>>
>>>> Pagans aren't godless.
>>>
>>>Pagan worship Idols and not the True God
>>>
>>No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to offer
>>any actual evidence to support their allegation.
>

> If they claim to worship, wouldn't that stand as evidence that
>they worship, no matter which god they worship?

I dn't doubt that they worship, but they have no idea if the worship is
valid.

[Onion]

On Apr 3, 4:48 am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:34:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>

> >>> > Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
>
> >>> Pagans aren't godless.
>
> >>Pagan worship Idols and not the True God
>
> >No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to offer
> >any actual evidence to support their allegation.
>

>      If they claim to worship, wouldn't that stand as evidence that
> they worship, no matter which god they worship?

This is the opinion of the Godless heathens...But we know that Idol
worship
is hardly a correct form of worship and as it breeds irrationality,
that scourge
that our Savior saved us from.

[Bill Graham]

And isn't nativity scenes, crosses, and pictures of angels with wings and
other such things in all the "main stream" religious palaces also, "idols"?
If not, then what, exactly distinguishes idols from these other religious
symbols that people put on their mantles and in their houses of worship?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <h8adnflK4PlTjMPM...@giganews.com>, "Bill Graham"

<we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Onion wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 4:48 am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:34:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
> >>
> >>>>> Pagans aren't godless.
> >>
> >>>> Pagan worship Idols and not the True God
> >>
> >>> No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to
> >>> offer any actual evidence to support their allegation.
> >>
> >> If they claim to worship, wouldn't that stand as evidence that
> >> they worship, no matter which god they worship?
> >
> > This is the opinion of the Godless heathens...But we know that Idol
> > worship
> > is hardly a correct form of worship and as it breeds irrationality,
> > that scourge
> > that our Savior saved us from.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Heartbreak is a burden to us all. Pity the man with two.
>
> And isn't nativity scenes, crosses, and pictures of angels with wings and
> other such things in all the "main stream" religious palaces also, "idols"?

• Most of the modern stuff is injection-molded thermoplastic so the
graven image thing is out.
.

[Bill Graham]

Does the Bible list injection moulded plastic as, "graven"? - I think
not.....:^)

[�RLMeasures]

In article <_pOdnc9rh615s8PM...@giganews.com>, "Bill Graham"
<we...@comcast.net> wrote:

� injection molded is definitely not sinful.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 03:45:34 -0500, K Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Onion
><kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 3, 4:48�am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:34:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> > Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
>>>
>>> >>> Pagans aren't godless.
>>>
>>> >>Pagan worship Idols and not the True God
>>>
>>> >No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to offer
>>> >any actual evidence to support their allegation.
>>>
>>> � � �If they claim to worship, wouldn't that stand as evidence that
>>> they worship, no matter which god they worship?
>>
>>This is the opinion of the Godless heathens...But we know that Idol
>>worship
>

> Like the cross and pictures of Jesus?

>
>>is hardly a correct form of worship and as it breeds irrationality,
>>that scourge that our Savior saved us from.
>>
>

> If someone claims they worship a god, it should stand as evidence
>that they do worship a god. Yes, it's possible someone may lie about
>it, but it's been my experience that if someone claims they worship a
>god, they do.
> Note that Fee Lunch's claim is that those who claim to worship
>have ever managed to offer any actual evidence that they do.

You need to read what I said more carefully. I said that those who claim
to worship what they call the True God have no evidence that what they
are worshipping is indeed a true god. I don't question that they
worship.

[Bill Graham]

I do. In my entire 77 years, I have never seen or heard of any God
whatsoever, nor ever seen or heard of any evidence that such an entity
exists anywhere at any time. So, I am forced to question it just as I
question any ridiculous childish fairy tale which is patently impossible no
matter how many idiots say they believe in it. They all have, of course, a
big motive for wanting to believe in it, since it tells them that they will
live forever, and any normal human being knows that this is impossible. Most
reasonable people donlt believe in something just because it would be nice
to believe in it. Most require some evidence wstronger than that. but the
religious seem to have a belief system that is skewed by their desire rather
than their ability to reason.

[marty....@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 1, 2013 3:41:59 PM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Vinegar

>
> > <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >On Mar 30, 10:29 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Vinegar
>
> > >> <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >
>
> > >> >On Mar 29, 1:15 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On 3/29/13 10:32 AM, Vinegar wrote:
>
> > >> ...
>
> > >> >> > EQUAL PROTECTION LAW IS DISCRIMINATORY
>
> >
>
> > >> >> You don't have to shout.  I can hear every crazed thing you say just fine.
>
> >
>
> > >> >> Please explain how the mandate that laws be applied equally across
>
> > >> >> classes of people is discriminatory.
>
> >
>
> > >> >> Do you even know what equal protection means?
>
> >
>
> > >> >No, I don't... Yet I still think that only PAGAN LAW
>
> > >> >can seek to protect a devious life style.
>
> >
>
> > >> Pagan is a collection of religious beliefs. Why do you allege that our
>
> > >> law is based on religious beliefs?
>
> >
>
> > >No, pagans believe anything and nothing at the same time.
>
> >
>

> > Your ignorance of the meaning of the word is noted.
>
>
>
> If it is not the definition that I provided then it is not the correct
>
> one.
>
> Paganism includes anismism, polytheism, spirit worship, idol worship,
>
> reason worship... and so on and so on

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >It is another form of atheism or secularism.
>
> >
>

> > It is not, but you clearly do not care. If you cared, you would learn
>
> > and admit your mistake.

>
> >
>
> > > Consequently
>
> > >the Government that gives rise is a pagan Government
>
> > >and its Laws pagan Law
>
> >
>

> > Wrong.
>
>
>
> The Godless constitution of the Unites States is a PAGAN constitution
>
> get over it.
>
> ----------
>
> There is no God but Jesus and Madiba is his Messenger

there is a name given to this one

[marty....@gmail.com]

Inatimate

[marty....@gmail.com]

> Inanimate

[Onion]

Were you there when He said that?
Given the facts that He was crowned as the Messiah
of Israel, the Sole Ruler of Mankind and Saint Paul referred
to Him as Our New Caesar, the King of Golry,
given these facts, what do you think is meant by
give to Caesar what is caesar's

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Stop celebrating your ignorance or being so proud of the lies you tell.- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Onion]

SECULAR LAWS PROMOTE PAGAN VALUES AND WORLDVIEW

> gods.- Hide quoted text -

[Onion]

On Apr 2, 6:34 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT), Onion <kolwe...@astromail.com>

You wish there was no evidence. Yet we offered plenty of EVIDENCE,
2000 years of evidence in HISTORY, LAW, GOVERNMENT AND
CONVERSION OF CIVILIZATION FROM POLYTHEISM TO MONOTHEISM
in short, 2000 years and two models of evengelization, the Islamic one
and the Graeco-Roman model, but you chose to remain BLIND.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> --
>
> >> JD
>
> >> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Onion]

On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Onion wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 4:48 am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:34:12 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Secular Law are Godless law therefore pagan Laws
>
> >>>>> Pagans aren't godless.
>
> >>>> Pagan worship Idols and not the True God
>
> >>> No one who claims to worship the "True God" has ever managed to
> >>> offer any actual evidence to support their allegation.
>
> >> If they claim to worship, wouldn't that stand as evidence that
> >> they worship, no matter which god they worship?
>
> > This is the opinion of the Godless heathens...But we know that Idol
> > worship
> > is hardly a correct form of worship and as it breeds irrationality,
> > that scourge
> > that our Savior saved us from.
>
> >> --
> >> Heartbreak is a burden to us all. Pity the man with two.
>
> And isn't nativity scenes, crosses, and pictures of angels with wings and
> other such things in all the "main stream" religious palaces also, "idols"?

No, they were purified, evangelized and Christened. JESUS IS
THE NAME THAT PURIFIES. No one calls on the name
of DIANA THE GODDESS OF THE EPHESIANS ANYMORE

> If not, then what, exactly distinguishes idols from these other religious

> symbols that people put on their mantles and in their houses of worship?- Hide quoted text -

[Onion]

On Apr 5, 5:21 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Free Lunch wrote:

> > On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 03:45:34 -0500, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote

keep fooling yourself. YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT JESUS
THE PANTOCRATOR, THE MESSIAH, THE SOLE RULER
OF MANKIND and His victory over death and His promise
of the resurrection of manking,
the Last judgement and the life of the world to come.
KEEP FOLLING YOURSELF
------
Devillepin, L'Afrique n'est pas un vil pain et elle n'a pas de maitres
non plus quelque soit ce que te feront croire Mossi Dramane
Ouattara, Ban-ki-Moon et leur complice

> question any ridiculous childish fairy tale which is patently impossible no
> matter how many idiots say they believe in it. They all have, of course, a
> big motive for wanting to believe in it, since it tells them that they will
> live forever, and any normal human being knows that this is impossible. Most
> reasonable people donlt believe in something just because it would be nice
> to believe in it. Most require some evidence wstronger than that. but the
> religious seem to have a belief system that is skewed by their desire rather

> than their ability to reason.- Hide quoted text -

[deadrat]

Were you? That's what it says in Mark 12:17. Are you denying your own
gospel now?

> Given the facts that He was crowned as the Messiah of Israel

No, he wasn't. The Jews had a monarchy for ruling the state. They
prophesied a messiah who would usher in a golden age of peace. The Jews
are still waiting. If you don't want to wait with them, that's fine,
but don't tell them who their messiah is.

> the Sole Ruler of Mankind and Saint Paul referred
> to Him as Our New Caesar, the King of Golry,

Probably I'm to read "the King of Glory." That is, the Kingdom of
Heaven, which even Jesus said was "not of this world."

> given these facts, what do you think is meant by
> give to Caesar what is caesar's

Hey, it's your mythology, not mine. What difference does it make what I
think? I'm just telling you what your own doxology states.

[deadrat]

Secular laws protect me from deluded zealots like you.

Good.

[deadrat]

Hey! I do. If you're gonna dis Diana, I'm gonna have to ask you to
step outside.

[Bill Graham]

I understand that every religious nut thinks thwt his symbols and idols are
the only true ones, and that all others are, "Graven images". But to an
atheist like me you guys are all alike. None3 of you have got it right. We
live in a random universe. Everything we see, as far as we can look with our
most powerful telescopes, is randomness. A typoewriter, tossed from the roof
of a 100 story skyscraper, has the same chance of hitting a child on the
sidewalk below as it does a trashcan. Only the percentage of the sidewalk's
surface area occluded by those objects enters into the ewuasion. No god or
gods plays any part in it. So whoever you are, or whatever god or gods in
which you believe, are absolutely no different from any other persons
beliefs or god or gods. If you persist in believing in fairy tales, that's
fine, and I am very hoppy for you, but don;t try to get me to believe in
them. My beliefe system is based on probabilities. Wishful thinking plays no
part in it.

