Is Christianity, jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide & child abuse …
Immortalist
legalized in some American states (and all across Canada), many in the
church would have scoffed at the possibility.
If someone had predicted sixty years ago that prayer, Bible reading
and creation would be thrown out of America’s public schools, well,
most in the church back then would have also thought it to be
ridiculous.
But … they have happened!
Now, what if I said the following?
If America continues on its present course of abandoning the absolute
authority of the Word of God—and teaching generations of students that
they are the result of random natural processes—Christians who teach
their children to believe that God created in six days will have those
same children taken away … and the parents will be arrested for “child
abuse.”
Would you scoff and say, “That could never happen here?” Would you
think that I’m just overreacting?
Friend, that day may be closer than you think! In a TV program
broadcast1 recently throughout the United Kingdom (and no doubt soon
to be shown on American television as well), the world’s leading
spokesperson on evolution, atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford
University, made these remarkable and shocking statements:
I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I
want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and
infects generation after generation …
It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how
the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel
and brutish.
What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible]
that contains such stuff?
The raving continues
After saying that religion is a form of child abuse, Dawkins’ tirade
(he became very angry at times on the program) against Christianity
did not wane:
The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant
character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive,
unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on
to acts of genocide. …
When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus.
It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy,
but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild.
Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of
religion...
Dear Dr Dawkins; You ask “Isn’t it a form of child abuse to label
children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have
thought about?”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0306lead.asp
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/the-dawkins-letters-10-childhood-abuse-and-gap.htm
Immortalist
presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
be better off without religion or belief in God.
Dawkins - Root of All Evil - 2 Episodes 10 10 Minutes Segments.
http://tinyurl.com/RootAllEvil-Dawkins-2Episodes
marika
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fcba7f94-3694-4747...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>If someone had predicted thirty years ago that �gay� marriage would be
>legalized in some American states (and all across Canada), many in the
>church would have scoffed at the possibility.
It would have been cool. very nostradamusy
mk5000
"and that's just part of it,
If you were dead or still alive
I don't care, I don't care
Just go and leave this all behind "--apacalyptia
duke
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
>presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
>be better off without religion or belief in God.
Our God is a God of love. Man is a murdering creature. So you tell me.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kevin Cunningham
What this shows is how stupid we were 60 years ago. Right now you
couldn't get enough people to agree with the above creep to rent a
bus.
Yeah, too bad, you closeted queers have got a real problem. All the
gays are leaving the closet and heading for church.
ZerkonXXXX
> The Root of All Evil?
"Religion as the root of all evil"
Logically incongruous.
Richard Herring
<duckg...@cox.net> writes
>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
><reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
>>presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
>>be better off without religion or belief in God.
>
>Our God is a God of love.
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass."
In a loving way, of course.
--
Richard Herring
BORG
"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
Not really if you think of it.
God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is
religion that causes the evil and not God.
It is like taking maths as a beautiful subject. The logic
and order of maths is often sublime.
And then saying maths is "religion" and trying to place all
there is to know about maths in one book.
In the beginning was 1 + 1 = 2.
And mathematical order was created.
But the beauty of maths is in the order and the absolute
sense that maths does make. It is not open to
interpretation.
Whereas a subject such as God, is so vast and all
encompassing. Covering love, music, drugs, art, life,
creation, destiny, maths, intelligence, interest,
originality, humour, and many other things.
So you can you personalise or describe or contain a concept
such as this with words or books or religion?
Religion is the very place where God is not.
BORG
AZ Nomad
>"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>
>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>
>> Logically incongruous.
>Not really if you think of it.
>God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is
How can something nonexistant be a problem? Of course it is religion
that's the problem.
<religious blather snipped>
BORG
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnh34po1.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:27:12 +0100, BORG <bo...@gone.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>>
>>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>>
>>> Logically incongruous.
>
>>Not really if you think of it.
>>God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is
It is like taking maths as a beautiful subject. The logic
and order of maths is often sublime.
And then saying maths is "religion" and trying to place all
there is to know about maths in one book.
In the beginning was 1 + 1 = 2.
And mathematical order was created.
But the beauty of maths is in the order and the absolute
sense that maths does make. It is not open to
interpretation.
Whereas a subject such as God, is so vast and all
encompassing. Covering love, music, drugs, art, life,
creation, destiny, maths, intelligence, interest,
originality, humour, and many other things.
So you can you personalise or describe or contain a concept
such as this with words or books or religion?
Religion is the very place where God is not.
> How can something nonexistant be a problem? Of course it
> is religion
> that's the problem.
>
>
>
> <religious blather snipped>
>
I would be grateful if you would give me the courtesy of
having intelligence.
It was not religious blather.
It was an intelligent statement.
In philosophy we learn to argue FOR or AGAINST certain
points, based on the initial premise.
I made no comment as to whether I myself believe in God or
no, I was taking as a premise that this topic was assuming
the existence of God as this was the premise of the thread.
So my argument was based on this premise.
In future, if you behave like an animal and cannot be civil
or polite, then go out to the farmyard and address you
remarks to pigs.
BORG
BORG
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnh34po1.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> How can something nonexistant be a problem? Of course it
> is religion
> that's the problem.
>
>
>
> <religious blather snipped>
>
If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
impolite and rude.
Thus your remark would be ignored in polite society.
BORG
BORG
"BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:XXtYl.10392$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>
> Thus your remark would be ignored in polite society.
Except to comment on your rudeness in order to assist you to
be polite which is higher level and intelligent behaviour
compared to swaggering around making wild unsupported claims
and rude remarks to others.
BORG
BORG
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:1od9cmpkmnm3d$.1t6877z5d0m8f.dlg@40tude.net...
> BORG wrote:
>> "AZ Nomad" wrote:
>
>>> <religious blather snipped>
>
>
>> In your opinion you say you believe that God does not
>> exist.
>> You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>> You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>> statement with nothing to support it. You are then
>> uncivil,
>> impolite and rude.
>> Thus your remark would be ignored in polite society.
>
> ultimate error.
> Either you are ignorant of that point, a hypocrite who
> chose to ignore
> it, or a troll.
>
> --
> L. Raymond
He he he he he!
You read much Oscar Wilde then?
You English or something?
It is quite correct to point out if someone is out of order.
BORG
AZ Nomad
You posted with the assumption that your god thingie exists.
Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
think your god thingie does or does not do.
If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit behaving like one.
BORG
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> You posted with the assumption that your god thingie
> exists.
> Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
> think your god thingie does or does not do.
>
> If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit
> behaving like one.
No I did not post with the assumption.
Go back and read my message again.
I posted with the "premise".
You cannot argue with no premise.
If you did not notice nor understand the word "premise" as
opposed to "assumption" then it is you who are the idiot.
BORG
Martin
>
> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>
>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>
>> Logically incongruous.
>
> Not really if you think of it.
> God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is religion that
> causes the evil and not God.
> It is like taking maths as a beautiful subject. The logic and order of
> maths is often sublime.
> And then saying maths is "religion" and trying to place all there is to
> know about maths in one book.
> In the beginning was 1 + 1 = 2.
In the beginning p(1) = 2 where p(n) is a function that yields the
successor to n in the set of natural numbers N
BORG
Another tip and word of advice is to remember that some
people DO believe in God and hold this kind of concept in
great reverence, mystery and fascination.
So you should have regard for how these kind of people feel
and not refer to God as a "god thingie".
It is basic consideration and decency to do this.
Being rude about God will not make him exist any the less,
nor will this disrespect add any argument to your opinion
that he/she/they/it do or do not exist.
If you were eloquent and intelligent, I would be willing to
take you on in a hypothetical argument about the existence
of God, not telling you first what my real stance is.
But I will reserve this for someone who evidences signs of
being able to argue without resorting to name calling and
rudeness.
BORG
BORG
"Martin" <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a326f67$0$24010$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Oh yes, definitely.
Well, it was "Go forth and multiply" !!!
Straight into multiply without adding first!!! :)
BORG
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
>news:slrnh34po1.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>
>> How can something nonexistant be a problem? Of course it
>> is religion
>> that's the problem.
>>
>> <religious blather snipped>
>
>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
This is the real world.
It's a standard dishonest straw man formed by equivocating between
different meanings of "believe" after you have replaced words which
carry the actual meaning so you can twist them into beliefs.
An almost Orwellian misuse of language to eliminate meanings other
than yours so that concepts can no longer be explained.
Like "logically conclude" from the mutually exclusive attributes
theists insist on giving what they wipe in our faces.
Like "inductively conclude" from the theists' insistence that there is
evidence but always cop out of providing.
Like the Popperian default of rephrasing the theist's baseless claim
in the negative.
All of which are easily falsified by providing what has never once
been given: objective real-world evidence. Which is the methodology
they use for pretty much everything else.
Besides which, the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing
outside the religion where it's merely "what they believe". Not the
object of that belief.
Which is hardly rocket science. After all that's how they see all the
other gods they don't believe in either.
And whether you like it or not, all they have is blather.
We are part of the real world outside their religion in exactly the
same way they are outside Hinduism and all the others.
What they insist on telling us is meaningless bullshit whose only
message is that they are rather stupid because it presumes what they
already know is merely somebody else's religious belief to their
involuntary audience.
It is both rude and stupid to keep begging the question.
Stupid because they know we don't already grant their premises and
don't have the intelligence to use common shared understanding.
Rude because they don't care let alone have the courtesy to even to
try and find common understanding.
Before they talk about it as though it were real, they have to
demonstrate that it is.
Which is impossible because the information isn't there so instead
they resort to all sorts of fallacies which try to generate it out of
nothing.
Without realising that if they actually had this information it would
be the evidence required and they would need to try to argue it into
existence.
>You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
What I described was fact. Not the belief ignorant .
>You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
>impolite and rude.
Unlike the aggressively stupid imbeciles who presume their beliefs are
real to others who share those beliefs?
>Thus your remark would be ignored in polite society.
Just reaping what they sow.
In polite society they would live and let live instead of being so
aggressively in-your-face rudely stupid.
Why should they expect the very courtesy they don't show us in the
first place?
>BORG
Fred Stone
>
> "BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:79uYl.10396$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>>
>> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrnh34reu.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>
>>> You posted with the assumption that your god thingie
>>> exists.
>>> Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
>>> think your god thingie does or does not do.
>>>
>>> If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit
>>> behaving like one.
>>
>> No I did not post with the assumption.
>> Go back and read my message again.
>> I posted with the "premise".
>> You cannot argue with no premise.
>> If you did not notice nor understand the word "premise" as
>> opposed to "assumption" then it is you who are the idiot.
>> BORG
>
> Another tip and word of advice is to remember that some
> people DO believe in God and hold this kind of concept in
> great reverence, mystery and fascination.
Fine. Let them keep their fantasies out of alt.atheism.
> So you should have regard for how these kind of people feel
> and not refer to God as a "god thingie".
Why should we care about those people's feelings when they clearly don't
care about ours? To us, their concept of God is nothing more than a fairy
tale, yet they insist on pestering us with it on a daily basis.
> It is basic consideration and decency to do this.
> Being rude about God will not make him exist any the less,
> nor will this disrespect add any argument to your opinion
> that he/she/they/it do or do not exist.
> If you were eloquent and intelligent, I would be willing to
> take you on in a hypothetical argument about the existence
> of God, not telling you first what my real stance is.
> But I will reserve this for someone who evidences signs of
> being able to argue without resorting to name calling and
> rudeness.
>
People who rudely post about God to alt.atheism do not deserve even basic
consideration or common courtesy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
BORG
"I know God does exist"
"How can you know this?"
I know because I AM God."
"Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
"No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I
am not God.
Why?
Because no one knows anything about God.
So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
God.
And no one could disprove it.
BORG
Fred Stone
You can't be God because you're not my cat.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>BORG wrote:
>> "AZ Nomad" wrote:
>
>>> <religious blather snipped>
>
>
>> In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>> You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>> You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>> statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
>> impolite and rude.
>> Thus your remark would be ignored in polite society.
>
>In polite society, to correct others' behavior is the ultimate error.
>Either you are ignorant of that point, a hypocrite who chose to ignore
>it, or a troll.
A famous example was at a state dinner at Buckingham Palace held by
the Queen for the visiting President of one of the emerging nations.
He was seated next to her uncle Louis, Earl Mountbatten, and on seeing
the fingrer bowl with its warm water and slice of lemon, started to
drink from it with a spoon.
So Mountbatten did the same to avoid embarrassing him.
Now that was style.
However we are not required to be Uncle Toms in the face of an endless
barrage of rudeness and stupidity from theists living in their own
little fantasy world who can't come to terms with the world and its
people outside it.
AZ Nomad
The only thing you've proved is that you're an idiot.
It is simply pathetic that you are impressed by that nursury school
garbage.
BORG
"I am God. I am the most powerful person in existence. I
am the most intelligent person in existence. And......I am
the FUNNIEST person in existence.
I do not subscribe to religions, throw all those books away.
I subscribe to music and laughter and happiness. Nothing to
do with religion.
Now I not only say I AM God, but I also say I ARE God, as I
have a huge number of men who work for me. As I do not
subscribe to religion, I do not call them Angels, I call
them MEN! As we are all united in one huge group telepathy
Ultimate Mind then I say I ARE God as well as I AM God.
So now prove this is not true.
No one can.
How would anyone know whether I am or not.
Or whether this is a hypothetical argument.
You could say
"Don't be silly. God would not turn up on Earth and then
start posting messages to Usenet"
But how would you know?
How would anyone know?
As no one knows anything about God, how would anyone know
what he/she/they/it would do?
So as it is impossible to prove that I am not God, therefore
I am God.
BORG
Martin
>
> "BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:79uYl.10396$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>>
>> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
>> news:slrnh34reu.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>
>>> You posted with the assumption that your god thingie exists.
>>> Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
>>> think your god thingie does or does not do.
>>>
>>> If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit behaving like
>>> one.
>>
>> No I did not post with the assumption.
>> Go back and read my message again.
>> I posted with the "premise".
>> You cannot argue with no premise.
>> If you did not notice nor understand the word "premise" as opposed to
>> "assumption" then it is you who are the idiot.
>> BORG
>
> Another tip and word of advice is to remember that some people DO
> believe in God and hold this kind of concept in great reverence, mystery
> and fascination.
> So you should have regard for how these kind of people feel and not
> refer to God as a "god thingie".
fuck off. It's alt.atheism for a reason. Come in chatting about some god
or other and you're going to be told where to shove it. There's too many
fuckwits posting their shite here already.
AZ Nomad
<another 40 lines religious blather snipped>
plonk
Martin
>> So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
>> God.
>> And no one could disprove it.
>>
>
> You can't be God because you're not my cat.
^5 heehee
>
BORG
So that should end your arguments as to whether or no God
does or does not exist.
Anyone who does not know, then refer them to me.
You could say
"What name does God use these days?"
And those who know can say
"Ah, yes, we know the answer to this, God goes by the name
of BORG these days."
"Ah interesting".
You could say
"We did not expect God to turn up and start posting on
Usenet"
And the answer is
"Well as no one knows anything about God, then how would you
know he wouldn't?"
"But how do you know this is God?"
"Well we cannot prove it is not God"
"But can the person posting the messages prove they are
God?"
"But we know nothing about God, so whatever they do to prove
they are God has to prove it we have no information to prove
whether they are or not."
Whatever you say makes no difference.
If I say I am God, and you cannot prove I am not God,
therefore I am God.
And whatever I do does not matter.
Because no one knows anything about God to prove either way
whether my behaviour is in accordance with the kind of thing
God would do.
BORG
BORG
I must leave now and go to other places.
But now you KNOW that God does exist, because here I am, and
I am God.
Now remember I banned religion, so be happy and I will not
say "God go with you" as I prefer to stay here.
Look for God in the skies, and in the music, and in drugs
and wine and food and good things but never in religion.
You will never find me in any religion.
And that is true!!!! :)
BORG
BORG
In future if anyone asks you whether you believe that God
does exist, you answer should be
"Yes, I know God does exist, because I am God".
And then eventually we will have quite a few "Gods" walking
around, all with the same argument that no one can prove
they are not!!!
It is great!
Once you start saying "I am God" you feel much better.
Then when you see any arguments about God, you can interrupt
and say
"Excuse me, I am God, and no I would not do/say something
like that."
You have a much better time like this than either believing
in someone else who is God, or trying to prove God does not
exist.
It is the THIRD equation to the atheist/none atheist
argument and a good solution to the problem.
So good luck atheists!
Only you can do this, as the pious, humble, subservient
religious who believe in God are not able to.
And then we can have a God club if you like!
Hey how about this?
That would be fun.
We can compare notes about what we each said and did as
"God" on any particular day.
Imagine going into work where the boss believes in God your
boss says something you do not like and you say
"Excuse me, I am GOD!!!"
He he he he he!
Life is great once you KNOW you are God.
BORG
BORG
exist, because the kind of suffering I endured, no God would
have permitted or allowed this.
So because of the suffering I did endure, and that there was
no God anywhere who helped or assisted - thus I KNEW there
was no God.
Then the question was.
If there was definitely no God - was there anyone?
And that is another story altogether with goes on to why I
use the name BORG.
But that was how I knew and proved there was definitely no
God.
Basically another answer if you want to disprove the
existence of God is if anyone says
"I believe God does exist" than a standard stock answer is
"Well you have obviously never suffered then."
BORG
Christopher A. Lee
<azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:39:05 +0100, BORG <bo...@gone.com> wrote:
>>The best way to argue the "Does God exist" argument is.
>
>>"I know God does exist"
>>"How can you know this?"
>>I know because I AM God."
>>"Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
>>"No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
>
>>And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I
>>am not God.
>
>>Why?
>>Because no one knows anything about God.
Why don't these imbeciles realise that this begs the same question: it
assumes there is something to "not know anythig about".
It is a stupid thing to say to people who don't already believe it.
>>So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
>>God.
>>And no one could disprove it.
What a fucking moron.
>The only thing you've proved is that you're an idiot.
>It is simply pathetic that you are impressed by that nursury school
>garbage.
He's cross-posting from alt.philosophy where apparently they take this
silliness seriously.
James Burns
I can /easily/ prove that the US moon landing
back in the '60s was a hoax.
I can do this because when /I/ say "The US
moon landing back in the '60s was a hoax"
what I /mean/ is "1 + 1 = 2".
Fine. So you've proved that God exists --
what you mean by "God exists", anyway. The
next question on your list should be "So what?"
***********
I won't try to define "God" or to prove
that He/She/It does not exist, but I do think
we can prove something enough like that to
end the millennia-long tug-of-war over
His/Her/Its existence.
Proposed:
For values of "God" worth believing in,
we should not believe in God.
What is a God worth believing in? Generally,
God is taken to be (at least) a very powerful being
who is capable of influencing individuals lives.
I don't think this is a complete definition, but
if your God doesn't measure up at least this far,
then a reasonable rejoinder would be "So what?"
I'll make the observation that whatever Gods there
are have not been reliably observed to influence
individual lives or make any sort of sign that
they exist at all. This means a lot more today than
it did even a few hundred years ago. Today, we
reliably observe physical processes and objects
much subtler and much, much more bizarre than some
powerful, invisible being in control of our lives.
And yet, nothing.
Why is God undetectable? The usual reason given is
that God wants to preserve our free will. I throw
out this argument as ridiculous. I suspect that the
"free will" excuse has lasted this long is that the
meaning of words have a tendency to melt and drip
into unrecognizable shapes under the influence of
religion. "Free will" without being able to make an
/informed/ choice is meaningless. If you pick the
black pawn (not the white) from my closed fist,
was that of you own "free will"? Not the way I've
ever heard the term used. If God lets us "choose"
to believe in Him or not, without showing us whether
He exists or not, how is that "free will"?
So, why is God undetectable? If God is doing such a
good (divinely perfect, even) imitation of not existing,
the first answer that should occur us is that
God wants us to believe He does not exist.
The second answer, perhaps, should be that God
really, truly does not exist. Of course, if we're
struggling against Divine Undetectability, we
shouldn't expect to ever be able to distinguish
the two cases.
However, my point is that we don't need to distinguish
the two cases. (1) Either God exists but has done
His Divine Best to get us to stop believing in Him,
or (2) God doesn't exist. Either way, the sensible thing
to do would be to believe God does not exist.
In summary: If God exists and takes a hand in
individuals' lives, then how He has done so shows
He doesn't want us to believe He exists.
Alternatively, He either does not exist or is so
distant and unimportant that we might as well
believe that He does not exist, anyway.
******************
I've been trying to get this argument down
to 140 characters.
Jim Burns
BORG
absolutely that there was no God.
Logically this means two things.
1. If I can prove there is no God, and God does exist, ergo
I personally must be God.
2. If I can prove there is no God, and I say I will be God
ergo I am God.
Either way.
I am God.
The first and indigenous God.
If anyone else wants to give this a try then be prepared for
an AMAZING time!
And then when you know how God goes, then you really do
laugh at the religious.
God is nothing like that.
You will never find God in religion.
But each day, once you start being God is amazing.
You should be able to read the sky, and read minds and see
prior existence of people and you know the future and so
many other wonderful stuff.
But watch out for omniscience!
That is a little alarming first time it happens!
And watch out for the size of entirety or the "bigger
picture".
If you do not drink, then purchase several crates of strong
stuff before you start this adventure!
Let me know if any of you decide to try, be interested to
hear your experiences.
Post CODED message to alt.philosophy.
Oh, and remember your sense of humour! The kind of
adventures you will have are neither normal nor human.
I am streets ahead of anyone else, so I may consider setting
up a "God" advice line, so if you have any problems with
being "God" then you could drop me a line and I will let you
know what I did when a certain phase of becoming God
happened.
BORG
BORG
Especially at Christians and their "Cheeses".
BORG
BORG
Here is a track to get you started.
This is "God" not religion.
BORG
thomas p.
"BORG" <bo...@gone.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MAtYl.10388$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>
> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>
>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>
>> Logically incongruous.
>
> Not really if you think of it.
> God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is religion that
> causes the evil and not God.
That is rather obvious, since religions actually exist.
snip
thomas p.
>
> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:27:12 +0100, BORG <bo...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>>>
>>>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>>>
>>>> Logically incongruous.
>>
>>>Not really if you think of it.
>>>God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is
> religion that causes the evil and not God.
> and order of maths is often sublime.
> And then saying maths is "religion" and trying to place all
> there is to know about maths in one book.
> In the beginning was 1 + 1 = 2.
> But the beauty of maths is in the order and the absolute
> sense that maths does make. It is not open to
> interpretation.
> Whereas a subject such as God, is so vast and all
> encompassing. Covering love, music, drugs, art, life,
> creation, destiny, maths, intelligence, interest,
> originality, humour, and many other things.
> So you can you personalise or describe or contain a concept
> such as this with words or books or religion?
> Religion is the very place where God is not.
>
>> that's the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> <religious blather snipped>
>>
>
> intelligence.
> It was not religious blather.
> It was an intelligent statement.
> In philosophy we learn to argue FOR or AGAINST certain points, based on
> the initial premise.
> I made no comment as to whether I myself believe in God or no, I was
> taking as a premise that this topic was assuming the existence of God as
> this was the premise of the thread.
No, since you defined religions as being the place where god was not, you
implied god's existence.
> So my argument was based on this premise.
> In future, if you behave like an animal and cannot be civil or polite,
> then go out to the farmyard and address you remarks to pigs.
> BORG
There was nothing rude in what he said, unless you feel that it is rude to
disagree with you.
thomas p.
>
> "BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:79uYl.10396$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>>
>> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
>> news:slrnh34reu.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>
>>> You posted with the assumption that your god thingie exists.
>>> Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
>>> think your god thingie does or does not do.
>>>
>>> If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit behaving like
>>> one.
>>
>> No I did not post with the assumption.
>> Go back and read my message again.
>> I posted with the "premise".
>> You cannot argue with no premise.
>> If you did not notice nor understand the word "premise" as opposed to
>> "assumption" then it is you who are the idiot.
>> BORG
>
> Another tip and word of advice is to remember that some people DO believe
> in God and hold this kind of concept in great reverence, mystery and
> fascination.
> So you should have regard for how these kind of people feel and not refer
> to God as a "god thingie".
As opposed to stating that religion is where god is not? Is that an example
of courtesy toward religious believers?
> It is basic consideration and decency to do this.
> Being rude about God will not make him exist any the less, nor will this
> disrespect add any argument to your opinion that he/she/they/it do or do
> not exist.
> If you were eloquent and intelligent, I would be willing to take you on in
> a hypothetical argument about the existence of God, not telling you first
> what my real stance is.
> But I will reserve this for someone who evidences signs of being able to
> argue without resorting to name calling and rudeness.
> BORG
You are the one who felt qualified to specify where god would not be. Would
that claim be based on a particular religious belief?
thomas p.
> The best way to argue the "Does God exist" argument is.
>
> "I know God does exist"
> "How can you know this?"
> I know because I AM God."
> "Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
> "No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
>
> And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I am not God.
>
> Why?
> Because no one knows anything about God.
Except you of course, since you have assured us where god would not be.
>
> So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM God.
> And no one could disprove it.
>
> BORG
What have you established with the above?
thomas p.
> So now you all know that God does exist - because here I am.
You have not established that you are god. You have pointed out the obvious
fact that one cannot prove a negative.
BORG
REAL Angels left.
There may be groups of people who think they are Angels, but
I got all the real ones.
Oh and I nabbed THE BORG as well so you cannot have them.
And do not tell me THE BORG do not exist, you will learn
more about that kind of thing once you are God.
But if you want men to work for you as "Angels" then you
will have to go for gay human males or bears or Elves or
whoever.
They have to be male. You will find out why once you are
God.
And remember, the collapse of the Universe ain't funny.
Unless you are God!!!
BORG
SkyEyes
<Snippage>
> Dear Dr Dawkins; You ask “Isn’t it a form of child abuse to label
> children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have
> thought about?”
I am fully qualified to answer for Dr. Dawkins, since I *did* grow up
christian fundamentalist, subjected to the whole literalist mindset.
*Yes*, it's wrong to inculcate religious beliefs into children before
they have any ability to think critically.
It's especially egregious to bring them up as fundamentalists (whether
christian, muslim, jewish, or whatever). It's child abuse.
I'll be happy to testify before, say, a Congressional committee to the
abuse I suffered and the damage a strict religious upbringing visited
upon me. It took me almost 30 years to clear that glop out of my
brain.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
> presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
> be better off without religion or belief in God.
As indeed it would be.
pyjamarama
> legalized in some American states (and all across Canada), many in the
> church would have scoffed at the possibility.
Um, what "church" are you referring to, bright eyes?
The Catholic "Church" has "known" about it's own internal gay issue
for years....
Shortages of priests dating back to the fifties resulted in lax
screening at the Seminaries...hundreds of millions of dollars later,
you know the rest.
Most mainstream Protestant "churches" have been openly pushing a gay
agenda for decades...
Perhaps you're talking about the "Church Of Scientology?"
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
> If someone had predicted sixty years ago that prayer, Bible reading
> and creation would be thrown out of America’s public schools, well,
> most in the church back then would have also thought it to be
> ridiculous.
Since Public schools rarely (if ever) held "Bible readings" or
actively taught "creation", only a slow fool would have thought so...
>
> But … they have happened!
Ah, a slow fool among us...
>
> Now, what if I said the following?
>
> If America continues on its present course of abandoning the absolute
> authority of the Word of God—and teaching generations of students that
> they are the result of random natural processes—Christians who teach
> their children to believe that God created in six days will have those
> same children taken away … and the parents will be arrested for “child
> abuse.”
>
> Would you scoff and say, “That could never happen here?” Would you
> think that I’m just overreacting?
No, I'd say that:
A) that's completely within the scope and reach of the "democrat"
totalitarian left...and
B) Been there, done that (See: Union, Soviet. Revolution, Cultural.
Pol Pot, Year Zero. Etc,.Etc,.Etc....)
Did the twentieth-century teach you nothing?
Hmmm??
You dimwitted little monkey.
magicus
<fsto...@earthling.com> typed:
> "BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in news:aEuYl.10406$v24....@newsfe13.iad:
>
>> The best way to argue the "Does God exist" argument is.
>>
>> "I know God does exist"
>> "How can you know this?"
>> I know because I AM God."
>> "Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
>> "No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
>>
>> And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I
>> am not God.
>>
>> Why?
>> Because no one knows anything about God.
>>
>> So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
>> God.
>> And no one could disprove it.
>>
>
> You can't be God because you're not my cat.
>
I bet he or she is. Mine is long since gone. A Siamese who hung around
for 15 years. I still miss him and have not gotten another to replace him.
ciao,
f
--
"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
-- Frank Zappa
magicus
OK, this has gotten a bit boring. Do say bye-bye...
<plonk>
Have a nice lifetime...
ciao,
f
--
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality"
-- on a wall many years ago in Oxford.
Immortalist
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
> >presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
> >be better off without religion or belief in God.
>
>
Why would a God create a murdering creature and if he had some
justifiable reason for doing so why would he/it let the man continue
murderin?
(1) In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created
he him.
(2) And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord
over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
(3) And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on
his God and saw that it was good.
(4) And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of
others likened unto his kind.
(5) And these lesser men Man did cast into the void. And some were
burned; and some were put apart from their kind.
(6) And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles
did rule over all the earth.
(7) But as all these things did come to pass, the Spirit that did
cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within
Aqualung.
(8) And man saw it not.
(9) But for Christ's sake he'd better start looking.
From the back side of the Jethro Tull album:
Aqualung 1971 origional version only.
http://www.cupofwonder.com/aqualung.html
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Immortalist
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > The Root of All Evil?
>
>
> Logically incongruous.
Dawkins said the tv company made him name it that. He wanted to call
it the God Delusion, same as the title of the book.
If the "love" of money is the root of all evil why not the "love" of
God?
Immortalist
> On Jun 11, 5:41 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
> > presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
> > be better off without religion or belief in God.
>
> As indeed it would be.
>
What if religious behavior is instinctul and hardwired into humans,
probably accented by the environment. If we want to get rid of
religion do we lobotomize the neurons that drive us to be religious or
perhaps medicate everyone. Maybe we could breed religion out of
ourselves through natural selection.