[Bill Graham]

True belief = Whatever I believe.
Pagan beliefe = Whatever others believe.

An d that is the only difference.

[Olrik]

I've also heard about Batman, Thor (he had nails *and* a mighty
hammer... Hint hint...) and Zeus.

Now, what was your point?

> and His victory over death and His promise
> of the resurrection of manking,
> the Last judgement and the life of the world to come.
> KEEP FOLLING YOURSELF
> ------
> Devillepin, L'Afrique n'est pas un vil pain et elle n'a pas de maitres
> non plus quelque soit ce que te feront croire Mossi Dramane
> Ouattara, Ban-ki-Moon et leur complice

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<cfcf2704-b389-44be...@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:


> keep fooling yourself. YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT JESUS
> THE PANTOCRATOR, THE MESSIAH, THE SOLE RULER
> OF MANKIND and His victory over death and His promise
> of the resurrection of manking,
> the Last judgement and the life of the world to come.
> KEEP FOLLING YOURSELF

But you haven't provided any evidence for the existence of this Jesus
person, so why should we believe a word you say?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<3d7ac833-50df-4464...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

You have evidence? Really?

Then provide it right here:

...


...


....


....


....

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<2558e208-f731-4b85...@l5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

How can they do that?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<95b528d1-8265-447c...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

When and where did this coronation take place?

[Bill Graham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article
> <cfcf2704-b389-44be...@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> keep fooling yourself. YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT JESUS
>> THE PANTOCRATOR, THE MESSIAH, THE SOLE RULER
>> OF MANKIND and His victory over death and His promise
>> of the resurrection of manking,
>> the Last judgement and the life of the world to come.
>> KEEP FOLLING YOURSELF
>
>
> But you haven't provided any evidence for the existence of this Jesus
> person, so why should we believe a word you say?

The brothers Grimm could do better than that Bible story with half their
brains tied behind their backs. The fact that so many religious people
believe it should tell you something about their average IQ.....

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> The fact that so many religious people believe it should tell you
> something about their average IQ.....

100, by definition, is the average IQ.

In a previous post, you said that every religious group believed that
their own symbols and deities were the only true ones. In fact, every
*monotheist* religion believes that. Hindus, for only one example, do
not.

Your rhetoric would be more effective if you didn't make simple mistakes
like these. It's as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bill Graham]

I believe the average IQ of the religious is below 100. Made up by the
average IQ of us atheists, of course, which is considerably higher.

And there is no mistake. All religious people believe theirs is the only
true religion, no matter what religion they profess to be. If they believed
thast some other religion was the only true religion, then they would switch
to that one, wouldn't they?

[Bill Graham]

Have you noticed since everyone has a cell phone with camera these days no
one talks about seeing UFOs like they used to?

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> I believe the average IQ of the religious is below 100. Made up by the
> average IQ of us atheists, of course, which is considerably higher.

Then you don't understand the concept of IQ. The specific performance
on an IQ test that constitutes a score of 100 is determined by a
statistical cross-section of the whole. If you test only religious
people, their average IQ will be 100. If you test only atheists, their
average IQ will be 100. If you test religious and atheists together,
their average IQ will also be 100. 100 means average for the population
in question.

> And there is no mistake. All religious people believe theirs is the
> only true religion, no matter what religion they profess to be. If
> they believed thast some other religion was the only true religion,
> then they would switch to that one, wouldn't they?

All religious people believe that their own religion is true, but only
monotheists believe that all other religions are false (because the
monotheistic God, if he exists, must be the only true God).

Someone who believes in a polytheistic religion may be a follower of one
god or another; other people may follow other gods, who are considered
true gods, but are not the only true gods. This attitude was the norm
in the ancient world, as even the Bible demonstrates; in the Old
Testament, for example, the Deuteronomistic histories recount many
occasions on which the ancient Israelites began to worship the gods of
neighboring city-states in addition to the God of Israel, the
implication being that they believed more than one god and more than one
religious practice to be true.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Actually, reported UFO sightings have trended decidedly upward over the
past decade. Do you research any of your claims at all?

[K Wills]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Onion
<kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> > Or those who worship themselves and their pagan Laws
>>
>> Very sorry, no.
>>
>> Didn't Jesus say "Render unto Caesar...."?
>
>Were you there when He said that?
>Given the facts that He was crowned as the Messiah
>of Israel, the Sole Ruler of Mankind and Saint Paul referred
>to Him as Our New Caesar, the King of Golry,
>given these facts, what do you think is meant by
>give to Caesar what is caesar's

I'm not the one you asked, but I can answer.
We are to pay taxes to the government, of course. Anyone with an
interest may check Mark 12:13-17 to confirm this.
Aw heck, I have time. Here's the NIV translation. If you'd like a
different one, I'll do what I can to provide it.


13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to
catch him in his words.

14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of
integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention
to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the
truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?

15 Should we pay or shouldn't we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he
asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”

16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And
whose inscription?”
“Caesar's,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and
to God what is God's.”
And they were amazed at him.

--
Aspire to inspire before you expire.

[linuxgal]

Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> Actually, reported UFO sightings have trended decidedly upward over the
> past decade.

Funny how there's no clear imagery of any of them, in an age when
everyone has a camera/phone in their pocket or purse.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:26:03 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:


> > The fact that so many religious people believe it should tell you
> > something about their average IQ.....


> 100, by definition, is the average IQ.


> In a previous post, you said that every religious group believed
that
> their own symbols and deities were the only true ones. In fact,
every
> *monotheist* religion believes that. Hindus, for only one example,
do
> not.

Neither do Jews. To a certain extent, neither do many Christians.

> Your rhetoric would be more effective if you didn't make simple
mistakes
> like these. It's as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Terry

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:38:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> > "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> The fact that so many religious people believe it should tell you
> >> something about their average IQ.....
> >
> > 100, by definition, is the average IQ.
> >
> > In a previous post, you said that every religious group believed
that
> > their own symbols and deities were the only true ones. In fact,
every
> > *monotheist* religion believes that. Hindus, for only one
example, do
> > not.
> >
> > Your rhetoric would be more effective if you didn't make simple
> > mistakes like these. It's as if you have no idea what you're
talking
> > about.


> I believe the average IQ of the religious is below 100. Made up by
the
> average IQ of us atheists, of course, which is considerably higher.


> And there is no mistake. All religious people believe theirs is the
only
> true religion,

...but you wouldn't put yourself in that category, would you? Lol...

no matter what religion they profess to be. If they believed
> thast some other religion was the only true religion, then they
would switch
> to that one, wouldn't they?

--
Terry

[�RLMeasures]

In article <M7ednaG6eIXkrvDM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> > Actually, reported UFO sightings have trended decidedly upward over the
> > past decade.
>
> Funny how there's no clear imagery of any of them, in an age when
> everyone has a camera/phone in their pocket or purse.

*** funny indeed. Maybe them space aliens is camera shy?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:56:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>In article
><95b528d1-8265-447c...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Onion <kolw...@astromail.com> wrote:

...

>> Were you there when He said that?
>> Given the facts that He was crowned as the Messiah
>> of Israel
>
>
>When and where did this coronation take place?

In Onion's special place.

[Bill Graham]

Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I believe the average IQ of the religious is below 100. Made up by
>> the average IQ of us atheists, of course, which is considerably
>> higher.
>
> Then you don't understand the concept of IQ. The specific performance
> on an IQ test that constitutes a score of 100 is determined by a
> statistical cross-section of the whole. If you test only religious
> people, their average IQ will be 100. If you test only atheists,
> their average IQ will be 100. If you test religious and atheists
> together, their average IQ will also be 100. 100 means average for
> the population in question.

That's right, but the, "population in question" may be only religious
people, or only redheads, or only atheists, or all of them taken together.
Now, if you seperate out the stupid ones, and only test the intelligent
ones, then the ones you test will be able to score hiugher on yout test than
the group that includes everyone, won;t it? So, unless you give them two
se3perwte tests, you may find that certain groupes will test higher than
other groups. I maintain that true atheists, when given the sasme test that
you give to the religious people, will score higher that the religious
people. That's becasuse if they are smart enough to realize that the
religious myths are false, then they will also be smart enough to score
higher on your IQ test. This is a no brainer. What I am sayuing is thast
people who believe in fairy tales and not as smart as people who don't
believe in fairy tales. Smart people learn faster, and faster learners score
higher on IQ tests if the tests are adequate at searching out fast learners.

[Bill Graham]

If they don;t appear in the news, then I donlt hear about them. I hqven't
heard near as much reports of sauces sightings as I did back in the 60's and
70's. Please site where you git your statistics, or what news services yuou
commonly watch/listen to, read. Fact is, when everyone carrties a camera,
they donlt take near as many photos of stuff that, DOESN'T EXIST!.

[Bill Graham]

linuxgal wrote:
> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
>> Actually, reported UFO sightings have trended decidedly upward over
>> the past decade.
>
> Funny how there's no clear imagery of any of them, in an age when
> everyone has a camera/phone in their pocket or purse.

Yes, and there never has been, "any clear image" of any of them, in the
entire history of such sightings during my lifetime. (I am 77) That's
because the nearest star is 4-1/2 light years away from us. In order to make
that journey in a lifetime, one would have to consume more energy than one
would get by consuming the entire mass of ones spaceship into energy using
Einstein's E=MC (squared) equation. (Half the mass to get up to speed, and
the other half to slow back down again.) IOW, the existence of space ships
from another solar system is impossible. But some people will believe in
anything, impossible or not. Kind of like believing that the entity that
created the whole universe, with more galaxies in it that there are grains
of sane on all the beadhes on earth, is hoverong over my bunk at night
making sure that I get a good night's sleep. That too, is impossible, but it
don't make no never mind to the religious nuts whose desire to live forever
(no matter how old and decrepid they get) seems to know no bounds. Their
belief systems aren't dictated by loigic, but rather by wishful thinking. If
it would be nice, then they will believe, and if itsd inconvenient, then
they won't.
That's kind of like my telling my math teacher, "well, it would take a lot
of work to solve the problem your way, so I just picked a number out of thin
air, and decided to believe that that's the correct answer."

[Bill Graham]

Its just another form of religion. When they can't explasin something,
instead of giving it a sciientific examination, they choose to say, "It must
be magic". If everyone had always done that, we sould still be huddling in
the back of the cave, afraid of our own shadows. What's amazing to me is
that, even today, with all of our modern knowlege, and several hundred years
of scientific thought behind us, there are some who still think just like
that creature that huddled in the back of his cave 40,000 years ago.