The mind is composed of a large number of mental modules each designed
to solve a specific problem. For example, there is one mechanism for
perceiving three dimensions, another for anger, another for falling in
love. The mind is like a Swiss Army knife; i.e., it has lots of
specialized tools. There is no such thing as general intelligence,
general learning, or any other general ability to solve problems.
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/463evolpsyIQ.html
If across the globe and throughout history, human beings have engaged
in a variety of religious practices and have held a diversity of
religious beliefs and these phenomena have been explained in a variety
of different ways by anthropologists, psychologists, and other
scholars, as well as by religious practitioners themselves, with
varying degrees of success, then perhaps more puzzling, and just in
need of an explanation, is the fact that all human beings have
religion in the first place.
If religion is a by-product of the way our minds evolved to negotiate
the natural and, more importantly, the social world and the
explanation for religious beliefs and behaviours is to be found in the
way all human minds work.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental
systems, present also in non-religious contexts, and ‘tweak’ the usual
inferences of these systems. They deal with detection and
representation of animacy and agency, social exchange, moral
intuitions, precaution against natural hazards and understanding of
misfortune. Each of these activates distinct neural resources or
families of networks.
The Inferential Instinct: ...a naturalistic account of cultural
representations that describes how evolved conceptual dispositions
make humans likely to acquire certain concepts more easily than
others. The aggregated result of these individual acquisition
processes channels cultures along particular paths, with the result
that some concepts are both relatively stable within a group and
recurrent among different groups.
Our brains have been "designed by evolution" to employ particular
cognitive systems that help us to make sense of "particular aspects of
objects around us and produce specific kinds of inferences about
them." There are, for instance, brain–systems in this sense that deal
with inanimate objects, others that deal with human persons, and yet
others that deal with supernatural agents. Just as our brains have
become by evolution such that they inevitably (and mostly
unconsciously) deploy the complex inferential systems that permit us
to survive and get around in a world of inanimate objects, so they
also have become such that we find ideas about full–access strategic
agents to be plausible because these ideas generate for us rich
inferences about how to behave and what choices to make, and they do
so with particular richness in a social context in which we can
reasonably assume that everyone else shares such ideas.
Scientists themselves thus reverse many traditional attempts to
explain religion away. It is not that we invent the gods because by so
doing we can meet needs otherwise difficult to satisfy, or because
they permit us to explain things otherwise hard to explain, or because
they give us the illusion of comfort in a harsh and comfortless world,
or because they give us persuasive reasons to act morally. It is,
rather, that evolution has equipped us (or most of us) with certain
proclivities or dispositions to explain misfortune, gain scarce social
goods, and act morally (roughly, acting in such a way as
evolutionarily to benefit either ourselves or the tribe).
Moreover, these proclivities dispose us to accept and act upon the
idea that there are gods—or, if you prefer, full–access strategic
agents. Evolution makes all of us likely worshipers in much the same
way that it makes all of us likely language–users. We are innately
predisposed for both, and so such disparate religious traditions as
Christian theology, Islamic law, and Buddhist metaphysics are merely
different forms of baroque ornamentations added on to an evolutionary
edifice.
Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That
Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors
by Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465006965/
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal
Sense of Right and Wrong - by Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>
>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth except coffee
after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
me) no one is forced to drink it.
>
>This is the real world
Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
concern.If you cut us, do we not bleed?
>
>It's a standard dishonest straw man formed by equivocating between
>different meanings of "believe" after you have replaced words which
>carry the actual meaning so you can twist them into beliefs
We don't proselytize. nor do we do the Twist--it's too retro for us.
>
>An almost Orwellian misuse of language to eliminate meanings other
>than yours so that concepts can no longer be explained.
>
>Like "logically conclude" from the mutually exclusive attributes
>theists insist on giving what they wipe in our faces.
>
>Like "inductively conclude" from the theists' insistence that there is
>evidence but always cop out of providing
What's to prove? We believe that the Light of Christ is part of
everyone, even atheists. Jesus told us to be wary of 'signs and
wonders, I would eat a cookie that looked like we imagine Hir to look
like (we use no images,no crucifixes, no relicts. Oh,all right, I do
wear a garnet cross around my neck, but it's strictly used when taking
off and descending in airplanes. I don't like flying. And it's
pretty).
>
>Like the Popperian default of rephrasing the theist's baseless claim
>in the negative.
We don't do positive or negative. I can't anatomize it, but we never
tried.
>
>All of which are easily falsified by providing what has never once
>been given: objective real-world evidence. Which is the methodology
>they use for pretty much everything else.
I know the Big Bang is the most probable explanation for the start
.I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts what neither of us can totally
explain just *why* the Big Bang happened. It looks as though nothing
can create something in atheism, which takes more gullibility whan
something came from something. Have you, yourself, ever seen something
come out of nothing? Absolutely nothing,completely there, not even a
speck. at absolute zero? Neither have I, yet we both agree than the
Universe got here somehow.. Prove to me not that it started, but how
something can come from something.Do it in front of a whole lot of
people, theists, atheists, whatever flavor you choose.
>
>Besides which, the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing
>outside the religion where it's merely "what they believe". Not the
>object of that belief.
>
>Which is hardly rocket science. After all that's how they see all the
>other gods they don't believe in either
God can manifest Hirself in any way sie chooses. Allah, Brahma, God
alla same.The variable dispersions of religious faith happened because
humans talk to each other.
>
>And whether you like it or not, all they have is blather.
Hey, we have coffee.
>
>We are part of the real world outside their religion in exactly the
>same way they are outside Hinduism and all the others>
I'm glad we can agree on that.
>What they insist on telling us is meaningless bullshit whose only
>message is that they are rather stupid because it presumes what they
>already know is merely somebody else's religious belief to their
>involuntary audience.
Is that something like 'preaching to the choir'? Are you trying to
make your atheists more athestic?Since you're posting to
sci.skeptic,',I'm just as comfy here, probably more,that you are
because I concede I just might be wrong.
>
>It is both rude and stupid to keep begging the question.
Oh, no doubt.
>
>Stupid because they know we don't already grant their premises and
>don't have the intelligence to use common shared understanding
I'm not sure that's accurate.I've been married to a Church of England
atheist and a Jewish atheist (not simultaneously) They both knew which
god they didn't believe in. And our subsequent re-marriages only prove
Dr.Johnson's statement,'remarriage is the victory over hope over over
experience.
> Rude because they don't care let alone have the courtesy to even to
>try and find common understanding.
I'm sorry if it is discourteous not to be an atheist, but thee has yet
to prove anything to me.
>
>Before they talk about it as though it were real, they have to
>demonstrate that it is.
>
>Which is impossible because the information isn't there so instead
>they resort to all sorts of fallacies which try to generate it out of
>nothing.
You don't know much about the Religious Society of Friends, do you?
>
>Without realising that if they actually had this information it would
>be the evidence required and they would need to try to argue it into
>existence.
>
>>You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>
>What I described was fact. Not the belief ignorant
No, I'm afraid it was opinion,not fact.
>
>>You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>>statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
>>impolite and rude.
>In polite society they would live and let live instead of being so
>aggressively in-your-face rudely stupid.
We're in the phone book. So are plumbers. Does thee call a plumber for
advice on a burnt light bulb?
>
>Why should they expect the very courtesy they don't show us in the
>first place?
My Jewish atheist ex-husband wasn't terribly courteous, but I doubt he
was motivated by God. His family was totally fucked, and every one of
them was an atheist. He was bad to me not because he was born of a
Jewish mother; you'd have to ask him.
My C of E atheist husband is courteous because he was raised to be
polite, English gentleman, not because Jesus wanted him for a sunbeam.
I wasn't always courteous to them, either. It wasn't my religion, it
was because I'm human. So are they. We are each responsible for our
behavior, and I expect the afterlife will be a surprise for all of us.
Lizz 'be seeing you' Holmans
--
I stayed up late to hear your voice.
AZ Nomad
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>>
>>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
>I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth except coffee
>after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
>me) no one is forced to drink it.
>>
>>This is the real world
>Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
>has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
>one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
nope. You merely deluded yourself.
<rest of religious discussion snipped. premise already dismissed>
Christopher A. Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>>
>>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
>
>I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth except coffee
>after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
>me) no one is forced to drink it.
Yet you do in this very message.
>>This is the real world
>
>Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
>has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
>one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
>concern.If you cut us, do we not bleed?
What "afterlife"?
>>It's a standard dishonest straw man formed by equivocating between
>>different meanings of "believe" after you have replaced words which
>>carry the actual meaning so you can twist them into beliefs
>
>We don't proselytize. nor do we do the Twist--it's too retro for us.
>>
>>An almost Orwellian misuse of language to eliminate meanings other
>>than yours so that concepts can no longer be explained.
>>
>>Like "logically conclude" from the mutually exclusive attributes
>>theists insist on giving what they wipe in our faces.
>>
>>Like "inductively conclude" from the theists' insistence that there is
>>evidence but always cop out of providing
>
>What's to prove?
Never heard of "put up or shut up"?
> We believe that the Light of Christ is part of
>everyone, even atheists.
And you are told an offensive lie.
But if you had the common sense and courtesy to keep this lie to
yourself you wouldn't be called on it.
> Jesus told us to be wary of 'signs and
Assumes facts not in evidence.
>wonders, I would eat a cookie that looked like we imagine Hir to look
>like (we use no images,no crucifixes, no relicts. Oh,all right, I do
>wear a garnet cross around my neck, but it's strictly used when taking
>off and descending in airplanes. I don't like flying. And it's
>pretty).
Who gives a flying fuck what the mythical hero figure of somebody
else's religion says?
>>Like the Popperian default of rephrasing the theist's baseless claim
>>in the negative.
>
>We don't do positive or negative. I can't anatomize it, but we never
>tried.
Yes you do - about every other baseless claim.
Kid: "my dad bought a Porsche"
Kid 2: "No he didn't, prove it"
>>All of which are easily falsified by providing what has never once
>>been given: objective real-world evidence. Which is the methodology
>>they use for pretty much everything else.
>
>I know the Big Bang is the most probable explanation for the start
>.I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts what neither of us can totally
>explain just *why* the Big Bang happened. It looks as though nothing
Unlike theists nobody pretends to know. There are several suggestions
which break no known laws of physics. But those making them
acknowledge these are avenues for investigation.
>can create something in atheism, which takes more gullibility whan
Why do you lie?
You know perfectly well that science isd nothing to doiwith atheism
and vice versa, because all atheism is is not believing in delities.
>something came from something. Have you, yourself, ever seen something
>come out of nothing? Absolutely nothing,completely there, not even a
>speck. at absolute zero? Neither have I, yet we both agree than the
>Universe got here somehow.. Prove to me not that it started, but how
>something can come from something.Do it in front of a whole lot of
>people, theists, atheists, whatever flavor you choose.
What a fucking moron.
>>Besides which, the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing
>>outside the religion where it's merely "what they believe". Not the
>>object of that belief.
>>
>>Which is hardly rocket science. After all that's how they see all the
>>other gods they don't believe in either
>
>God can manifest Hirself in any way sie chooses. Allah, Brahma, God
Whgere did you demonstrate its existence to before making such a
ridiculous statement, imbecile?
>alla same.The variable dispersions of religious faith happened because
>humans talk to each other.
Irrelevant.
>>And whether you like it or not, all they have is blather.
>
>Hey, we have coffee.
Idiot.
>>We are part of the real world outside their religion in exactly the
>>same way they are outside Hinduism and all the others>
>
>I'm glad we can agree on that.
So why lie about atheists in an athjeist newsgroup?
>>What they insist on telling us is meaningless bullshit whose only
>>message is that they are rather stupid because it presumes what they
>>already know is merely somebody else's religious belief to their
>>involuntary audience.
>
> Is that something like 'preaching to the choir'? Are you trying to
>make your atheists more athestic?Since you're posting to
>sci.skeptic,',I'm just as comfy here, probably more,that you are
>because I concede I just might be wrong.
Again, why the lie?
What are you pretending I might be wrong about?
>>It is both rude and stupid to keep begging the question.
>Oh, no doubt.
Which you do in spades in this article.
>>Stupid because they know we don't already grant their premises and
>>don't have the intelligence to use common shared understanding
>
>I'm not sure that's accurate.I've been married to a Church of England
The ones who beg the question are.
As you do here.
>atheist and a Jewish atheist (not simultaneously) They both knew which
>god they didn't believe in. And our subsequent re-marriages only prove
>Dr.Johnson's statement,'remarriage is the victory over hope over over
>experience.
What "which god", imbecile?
>> Rude because they don't care let alone have the courtesy to even to
>>try and find common understanding.
>
>I'm sorry if it is discourteous not to be an atheist, but thee has yet
>to prove anything to me.
Where did I say that, liar who puts words into people's mouths she
knows they didn't say?
>>Before they talk about it as though it were real, they have to
>>demonstrate that it is.
>>
>>Which is impossible because the information isn't there so instead
>>they resort to all sorts of fallacies which try to generate it out of
>>nothing.
>
>You don't know much about the Religious Society of Friends, do you?
I don't don't give a shit about them.
It's somebody else's religion. That's all.
Which in your case you are too rude and stupid to keep to yourself.
>>Without realising that if they actually had this information it would
>>be the evidence required and they would need to try to argue it into
>>existence.
>>
>>>You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>>
>>What I described was fact. Not the belief ignorant
>
>No, I'm afraid it was opinion,not fact.
No, liar. It is a fact that people outside your religion don't see
"God" in the same light you do.
It is also a fact that what the liar pretended was belief, wasn't.
>>>You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>>>statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
>>>impolite and rude.
>
>>In polite society they would live and let live instead of being so
>>aggressively in-your-face rudely stupid.
>
>We're in the phone book. So are plumbers. Does thee call a plumber for
>advice on a burnt light bulb?
Idiot.
>>Why should they expect the very courtesy they don't show us in the
>>first place?
>
>My Jewish atheist ex-husband wasn't terribly courteous, but I doubt he
>was motivated by God. His family was totally fucked, and every one of
>them was an atheist. He was bad to me not because he was born of a
>Jewish mother; you'd have to ask him.
Irrelevant.
>My C of E atheist husband is courteous because he was raised to be
>polite, English gentleman, not because Jesus wanted him for a sunbeam.
What a fucking moron.
>I wasn't always courteous to them, either. It wasn't my religion, it
>was because I'm human. So are they. We are each responsible for our
>behavior, and I expect the afterlife will be a surprise for all of us.
What "afterlife",question-begging moron who rudely and stupidly
presumes what she knows her audience doesn't believe?
>Lizz 'be seeing you' Holmans
Get a brain and stop being so stupid.
Christopher A. Lee
<azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:00:05 +0100, Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>>>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
>
>>I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth except coffee
>>after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
>>me) no one is forced to drink it.
>>>
>>>This is the real world
>
>>Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
>>has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
>>one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
The real world in which atheists don't even have the God-presumption
in order to believe it doesn't exist. It's only meaningful inside the
virtual reality of the theist paradigm - and atheists are outside it.
It's like defining people who don't watch Star Trek by saying they
believe that Jean-Luc Picard doesn't exist.
The OP in particular is incapable of grasping that to anybody who
doesn't already believe it, it's merely somebody else's religious
belief. Not something that could or could not exist.
And the same goes for "the afterlife". Again, it's merely somebody
else's religious belief.
It's frustrating to have to keep on explaining this even though it
should be obvious to them.
>nope. You merely deluded yourself.
She's usually more sensible than this.
Yap
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
> >presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
> >be better off without religion or belief in God.
>
Your god of love is to allow innocent human to be killed in the
tsunamis, floods, quakes?
Those calamities are telling you that there ain't any god in this
universe !!!!!!!!!!!!!
But a poisoned mind like yours could never accept this fact, so I tell
you !
Yap
> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.06...@erkonx.net...
>
>
> >> The Root of All Evil?
>
>
> > Logically incongruous.
>
> God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is
> religion that causes the evil and not God.
Right and wrong.
Religion is the cause of all evil, right.
But, there is no god to begin with......otherwise there will be no
evil.
So, wrong in the word god which has no meaningful purpose to any
human, atheist and theist.
> It is like taking maths as a beautiful subject. The logic
> and order of maths is often sublime.
> And then saying maths is "religion" and trying to place all
> there is to know about maths in one book.
> In the beginning was 1 + 1 = 2.
> And mathematical order was created.
> But the beauty of maths is in the order and the absolute
> sense that maths does make. It is not open to
> interpretation.
> Whereas a subject such as God, is so vast and all
> encompassing. Covering love, music, drugs, art, life,
> creation, destiny, maths, intelligence, interest,
> originality, humour, and many other things.
> So you can you personalise or describe or contain a concept
> such as this with words or books or religion?
> Religion is the very place where God is not.
Yap
> The best way to argue the "Does God exist" argument is.
>
> "I know God does exist"
> "How can you know this?"
> I know because I AM God."
> "Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
> "No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
>
> And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I
> am not God.
>
> Why?
> Because no one knows anything about God.
>
> So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
> God.
> And no one could disprove it.
>
Hi god,
With your mighty power, although you can't spare human of their misery
of calamities, you may be able to fatten up my bank account with one
million USD,?
I don't need to provide extra details, do I?
Yap
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:39:05 +0100, BORG <b...@gone.com> wrote:
> >The best way to argue the "Does God exist" argument is.
> >"I know God does exist"
> >"How can you know this?"
> >I know because I AM God."
> >"Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
> >"No really, I definitely am God. Prove I am NOT God then".
> >And I would guarantee that NO ONE would be able to prove I
> >am not God.
> >Why?
> >Because no one knows anything about God.
> >So I can continue saying I know God does exist, because I AM
> >God.
> >And no one could disprove it.
>
> It is simply pathetic that you are impressed by that nursury school
> garbage.
Yes, young minds can be easily conned.
And the indoctrination can last till the old age, as shown in the case
of duke.
Yap
> So now you all know that God does exist - because here I am.
>
Me:" Hi god, can you do something to help the African poor?"
Borg:" Oh yes, in due course."
Me:" What due course?"
Borg:" The course that the African will be rich one day."
Me:" Which day is it?"
Borg:" The day when they are rich !"
Me:" OK. The philosophical day."
Borg:" Right."
Yap
> I was personally able to prove absolutely that God does NOT
> exist, because the kind of suffering I endured, no God would
> have permitted or allowed this.
> So because of the suffering I did endure, and that there was
> no God anywhere who helped or assisted - thus I KNEW there
> was no God.
>
> Then the question was.
> If there was definitely no God - was there anyone?
>
> And that is another story altogether with goes on to why I
> use the name BORG.
>
> But that was how I knew and proved there was definitely no
> God.
>
> Basically another answer if you want to disprove the
> existence of God is if anyone says
> "I believe God does exist" than a standard stock answer is
> "Well you have obviously never suffered then."
> BORG
Ah yes.
But lots of sufferers have been twisted and seeking comfort in an
empty god.
Yap
> BORG wrote:
> > The best way to argue the "Does God exist"
> > argument is.
>
> > "I know God does exist"
> > "How can you know this?"
> > I know because I AM God."
> > "Don't be so silly, he he he he he"
> > "No really, I definitely am God.
> > Prove I am NOT God then".
>
> > And I would guarantee that NO ONE would
> > be able to prove I am not God.
>
> > Why?
> > Because no one knows anything about God.
>
> > So I can continue saying I know God does
> > exist, because I AM God.
> > And no one could disprove it.
>
> back in the '60s was a hoax.
>
> I can do this because when /I/ say "The US
> moon landing back in the '60s was a hoax"
> what I /mean/ is "1 + 1 = 2".
>
> Fine. So you've proved that God exists --
> what you mean by "God exists", anyway. The
> next question on your list should be "So what?"
>
> ***********
>
> I won't try to define "God" or to prove
> that He/She/It does not exist, but I do think
> we can prove something enough like that to
> end the millennia-long tug-of-war over
> His/Her/Its existence.
>
> Proposed:
> For values of "God" worth believing in,
> we should not believe in God.
>
> What is a God worth believing in? Generally,
> God is taken to be (at least) a very powerful being
> who is capable of influencing individuals lives.
> I don't think this is a complete definition, but
> if your God doesn't measure up at least this far,
> then a reasonable rejoinder would be "So what?"
>
> I'll make the observation that whatever Gods there
> are have not been reliably observed to influence
> individual lives or make any sort of sign that
> they exist at all. This means a lot more today than
> it did even a few hundred years ago. Today, we
> reliably observe physical processes and objects
> much subtler and much, much more bizarre than some
> powerful, invisible being in control of our lives.
> And yet, nothing.
>
> Why is God undetectable? The usual reason given is
> that God wants to preserve our free will. I throw
> out this argument as ridiculous. I suspect that the
> "free will" excuse has lasted this long is that the
> meaning of words have a tendency to melt and drip
> into unrecognizable shapes under the influence of
> religion. "Free will" without being able to make an
> /informed/ choice is meaningless. If you pick the
> black pawn (not the white) from my closed fist,
> was that of you own "free will"? Not the way I've
> ever heard the term used. If God lets us "choose"
> to believe in Him or not, without showing us whether
> He exists or not, how is that "free will"?
>
> So, why is God undetectable? If God is doing such a
> good (divinely perfect, even) imitation of not existing,
> the first answer that should occur us is that
> God wants us to believe He does not exist.
>
> The second answer, perhaps, should be that God
> really, truly does not exist. Of course, if we're
> struggling against Divine Undetectability, we
> shouldn't expect to ever be able to distinguish
> the two cases.
>
> However, my point is that we don't need to distinguish
> the two cases. (1) Either God exists but has done
> His Divine Best to get us to stop believing in Him,
> or (2) God doesn't exist. Either way, the sensible thing
> to do would be to believe God does not exist.
>
> In summary: If God exists and takes a hand in
> individuals' lives, then how He has done so shows
> He doesn't want us to believe He exists.
> Alternatively, He either does not exist or is so
> distant and unimportant that we might as well
> believe that He does not exist, anyway.
>
> ******************
>
> I've been trying to get this argument down
> to 140 characters.
>
> Jim Burns
True.
But the religious gangs will have nothing to cling on after death, due
to their greed.
Yap
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
> >>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
> >>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>
> >Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
>
> I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth except coffee
> after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
> me) no one is forced to drink it.
Any loon will try to speak for his god.
How do you know I can consume coffee?
>
>
>
> >This is the real world
>
> Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
> has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
> one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
> concern.If you cut us, do we not bleed?
You have no afterlife, how can you know that there is a life after
death?
The poison of religion shows up here.
>
>
>
> >It's a standard dishonest straw man formed by equivocating between
> >different meanings of "believe" after you have replaced words which
> >carry the actual meaning so you can twist them into beliefs
>
> We don't proselytize. nor do we do the Twist--it's too retro for us.
>
>
>
> >An almost Orwellian misuse of language to eliminate meanings other
> >than yours so that concepts can no longer be explained.
>
> >Like "logically conclude" from the mutually exclusive attributes
> >theists insist on giving what they wipe in our faces.
>
> >Like "inductively conclude" from the theists' insistence that there is
> >evidence but always cop out of providing
>
> What's to prove? We believe that the Light of Christ is part of
> everyone, even atheists. Jesus told us to be wary of 'signs and
> wonders, I would eat a cookie that looked like we imagine Hir to look
> like (we use no images,no crucifixes, no relicts. Oh,all right, I do
> wear a garnet cross around my neck, but it's strictly used when taking
> off and descending in airplanes. I don't like flying. And it's
> pretty).
in us we don't even know who this Christ you are talking about.
>
>
>
> >Like the Popperian default of rephrasing the theist's baseless claim
> >in the negative.
>
> We don't do positive or negative. I can't anatomize it, but we never
> tried.
They are never into anything at all. They swallow all the garbage in a
con book which was written(?) by the uneducated bronze age people.
They have never progressed into this digital world.
>
>
>
> >All of which are easily falsified by providing what has never once
> >been given: objective real-world evidence. Which is the methodology
> >they use for pretty much everything else.
>
> I know the Big Bang is the most probable explanation for the start
> .I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts what neither of us can totally
> explain just *why* the Big Bang happened. It looks as though nothing
> can create something in atheism, which takes more gullibility whan
> something came from something. Have you, yourself, ever seen something
> come out of nothing? Absolutely nothing,completely there, not even a
> speck. at absolute zero? Neither have I, yet we both agree than the
> Universe got here somehow.. Prove to me not that it started, but how
> something can come from something.Do it in front of a whole lot of
> people, theists, atheists, whatever flavor you choose.
planets......they are all unknown, waiting to be discovered.
This is what science is doing.
But your so-called god, created Adam from dust.....I bet you can't
even imagine when a god can't even prevent tsunami?
>
>
>
> >Besides which, the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing
> >outside the religion where it's merely "what they believe". Not the
> >object of that belief.
>
> >Which is hardly rocket science. After all that's how they see all the
> >other gods they don't believe in either
>
> God can manifest Hirself in any way sie chooses. Allah, Brahma, God
> alla same.The variable dispersions of religious faith happened because
> humans talk to each other.
>
>
>
> >And whether you like it or not, all they have is blather.
>
> Hey, we have coffee.
>
>
>
> >We are part of the real world outside their religion in exactly the
> >same way they are outside Hinduism and all the others>
>
> I'm glad we can agree on that.
>
> >What they insist on telling us is meaningless bullshit whose only
> >message is that they are rather stupid because it presumes what they
> >already know is merely somebody else's religious belief to their
> >involuntary audience.
>
> Is that something like 'preaching to the choir'? Are you trying to
> make your atheists more athestic?Since you're posting to
> sci.skeptic,',I'm just as comfy here, probably more,that you are
> because I concede I just might be wrong.
>
>
>
> >It is both rude and stupid to keep begging the question.
> Oh, no doubt.
>
> >Stupid because they know we don't already grant their premises and
> >don't have the intelligence to use common shared understanding
>
> I'm not sure that's accurate.I've been married to a Church of England
> atheist and a Jewish atheist (not simultaneously) They both knew which
> god they didn't believe in. And our subsequent re-marriages only prove
> Dr.Johnson's statement,'remarriage is the victory over hope over over
> experience.
Is there any experience that any one have have from a god?
No, there were no such experience. All they rely upon is the scripture
which is a con.
>
> > Rude because they don't care let alone have the courtesy to even to
> >try and find common understanding.
>
> I'm sorry if it is discourteous not to be an atheist, but thee has yet
> to prove anything to me.
>
>
>
> >Before they talk about it as though it were real, they have to
> >demonstrate that it is.
>
> >Which is impossible because the information isn't there so instead
> >they resort to all sorts of fallacies which try to generate it out of
> >nothing.
>
> You don't know much about the Religious Society of Friends, do you?
They are also all deluded.
>
>
>
> >Without realising that if they actually had this information it would
> >be the evidence required and they would need to try to argue it into
> >existence.
>
> >>You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>
> >What I described was fact. Not the belief ignorant
>
> No, I'm afraid it was opinion,not fact.
This is the true fact.
>
>
>
> >>You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
> >>statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
> >>impolite and rude.
> >In polite society they would live and let live instead of being so
> >aggressively in-your-face rudely stupid.
>
> We're in the phone book. So are plumbers. Does thee call a plumber for
> advice on a burnt light bulb?
>
>
>
> >Why should they expect the very courtesy they don't show us in the
> >first place?
>
> My Jewish atheist ex-husband wasn't terribly courteous, but I doubt he
> was motivated by God. His family was totally fucked, and every one of
> them was an atheist. He was bad to me not because he was born of a
> Jewish mother; you'd have to ask him.
>
> My C of E atheist husband is courteous because he was raised to be
> polite, English gentleman, not because Jesus wanted him for a sunbeam.
Why do you have to associate your atheist husbands with religious
notion?
>
> I wasn't always courteous to them, either. It wasn't my religion, it
> was because I'm human. So are they. We are each responsible for our
> behavior, and I expect the afterlife will be a surprise for all of us.
You don't realize this, do you?
The Chief Instigator
>"BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
>news:79uYl.10396$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
>>
>> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrnh34reu.p...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>>
>>> You posted with the assumption that your god thingie
>>> exists.
>>> Provide some evidence or shut the hell up about what you
>>> think your god thingie does or does not do.
>>>
>>> If you don't like being treated like an idiot then quit
>>> behaving like one.
>>
>> No I did not post with the assumption.
>> Go back and read my message again.
>> I posted with the "premise".
>> You cannot argue with no premise.
>> If you did not notice nor understand the word "premise" as
>> opposed to "assumption" then it is you who are the idiot.
>> BORG
>Another tip and word of advice is to remember that some
>people DO believe in God and hold this kind of concept in
>great reverence, mystery and fascination.
So what? Are they too full of their delusion to consider that alt.atheism
isn't for theists like the arrogant godbot you are. You don't have enough
upstairs to go elsewhere? That's your problem.
>So you should have regard for how these kind of people feel and not refer
>to God as a "god thingie".
Maybe you should go by your supposed standards and confine your whining to
theist newsgroups.
>It is basic consideration and decency to do this.
...in your disingenuous opinion.
>Being rude about God will not make him exist any the less, nor will this
>disrespect add any argument to your opinion that he/she/they/it do or do
>not exist.
He/she/it/them/whatever apparently doesn't give a flying fuck at the
proverbial rolling doughnut, but that's to be expected out of badly-written
fairy tales that contradict their own standards more often than not.
>If you were eloquent and intelligent, I would be willing to take you on in
>a hypothetical argument about the existence of God, not telling you first
>what my real stance is. But I will reserve this for someone who evidences
>signs of being able to argue without resorting to name calling and
>rudeness. BORG
Typical godbot...too full of itself to obey anything but its own ego. I'm
glad to have been assaulted by Oral Roberts' antics on all three Tulsa
channels (not all at the same time) every Sunday, back in the late '50s and
early '60s. That questioning of organized religion led me to atheism by the
time I got to college in the early '70s.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
The Chief Instigator
>"I am God. I am the most powerful person in existence. I
>am the most intelligent person in existence. And......I am
>the FUNNIEST person in existence.
>I do not subscribe to religions, throw all those books away.
>I subscribe to music and laughter and happiness. Nothing to
>do with religion.