[linuxgal]

K Wills wrote:
> That's because clear ones show that the object(s) in question are
> terrestrial in origin.

"Made in China" on the tossed plates, and so forth.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <lIadnXp47cC6jvPM...@giganews.com>, "Bill Graham"
<we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> •RLMeasures wrote:
> > In article <M7ednaG6eIXkrvDM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> >>> Actually, reported UFO sightings have trended decidedly upward over
> >>> the past decade.
> >>
> >> Funny how there's no clear imagery of any of them, in an age when
> >> everyone has a camera/phone in their pocket or purse.
> >
> > *** funny indeed. Maybe them space aliens is camera shy?
>

> Its just another form of religion. When they can't explain something,

> instead of giving it a sciientific examination, they choose to say, "It must
> be magic".

• or "it's a miracle".

>If everyone had always done that, we sould still be huddling in
> the back of the cave, afraid of our own shadows. What's amazing to me is
> that, even today, with all of our modern knowlege, and several hundred years
> of scientific thought behind us, there are some who still think just like
> that creature that huddled in the back of his cave 40,000 years ago.

• amen.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> That's right, but the, "population in question" may be only religious
> people, or only redheads, or only atheists, or all of them taken
> together. Now, if you seperate out the stupid ones, and only test the
> intelligent ones, then the ones you test will be able to score hiugher
> on yout test than the group that includes everyone, won;t it? So,
> unless you give them two se3perwte tests, you may find that certain
> groupes will test higher than other groups. I maintain that true
> atheists, when given the sasme test that you give to the religious
> people, will score higher that the religious people. That's becasuse
> if they are smart enough to realize that the religious myths are
> false, then they will also be smart enough to score higher on your IQ
> test. This is a no brainer. What I am sayuing is thast people who
> believe in fairy tales and not as smart as people who don't believe in
> fairy tales. Smart people learn faster, and faster learners score
> higher on IQ tests if the tests are adequate at searching out fast
> learners.

What you are claiming is that it requires above average intelligence to
figure out that "religious myths are false" and tantamount to "fairy
tales." But you assert this gratis -- therefore we may deny it
likewise -- and what is more, insofar as this is supposed to fall into
the category of "reasons why you should be an atheist," it assumes the
very thing to be proved, namely that all religions are false and there
is no God. Your problem is that you think something is a no-brainer
because you reckon yourself smarter than the average bear, so whatever
you say must be obviously true for you even though it is difficult for
others to grasp. But actually what you're doing is disregarding the
standards of rational discourse, which is a very unintelligent thing to
do, a mark of inferior learning and immaturity.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> If they don;t appear in the news, then I donlt hear about them. I
> hqven't heard near as much reports of sauces sightings as I did back
> in the 60's and 70's. Please site where you git your statistics, or
> what news services yuou commonly watch/listen to, read. Fact is, when
> everyone carrties a camera, they donlt take near as many photos of
> stuff that, DOESN'T EXIST!.

It's up to the discretion of a news editor whether a story about a UFO
sighting gets put on the news or in the paper. My source is MUFON,
which keeps records of all the sightings that get reported to them. You
can easily go to their website and check the veracity of my claim for
yourself.

It's trivially true that UFOs exist. A UFO is anything in the sky that
someone, somewhere is unable to identify. The vast majority of them are
easily explained; the remainder are explained with some difficulty. An
easy explanation for the lack of clear photographs of UFOs is that, if
the pictures were clear, then it would be easy to identify the objects
in the pictures, and they would therefore not be UFOs. What you would
alternatively propose? That people make stuff up out of nothing, for no
reason, as a matter of course, and that somehow something that happens
for "no reason" adequately explains the existence of religions?

[Onion]

On Apr 17, 12:17 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

JUST BRILLIANT...
Thank you O Lord, verily you still have in this world thousand
who will never bow before the god of false reason.

[Bill Graham]

It is a, "mark of inferior learning and immaturity" to believe in fairy
tales. But it is also a waste of time to believe in something that has
absolutely no effect on you in any way at all. Your God, even if he exists,
has not left any evidence of his existence on mankind, or on anything, for
over 2000 years. (aqssuming that your Chriostian myth is true) So, it really
doesn't matter whether he exists or not. IOW, as a non-entity, who would
care? So, as a practical matter, as well as a philosophican matter, the
whole question is moot. Any reasonable person would entertain thoughts of a
much more reasonable and practical nature. Its kine of like arguing about
what Alice found at the bottom of that hole she fell down. Your God, whether
he exists or not, is completely worthless in any case.

[Bill Graham]

No. I propose that people don't like their situation, so they conjure up
some fairy tale that promiwses them something that they have absolutely no
real evidence of. "Wishful thinking" Dick Feynman called it. TYhiks is the
exact opposite of scientific thought. A scientist refuses to accept even
things that aare speculated by other scientist to really exist. He is
skeptican of evidence when presented to him unless he sees the same thing
mustiple timesw when created by the sasme set of circumasances, and even
then, he damands a rational proof or explanation of the phenomina, or some
theoretican reasoning behind its existence. The non-scio9entist simplu
accepts anything that gives him some hope that his desire for a better
future would satisfy, even if there is no rational explanation or repeatable
evidence for it whatsoever.
I see randomness everywhere. I have observed randomness for my entire 77
years of living. As more powerful observation machines have been developed,
they find only randomness throughout the universe. And yet, the religious
persist in believing in magic, simply because it would be neat if some magic
existed somewhere. But ponly to them. I would be very disappointed were I to
find any magic anywhere. I spent my life searching for reality, and helping
to find logical explanations for everything I was able to observe. Now, at
77, I really donlt want to find any magic anywhere. It would mwake my whole
life a worthless excercise in futility. But not to worry. There is no God.
No magic. A rational explanation for everything, even if we haven't found it
yet. And for sure, even if the universe was created by some outside entity,
its senseless randomnesws, and unbelievable cruelty to living things would
give me absolutely no hope for any kind of eternal existence whatsoever. Who
would want to meet a maker who forces millions of sweet little furry
creatures to freeze and starve to death every Winter, after watching their
children fre3eze qand starve to death before them? IOW, your God, if he
exists at all, must necessarily be a monster, and certainly not worthy of
being given the time of day, much less being worshipped. If I thought for
one minute that he existed at all, I would hate him and not worship him. He
is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and every other murderous tyrant all put
together..... The enormity of his crimes against the innocent are
unbelievable....

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> It is a, "mark of inferior learning and immaturity" to believe in
> fairy tales. But it is also a waste of time to believe in something
> that has absolutely no effect on you in any way at all. Your God, even
> if he exists, has not left any evidence of his existence on mankind,
> or on anything, for over 2000 years. (aqssuming that your Chriostian
> myth is true) So, it really doesn't matter whether he exists or
> not. IOW, as a non-entity, who would care? So, as a practical matter,
> as well as a philosophican matter, the whole question is moot. Any
> reasonable person would entertain thoughts of a much more reasonable
> and practical nature. Its kine of like arguing about what Alice found
> at the bottom of that hole she fell down. Your God, whether he exists
> or not, is completely worthless in any case.

You're entering very murky waters here. The God of classical theism,
that is, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is proposed to be
the reason why anything exists or happens in the first place. That is
hardly an "irrelevant" or "worthless" thing to be. However, as clever
as they all say they are, atheists have never actually discussed this
God, but only a conceptual caricature of him. They are all deeply
confused about first principles in logic and metaphysics; but then, I
don't think that's what ultimately matters to them. Insofar as you fail
to understand what religious believers mean by the word "God," you can
neither refute his existence nor say that there is no evidence of his
existence.

The latter move, as well, betrays a grave methodological error. If
something is evident to the senses, that implies its existence; but the
converse is not true. Just because something is not evident to the
senses does not imply that it doesn't exist. But when we tacitly
presume that all that exists must be material, we make that presumption
without any kind of appeal to a more fundamental principle. Yet it is
hardly self-evident that only material things exist; and in fact, the
very arguments for God's existence put forward by classical theology
arise for no other reason than that the existence of material things
requires us to postulate substances that are not composed of form and
matter -- that is, a substance which is not merely one thing among other
things, and which can be held to generic evidential standards. Rather,
it is necessary that something exist which accounts for the
intelligibility of those very standards. That is what theists refer to
when they talk about God. But you speak about "God" in such a manner
that you are clearly referring to one individual thing among other
things. Therefore your whole polemic is rendered moot.

If there is anything even slightly persuasive about what you say, it
lies in the self-assurance and aggressiveness with which you say it and
not in what you actually say. You're clearly more interested in
gratifying yourself and your atheist buddies than reaching out to those
poor delusional theists and demonstrating the truth to them. But faith
is a prerequisite to charity...

[Bill Graham]

But the "God of false reason" has given us everything. He showed us that the
earth was not the center of the universe, that it was a sphere and not flat,
that fire could be tamed and used, and lightening could be created by us
asnd used for a myriad of purposes, and many many more things that are far
too numerous to be listed here. If anything, the God of the religious had
done nothing but put stumbling blocks in front of the development of all
these things. And even at this late date, he is preaching death and
destruction to all reasonable people and animals on the earth. Tell me,
exactly what the hell good is he? Tell me why we wouldn't be much further
advanced without him or any of his followers. Far from being a, "Savior", he
is a murderous monster who has slowed down the development of manking from
his first inseption over a million years ago. We would have been far, far
better off without him and all the hatred anmd intolerance he has created.

[Bill Graham]

All meaningless hand waving.... If no god or gods has any effect on my life
whatsoever, then I could care less whether he exists or not. Qnd yes....
Material things are the only things that interest me when we ate talking
about reality. The fact that people go ablut killing each other because of
their beliefe in mythical creatures is another question altogether. And one,
if I were you, I would avoid at all costs. Like other erroneous beliefs, it
only causes trouble. From falsehood, even with logic, falsehood happens most
of the time. IOW, your belief in God has been detrimental to the progress of
all mankind throughout recorded history.

Not to say that I donl;t give credit where credit is due. There are Catholic
charities that I contribute to today, because I have observed them to do
good things for those with whome I have compassion. But the existence of
their God has nothing to do with this. If anything, it is an attempt to undo
the irreperable damage that their God has fostered. Surely, were he to
exist, he would hate me for this. At least my irrefutable logic tells me
that this must be true:
God: Why do you contribute to the care and feeding of these mentally
retarded people?
Me: I was lucky to be born with a good mind, and I feel compassion for them.
God: But I created them mentally retarded so they would suffer their entire
lives, and you are trying to undo my work.
Me: That's true. That's because I don't believe in, "your work". It tells me
that you are a cruel SOB.
God: You incur my wrath, and you will suffer for it.
Me: So be it. Go back to creating universes. You are much better at that.
But keep away from creating life. You have no compassion, and could care
less about its suffering.