>Now I not only say I AM God, but I also say I ARE God, as I
>have a huge number of men who work for me. As I do not
>subscribe to religion, I do not call them Angels, I call
>them MEN! As we are all united in one huge group telepathy
>Ultimate Mind then I say I ARE God as well as I AM God.
>So now prove this is not true.
>No one can.
>How would anyone know whether I am or not.
>Or whether this is a hypothetical argument.
>You could say
>"Don't be silly. God would not turn up on Earth and then
>start posting messages to Usenet"
>But how would you know?
>How would anyone know?
>As no one knows anything about God, how would anyone know
>what he/she/they/it would do?
>So as it is impossible to prove that I am not God, therefore
>I am God.
>BORG
Since you refuse to prove the positive assertion, it's obvious that religion
has made you the typical godbot buffoon. You're about as unique as a hot
day between March and November, in this part of the Northwest Quartersphere.
The Chief Instigator
Sorry, unproven...you can't produce your god.
thomas p.
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ego5355jb10mui0k2...@4ax.com...
You could start right there.
snip
walksalone
news:ego5355jb10mui0k2...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it is
>>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not exist.
>>
>>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's mouths.
>
> I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's , which you should
because it was first century xianitymouth except coffee
That's nice. However quite without intent, you do. Have you ever convert
to a Quaker faith, or assisted someone to join a Quaker movement? If so,
you have put words in their mouth and mind. Words that were not there
prior to meeting you. Of necessity, this is not a good or bad thing. If
being human
> after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee (I dont like,
> me) no one is forced to drink it.
>>
>>This is the real world
>
> Yes, this is the real world. We live in the real world. Each Quaker
> has hir own notion of the afterlife, including that there may not be
That's all well and good, but other than Richard Nixon, Quakers are not
known for trying to lead others as a way of life. Questions at large,
guilty as charged.
> one.But we do know there is life after birth, and that's own main
> concern.If you cut us, do we not bleed?
Life is the result of birth when birth is successful. The stillborn did
not enjoy that state, and yet, supposedly a god created them? Help an old
man's reasoning here.
It's not a case of god is good, god is great, shut up and pass the plate.
It's a question of a entity, and undetectable and he who may as well not
exist according to the real world that I reside in, being intimately
involved with my life whether I want it or not. I make enough mistakes
that I don't need any help, and yet this job is deep and abiding love for
me in and two young girls provided me with to stillborn children. Males
at that. It is the closest I ever came to beating a man to death, and I
would have had I not been pulled off. It seems some local god botherers
had found out about the stillborn, and was harassing the girl about
having lived a life of sin and this was her punishment.
The dead as it may be seen from their point of view, this god in its
infinite wisdom had elected to kill our children.
Why? Had that children be born in countries where they would not be
wanted and quite possibly put on a hill to starve to death. Or drowned.
Or allowed to die in various other ways, none of which are particularly
likely to make one value life.
So my question young lady, why? And by the way, this is not what led me
to atheism, I believe I am a natural atheist. People have tried to infect
me with the virus, but my mind appears to be immune. Maybe one it did
break down and I arrive in a condition similar to Alzheimer's that will
change. But as long as it's active, I would not hold my breath were I a
bleater or smug believer.
By the way, god moves in mysterious ways does not work, for my bowels do
the same thing. And at my age, we don't even want to talk about the
bladder. Those two do exist, and I need have no doubts about it.
>>It's a standard dishonest straw man formed by equivocating between
>>different meanings of "believe" after you have replaced words which
>>carry the actual meaning so you can twist them into beliefs
>
> We don't proselytize. nor do we do the Twist--it's too retro for us.
You don't host our lives because, the founder of your particular cult
realized how he did not like being prostylized to. Just because a person
is ethical, does not mean there believes in any mythology is correct. And
just because they blame their belief in their mythology for their ethical
conduct, does not mean that is correct either. With or without religion,
or atheism come to that, it will be good people and there'll be people
that are not quite so socially acceptable in our circles of
acquaintances.
>>An almost Orwellian misuse of language to eliminate meanings other
>>than yours so that concepts can no longer be explained.
>>Like "logically conclude" from the mutually exclusive attributes
>>theists insist on giving what they wipe in our faces.
>>Like "inductively conclude" from the theists' insistence that there is
>>evidence but always cop out of providing
> What's to prove? We believe that the Light of Christ is part of
What is true? A very common question for a believer to ask. If in fact
the gods of xianity, and yes it is plural, very plural, do exist, and
they are as described within the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testaments,
who would have no choice but to leave evidence behind. Objective
evidence. However, no default the particular odious mythology have yet to
provide any reason to believe they know what they are talking about
because all they really can do, is refer me to the Hebrew Bible which I
have a probability of knowing better than the majority that profess to
understand it. This is not due to a superior capacity for learning, it is
due to a high setting on a bullshit detector, organic, each, one, and a
curious mind. If you want to tell me that something occurs with
regularity that's not normal as you and I understand that word, then you
anticipate the probability of smashing really? And you pony up the
evidence. This cannot be done with the gods of humanity, and there are
over 25,000 of those critters. Many are still actually believe in and are
not portions of the major pantheons. Their names are not forgotten, so
therefore they are still alive and active with the human affairs. Within
/** miles of me, there's a shrine dedicated to Diana, a goddess of Greece
& the Roman legions who was associated with a very well-developed history
and mythology.
> everyone, even atheists. Jesus told us to be wary of 'signs and
> wonders, I would eat a cookie that looked like we imagine Hir to look
> like (we use no images,no crucifixes, no relicts. Oh,all right, I do
Bully for you, but this does not make you correct. And by the way, for
your Jesus to have told me anything would require something that is
patently missing. A physical existence on this planet during the time
claimed. Only see during that era is the Gospels being written in support
of a pre-existing xianity. A xianity that would not have existed all had
not been for a fanatic named Saul. And yes, people get a religion or find
a god when their lives are desperate enough. Just as happened during the
1890s in the United States, a peaceful religion that forbade violence of
any kind against any human was put down by the United States Army was
perfectly willing to kill the people toward a return to a simpler way of
life without the white society they were aware of. It deferred to as the
Ghost Dance phenomena, and even including your Jesus deciding the First
Peoples should be the chosen people. It even had a fanatic for a prophet,
one Porcupine who was a Ute. So the phenomena of religions developing
during desperate times is not new, nor is it unique to the Middle East.
> wear a garnet cross around my neck, but it's strictly used when taking
> off and descending in airplanes. I don't like flying. And it's
> pretty).
Nothing wrong with that, I'll always consider them to be a good luck
charm anyway.
>>Like the Popperian default of rephrasing the theist's baseless claim
>>in the negative.
> We don't do positive or negative. I can't anatomize it, but we never
> tried.
Yours is a very small subset of the xianity cult, and unfortunately, you
get tarred with the actions of the majority. But the majority does not
meet your ethical standards, and Quakers as a group do not stand up
against the petty tyrants generated by xianity. Something about silence
is compliance as well as assent. Not your fault in particular, or
possibly, not even your group. But there it is, it is likely to change
anytime soon. In long as Quakers put up with the likes of Jerry Falwell
when he was alive, they shared the blame and the shame of being xian. It
doesn't have to be that way, there's nothing really good that that is new
in the Greek Testaments, but even so, like the Hebrew Bible, there is
some good in it.
>>All of which are easily falsified by providing what has never once
>>been given: objective real-world evidence. Which is the methodology
>>they use for pretty much everything else.
> I know the Big Bang is the most probable explanation for the start
Maybe not. It seems that the boys over the astronomy departments have
been playing again and there are multiple theories of which the Big Bang
still is in the top five. Please do not ask me to explain them, I barely
got past twinkle twinkle Little star, how I wonder where you are.
> .I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts what neither of us can totally
> explain just *why* the Big Bang happened. It looks as though nothing
So what? Can you explain the development of the Hebrew Bible? If you
don't have an interest in something, you're not inclined to learn very
much about it. And unlike various believers, I cannot accept anything on
blind faith. It works for you, and I will defend your right to believe as
you will matter where you live in the world, to include the theocracies
of Islam were to believe other than they do is grounds for death.
> can create something in atheism, which takes more gullibility whan
Wrong word, creation indicates something from nothing or, something from
very controlled conditions that never existed before. We don't know that
the universe, or universes as it appears to be, have not existed before.
We don't know why it's so blindly proceeds as it will. We have darn good
ideas, and some that are definitely shake and bake. But until the
evidence is examined, in this case the universe, we haven't a clue. And
this too is all right, after all, does a newborn recite Plato? It becomes
a question of, what makes you curious, and your capacity to learn.
Astronomy is fascinating, but not as fascinating as mythology. And I'm
certain any astronomer would argue just the reverse
> something came from something. Have you, yourself, ever seen something
> come out of nothing? Absolutely nothing,completely there, not even a
> speck. at absolute zero? Neither have I, yet we both agree than the
Excuse me, I am not arrogant enough to assume that I have not seen
something with my own eyes, it cannot happen as others believe. I am
married now powered, to assume that if you cannot provide evidence that I
can research for myself and go to same conclusions you have drawn, your
version of whatever the discussion is, it probably incorrect.
> Universe got here somehow.. Prove to me not that it started, but how
> something can come from something.Do it in front of a whole lot of
> people, theists, atheists, whatever flavor you choose.
And yet, this argument is forwarded for the revealed gods of the desert.
It's also forwarded for several of the pre-existing saviors of humanity
collectively known as dying & resurrecting gods, and one goddess. The
guys I hold it out because, I cannot find any confirming evidence that
she was actually worshiped. No humans, and knowing that in the pre-
civilization humans had a tendency to be a matrearchial, & by my way of
thinking is better that patriarchial, the gods were those that took care
of you day-to-day, I like your gods, they had to be placated on occasion.
I don't find the revealed gods of the desert to be an improvement but a
detriment to human society. The reasons are not necessarily within the
core concepts, concepts that are amenable to civilizations that want to
get along with others, but even that is a dangerous thing. Are you
familiar with the Mediterranean Apocalypse that is freakishly close to
the foundation of Judea? Are you aware of the reasons for that
Apocalypse? An interesting thing in its own right, peace brings
destruction to civilization throughout the Mediterranean basin and even
Egypt never regained its full power.
>>
>>Besides which, the very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing
>>outside the religion where it's merely "what they believe". Not the
>>object of that belief.
>>
>>Which is hardly rocket science. After all that's how they see all the
>>other gods they don't believe in either
>
> God can manifest Hirself in any way sie chooses. Allah, Brahma, God
Only to a believer. You see, if your god could manifest itself to me, it
wants me to love it because it was me, then it would be a done deal.
However, the revealed gods of the desert, also known as the gods of the
bashful bladder, quit doing miracles once they were established as a
national champion. But even the national champion of Judea we could no
longer defend his country from the Romans in 70 Gregorian. It was at that
point xianity had chance to become its own mythology, and it took it.
Prior to that, it was a subset of the Jewish mythology. And during the
first century, Judaism was the fastest growing mythology within the Roman
Empire. Of course, that came to a screaming halt when the Temple came
down. At that time, Yahweh had abandoned Israel and xianity was free to
go its own way. You might try reading some of the literature to
understand how weird it really got. Maybe you like to read the Acts of
Andrew. If you cannot find at your local library or xian reading room,
because it is first century xianity. It is part and parcel of the
foundation of what you call being a quicker today.
> alla same.The variable dispersions of religious faith happened because
> humans talk to each other.
>>
>>And whether you like it or not, all they have is blather.
>
> Hey, we have coffee.
In the US, so does my novels. But neither one is recommended by those in
the know.
>>We are part of the real world outside their religion in exactly the
>>same way they are outside Hinduism and all the others>
>
> I'm glad we can agree on that.
Was there any doubt? I may not subscribe to Mr. Lee's school of charm,
but the man is correct. Outside of the xian mythology, it's totally
irrelevant to anyone else. And that galls them, as a group, to no end.
They can't stand suffering in silence but must attempt to make others
suffer bottom feeding guilty of things they have a reason to feel guilty
about. I've been known to stuff the guilt trip up that portion of the
anatomy where the sun does not shine, and I have enjoyed it. Without a
guilt trip of some variety, small or large, xianity has no emotional hook
on anyone. There's nothing required forgiveness, or a god to forgive
them.
>>What they insist on telling us is meaningless bullshit whose only
>>message is that they are rather stupid because it presumes what they
>>already know is merely somebody else's religious belief to their
>>involuntary audience.
>
> Is that something like 'preaching to the choir'? Are you trying to
> make your atheists more athestic?Since you're posting to
As you know, or by now you should know, he is simply following the cross
posting which apparently, includes you in alt.philosophy. Depending on
your news reader, you do not have to be subscribed to them to post
through them if the message you are responding to originated there.
Newsreaders are as strange as they gods in their fickleness.
> sci.skeptic,',I'm just as comfy here, probably more,that you are
> because I concede I just might be wrong.
Unless of course, it comes to your gods. And then you may concede you
just might be wrong, but you don't believe so. And I doubt anyone on the
atheist newsgroup has a problem with that. Honesty among believers is so
refreshing. And abnormal.
>>It is both rude and stupid to keep begging the question.
> Oh, no doubt.
>>Stupid because they know we don't already grant their premises and
>>don't have the intelligence to use common shared understanding
>
> I'm not sure that's accurate.I've been married to a Church of England
If they are atheist, & not agnostic, they would understand that. We have
nothing in common when it comes to a god belief as to the actual
existence of those gods. It's a bit like don't tell me, that a man was
shot between the eyes with a high powered rifle when there is no hole
between those eyes. Evidence that should be there is totally missing in
the case of a regard claimed by humanity. It takes a special perception,
which removes the requirement of objective evidence from the equation. It
makes a nice collage, but a collage is not necessarily a reflection of
reality.
> atheist and a Jewish atheist (not simultaneously) They both knew which
That could've been interesting.
> god they didn't believe in. And our subsequent re-marriages only prove
> Dr.Johnson's statement,'remarriage is the victory over hope over over
> experience.
Quite possibly, at large, humanity has a need to be loved. This would go
a long way to explain the phenomena of mythologies that are not
beneficial being so important to a large portion of humanity. I mean, how
much better can it be,.X. loves me. Not only that, he does not love you
because, you don't love him/her. Therefore, I'm going to go to a heaven
and you are going to a hell, in the case of the revealed gods of the
desert. The other mythologies, they have the other rather unpleasant
stages and, in some, you also go to hell for the judges will determine
from your life, what your punishment will be. And you will go to that
help no matter how good a person you were. The Chinese mythos is very
good when it comes to explaining why and how you will go to hell and face
the judges. Even the Emperor was subject to that, but of course, he was
automatically excluded as well. But he was subject to it, can we save
circular reasoning? Can we say wishful thinking? I can. Can you? And if
you can't, why can you not applied to your mythology as well? That is a
question only you can answer satisfactory for yourself, and I have no
burning desire to see a response going into detail as to why you must
believe as you do and others are wrong in believing as they do.
>> Rude because they don't care let alone have the courtesy to even to
>>try and find common understanding.
>
> I'm sorry if it is discourteous not to be an atheist, but thee has yet
> to prove anything to me.