[Dreamer In Colore]

<the following newsgroups snipped for relevance>
misc.legal
alt.history
soc.culture.african
</snip>

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:02:53 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

>"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> It is a, "mark of inferior learning and immaturity" to believe in
>> fairy tales. But it is also a waste of time to believe in something
>> that has absolutely no effect on you in any way at all. Your God, even
>> if he exists, has not left any evidence of his existence on mankind,
>> or on anything, for over 2000 years. (aqssuming that your Chriostian
>> myth is true) So, it really doesn't matter whether he exists or
>> not. IOW, as a non-entity, who would care? So, as a practical matter,
>> as well as a philosophican matter, the whole question is moot. Any
>> reasonable person would entertain thoughts of a much more reasonable
>> and practical nature. Its kine of like arguing about what Alice found
>> at the bottom of that hole she fell down. Your God, whether he exists
>> or not, is completely worthless in any case.
>
>You're entering very murky waters here. The God of classical theism,
>that is, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is proposed to be
>the reason why anything exists or happens in the first place. That is
>hardly an "irrelevant" or "worthless" thing to be. However, as clever
>as they all say they are, atheists have never actually discussed this
>God, but only a conceptual caricature of him. They are all deeply
>confused about first principles in logic and metaphysics; but then, I
>don't think that's what ultimately matters to them. Insofar as you fail
>to understand what religious believers mean by the word "God," you can
>neither refute his existence nor say that there is no evidence of his
>existence.
>

Theists posit the existence of a deity. There is no "this God"...
there are many such beings posited, so saying that atheists discuss
only a conceptual caricature is pointless.

The reality is that as an immaterial being, "God" has as much weight
as any other idea, which is to say none. Ideas are by nature
weightless.

Therefore, discussing the concept of a God should be accorded the
exact same merit as discussing any other idea. To add additional
gravitas because of the supposed sacred nature of the idea is a
logical fallacy.

Religious believers differ in their concepts of God. If any single God
existed, then, that would provide sufficient evidence of either the
absence or non-caring of all of the others, and it would additionally
immediately invalidate the entire principle of atheism.

Religious believers are also united in their own atheism with respect
to other deities. Atheists just take that an extra step forward.

Your last sentence in that paragraph is an opinion, not a statement of
fact. Refutation of any god's existence can be done on many levels,
and is best done as a refutation of the claims of theists.
Furthermore, saying that there is evidence of any God's existence is
exactly the same as saying that there is evidence of the existence of
Santa Claus.

The extraordinary claim for the existence of a supernatural being
requires extraordinary proof. The onus of that proof is on the
individual making the claim, not on the person who says "You can't be
serious."

>The latter move, as well, betrays a grave methodological error. If
>something is evident to the senses, that implies its existence; but the
>converse is not true. Just because something is not evident to the
>senses does not imply that it doesn't exist. But when we tacitly
>presume that all that exists must be material, we make that presumption
>without any kind of appeal to a more fundamental principle. Yet it is
>hardly self-evident that only material things exist; and in fact, the
>very arguments for God's existence put forward by classical theology
>arise for no other reason than that the existence of material things
>requires us to postulate substances that are not composed of form and
>matter -- that is, a substance which is not merely one thing among other
>things, and which can be held to generic evidential standards. Rather,
>it is necessary that something exist which accounts for the
>intelligibility of those very standards. That is what theists refer to
>when they talk about God. But you speak about "God" in such a manner
>that you are clearly referring to one individual thing among other
>things. Therefore your whole polemic is rendered moot.
>

There is no such thing as "a substance that is not composed of form
and matter".

A substance by definition has both form and matter, otherwise it would
be insubstantial.

This is why ideas are insubstantial by nature.

There is no such thing as "generic evidential standards." There is
evidence for something, or there is no evidence for something.

There is evidence for certain ideas to have validity... and there is
no evidence for other ideas to have validity. You're claiming that
gods cannot be held to evidential standards, and I'd like you to
explain that further, because that doesn't make any sense.

If gods cannot be held to evidential standards, then it is
equivalently true that any idea cannot be held to evidential
standards... and that's very murky indeed.

>If there is anything even slightly persuasive about what you say, it
>lies in the self-assurance and aggressiveness with which you say it and
>not in what you actually say. You're clearly more interested in
>gratifying yourself and your atheist buddies than reaching out to those
>poor delusional theists and demonstrating the truth to them. But faith
>is a prerequisite to charity...

It is not for atheists to demonstrate anything to theists. It rests
squarely on the shoulders of theists to demonstrate unequivocally how
insubstantial, immaterial, omniscient and omnipotent beings can exist
without any physical evidence.

I may as well make the claim that purple air-breathing titans exist on
the other side of the galaxy, and that they created the universe and
that it lies on the backs of turtles.... surely you would expect me to
back that up, wouldn't you?

You can interpret this as aggressive or self-assured if you like, but
the truth is, I'm not at all as self-assured as you'd like to believe.
I'm a skeptic... and I need something a little harder than say-so in
order to be convinced.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:16:57 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:

There is no assertion necessary to say "religious myths are false".
It's not an assertion... it's a refutation. The assertion is
"religious myths are true".

Theists holding to that belief need to be able to defend that belief,
and when they resort to "I have faith", one immediately can assert to
"I have faith that Zeus exists" or "I have faith that Odin exists."

There is equal evidence for both Zeus and Odin and the Biblical God.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that "religious myths are false"
is the assertion that requires proof, because the simplest of all
logics is that it is not necessary to prove a negative.

The burden of proof always lies on the positive statement.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[walksalone]

Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote in
news:9btip3l...@ma.sdf.org:

> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> It is a, "mark of inferior learning and immaturity" to believe in
>> fairy tales. But it is also a waste of time to believe in something
>> that has absolutely no effect on you in any way at all. Your God,
>> even if he exists, has not left any evidence of his existence on
>> mankind, or on anything, for over 2000 years. (aqssuming that your
>> Chriostian myth is true) So, it really doesn't matter whether he
>> exists or not. IOW, as a non-entity, who would care? So, as a
>> practical matter, as well as a philosophican matter, the whole
>> question is moot. Any reasonable person would entertain thoughts of a
>> much more reasonable and practical nature. Its kine of like arguing
>> about what Alice found at the bottom of that hole she fell down. Your
>> God, whether he exists or not, is completely worthless in any case.
>
> You're entering very murky waters here. The God of classical theism,
> that is, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is proposed to
> be

Did you forget Brahma? the gods you reference are known as the revealed
gods of the desert for a good reason. They had to reveal themselves &
bribe their followers. The are know as the Abrahamic faiths if yo want
to mollycoddle believers.

> the reason why anything exists or happens in the first place. That is
> hardly an "irrelevant" or "worthless" thing to be. However, as clever
> as they all say they are, atheists have never actually discussed this
> God, but only a conceptual caricature of him. They are all deeply

How do you discuss what no one has provied evitdence for. Not claims,
evidence. Seems a bit odd to have to acquiese to the pretensions of
others to hold a conversation. Usually one they started. Now, if they
want to discuss their mythology, that would be a different matter.
Insteads, they want admiration for their dog and pony show, & call it
theology. A field of study not confined to the revealed gods of the
desert.

> confused about first principles in logic and metaphysics; but then, I
> don't think that's what ultimately matters to them. Insofar as you
> fail to understand what religious believers mean by the word "God,"
> you can

Depends, it can be any of the following.

What is a god, a short & incomplete list.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared] B: May
or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny. D: May or
may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of
gods.] Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful
than others. Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are
found in worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be
Nordic & Germanic in origin. Fates: They are common to the classical
myths as well as the European ones. Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of
gods that include everything from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some
are good, & some like Red Hat, are not. Giants: though supernatural as
understood in the myths of the world, they are not necessary known to
have god like powers as most understand the term. Gods & goddesses: I
hope this class does not need more explanation. Spirits: are all
supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans or animals that
have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to go. Animistic,
all living creatures, including plant life Astral/solar All heavenly
bodies

Or a particular god such as ahone, ba'al [very popular in Judea &
Canaan] or, as an example, any of the creator gods. A very incomplete
list from various sources Aztec, Canaan, Dravidian, Egypt,
Gnostic-christian, maya, Mespotamia, Misc[all others]

ai' tojon adamas agu'gux akongo alatangana allah amma amma amun antu anu
aondo apap aramazd archonssaboth arebati ataa naa nygongmo aten atl atua
fafine atua i raropuka atum avalokitesvara awonawilona ayi' uru'n toyo,n
baiame brahma bulai bulgang bumba cacoch cagu cakra ce acatl cghene
chiconahuiehecatl chnum chul tatic chites vaneg cihuacoatl quilaztli
cipacctonal citalatonac citalicue dharma dyaus pitar e alom e quaholom
ehecatl el elohim elkunirsa ellel emli hin enki epimetheus e'ros es fidi
mukullu hachacyum hao Hindu hiranyagarbha hun hunapa hunab ku hurracan
ihoioi iksvaku il imana imra ipalnemoani isten isten itzam zacal nok
iusaas izanangi no kami iznami no kami jehova jok julunggul ka tyelo
kaia kalunga kami musubi no kami kasisia kitanitowit kucumatz kukulkan
kumarbi kumokums kun tu ban pok kun tu bzan po kyumbe kwoth laima lesa
leza libanza lisa lodur lowalangi mahatala makemake maheo maito mal
malamanganga'e malamangangaifo manitu manohel toehel manu marduk mayon
mbomba mbotumbo mehet weret mkulumncandi moma mula djadi mungo na'ininwn
nahui ollin nainuema nammu nanahuatl naeau narayana nareu ne'nenkicex
nediyon nefertuim neith ngai niamye nu gua nu kua nudimmud nut nyame
nzapa o kuni nushi no mikoto ocelotl oduduwa ohoroxtotil olodumare orisa
nla orisania pachacmac panao pemba pore prajapati promethus prthu ptah
purusa qamai'ts quat quetzelcatl quetzacoatl quiahuti raluvimbha re
rigenmucha rubanga ruhganga sa samael seyon shomde sirao siva somtus
suku taka mi mitsubi no kami tangara tate tawa te aka la roe te manva
roa te tanga engae teharonhiawagon telavelik tenanto'mni tenanto'mwan
thareon tiamat tiki tino taata tirawa tlaltchuti tloque nahauque tomor
tomwo'get tontiuh toro tororut totilma'il trumual tsunigoab tvastar
umanssi ashi kabi hiko ji no kami umvelinkwangi ungud unkulunkulu
unumbote unumbotte uru'n ajy toyo'n vahguru vairacocha venda vile & ve
visnu visvakarman waka wakan tonka wakonda weir kumbamba ya'qhicin
yaldaboth yaro yehl yemekonji yhwh yng yoalechutli yoalli echecatl

> neither refute his existence nor say that there is no evidence of his
> existence.