Oddly enough, the majority if not an overwhelming majority don't want to
prove anything to you. You see, we are perfectly comfortable with the
idea that there are those double never truly cut the apron strings. For
them, it is extremely unlikely they ever will be able to because they
were brainwashed his children, they had a bad life and suffered a major
brain malfunction, so-called those a religious experience even stronger
than sex, or what always be afraid of life and want something for nothing
that makes them feel important.
But it would be nice if those that insist on exuding themselves into the
atheist newsgroup would realize, no, we don't need their preaching. No,
we don't need to hear their version of why the god loves the world and
yet is perfectly willing to make it suffer for eternity. We could really
care less for we have lives to live. Either were not for the so-called
religious invading the atheist newsgroup, I might actually learn things I
was never aware of. The group at large would have time to devote to
things of interest to me, instead, they have to trial version
9000,473.0050 as to why we don't believe in their silly version of a god.
You don't do this and for this, you're to be commended. But you still
share that same belief and we don't see you standing up and saying, Ivan,
that is enough, go home. This is unfortunate for you. No, I would not
expect you to subscribe to the atheist newsgroup just leave you do that,
but you are here now, and I don't see that attitude.
>>
>>Before they talk about it as though it were real, they have to
>>demonstrate that it is.
>>
>>Which is impossible because the information isn't there so instead
>>they resort to all sorts of fallacies which try to generate it out of
>>nothing.
>
> You don't know much about the Religious Society of Friends, do you?
More than I need to, they're able to support people like Richard M.
Nixon. The man with a five clock shadow, at 5:05. The majority of Quakers
I have encountered are decent people, and yet, we comes to the abuses of
the xianity at large, they are totally silent. I suppose it comes from
having lived on the reservation and watching people in white society,
those that do not oppose, support. It does not have to be financial, or
even vocal. If you do not pose a wrongdoing by people that hold the same
primary believe you do, there is no difference between you. Should you
become a crusader against people like that? No, not all. But, we do not
oppose those that are less than savory in their conduct and hiding behind
the anthology known as the xian Bible as their authority, one has to
question where do you stand on the human rights scale? Unfortunately for
Quakers, in a particular instance, very low.
>>Without realising that if they actually had this information it would
>>be the evidence required and they would need to try to argue it into
>>existence.
>>
>>>You cannot state this as fact, as there is no proof.
>>
>>What I described was fact. Not the belief ignorant
>
> No, I'm afraid it was opinion,not fact.
When something is claimed, it is immaterial as to what that something is,
and you cannot provide evidence for it. When it's something is so outside
of the natural realm as to be unbelievable to start with, then yes, that
is a fact. It's like abiogenesis, it is a fact. The how is still unknown
and argued over, but life is here and we know it comes into spontaneous
existence under the correct conditions. No, we do not see fully developed
humans, nor should we. We do not see a 50 ton shark, nor should we. But
we see life pouring where life had not been under the correct conditions.
And so far, as we have been able to determine, those conditions are
rather restrictive. Life, better than the best beer ever brewed even
though there are those such as those of the xian persuasion that think
otherwise.
>>>You give no argument of what you state, you merely make a
>>>statement with nothing to support it. You are then uncivil,
>>>impolite and rude.
>
>>In polite society they would live and let live instead of being so
>>aggressively in-your-face rudely stupid.
>
> We're in the phone book. So are plumbers. Does thee call a plumber for
> advice on a burnt light bulb?
If one is xian, quite possibly. It seems that my large, that particular
group have a rather dim grasp of what reality may be. I'm not sure
certain myself, but living in the real world, if he does not affect the
real world, then it's not reality 101.
>>Why should they expect the very courtesy they don't show us in the
>>first place?
>
> My Jewish atheist ex-husband wasn't terribly courteous, but I doubt he
> was motivated by God. His family was totally fucked, and every one of
> them was an atheist. He was bad to me not because he was born of a
> Jewish mother; you'd have to ask him.
Here I have to take your word for it. Obviously it was not good because,
you're not still there. However, like being a follower of a mythology,
being an atheist is warranty of a perfect husband or wife.
> My C of E atheist husband is courteous because he was raised to be
> polite, English gentleman, not because Jesus wanted him for a sunbeam.
Without realizing it, you just admitted that your conceptions of your
mythology influence what you expect from others. And this is perfectly
normal by the way, as an example, where I live is god soaked. People are
quite unconscious about it. As an atheist, it's a fascinating study in
abnormal psychology. But I don't expect to react to life as an atheist
would. Not that there's any one way an atheist would react to life, other
than without the supernatural baggage. Simple concepts elude them, an
extreme example, bullet, pistol, no rattlesnake. Down here may thank god
for not only providing the combination, but apparently inventing bullets.
Very strange people, some of whom are very nice people and a pleasure to
be around unless, they feel a burning need to preach.
> I wasn't always courteous to them, either. It wasn't my religion, it
> was because I'm human. So are they. We are each responsible for our
> behavior, and I expect the afterlife will be a surprise for all of us.
Especially if your presumption is in error, and as you as you sit on the
edge of your grave, you realize, you are about to return to wherever it
was you will prior to your birth. A place you have no memories of, but if
the soul is eternal, that's where you're going. I do hope it's a pleasant
place, just for your sake. Maybe it's more like Discworld than you can
imagine.
> Lizz 'be seeing you' Holmans
Not unless you want us to.
walksalone was not surprised that Liz does not understand the difference
between a welcome guest, and a pain in the ass when it comes to xians.
After all, it's part of her life, if she would not keep that part of her
life if she did not believe she was correct. And by extension, those with
similar beliefs are correct as well.
All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different
holidays. -Cathy Ladman, comedian, writer, actress (1955- )
Alex W.
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a09c5c9c-3aa9-4795...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Hi god,
With your mighty power, although you can't spare human of
their misery
of calamities, you may be able to fatten up my bank account
with one
million USD,?
I don't need to provide extra details, do I?
==================
Hi, Yap!
This is God here. Yes, I will transfer $1 million to your
account, but first I need $24,999 from you to cover
administrative fees and legal expenses. Please transfer the
money to my account at the Bank of Nigeria, and don't forget
to email me your full name, address and bank details!
Alex W.
Me:" Hi god, can you do something to help the African poor?"
Borg:" Oh yes, in due course."
Me:" What due course?"
Borg:" The course that the African will be rich one day."
Me:" Which day is it?"
Borg:" The day when they are rich !"
Me:" OK. The philosophical day."
Borg:" Right."
===========
Clearly, God is employing the trickle-down method of
creating wealth in Africa. Now that he has started by
making dictators, warlords and presidents-for-life and all
their cronies very very wealthy indeed, it won't be long
before the ordinary Africans will stop starving and begin
enjoying the wealth that God ordains for them....
Alex W.
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:23:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>If people spend time writing messages to Usenet then it
>>>is
>>>very impolite to refer to what they write as "blather".
>>>In your opinion you say you believe that God does not
>>>exist.
>>
>>Another lying theist who puts words in other people's
>>mouths.
>
> I am a Quaker. We don't put anything in anyone's mouth
> except coffee
> after Meeting for Worship. And if they don't like coffee
> (I dont like,
> me) no one is forced to drink it.
Coffee?
You approve of intoxicants?
Tsk tsk tsk ....
> I know the Big Bang is the most probable explanation for
> the start
> .I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts what neither of us can
> totally
> explain just *why* the Big Bang happened.
The difference here is that atheists realise the
pointlessness of asking "why". We accept that Shit Happens
and that not everything has reason, purpose or motive.
Conversely, if you wish to be taken seriously you ouught to
first explain why you think there needs to be a reason for
the Big Bang and, by extension, for the existence of the
universe.
.
> It looks as though nothing
> can create something in atheism, which takes more
> gullibility whan
> something came from something. Have you, yourself, ever
> seen something
> come out of nothing? Absolutely nothing,completely there,
> not even a
> speck. at absolute zero? Neither have I, yet we both agree
> than the
> Universe got here somehow.. Prove to me not that it
> started, but how
> something can come from something.Do it in front of a
> whole lot of
> people, theists, atheists, whatever flavor you choose.
It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
same explanation for God.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Why does the imbecile imagine origins sscienceisd anythingtodo with
atheism or vice versa?
She's not usually that stupid.
>> It looks as though nothing
>> can create something in atheism, which takes more
Is she really this stupid?
DAVID GREENE
"BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote:
> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The Root of All Evil?
>>
>> "Religion as the root of all evil"
>>
>> Logically incongruous.
>
> Not really if you think of it.
> God is not the problem, religion is the problem. It is religion that
> causes the evil and not God.
Or maybe people are the problem. It is not likely that any intelligent
thinking person could blame all current "evil" on religion. Maybe even
evolution is the problem as evil often seems to have some survival value
whether under the guise of religion or not. Or maybe Capitalism or
Communism or whatever, take your pick I pick people; especially thought
cops who want to guide "proper thinking" and I would include both Dawkins
and Hitchins along with the Pope in that group. Maybe there is indeed
original sin after all!
Dave Greene
Puck Greenman
>If someone had predicted thirty years ago that �gay� marriage would be
>legalized in some American states (and all across Canada), many in the
>church would have scoffed at the possibility.
>
>If someone had predicted sixty years ago that prayer, Bible reading
>and creation would be thrown out of America�s public schools, well,
>most in the church back then would have also thought it to be
>ridiculous.
>
>But � they have happened!
>
>Now, what if I said the following?
>
>If America continues on its present course of abandoning the absolute
>authority of the Word of God�and teaching generations of students that
>they are the result of random natural processes�Christians who teach
>their children to believe that God created in six days will have those
>same children taken away � and the parents will be arrested for �child
>abuse.�
>
>Would you scoff and say, �That could never happen here?� Would you
>think that I�m just overreacting?
>
>Friend, that day may be closer than you think! In a TV program
>broadcast1 recently throughout the United Kingdom (and no doubt soon
>to be shown on American television as well), the world�s leading
>spokesperson on evolution, atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford
>University, made these remarkable and shocking statements:
>
>I�m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I
>want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and
>infects generation after generation �
>
>It�s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with
>superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how
>the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel
>and brutish.
>
>What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible]
>that contains such stuff?
>
>The raving continues
>
>After saying that religion is a form of child abuse, Dawkins� tirade
>(he became very angry at times on the program) against Christianity
>did not wane:
>
>The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant
>character in all fiction�jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive,
>unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on
>to acts of genocide. �
>
>When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus.
>It�s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy,
>but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild.
>Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of
>religion...
>
Sounds about right.
>Dear Dr Dawkins; You ask �Isn�t it a form of child abuse to label
>children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have
>thought about?�
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0306lead.asp
>http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/the-dawkins-letters-10-childhood-abuse-and-gap.htm
Answers in Genesis, and David Robertson.
What a nutty combination.
DougC
> �It is not likely that any intelligent
> thinking person could blame all current "evil" on religion.
There are no intelligent thinking persons among the religious
fundamentalists.
Doug Chandler
DAVID GREENE
Well, most religious people are not fundamentalists. And maybe most
fundamentalists are not intelligent thinking persons. However, your
dogmatic statement does not seem to be very bright either. Regardless,
there is a lot of evil having nothing to do with religion. One example
among many would be Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Dave Greene
Lizz Holmans
At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
skeptical of atheism as well as theism. When it gets right down to it,
neither of us can prove our theses. And where would we be as a species
if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant. Apparently any
attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
handlers is now forbidden. . And some of us are generous enough to
allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
accept that I have the right to mine.
Well, I was brought up to be a lady, because gentlemen have all the
fun, so I don't usually engage in invective. But I am here, I have
been here since 1994, I've heard all the insults, endured the moronic
'You're stoopid!' because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ,
and I'm not going anywhere. When either of us can conjure something
out of nothing, it should be good fun. Till then I'm going to annoy
the hell out of thee by loving the Light of Christ Within thee and
there's not much thee can do about it. Nanny nanny boo boo.
And don't worry, Christopher Lee, thee is as rude as ever. God is is
big Entity who can defend Hirself.
Lizz 'some things *are* eternal' Holmans
Christopher A. Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:48:49 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
>>>same explanation for God.
>
>At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
>The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
>skeptical of atheism as well as theism. When it gets right down to it,
>neither of us can prove our theses. And where would we be as a species
>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
Anybody who is "skeptical of atheism" is a fucking moron because
there's nothing to be skeptical about.
Are they also "skeptical of not believing tn the fairies at the bottom
of the garden"?
Because there's no difference.
You know better than that because you've been around alt.atheism off
and on for years.
So why not at least try to show a smidgin of honesty?
Lizz Holmans
I'm afraid that amongst business people Quakers have a reputation for
honesty because Jesus told us that there shouldn't be two standards of
truth. It's an averah to tell a lie, even if it would benefit us. Look
into the history of Cadbury's or Fry's Chocolate,or the Underground
Railroad, female suffrage, and work for peace..We do not take oaths
because we should always be honest. It's for everyday use, not for
special occasions. Yes, there are bad Quakers, like Richard Nixon.
That's because we have free will and can choose how to behave. Nixon
gave up his Quakerism to serve in the armed services during World War
Two. He chose a different path, and too many people paid for it. I
think we can agree that his Quaker upbringing is evidence that people
do stupid stuff, religious or not. Read up on Herbert Hoover, who was
also a Quaker. He was a good Quaker, but a bad president. He also
attempted to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize when it was given to the
Quakers for their work with displaced people.He said we were just
doing our job
I've not been around alt.atheism. I remain in sci.skeptic because I
was trained in science. I reconcile the two because it makes sense to
,me. The fact that it drives you crazy that I can be a scientist and
religious is not my problem. . Deal with it. Killfile me if you like,
because if it's not in sci.skeptic thee won't see a word from me.. I
only deal with alt.atheists when it is cross posted. I don't go
looking for thee, and I don't proselytize. Thee certainly can't say
the same. I'm also a Liberal Democrat. That'll I'll proselytize for.
Improved health care for everyone is one of my Concerns. I needn't be
one of thine.
In general, I find people to be a pleasant species and am proud to be
a part of it, even though elephants may be more intelligent and
scarlet macaws definitely more beautiful.But here I stand; I can do no
other.I will not be forced into atheism any more than I would be
forced into fundamentalism of any kind. People are for healing, not
for killing.
Lizz 'now go be a good boy and fuck off' Holmans
Christopher A. Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:59:43 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0100, Lizz Holmans
>><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>>Anybody who is "skeptical of atheism" is a fucking moron because
>>there's nothing to be skeptical about.
>>
>>Are they also "skeptical of not believing tn the fairies at the bottom
>>of the garden"?
>>
>>Because there's no difference.
Couldn't answer this?
Are you really, honestly so stupid to understand that the
presumptions you use to invent positions for us we don't have, don't
even apply outside your religion?
WHICH IS WHERE YOU ARE NOW.
>>You know better than that because you've been around alt.atheism off
>>and on for years.
>>
>>So why not at least try to show a smidgin of honesty?
Well?
>I'm afraid that amongst business people Quakers have a reputation for
>honesty because Jesus told us that there shouldn't be two standards of
You certainly don't.
And your Jesus is utterly irrelevant to the audience you have been
lying about.
>truth. It's an averah to tell a lie, even if it would benefit us. Look
So why do you?
>into the history of Cadbury's or Fry's Chocolate,or the Underground
>Railroad, female suffrage, and work for peace..We do not take oaths
>because we should always be honest.