Oh but you can. Provided the god is defineable. The followers of the
revealed gods have a saying, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
They are in error & trying to exclude various items from the discussion.

Example 1.

The universal flood, aka the flood of Gilgamesh, aka noah's flood. No
edvidence, no reason to believe.

Example 2.

The creation of the earth by an, one of the original gods of the
Mid-east. Both the better known myths have the same theme. Humanity c
reated to serve the gods.

The evidence says otherwise.

The above are areas studiously avoided by those that know about the
revealed gods. & well they should. The less than iknformed OTOH, think
there is something there. So no, if you lack evidence for a claim, &
there should be evidence, then there is no reason to take the claim
seriously.

Not to mention there delight in using the excluded middle.

> The latter move, as well, betrays a grave methodological error. If
> something is evident to the senses, that implies its existence; but
> the

Ever hear of hallucinations?

> converse is not true. Just because something is not evident to the
> senses does not imply that it doesn't exist. But when we tacitly

When you should be able to be aware of something, say a breeze, there is
no reason to deny a breeze exists. When you tell someone they are in
the presence of the gan, don't be shocked if they doubt you. & there is
as much evidence for the gan as the revealed gods of the desert.

> presume that all that exists must be material, we make that
> presumption without any kind of appeal to a more fundamental
> principle. Yet it is hardly self-evident that only material things
> exist; and in fact, the very arguments for God's existence put forward
> by classical theology

Theology pretends to understand the gods, & yet, even those that pretend
to study the gpods can't provide evidence to back them up. So, why
believe they know what they are claiming? I for one don't. Others are
not so fortunate.

> arise for no other reason than that the existence of material things
> requires us to postulate substances that are not composed of form and
> matter -- that is, a substance which is not merely one thing among
> other things, and which can be held to generic evidential standards.
> Rather, it is necessary that something exist which accounts for the
> intelligibility of those very standards. That is what theists refer
> to when they talk about God. But you speak about "God" in such a
> manner

Most theists I know refer to God as the sole public name of their
version of one of the revealed gods of the desert. & get pissed when
you ask them which one.

> that you are clearly referring to one individual thing among other
> things. Therefore your whole polemic is rendered moot.

Really, is'nt that a long way around of pretending gods can exist?

> If there is anything even slightly persuasive about what you say, it
> lies in the self-assurance and aggressiveness with which you say it
> and not in what you actually say. You're clearly more interested in
> gratifying yourself and your atheist buddies than reaching out to
> those poor delusional theists and demonstrating the truth to them.
> But faith is a prerequisite to charity...

So, you can't be wrong because you are a profound thinker. Hint,
charity does not depend on faith. & charity where the giver is waiting
around for recognition is not charity, Now where is that quote?

Lots of people think they're charitable if they give away their old
clothes and things they don't want. It isn't charity to give away things
you want to get rid of and it isn't a sacrifice to do things you don't
mind doing. -Myrtle Reed, author (1874-1911)


So much for faith being required for charity.

Oh, BTW, when did the ANE Priesthoods start refusing to publicly name the
gods? Serious question BTW?.
After that, you can inform the audience the reason for the name no longer
being publicly known & the name used, to the priesthood only being allowed
to talk to their version of big daddy.

walksalone who is not so sure about many things. But gods with evidential
support are a certainity as a no show on the stage of history.
No believers, why yes, there is evidence for them. Some are even known by
name. Some were important in the affairs of humaity. The Pharoahs, the
ANE kings, all were sons of god. One culd not recommend raising doubts
about that during their eras.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> Not to say that I donl;t give credit where credit is due. There are
> Catholic charities that I contribute to today, because I have observed
> them to do good things for those with whome I have compassion. But the
> existence of their God has nothing to do with this. If anything, it is
> an attempt to undo the irreperable damage that their God has
> fostered. Surely, were he to exist, he would hate me for this. At
> least my irrefutable logic tells me that this must be true:
> God: Why do you contribute to the care and feeding of these mentally
> retarded people?
> Me: I was lucky to be born with a good mind, and I feel compassion for them.
> God: But I created them mentally retarded so they would suffer their
> entire lives, and you are trying to undo my work.
> Me: That's true. That's because I don't believe in, "your work". It
> tells me that you are a cruel SOB.
> God: You incur my wrath, and you will suffer for it.
> Me: So be it. Go back to creating universes. You are much better at
> that. But keep away from creating life. You have no compassion, and
> could care less about its suffering.

Interestingly, your characterization of "God" is far more in line with
the Catholic Church's understanding of Satan. Go figure. God loves you
unconditionally, even if you hate him. Seek greater humility. You're
in my prayers.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

I'm going to snip out most of what you said and focus on one error that
shatters your entire case:

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> writes:
> A substance by definition has both form and matter, otherwise it would
> be insubstantial.

This is completely false. Form is to matter as act to potency; which is
to say, matter is a limitation upon form, in that the individuality
which constitutes the materiality of a material thing (say that five
times fast) is not formal; it refers to the "thisness" rather than the
"whatness" of an essence. But any being whose essence is completely
actualized at all times is, for that very reason, not limited in this
way, and therefore immaterial. Now it remains for us to prove that an
immaterial being exists. But my point is that it is not only not a
contradiction in terms, it conveys the notion of something far more
simple, intelligible, and real than material reality itself. There are
people who arbitrarily limit themselves to the contemplation of material
things when they consider "reality," but it is a completely arbitrary
decision. Real philosophy remains open to the possibility of immaterial
being, even if it cannot demonstrate its existence (but as it turns out,
it can).

[Daniel Baumgarten]

walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com> writes:

> Did you forget Brahma?

No, I intentionally left Brahma out, because the concept of Brahman in
Vedanta theology is completely different from the God of classical
theism. The former is a pantheistic deity, the personification of the
monistic All, and similar to the God of Spinoza; the latter is a
transcendent deity that has no dependence on the world which is totally
dependent upon him for its existence. If you don't see the difference,
then I'm not sure you can be helped.

> How do you discuss what no one has provied evitdence for. Not claims,
> evidence. Seems a bit odd to have to acquiese to the pretensions of
> others to hold a conversation. Usually one they started. Now, if they
> want to discuss their mythology, that would be a different matter.
> Insteads, they want admiration for their dog and pony show, & call it
> theology. A field of study not confined to the revealed gods of the
> desert.

Evidence comes in three forms: self-evidence, evidence to the senses,
and incorrigibility. We can call real any being whose existence is
either evident or whose existence follows logically from evident
premises. Classical theism argues that God is a being whose existence
is self-evident to itself and follows from evident premises for us. See
Question 2 of Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars.

> Oh but you can. Provided the god is defineable. The followers of the
> revealed gods have a saying, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
> They are in error & trying to exclude various items from the discussion.

What is being excluded from the discussion, by atheists, is just the
definition of God. It's a hopeless debate as long as you won't agree to
investigate the *actual* thesis advanced by classical theism, and not
your own distortions of what we say he is. You can't say "your God
doesn't exist!" when you mean something completely different by the word
"God" than we do.

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on Biblical
hermeneutics, but I'll mention as an aside that you clearly don't
understand how to interpret the Bible. It's amateur hour here.

[Bill Graham]

Satan is something cooked up by the religious set to answer the question,
"If God is all knowing, and all powerful, why is there still evil in the
world?" The only logical answer to that question is to take away some of
God's power and give it so some evil entity. Hence, Satan. It is so
transparent as to be funny were it not for the damage it has done to mankind
over the years. It is kind of like telling a lie. At first, it is a little
lie, and seems harmless enough. But then, in order to cover the illogic of
it, another, bigger lie is necessary. And another, and another, until you
have woven a huge volume of them and you have to lie continuously and with
great damage to the psyches of everyone you meet in order to cover your ass.

It's time to clense yourself brother. Go back and redo your whole
philosophy. Start filling up that hole of deceit you have dug and return to
reality.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:25:45 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

Complete and utter bullshit.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> writes:

> There is no assertion necessary to say "religious myths are false".
> It's not an assertion... it's a refutation. The assertion is
> "religious myths are true".

A contradictory assertion isn't a refutation; it's just a contradictory
assertion. To refute, you have to argue and construct syllogisms.

> Theists holding to that belief need to be able to defend that belief,
> and when they resort to "I have faith", one immediately can assert to
> "I have faith that Zeus exists" or "I have faith that Odin exists."

That's what fideists do, but that isn't the teaching of the Church or of
the classical theological tradition.

> The burden of proof always lies on the positive statement.

There is a give and take in rational discourse. On the one hand, the
burden of proof lies on the positive statement as you say. But on the
other, the skeptic has to remain open to the proof. Flatly denying that
there is any evidence for the existence of God, when arguments to the
contrary have existed for millennia, shows a lack of honest engagement
with your opponent. To continue the elenchus, you must respond to the
arguments -- a flat denial is insufficient.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> IOW, your God, if he exists at all, must necessarily be a monster, and
> certainly not worthy of being given the time of day, much less being
> worshipped. If I thought for one minute that he existed at all, I
> would hate him and not worship him. He is worse than Hitler, Stalin,
> and every other murderous tyrant all put together..... The enormity of
> his crimes against the innocent are unbelievable....

This is the real reason why you do not belive in God. It has nothing to
do with rational inquiry and everything to do with your emotional
response to evil.

If you understood what classical theists mean by God, you would see that
the existence of evil cannot even begin to be a problem for the concept.
It is, however, a problem for faith. And being emotionally crippled by
all the evil in the world damages your ability to think clearly.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:44:12 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

So provide some of this alleged evidence instead of lying about those
who long ago realised there was none.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:25:45 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

Thanks for a great overview of these seminal concepts. Your hitting
on the age's preoccupation with 'thisness' at the expense of
'whatness' is spot on, and very clearly expressed.

I hope you can further touch on why this is so, and how it relates to
technology.

--
Terry

[Bill Graham]

All the evil in the world is a matter of fact. My emotional health has
nothing to do with it.
And, there is a major question as to which of us is thinking clearly. I am
frequently accused of simplistic thinking, but never of unclear thinking.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:

> So provide some of this alleged evidence instead of lying about those
> who long ago realised there was none.

Usually if someone wants me to do something that they could easily do
themselves, they flatter me rather than insult me. If this is how you
treat everyone in your life, things must be hard for you.

But surely an atheist who is so certain that there is no God has already
done his research and knows the arguments to which I allude.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> All the evil in the world is a matter of fact. My emotional health has
> nothing to do with it.
> And, there is a major question as to which of us is thinking
> clearly. I am frequently accused of simplistic thinking, but never of
> unclear thinking.

If your thinking is overly simplistic, it is ipso facto unclear
thinking.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:44:12 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

Here is a man who has studied his Thomas. Clear and concise, and
logic that is unassailable.

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:34:48 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> So provide some of this alleged evidence instead of lying about those
>> who long ago realised there was none.
>
>Usually if someone wants me to do something that they could easily do
>themselves, they flatter me rather than insult me. If this is how you
>treat everyone in your life, things must be hard for you.

Look up "burden of proof" and stop lying about those who have no
reason to believe, and who long ago realised that theists had nothing
t o support their god-claims.

>But surely an atheist who is so certain that there is no God has already
>done his research and knows the arguments to which I allude.

In other words, you have nothing.

Why is it so hard to undersstand that all an atheist is, is somebody
who isn't theist?

Because we have no reason whatsoever to be theist.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:

> Satan is something cooked up by the religious set to answer the
> question, "If God is all knowing, and all powerful, why is there still
> evil in the world?" The only logical answer to that question is to
> take away some of God's power and give it so some evil entity.

But that's not at all what Christianity does. God's power is infinite.
You could not take away "some" of it even if you wanted to. Just like
each of us, Satan has power given in proportion to the kind of thing
that he is. Whereas the powers of material things such as humans
develops over time and so is subject to gradual increase and decrease,
the power of an angelic being such as Satan is exercised once and for
all.

Theologically, we understand the Fall as follows: perceiving an apparent
good in self-glorification rather than obedience to the will of God,
Satan freely perverted his will against his own nature, thus actually
frustrating the expression of his power rather than increasing it. This
is why Satan suffers in Hell for all eternity, like the victim of an
addiction that cannot be overcome. He isn't powerful, in fact he is an
slave to his own decision, as is everyone who commits evil. And the
infinite power of God is such that much greater good will come from
Satan's disobedience than if he had remained obedient -- and this to the
infinite chagrin of the Evil One. And that is how an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent God can allow evil to occur in the first place: being
infinitely powerful, he is capable of more than making up for any amount
of evil that could possibly occur. So anyone who has faith in God looks
forward to an eternal reward that surpasses all others: the Beatific
Vision, a standing face-to-face with the most beautiful entity
conceivable. You might not like it, you might not believe it, but it's
certainly not what you just said we believe about Satan.

Like I said, you don't research your claims. You don't have your facts
straight. You don't think clearly. And for all that, your ego has its
own ZIP code. Seek greater humility.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> writes:

> Thanks for a great overview of these seminal concepts. Your hitting on
> the age's preoccupation with 'thisness' at the expense of 'whatness'
> is spot on, and very clearly expressed.

> I hope you can further touch on why this is so, and how it relates to
> technology.

I can briefly touch on this, but it's actually a very long and detailed
story. I can't do it justice in a Usenet post.

According to Gilson, it was skepticism over the possibility of a
consensus over how to solve the problem of universals that caused
Descartes, a student of the skeptic Montaigne, to throw out the
peripatetic philosophy in its entirety and start from scratch. Whatever
he thought up, it would have to avoid the problem of universals
altogether; and he accomplished this by recourse to substance dualism,
claiming that material and immaterial things had no common attributes.
The quality of redness in the apple, he claimed, inhered in the res
cogitans, not the res extensa, the latter of which had only those
attributes which could not be predicated of thought. But since
universal natures are comprehended by the mind, the new idea of matter
could not admit of them. Hence, all philosophy that follows Descartes
(that is, all "modern" philosophy) must begin with haecceity or
"thisness" and exclude, as an axiom of thought, any reference to
quiddity or "whatness" as being in a "this." By contrast, Aristotle and
all the medievals understood a material substance as referring to a
"this-such," a composite of quiddity (or essential form) and prime
matter, which is the individuality or "thisness."

Now it is important to avoid equivocation: the PRINCIPLE of prime matter
in the Aristotelian school is not at all what the Cartesian outlook
means by the SUBSTANCE of "matter" or the res extensa. Aristotelian
prime matter does not exist except in composition with a form. There is
no raw "this," in reality, but only "this X" and "that X," "this Y" and
"that Y." As such, prime matter doesn't have properties (it isn't a
substance). It is rather the principle of limitation upon our
expressing the essence of a thing in terms of properties. Cartesian
matter, by contrast, has quantitative and spatio-temporal accidents. It
is a fully mathematicized concept of existence, which is to say, it
involves the consideration of real material being as taken in
abstraction from motion (i.e. change). But even though it is an
abstraction, modern philosophers tend to consider this the most "real"
that reality can be, because it is also the same way in which
mathematical physics deals with material being.

Now, why does mathematical physics determine our whole philosophy of
nature in modern philosophy? It is a totally fetishistic preference,
actually, but it still admits of explanation. The reason is that
mathematical physics is not science in the Aristotelian sense, but it is
rather a species of dialectic whose end is not the discovery of
universal essences -- because these are abstracted from the object of
consideration at the outset -- but an increasing mastery of material
being in its concretion. It is something that is sort of sandwiched
between speculative and practical knowledge in the tree of sciences.
The more that mathematical physics considers matter in its materiality,
the less that it considers the immaterial aspects, i.e., the substantial
forms of the substances it studies, and the closer it approaches to
technics rather than speculative knowledge which is the intrinsic end of
thought. So the appeal of mathematical physics is simply that its
accomplishments are extremely impressive and they have made mankind an
immensely powerful force on earth through its application in technology.
The appeal to the success of mathematical physics in the philosophy of
nature is then a kind of "might makes right" argument of the sort
Thrasymachus makes in Book I of Plato's Republic; and it is refuted in
just the same way. Why?

Well, it's because we do not know the good of something unless we know
its essential form and thus the actuality to which it is intrinsically
ordered. Hence, to base our moral philosophy on either Cartesian
dualism, materialism, or idealism, or in any event upon any philosophy
which divorces concrete individuals from their essential natures, is to
transform morality into a form of technology in a very fundamental and
far-reaching way; which is to say, there is no more intrinsic ordering
of human actions, but rather we are left with a radically open-ended
view of what is possible and what should be permitted. I have already
discussed how materialism begs the question of God's nonexistence and
also fails to address the claims of classical theism. But it isn't
necessary to go there, even though this also follows inevitably from the
rejection of Aristotelian realism. It isn't the philosophic denial of
God's existence that is the cause of so much disorder in the world
today, it is the rejection of God's will as expressed in human nature
and right reason generally that launches us into an illusory world of
potentially infinite power and the ability to make morality simply by
constructing the largest bully pulpit.

[deadrat]

Not even close, Sparky. People choose simplistic thinking precisely
because it's clear and easy to understand. That kind of thinking may be
wrong, but that's different.

[Jim Burns]

On 4/17/2013 8:11 AM, linuxgal wrote:
> K Wills wrote:
>> That's because clear ones show that the object(s) in question are
>> terrestrial in origin.
>
> "Made in China" on the tossed plates, and so forth.

Ah, those clever, clever aliens, painting "Made in China"
on their intergalactic vehicles. And we fell for it!

[walksalone]

Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote in

news:9btzjww...@ma.sdf.org:

Followup reset

Side note to the new troll.
It's considered good manners to mark text you can't rebut or simply is
overwhelming due to volume. Failure to do so indicates dishonesty,
intentional dishonesty on your part. Or ignorance of the first magnitude.
Sometimes it's both.

> walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com> writes:
>
>> Did you forget Brahma?
>
> No, I intentionally left Brahma out, because the concept of Brahman in
> Vedanta theology is completely different from the God of classical

Classical theism, which god is that involved with? Let me guess, one of
the revealed gods of the desert instead of a real one? Like one of the
following?