But not honest enough to admit your misrepresentation of atheists.
> It's for everyday use, not for
>special occasions. Yes, there are bad Quakers, like Richard Nixon.
>That's because we have free will and can choose how to behave. Nixon
>gave up his Quakerism to serve in the armed services during World War
>Two. He chose a different path, and too many people paid for it. I
>think we can agree that his Quaker upbringing is evidence that people
>do stupid stuff, religious or not. Read up on Herbert Hoover, who was
>also a Quaker. He was a good Quaker, but a bad president. He also
>attempted to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize when it was given to the
>Quakers for their work with displaced people.He said we were just
>doing our job
Yet you don't mind misrepresenting atheism to atheists, as well as
rudely and stupidly talking at us as though your religious paradigm
applied to us.
>I've not been around alt.atheism. I remain in sci.skeptic because I
You've been cross-posting here on and off for years.
>was trained in science. I reconcile the two because it makes sense to
>,me. The fact that it drives you crazy that I can be a scientist and
>religious is not my problem. .
It doesn't, liar. Your stupid pretence that there is anything about
atheism to be skeptical about, is the problem.
> Deal with it.
Deal with your pig-ignorance and dishonesty?
Quakers are supposed to be better than that.
> Killfile me if you like,
>because if it's not in sci.skeptic thee won't see a word from me.. I
>only deal with alt.atheists when it is cross posted. I don't go
When you imagine you get to invent positions they don't have, to
attack. Based on nothing more than your inability to grasp that your
religious presumptions only apply inside your religion.
>looking for thee, and I don't proselytize. Thee certainly can't say
>the same.
Another of your lies.
I correct assholes like you when they misrepresent atheists. Or when
they rudely and stupidly presume their beliefs apply to everybody else
outside their religion.
Are you even capable of grasping the difference?
> I'm also a Liberal Democrat. That'll I'll proselytize for.
>Improved health care for everyone is one of my Concerns. I needn't be
>one of thine.
Yet you're not sufficiently skeptic to admit your misrepresentation of
atheists, to atheists might be wrong?
>In general, I find people to be a pleasant species and am proud to be
>a part of it, even though elephants may be more intelligent and
>scarlet macaws definitely more beautiful.But here I stand; I can do no
>other.I will not be forced into atheism any more than I would be
>forced into fundamentalism of any kind. People are for healing, not
>for killing.
Nobody is trying to do that, imbecile.
Just to get you to stop misrepresenting us.
>Lizz 'now go be a good boy and fuck off' Holmans
What a fucking hypocrite.
John Baker
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:48:49 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
>>>same explanation for God.
>
>At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
>The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
>skeptical of atheism as well as theism. When it gets right down to it,
>neither of us can prove our theses.
If I say I don't believe in the existence of elves, fairies, unicorns,
ghosts, etc., is it incumbent upon me to prove there aren't any, or is
it up to those who *do* believe in such things to prove there are?
Atheists, most of us anyway, make no claims of our own regarding the
existence of a god or gods. We merely reject the unproven claims made
by theists. Theists say a god exists. We say we don't believe them.
It's as simple as that. We have nothing to prove. Theists, on the
other hand, have their work cut out for them.
>And where would we be as a species
>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
We'd probably still be huddled in our caves imagining all sorts of
nasties lurking beyond the feeble glow of our fires. Psychologically
and intellectually, many of us still are.
>
>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant.
Skepticism isn't about challenging what you don't personally agree
with. It's about questioning claims and/or beliefs that lack a solid
foundation. There's no logical justification for questioning a *lack*
of belief, be it in elves, fairies, gods or what have you, when no
real evidence exists to support the belief.
>Apparently any
>attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
>handlers is now forbidden.
Not all theists are morons by any means. However, the ones who aren't
morons are also not inclined to troll alt.atheism trying to prove how
"superior" they are, so it's mostly the idiots we see here.
And let's face it. With "friends" like Earl Weber, Jon Young, Peter
Wicks, Antonio Santana and John McCoy to name just a few, theists
don't need any enemies. <G>
>. And some of us are generous enough to
>allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
>accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
>accept that I have the right to mine.
>
>Well, I was brought up to be a lady, because gentlemen have all the
>fun, so I don't usually engage in invective. But I am here, I have
>been here since 1994, I've heard all the insults, endured the moronic
>'You're stoopid!' because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ,
>and I'm not going anywhere. When either of us can conjure something
>out of nothing, it should be good fun. Till then I'm going to annoy
>the hell out of thee by loving the Light of Christ Within thee and
>there's not much thee can do about it. Nanny nanny boo boo.
>And don't worry, Christopher Lee, thee is as rude as ever. God is is
>big Entity who can defend Hirself.
>
>Lizz 'some things *are* eternal' Holmans
Lizz, I've been reading your posts for years, and I've always felt
that you're one of the few theists who post in alt.atheism whom I
could respect. Even though I think you're off base here, that hasn't
changed.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0100, Lizz Holmans
><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:48:49 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
>>>>same explanation for God.
>>
>>At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
>>The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
>>skeptical of atheism as well as theism. When it gets right down to it,
>>neither of us can prove our theses.
What thesis is she pretending we can't prove?
What is there about atheism to be skeptical of?
It's merely not sharing the theist's belief about something that has
no meaning outside the theist's religious paradigm.
I've never understood why even suppsedly intelligent theists can't
grasp that people outside their religion can't be described in the
real world outside their religion, by inside-the religion presumptions
that don't even apply to them.
Let alone the positions they invent using the same presumptions which
still don't apply to them.
>If I say I don't believe in the existence of elves, fairies, unicorns,
>ghosts, etc., is it incumbent upon me to prove there aren't any, or is
>it up to those who *do* believe in such things to prove there are?
Coming from sci.skeptic one might have expected her to understand
this.
>Atheists, most of us anyway, make no claims of our own regarding the
>existence of a god or gods. We merely reject the unproven claims made
>by theists. Theists say a god exists. We say we don't believe them.
>It's as simple as that. We have nothing to prove. Theists, on the
>other hand, have their work cut out for them.
She is supposed to know this.
>>And where would we be as a species
>>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
>
>We'd probably still be huddled in our caves imagining all sorts of
>nasties lurking beyond the feeble glow of our fires. Psychologically
>and intellectually, many of us still are.
>
>>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant.
What "conceptions" does the imbecile imagine she's challenging?
If she doesn't want to be treated as a fucking moron she shouldn't
misrepresent atheists and atheism, cross-posting it to alt.atheism.
>Skepticism isn't about challenging what you don't personally agree
>with. It's about questioning claims and/or beliefs that lack a solid
>foundation. There's no logical justification for questioning a *lack*
>of belief, be it in elves, fairies, gods or what have you, when no
>real evidence exists to support the belief.
It surprised me when she got it wrong. I expected she knew better.
>>Apparently any
>>attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
>>handlers is now forbidden.
>Not all theists are morons by any means. However, the ones who aren't
>morons are also not inclined to troll alt.atheism trying to prove how
>"superior" they are, so it's mostly the idiots we see here.
Those stupid enough to imagine there is anything in the exact
equivalent of not believing in the Loch Ness Monster, to be skeptical
about, are.
>And let's face it. With "friends" like Earl Weber, Jon Young, Peter
>Wicks, Antonio Santana and John McCoy to name just a few, theists
>don't need any enemies. <G>
>
>>. And some of us are generous enough to
>>allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
>>accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
>>accept that I have the right to mine.
Why did she pretend that there is anything about the exact equivalent
of not believing in pixies, to be skeptical about?
I had previously thought she was one of the few theists intelligent
enough to realise that TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE HER RELIGION, it is merely
what somebody else believes.
>>Well, I was brought up to be a lady, because gentlemen have all the
>>fun, so I don't usually engage in invective. But I am here, I have
>>been here since 1994, I've heard all the insults, endured the moronic
>>'You're stoopid!' because I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ,
That is not why you're stupid, liar. Why do you pretend it is?
You're stupid because you misrepresent atheists by pretending there is
anything about atheism to be skeptical of.
You're stupid because you rudely presume your beliefs are real to
people outside your religion.
>>and I'm not going anywhere. When either of us can conjure something
>>out of nothing, it should be good fun. Till then I'm going to annoy
>>the hell out of thee by loving the Light of Christ Within thee and
More question begging rudeness and stupidity.
>>there's not much thee can do about it. Nanny nanny boo boo.
>>And don't worry, Christopher Lee, thee is as rude as ever. God is is
And you weren't rude yourself?
Why do so many Christians turn into whining hypocrites when they reap
what they sow? Especially when they are supposed to turn the other
cheek?
>>big Entity who can defend Hirself.
If and when you can demonstrate its existence outside your deluded
fantasies.
Hint: this substitutiuon to show how your audience sees it woiuldn't
even have been necessary if you had any common sense or courtesy.
>>Lizz 'some things *are* eternal' Holmans
>
>Lizz, I've been reading your posts for years, and I've always felt
>that you're one of the few theists who post in alt.atheism whom I
>could respect. Even though I think you're off base here, that hasn't
>changed.
That's why she surprised me.
She deserves no respect for her remarks about atheists, the outright
lies in her subsequent responses and her question-begging.
John Baker
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Have you been there lately? <G>
Not surprising, though, when you consider that sci.skeptic was created
to begin with to serve as a sort of "kook trap" to lure the loons,
wackos, woowoos and idiots away from the *real* science groups.
Unfortunately, as anyone who's spent any time in the serious science
groups can attest, it doesn't work very well...
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Only when stuff has been cross posted.
I used to frequent talk.origins until it got too polluted. A cow-orker
was one of the regular loonies and I followed him from an internal
company bulleting board.
After nearly 20 years on Usenet I have a low bullshit threshold and
see no reason to put up with stupidity. And on alt.atheism I'm not
going to be an Uncle Tom.
Before I emigrated to the US, I rarely came across anybody who was
rude enough to tell me what my POV was - and when they did that
especially after correction they got treated as jerks. Because
religion and even the lack of it was one's own personal business.
But then most people seemed to understand what an atheist was, unlike
in the USA. Plenty of people simply weren't raised as theist and
don't have anything to believe doesn't exist. And far more theists
realise this than here.
>Not surprising, though, when you consider that sci.skeptic was created
>to begin with to serve as a sort of "kook trap" to lure the loons,
>wackos, woowoos and idiots away from the *real* science groups.
>
>Unfortunately, as anyone who's spent any time in the serious science
>groups can attest, it doesn't work very well...
I had a friend back in England who started off normally but had a
brain tumor. The treatment worked but led to severing pathways between
the left and right hemispheres.
Over the time he became wildly, unthinkingly impractical and supremely
overconfident about crackpot ideas. But you don't drop friends just
because of problems, and I used to stop off on my visits back home.
Unfortunately he died in the late 1990s. The last time I saw him he
thought he had discovered a way to modulate gravity. When I asked him
how, he "explained" that acceleration was gravity. I just couldn't get
through to him. All he needed were people open-minded enough to help
him with the math and help him to build a prototype.
UncleEnglish
All the same, I remember going to my second school in a small village.
Because of my Dad's police job, we moved about a bit, so I attended a
sucession of schools. They were half way through the Catechism, a Q &
A book on religion, when I was about 7 or 8 years old, though, because
I easily remembered the stuff, I, ironically, kept getting asked
whether I knew what I was talking about! Ironically - because I
didn't!
--
UncleEnglish.
stoney
<8ouj359elkj2831k6...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:48:49 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
>>>same explanation for God.
>
>At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
>The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
>skeptical of atheism as well as theism.
Hi, Liz! Long time no see. Hope all is well.
What is there to be skeptical of the lack of theism/theos? All an
atheist is is a person who isn't a theist. That's it. The only
difference between an atheist and yourself is the lack of belief in your
deity, as well.
>When it gets right down to it, neither of us can prove our theses.
The thesis is for the theist as is the burden of proof-if said theist
expects others outside their superstition to embrace it. There's
nothing to prove about the lack of theism.
>And where would we be as a species
>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
Not all questions are valid.
>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant. Apparently any
>attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
>handlers is now forbidden. . And some of us are generous enough to
>allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
>accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
>accept that I have the right to mine.
I've no idea what the above and the snipped stuff below was derived from
so I'll end this post. /wave
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Message ID:
<ofek3590tk043d322...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:59:43 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0100, Lizz Holmans
>><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>>Anybody who is "skeptical of atheism" is a fucking moron because
>>there's nothing to be skeptical about.
>>
>>Are they also "skeptical of not believing tn the fairies at the bottom
>>of the garden"?
>>
>>Because there's no difference.
>>
>>You know better than that because you've been around alt.atheism off
>>and on for years.
>>
>>So why not at least try to show a smidgin of honesty?
>
>I'm afraid that amongst business people Quakers have a reputation for
>honesty because Jesus told us that there shouldn't be two standards of
>truth.
'Jesus' was a lying hypocrite.
> It's an averah to tell a lie, even if it would benefit us. Look
>into the history of Cadbury's or Fry's Chocolate,or the Underground
>Railroad, female suffrage, and work for peace..We do not take oaths
>because we should always be honest. It's for everyday use, not for
>special occasions.
That's something I find amusing. If a person's habit is to lie, their
taking an 'oath' is meaningless. If a person's habit is to tell the
truth, their taking an 'oath' is meaningless.
>Yes, there are bad Quakers, like Richard Nixon.
>That's because we have free will and can choose how to behave. Nixon
>gave up his Quakerism to serve in the armed services during World War
>Two. He chose a different path, and too many people paid for it. I
>think we can agree that his Quaker upbringing is evidence that people
>do stupid stuff, religious or not. Read up on Herbert Hoover, who was
>also a Quaker. He was a good Quaker, but a bad president. He also
>attempted to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize when it was given to the
>Quakers for their work with displaced people.He said we were just
>doing our job.
The job of human compassion? [Which, all too often, seems to be
lacking].
>I've not been around alt.atheism. I remain in sci.skeptic because I
>was trained in science. I reconcile the two because it makes sense to
>,me.
What type of science-if I may ask?
Your religious stance is, of course, yours. You mention reconciling the
two. With them being diametric opposites I don't see how that's
possible-unless you're using a very limited and very general approach of
theism.
>The fact that it drives you crazy that I can be a scientist and
>religious is not my problem. . Deal with it. Killfile me if you like,
>because if it's not in sci.skeptic thee won't see a word from me.. I
>only deal with alt.atheists when it is cross posted. I don't go
>looking for thee, and I don't proselytize. Thee certainly can't say
>the same. I'm also a Liberal Democrat. That'll I'll proselytize for.
>Improved health care for everyone is one of my Concerns. I needn't be
>one of thine.
>
>In general, I find people to be a pleasant species and am proud to be
>a part of it, even though elephants may be more intelligent and
>scarlet macaws definitely more beautiful.But here I stand; I can do no
>other.I will not be forced into atheism any more than I would be
>forced into fundamentalism of any kind.
Ah, but you are atheist with regard to all other deity constructs other
than your own.
>People are for healing, not for killing.
Sadly, some cannot be healed.
>Lizz 'now go be a good boy and fuck off' Holmans
ROFLMAO!!!!!