A-a
Abgaledit
Abhijnaraja
Abhimukhi
Abonsam
Acadla
Acolmiztli
Acolnahuacatl
Adad
Adhimukticarya
Adhimuktivasita
Adibuddha
Adidharma
Adro
Aed
Aengus
Age
Aglibol
Aine
Ajalamo
Ajaya
Aje
Akasagarbha
Akonadi
Akongo
Aksayajnana -Karmanda
Aksobhya
Ala
Alad Udug Lama
Alatangana
Alk'unta'm
Allat
Almaqh
Ama-arhus
Amaethon
Amasagnul
Amida
Amimitl
Amitabha
Amm
Amma
Amma (2)
Amma (l)
Ammavaru
Amoghapasa
Amoghasiddhi
Anantamukhi
Anat
Anaulikutsai'x
Anbay
Andarta
Anjea
Ankalamman
Ansar
Antu
Anu
Anu
Anunnaki
Aondo
Apap
Aphrodisias
Apsu
A'ra
Arapacana
Arawa
Aray
Arcismati
Arebati
Arebati
Arianrhod
Arsay
Arsu
Arthapratisamvit
Arvernus
Arya-Tara
Asalluha
Asar
Asase Yaa
Asase Yaa
Aserah
Aserah
Asertu
Ashiakle
Asira
Asis
Asnan
Asokottamasri
Asratum
Assur
Astlik
Ataa Naa Nyongmo
Atarsamain
Atete
Athirat
Atl
Atlahua
Attar
Aufaniae
Avalokitesvara
Avalokitesvara
Avrikiti
Aya
Ayaba
Ayurvasita
Azizos
Ba
Baal
Baba
Badb
Bagba
Balaparamita
Bala-Sakti
Baltis
Banba
Banga
Barsamin
Basamum
Beg-Tse
Behanzin
Bel
Belatucadros
Belenus
Belet-Ili
Belet-Seri
Beltiya
Bhagavan
Bhaisajyaguru
Bhrkuti- Tara
Bhumi
Bhutadamara
Bi-har
Birdu
Boann
Bodhisattva
Bonchor
Bres Macelatha
Brigit
Buadza
Buddha
Buddhabodhiprabhavasita
Buddhakapala
Budha
Bugid Y Aiba
Buk
Bumba
Bumba
Caelestis
Cagu
Cailleach Bheur
Camulos
Camunda
Candali
Candarosana
Candesvari
Cankilikkaruppan
Carcika
Cathubodua
Cauri
Ce Acatl
Cenkalaniyammal
Centeocihuatl
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Cghene
Chalchiuhtlatonal
Chalchiuhtlicue
Chalchiuhtotolin
Chalmecacihuitl
Chalmecatl
Chang Fei
Chang Hs'ien
Chantico
Chattrosnisa
Chi Sung Tzu
Chicomecohuatl
Chicomexochitl
Chiconahui
Chiconahui Itzculntli-Chantico
Chiconahuiehecatl
Chikara
Chiuke
Chos-Skyon
Chu Jung
Cihuacoatl-Quilaztli
Cipactli
Cipactonal
Citlalatonac
Citlalicue
Citrasena
Cittavasita
Co(co)chimetl
Coatlicue
Cocidius
Col
Condatis
Coyolxauhqui
Cunda
Dadimunda
Dagan
Dagan (2)
Dagda
Damgalnuna
Danaparamita
Danu (I)
Datin
Deng
Deng
Dhanada
Dharani
Dharmadhatuvagisvara
Dharmakirtisagaraghosa
Dharmamegha
Dharmapala
Dharmavasita
Dhrtarastra
Dhupa
Dhupatara
Dhvajagrakeyura
Dhvajosnisa
Dhyanibuddha
Dhyanibuddhasakti
Diancecht
Diang
Dictynna
Digambara
Dipa
Dipa Tara
Dipankara
Divona
dMu-bDud Kam-Po Sa-Zan
Dombi
Don
Dongo
Donn
Dumuzi
Durjaya
Dzivaguru
Ea
Edeke
Ehecatl
Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl
Eji Ogbe
Ekajata
El'eb
Elkunirsa
Ellaman
Enbilulu
Enmesarra
Ennugi
Enundu
Enzu
Epona
Ereskigal
Erh Lang
Eriu
Erra
Eshu
Esu
Esus
Faraguvol
Faro
Faro
Fe
Feng Po
Fidi MukuIlu
Fidi Mukullu
Flaitheas
Fu Shen
Gad
Gaganaganja
Gajavahana
Gal Bapsi
Galla
Ganapatihrdaya
Gandha
Gandha Tara
Garuda
Gatumdug
Gaunab
Gauri
Gerra
Gestu
Ghantapani
Ghasmari
Gibini
Gita
Gleti
Gobniu
God
Govannon
Grahamatrka
Grismadevi
gSan Sgrub
gShen-Lha-Odkhar
gShen-Rab
Gula
Gunura
Gur-Gyi�Mgon-Po
Gwydion
Gwynn Ap Nudd
Hahanu
Halahala
Hani(s)
Hao
Hara Ke
Hariti
Haubas
Haukim
Haurun
Hayagriva
Hayasya
Hemantadevi
Hendursaga
Herne
Heruka
Hevajira
Hilal
Huang Ti
Hubal
Huehuecoyotl
Huehuecoyotl-Coyotlinahual
Huehuetotl
Huitzilpochtli
Hung Sheng
Huvi
Iccovellauna
Ifa
Igigi
Ikenga
Il
Ilabrat
Ilat
Im
Imana
Imana
Inkanyamba
Inta
Ipalnemoani
Iruva
Isa
Isa (l)
Isara
Istar
Isum
Itonde
Itzcuintli
Itzpapalotl
Itzpapalotl-ltzcueye
Itztapal Totec
Itztli
Ixcozauhqui
Ixnextli
Ixpuztec
Ixquimilli-Itzlacoliuhqui
Ixtlilton
Izquitecatl
Jakomba
Jakomba
Jalinprabha
Jambhala
Jayakara
Jnanadakini
Jnanaparamita
Jok
Jokinam
Ka Tyeleo
Kades
Kahilan
Kaikara
Kaikara
Kakasya
Kakka
Kaladuti
Kalisia
Kalunga
Kamaksi
Kamini
Kangalogba
Karai-Shin
Karini
Karmavasita
Karttikeya
Kavra'nna
Kazyoba
Kere'tkun
Kesini
Ketua
Khasaparna
Khen-Ma
Khen-Pa
Khyung-Gai mGo-Can
Kianda
Kibuka
Kibuka
Kisar
Kitanitowit
Korravai
Kotisri
Koyote
Ksitigarbha
Kubaba
Kuei Shing
Kulisesvari
Kulla
Kundalini
Kun-Rig
Kuntu bXan Po
Kurukulla
Kus
Ku'urkil
Kwannon
Kwoth
Kyumbe
Lahmu
Lalaia'il
Lamaria
Lasya
Lau
Legba
Lendix - Tcux
Lenus
Lesa
Lha
Lianja
Libanza
Libanza
Lietna'irgin
Lir
Lisa
Llew Llaw Gyffes
Loa
Loba
Locana
Lokesvara
Loko
Lomo
Lu Pan
Lubanga
Lubanga
Lubangala
Lubangala
Lug
Lugal-Irra
Lulal
Ma
Ma Kiela
Ma Kiela
Mabon
Macha
Madhukara
Maeve
Mahabala
Mahacinatara
Mahakala
Mahakapi
Mahamantranusarini
Mahamayuri
Mahaparinirvanamurti
Mahaprabhu
Mahapratisara
Mahapratyamrga
Maharaksa
Mahasahaspramardani
Maha-Sarasvati
Mahasitavati
Mahasri- Tara
Mahasthama(prapta)
Mahavidya
Mahayasa
Maheo
Mahodadhi
Mahrem
Maitreya
Maju
Mal
Mala
Malakbel
Malik
Mamaki
Mami
Mamitu
Manannan (Mac Lir)
Manat
Manawyddan
Mandah
Mandanu
Manidhara
Manitu
Manjughosa
Manjusri
Manmatha
Manungal
Maponos
Mara
Marduk
Mari (2)
Mari (2)
Mari (I)
Marici
Mariyamman
Marnas
Matlalcueye
Mawu
Mawu
Maya(devi)
Mayahuel
Mayajalakrama-Kurukulla
Mayon
Ma-zu
Mbomba
Mbombe
Mbongo
Mbotumbo
Mbotumbo
Medha
Meher
Men Shen
Menechen
Mes An Du
Mes Lam Taea
Metztli
Mexitli
Micapet1acoli
Mictecacihuatl
Mictlantecuhtli
Midir
Milkom
Mi-Lo Fo
Mirsa
Mixcoatl-Camaxtli
Mkulumncandi
Mlentengamunye
Mmlambo
Modimo
Modron
Molek
Mombo Wa Ndhlopfu
Mor
Morrigan
Morva
Morvran
Mot
Moyocoyanl
Mratna'irgin
Mucalinda
Mugasa
Mugizi
Mugizi
Muhingo
Muhingo
Mujaji
Mukasa
Mukasa
Mulindwa
Mulindwa
Mulliltu
Mungu
Munisvara
Munume
Munume
Muraja
Murukan
Musisi
Muso Koroni
Muso Koroni
Muttalamman
Myoken-Bodhisattva
Na' chitna'irgin
Na Ngutu
Nabu
Nagual
Nahui Ehecatl
Nahui Ollin
Nai
Nairamata
Namasangiti
Nammu
Nana
Nanahuatl
Nanaja
Nanavasita
Nan-Sgrub
Nantosuelta
Napp~nnai
Nappatecuhtli
Natha
Ndaula
Ndaula
Ndjambi
Nediyon
Neit
Nergal
Nerthus
Nesu
Neti
Nextepehua
Ngai
Ngunuwo
Ni
Niamye
Niamye
Ninegal
Ningal
Ningikuga
Ningilin
Ningirama
Ningirsu
Ningis Zi Da
Ninhursaga
Nin-Ildu
Nin-Imma
Nin'insinna
Ninkarnunna
Ninkigal
Ninkurra
Ninmah
Ninsubur
Ninsun(a)
Nintu
Ninurta
Niruktipratisamvit
Nliladanda
Nommo
NommoJ
Nosenga
Nrtya
Nsongo
Nsongo
Nu Kua
Nuadu
Nunbarsegunu
Nusku
Nu'tenut
Nyakaya
Nyame
Nyavirezi
Nzambi
Nzambi
Nzapa
Nze
Obatala
Ocelotl
Oduduwa
Ogiuwu
Ogmius .
Ogun
Oi
Olokun
Omacatl
Ome Tochtli
Ometecuhtli
Ometeotl
Onuava
Opo
Opochtli
Ori
Orisania
Orotalt
Orunmila
Osande
Osanobua
Ostaraki
Osun
Pa-bil-sag
Padmantaka
Padmapani
Padmosnisa
Pahtecatl
Painal
Pancamukha-Patradeva
Pancaraksa
Pandara
Pao Kung
Pap-nigin-gara
Papsukkal
Paramita
Pararnasva
Pariskaravasita
Parna-Savari
Patadharini
Pekko
Pemba
Pemba
Pen Annwen
Perende
Phyi-Sgrub
Picvu'cin
Pidray
Prabhakari
Pradipatara
Prajna
Prajnantaka
Prajnaparamita
Prajnaparamita
Prajnavardhani
PraJnavardhani
Pramudita
Pranidhanavasita
Prasannatara
Pratibhanakuta
Pratibhanapratisamvit
Pratisamvit
Prende
Priyadarsana
Pukkasi
Puspa
Puspatara
Pwyll
Qamai'ts
Qos
Quiahuitl
Quzah
Rakta-Yamari
Raluvimbha
Raluvimbha
Rang
Ratnapani
Ratnaparamita
Ratnasambhava
Ratnolka
Ratnosnisa
Resep( A )mukal
Rhiannon
Riddhivasita
Rubanga
Rubanga
Ruda
Ruhanga
Rupini
Ryangombe
Sa
Sadaksari (Lokesvara)
Sadbhuja-Sitatara
Sadhumati
Sagaramati
Sahar
Sajara
Sakka(n)
Sakra
Sakti
Sakumo
Sakyarnuni
Sala
Salm of Mahram
Samantabhadra
Samantaprabha
Samas
Sams
Samvara
San Chou Niang Niang
San-Dui
Sango
Sao Ching Niang Niang
Sapas
Sara
Saraddevi
Sarra Itu
Sarvabuddhadharma-Kosavati
Sarvakarmavaranavisodhani
Sarvanivaranaviskambhin
Sarvapayanjaha
Sarvasokatamonirghatamati
Sasuratum
Saubhagya-Bhuvanesvari
Savari
Sebitti
Senx
Seta
Shango
Shankpana
Sheela Na Gig
Shen Nung
Shou Lao
Si
Siduri
Sikhin
Silaparamita
Sin
Singala
Sinhanada
Sipe Gialmo
Sipylene
Sirara
Sirsir
Sirtur
Sisyphos
Sitapatra
Sitatara
sMan-Bla
Smertrios
Snulk' ulxa'ls
So
Sodza
Sogblen
Sogbo
Soko
Sore-Gus
Soului
Spandaramet
Sri(devi)
Srivasumukhi
Srivasundhara
Subhaga
Subhamekhala
Suddhodana
Sudurjaya
Sukla-Tara
Suku
Sullat
Sulman(u}
Sumalini
Sumati
Sumbha
Sumbharaja
Sun Hou-Shi
Sundara
Suparikirtitanamasri
Suraksini
Surangama
Survarnabhadravimalaratnaprabhasa
Svaraghosaraja
Syamatara
Taditkara
T'ai Shan
T'ai Shan
T'ai Yi
Tailtiu
Tai-Sui-Jing
Tai-Sui-Jing
Takkiraja
Ta'lab
Tam Kung
Tanit
T'ao Hua Hsiennui
Tar
Tara
Tasmetu(m)
Tecciztecatl
Tegid Voel
Teicauhtzin
Tejosnisa
Teliko
Teliko
Telpochtli
Tenanto'mni
Tepeyollotl
Tepoztecatl
Teteo Innan
Teteoinnan
Teteoinnan-Toci
Tetzahauteotl
Tetzahuitl
Teuhcatl
Tezcacoac Ayopechtli
Tezcatlipoca
Tezcatlipoca-Itzlacoliuhqui
Tezcatzoncatl
Tezcatzoncatl
Thab-Iha
Theandros
Thuremlin
TIaloque- Tepictoton
Tiamat
Tien Mu
Tiksnosnisa
Tir
Tispak
Titlacahuan
Tlacahuepan
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli
Tlalchitonatiuh
Tlaloc
Tlaloque-Tepictoton
Tlaltecuhtli
Tlazolteotl (Ixcuiname)
Tloque Nahauque
Tne'sqan
Toa'lalit
Tomiyauhtecuhtli
Tomiyauhtecuhtli
Tonacacihuatl
Tonacatccuhtli
Tonaleque
Tonatiuh
Topoh
Tork
Toro
Tororut
Totoltecatl
Totoltecatl
Tou Mou
Tozi
Trailokyavijaya
Triglav
Tsai Shen
Tsunigoab
Tu (l)
Tuatha de Danann
Tule
Tutu
Tzontemoc
Tzu Sun Niangniang
Ua Ildak
Ucchusma
Umvelinkwangi
Unumbote
Unumbote
Upakesini
Upapattivasita
Upayaparamita
Usnisavijaya
Vac
Vadali
Vagisvara
Vahagn
Va'irgin
Vairocana
Vajracarcika
Vajradaka
Vajradhara
Vajradhatvisvari
Vajragandhari
Vajragarbha
Vajraghanta
Vajramrta
Vajrapani
Vajrasphota
Vajrasrnkhala
Vajravidarani
Vajrosnisa
Varahmukhi
Vasantadevi
Vasudhara
Vasumatisri
Vasusri
Vasya-tara
Vayu (2)
Verbti
Vetali
Vidyraja
VidyujjvalakariJi
Vighnantaka
Vikalaratri
Vimala
Vina
Virudhaka
Virupaksa
Viryaparamita
Visvosnisa
Vodu
Wadd
Wai
Waka
Wakan Tanka
Wamala
Wamala
Wed Kumbamb
Wer
Wiu
Wong Taisin
Wu
Wu'squus
Xewioso
Xilonen
Xipe Totec
Xiuhtecuhtli
Xochiquetzal
Xochiquetzal-Ichpuchtli
Xolotl
Xolotl Nanahuatl
Yacacoliuhqui
Yacahuiztli
Yacapitzahuac
Yama
Yamaduti
Yamantaka
Yamari
Yaotl
Yaro
Yasodhara
yauhqueme
Yayu
Yemekonji
Yemoja
Yen Kuang Niang Niang
Yoalli Ehecatl
Yoaltecuhtli
Yocahu
Yogesvari
Yspaddac
Yu-Chiang
Zababa
Zapotlantenan
Zarpanitu(m)
Zemi