You might find these interesting. The first two are acrylics while the
rest are oils.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f01435cbe1802cfb2fb2ca15d7ea42d9e04e75f6e8ebb871
Cheers
Lizz Holmans
>Hi, Liz! Long time no see. Hope all is well.
Hey, Stony! It's been a while, but I have a Real Life I have to tend
to every now and then. And I was lucky enough to get swine flu--no
remarks now, it can happen to anyone. And I did get a flu vaccination,
it just happened to be for the Wrong Kind of Flu.
>
>What is there to be skeptical of the lack of theism/theos? All an
>atheist is is a person who isn't a theist. That's it. The only
>difference between an atheist and yourself is the lack of belief in your
>deity, as well.
Well, you know that and I know that, but we're old sparring partners
>
>>When it gets right down to it, neither of us can prove our theses.
>
>The thesis is for the theist as is the burden of proof-if said theist
>expects others outside their superstition to embrace it. There's
>nothing to prove about the lack of theism
I was just asking how something so wonderful as the Universe,
leopards, white roses (they have the sweetest scent).
>
>>And where would we be as a species
>>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
>
>Not all questions are valid.
If we had never asked why, we lose our base of reality. Your base and
my base are called different name.
>
>>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant. Apparently any
>>attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
>>handlers is now forbidden. . And some of us are generous enough to
>>allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
>>accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
>>accept that I have the right to mine.
>
>I've no idea what the above and the snipped stuff below was derived from
>so I'll end this post. /wave
You didn't miss much. Stay well.dear heart--the flu going around may
not be as severe as other flus, but it'll do.Not much coughing, but 5
solid days of feeling like shit. I'm over it now, just dealing with
post-flu fatigue and 2 greedy cats. Hey, all my kids are over 18
now--I have become the mother of men.
Lizz 'Come see us sometime--you and my caro sposo can discuss atheism
and I'll make tea and giggle under my breath' Holmans
Lizz Holmans
I was an R.N, so stuff like biology, microbiologhy, anatomy and
physiology (a little Vick's Vapo-Rub helps with the smell)' , and
other stuff--Jeez, don't remind me how long ago I was when I can't be
any older than 23.
>
>Your religious stance is, of course, yours. You mention reconciling the
>two. With them being diametric opposites I don't see how that's
>possible-unless you're using a very limited and very general approach of
>theism.
Being a Quaker isnt' just about the cookies, y'know.
>
>>The fact that it drives you crazy that I can be a scientist and
>>religious is not my problem. . Deal with it. Killfile me if you like,
>>because if it's not in sci.skeptic thee won't see a word from me.. I
>>only deal with alt.atheists when it is cross posted. I don't go
>>looking for thee, and I don't proselytize. Thee certainly can't say
>>the same. I'm also a Liberal Democrat. That'll I'll proselytize for.
>>Improved health care for everyone is one of my Concerns. I needn't be
>>one of thine.
>>>>In general, I find people to be a pleasant species and am proud to be
>>a part of it, even though elephants may be more intelligent and
>>scarlet macaws definitely more beautiful.But here I stand; I can do no
>>other.I will not be forced into atheism any more than I would be
>>forced into fundamentalism of any kind.
>
>Ah, but you are atheist with regard to all other deity constructs other
>than your own
Pas necessaire, mon ami. We don't make judgements.
>
>>People are for healing, not for killing.
>
>Sadly, some cannot be healed.
>
>>Lizz 'now go be a good boy and fuck off' Holmans
>
>ROFLMAO!!!!!
>
>You might find these interesting. The first two are acrylics while the
>rest are oils.
>
>http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f01435cbe1802cfb2fb2ca15d7ea42d9e04e75f6e8ebb871
That's some nice work. I didn't know thee was so gifted.
Lizz 'I love a man that can work with his hands' Holmans
stoney
Message ID: <i8vk359med4ebgio3...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:06:34 +0100, Lizz Holmans
><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:48:49 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>It would be an equally neat trick if you could offer the
>>>>same explanation for God.
>>
>>At last we agree on something. It would be a good trick either way.
>>The difference I am sitting in sci.skeptic, where it's allowed to be
>>skeptical of atheism as well as theism. When it gets right down to it,
>>neither of us can prove our theses.
>
>If I say I don't believe in the existence of elves, fairies, unicorns,
>ghosts, etc., is it incumbent upon me to prove there aren't any, or is
>it up to those who *do* believe in such things to prove there are?
Yes, if they expect you to join them. If their belief is internalized {
I believe rather than the flat statement "God exists."} then they do
not.
>Atheists, most of us anyway, make no claims of our own regarding the
>existence of a god or gods. We merely reject the unproven claims made
>by theists. Theists say a god exists. We say we don't believe them.
>It's as simple as that. We have nothing to prove. Theists, on the
>other hand, have their work cut out for them.
The statement "God doesn't exist" can be made, and objectively supported
via multiple avenues. It can also be flat stated in the same way
theists talk about things they do not believe in.
>>And where would we be as a species
>>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
>
>We'd probably still be huddled in our caves imagining all sorts of
>nasties lurking beyond the feeble glow of our fires. Psychologically
>and intellectually, many of us still are.
Sadly enough. :\
>>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant.
>
>Skepticism isn't about challenging what you don't personally agree
>with. It's about questioning claims and/or beliefs that lack a solid
>foundation. There's no logical justification for questioning a *lack*
>of belief, be it in elves, fairies, gods or what have you, when no
>real evidence exists to support the belief.
Real=objective. Belief is only required where facts are lacking.
Alex W.
"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:o09q359mj38e3b6av...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:05:36 -0400, John Baker
> <nu...@bizniz.net>,
> Message ID: <i8vk359med4ebgio3...@4ax.com>
> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
>>Skepticism isn't about challenging what you don't
>>personally agree
>>with. It's about questioning claims and/or beliefs that
>>lack a solid
>>foundation. There's no logical justification for
>>questioning a *lack*
>>of belief, be it in elves, fairies, gods or what have you,
>>when no
>>real evidence exists to support the belief.
>
> Real=objective. Belief is only required where facts are
> lacking.
Disagree, sort of.
To start with, there are realities which are not objective.
Emotional reality is anything but objective.
Then, facts by themselves may have a real and objective
existence but may also be meaningless without interpretation
and context, both of which may introduce subjectivity.
Thus, we may know all the facts about a crime, but without
interpretaiton and contet there may not be an understanding
of the causes and motivations, let alone its importance for
other areas of the human experience or other facts.
To assume that facts are in themselves sufficient to explain
and describe reality is a grave mistake.
duke
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 4:46�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and
>> >presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that humanity would
>> >be better off without religion or belief in God.
>>
>> Our God is a God of love. � Man is a murdering creature. �So you tell me. �
>Why would a God create a murdering creature and if he had some
>justifiable reason for doing so why would he/it let the man continue
>murderin?
Mankind is meant to grow. Many have grown and will spend all eternity with God.
Many have not and many more will not. Those are bound for hell.
>
>(1) In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created
>he him.
>
>(2) And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord
>over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
>
>(3) And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on
>his God and saw that it was good.
>
>(4) And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of
>others likened unto his kind.
>
>(5) And these lesser men Man did cast into the void. And some were
>burned; and some were put apart from their kind.
>
>(6) And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles
>did rule over all the earth.
>
>(7) But as all these things did come to pass, the Spirit that did
>cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within
>Aqualung.
>
>(8) And man saw it not.
>
>(9) But for Christ's sake he'd better start looking.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
stoney
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Message ID:
<qfep359s7o8hnpjip...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:24:12 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:52:08 +0100, Lizz Holmans
>><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Message ID:
>><ofek3590tk043d322...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
[]
>>>I've not been around alt.atheism. I remain in sci.skeptic because I
>>>was trained in science. I reconcile the two because it makes sense to
>>>,me.
>>
>>What type of science-if I may ask?
>
>I was an R.N, so stuff like biology, microbiologhy, anatomy and
>physiology (a little Vick's Vapo-Rub helps with the smell)' , and
>other stuff--Jeez, don't remind me how long ago I was when I can't be
>any older than 23.
Ah, the healing arts. So, you're a recycled teenager as I am. ;)
>>Your religious stance is, of course, yours. You mention reconciling the
>>two. With them being diametric opposites I don't see how that's
>>possible-unless you're using a very limited and very general approach of
>>theism.
>
>Being a Quaker isnt' just about the cookies, y'know.
Didn't say it was. I see the question made you uncomfortable.
Unfortunate and such was not my intention. I was curious how you
reconciled the two. You decline to answer, which is your perogitive.
>>>The fact that it drives you crazy that I can be a scientist and
>>>religious is not my problem. . Deal with it. Killfile me if you like,
>>>because if it's not in sci.skeptic thee won't see a word from me.. I
>>>only deal with alt.atheists when it is cross posted. I don't go
>>>looking for thee, and I don't proselytize. Thee certainly can't say
>>>the same. I'm also a Liberal Democrat. That'll I'll proselytize for.
>>>Improved health care for everyone is one of my Concerns. I needn't be
>>>one of thine.
>>>>>In general, I find people to be a pleasant species and am proud to be
>>>a part of it, even though elephants may be more intelligent and
>>>scarlet macaws definitely more beautiful.But here I stand; I can do no
>>>other.I will not be forced into atheism any more than I would be
>>>forced into fundamentalism of any kind.
>>
>>Ah, but you are atheist with regard to all other deity constructs other
>>than your own
>
>Pas necessaire, mon ami. We don't make judgements.
I didn't say anything about judgement. You lack belief in all other
deity constructs that aren't your own. The difference between you and I
is I lack belief in your deity construct as well.
>>>People are for healing, not for killing.
>>
>>Sadly, some cannot be healed.
>>
>>>Lizz 'now go be a good boy and fuck off' Holmans
>>
>>ROFLMAO!!!!!
>>
>>You might find these interesting. The first two are acrylics while the
>>rest are oils.
>>
>>http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f01435cbe1802cfb2fb2ca15d7ea42d9e04e75f6e8ebb871
>
>That's some nice work. I didn't know thee was so gifted.
No gift involved. Lots of hard work learning to get to this point, but
Thank you.
'Turquoise Sea' was originally done circa 1870 by Albert Bierstadt.
'The Shy Peasant' was originally done circa 1875 by Russian Master Ilya
Repin.
>Lizz 'I love a man that can work with his hands' Holmans
[chuckling] /cue 'Magic Man' by Heart?
stoney
Message ID: <7a5d4nF...@mid.individual.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>news:o09q359mj38e3b6av...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:05:36 -0400, John Baker
>> <nu...@bizniz.net>,
>> Message ID: <i8vk359med4ebgio3...@4ax.com>
>> wrote in
>> alt.atheism;
>
>
>>>Skepticism isn't about challenging what you don't
>>>personally agree
>>>with. It's about questioning claims and/or beliefs that
>>>lack a solid
>>>foundation. There's no logical justification for
>>>questioning a *lack*
>>>of belief, be it in elves, fairies, gods or what have you,
>>>when no
>>>real evidence exists to support the belief.
>>
>> Real=objective. Belief is only required where facts are
>> lacking.
>
>Disagree, sort of.
>
>To start with, there are realities which are not objective.
>Emotional reality is anything but objective.
Yes, but the topic here deals with the subject of theism. Clergy is
well aware they've zero facts. Such is why they've elevated faith and
belief to a 'virtue.'
>Then, facts by themselves may have a real and objective
>existence but may also be meaningless without interpretation
>and context, both of which may introduce subjectivity.
>Thus, we may know all the facts about a crime, but without
>interpretaiton and contet there may not be an understanding
>of the causes and motivations, let alone its importance for
>other areas of the human experience or other facts.
Again, that is a different subject, but to address your points:
That said crime was committed by said individual is a given. The
unearthing of other pertinent factors can have a positive or negative
effect on the final determination for the penalty phase.
>To assume that facts are in themselves sufficient to explain
>and describe reality is a grave mistake.
Then there is no depiction of reality as there's no error correction
mechanism. One can only do the best they can with the data on hand.
Future learning will cause changes in thought.
stoney
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Message ID:
<o4dp3519q56jql2uc...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:57:01 -0700, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi, Liz! Long time no see. Hope all is well.
>
>Hey, Stony! It's been a while, but I have a Real Life I have to tend
>to every now and then. And I was lucky enough to get swine flu--no
>remarks now, it can happen to anyone. And I did get a flu vaccination,
>it just happened to be for the Wrong Kind of Flu.
RL, yep. All sorts of things going on which have to be tended to.
Nah, I wouldn't make a crack on a subject like that. Glad you shrugged
it off swiftly. Look at the bright side-you're not in Dunoon, Scotland.
That area has a large concentration of S.F., victims.
>>What is there to be skeptical of the lack of theism/theos? All an
>>atheist is is a person who isn't a theist. That's it. The only
>>difference between an atheist and yourself is the lack of belief in your
>>deity, as well.
>
>Well, you know that and I know that, but we're old sparring partners
>>
>>>When it gets right down to it, neither of us can prove our theses.
>>
>>The thesis is for the theist as is the burden of proof-if said theist
>>expects others outside their superstition to embrace it. There's
>>nothing to prove about the lack of theism
>
>I was just asking how something so wonderful as the Universe,
>leopards, white roses (they have the sweetest scent).
Current objective evidence points to a singularity. No need for stone
and bronze age superstitions. The universe is immical to all life.
Humans, and all other life on this planet, are in an 'oasis.' As for
leopards and white roses-they evolved into their niches.
>>>And where would we be as a species
>>>if occasionally someone didn't ask why?
>>
>>Not all questions are valid.
>
>If we had never asked why, we lose our base of reality. Your base and
>my base are called different name.
Again, not all questions are valid. The theist base of reality would be
classified in the Fiction, Fantasy, Pornography and Horror categories.
Regardless of your 'base of reality;' if you were to step three metres
in front of a swift and heavilly loaded lorry-you would be run over. So
much for your 'reality.'
>>>If you don't want your conceptions to be challenged, don't cross post
>>>to sci.skeptic. I thought that's what skepticism meant. Apparently any
>>>attempt to demonstrate that theists are not all mouth-breathing snake
>>>handlers is now forbidden. . And some of us are generous enough to
>>>allow atheists are not all befanged bloodsuckers. I am willing to
>>>accept your right to your opinion, but you seem curiously reluctant to
>>>accept that I have the right to mine.
>>
>>I've no idea what the above and the snipped stuff below was derived from
>>so I'll end this post. /wave
>
>You didn't miss much. Stay well.dear heart--the flu going around may
>not be as severe as other flus, but it'll do.Not much coughing, but 5
>solid days of feeling like shit. I'm over it now, just dealing with
>post-flu fatigue and 2 greedy cats. Hey, all my kids are over 18
>now--I have become the mother of men.
Well? Forlorn hope, here. I haven't been well since Nov. 1984 and
never will be so again. All the coughing keeps popping rib and chest
internal scar tissue. The pain reminds me I'm alive.
{Stephen King would *love* my medical records}
>Lizz 'Come see us sometime--you and my caro sposo can discuss atheism
>and I'll make tea and giggle under my breath' Holmans
You never know. Perhaps one day I'll again stroll around in the UK. :)
And, yes, I still can shift a manual transmission with my left-hand.