Or are you going to pretend that the other creators are just make believe.
Are you going to pretend that exodus is hitorical? Are you going to
pretend that genticaly, there is a Jewish race? Other than pretending you
know of what you speak, what's next?

> theism. The former is a pantheistic deity, the personification of the

Actually no. He is uniqe & the first creator, to those that have read the
myths. He created everything, the same way it's claimed
�l did. You probably don'y know of him, but he was the first god of
Jadaism. Indeed, all of Canaan,

> monistic All, and similar to the God of Spinoza; the latter is a
> transcendent deity that has no dependence on the world which is
> totally dependent upon him for its existence. If you don't see the
> difference, then I'm not sure you can be helped.

I'm not sure you can be helped, but I an fairly sure you don't want to be,

>> How do you discuss what no one has provied evitdence for. Not
>> claims, evidence. Seems a bit odd to have to acquiese to the
>> pretensions of others to hold a conversation. Usually one they
>> started. Now, if they want to discuss their mythology, that would be
>> a different matter. Insteads, they want admiration for their dog and
>> pony show, & call it theology. A field of study not confined to the
>> revealed gods of the desert.

> Evidence comes in three forms: self-evidence, evidence to the senses,
> and incorrigibility. We can call real any being whose existence is

Really, I quit talking like that when I was in HS, Somewhere around 1959
or so,

> either evident or whose existence follows logically from evident
> premises. Classical theism argues that God is a being whose existence

In spite of your appeal to unfounded authority, there is no evidence for
your variant of a god.

Self evidence, WTFO. Self evident, no problem.
Evident without proof or argument
Sensory evidence may have been what you meant, & that to is lacking.
Evident Premises? Like when a carpet bombing run leaves behind evience by
the destruction pattern. So sorry Charlie, that to is missing.

> is self-evident to itself and follows from evident premises for us.
> See Question 2 of Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars.

Ah there is your problem. You assume because it gives you that warm damp
spot in the crotch, everyone else must have the same delusion.
Nope, if you have the integrity read some of the following & get back with
me.

Book of adam and eve

Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
KAREL VAN DER TOORN
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, Engl
Copyright � 2007Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-674-02437-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-674-03254-5 (pbk.)

Asimov's Guide to the Bible The Old Testament
Asimov's Guide to the Bible The New Testament


Christian Mythology
Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Thursday, November 19, 1998
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0710JesusMyth.html

Gods & goddesses And Images Of God In Ancient Israel

Good luck, I doubt you can read any of them all the way through.

>> Oh but you can. Provided the god is defineable. The followers of
>> the revealed gods have a saying, lack of evidence is not evidence of
>> lack. They are in error & trying to exclude various items from the
>> discussion.

> What is being excluded from the discussion, by atheists, is just the
> definition of God. It's a hopeless debate as long as you won't agree

The is no intelligent definition of god, not even gentle Inanna. As long
as you hide it in the supernatural realm, this will be the case.

> to investigate the *actual* thesis advanced by classical theism, and
> not your own distortions of what we say he is. You can't say "your

Your distorsions you mean. You see, I have no definition of yolur gods,
other than missing. If the literature was to be acccepted as factual, I
could add evil, a liar, a mass murderer, & a thug. But, the evidence is
that those anthologies are falsehoods & no need to be assumed as anything
but a means of controling some of the gullible.
& ammassing great wealth.

> God doesn't exist!" when you mean something completely different by
> the word "God" than we do.

Inasmuch as you have yet to coherently define what you mean when you say
god, I'll leave that delusion for you.

> I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on Biblical
> hermeneutics, but I'll mention as an aside that you clearly don't
> understand how to interpret the Bible. It's amateur hour here.

& so far, you are a shoo in for the 1st place. But inasmuch as
hermeneutics is an apologetic field, I'll leave the pretension of
understganding what you think you read to you.
Defined as
Hermeneutics the branch of theology that deals with principles of
exegesis.

Exegesis (Bible) an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of
the Bible)

Happy I am I can read & think without having to refer to the Cliff notes.

Let me guess, you ran out of steam or have overly impressed yourself. I
can assure you that you haven't impressed the atheist newsgroup. Though
you might be given a -7 for your attempt to put an impressive word salad
together.

[2]

walksalone who suspects that the OP will not last much longer on my screen.
Awfully shallow in spite of his tap dance & playing with words.
Apologetics, ya gotta love those atheists, even though they pretend they
aren't atheistic to the universes gods.

You do know which one o the following was cruc ified, don't you?

Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada

Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274)
'Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where
most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so
much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.'

[deadrat]

This is a fair criticism. BG never researches his claims. But none of
your claims is even possible to research.

> You don't have your facts straight.

This is a fair criticism. BG almost never has his facts straight. But
you don't deal in facts at all, just speculations on your personal
mythology.

> You don't think clearly.

This is a fair criticism. BG often fails to think, or at least, argue
clearly. But you're just repeating fantasies someone told you were
universal truths. You're not thinking for yourself at all.

> And for all that, your ego has its own ZIP code.

This criticism I find unwarranted from reading BG's posts. YMMV.

> Seek greater humility.

As irony meters explode everywhere. You're advising someone to be more
humble? You, who seeks to lecture everyone on the nature of God?

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:25:06 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

Awesome, thanks. You have a very handy way of expressing difficult
concepts in readily understood chunks.

Your idea of morality as technology is especially helpful to me in
understanding why it is so results based. It is 'whatever works,'
what produces the desired result.

The upshot of this degradation of the concept of course is that
morality becomes subservient to the action at hand, rather than the
reverse. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

Also thank you for bringing your thomistic insights into these
discussions. They are a breath of badly needed fresh air. :)

--
Terry

[Rockinghorse Winner]

Talk about a word salad, walksalone!

I'm sure your allusions resonate with you,
but it would have helped the reader if you connected them more
concretely to the points the OP made.

From my side, it seems that when the whole of humanity agrees on the
existence of a God or gods, and disagrees only on -which- God, that
this is hardly an argument against God. Rather, it seems to make a
strong argument for His existence!

--
Terry

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:25:45 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote:

Truly, your word salad is impressive.

You'll have to define "essence is completely actualized", because
that's a statement that's reminiscent of Scientology or EST, and I'm
fairly sure you don't want to head in that direction.

Next, you'll have to explain "more simple, intelligible and real than
material reality itself", because Occam's Razor would have us slice
right through that immediately.

I'm open to contemplating immaterial things, but they need to be
related to material things like my existence on this material plane in
order for them to have any meaning. Otherwise, I could posit anything
I like, and the discussion would rapidly devolve into the meaningless.

We're not going to focus on philosophy here, because the newsgroups
aren't philosophy-based. So please stay on topic, and let me know your
definition of God so that we can proceed.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306