Re: Why should atheism be the default position?
J D@home.com Mark J D
>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
would actually read as follows:
>> But
[[[...now that science has looked on mountaintops and above the clouds, and
out into space,
and not found the Jehovah that the ancient Jews heard and saw and spoke to,
we've had to
re-define God in a way that explains why he wasn't anywhere we looked;
therefore we now
insist that...]]]
>> "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing
>> alongside other objects in the world
[[[...Because if we continued to say what we always used to say, we'd now
have to regard
God as a failed hypothesis, and give it up as a silly idea. And we simply
can't do that...]]].
HTH...
M.
PG
K24Wm.3593$2u1....@newsfe16.ams2...
Exactly. I've been saying as much on the Christian ng ukrc for a while, and
it irks them of course. I usually receive a flow of ad hominems in response
from fundies, or am told by liberals that scripture was only allegorical in
the first place (my translation : 'pick 'n mix' theology), or that I simply
don't understand, or that I tar liberals with the fundamentalist brush, or
other variations on the wriggling theme.
pg
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
This one did it deliberately to troll for flames.
duke
>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>would actually read as follows:
Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
and 191:1 in the US.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
PG
toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>>
>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>>would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
Source?
You may be right about the US, it'll take a fair number of them a while to
enter the 21st century and realise that the first man on Earth wasn't Adam,
a mere 6,000 years ago. Though if your stats regarding the US are as
exaggerated as the Christian/atheist ratio, that figure too is probably way
out.
This study suggests that the 'non-religious' comprise as much as 16% of the
world's population:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
But whatever, it's quality, not quantity that counts, and the fact that
religions are widespread makes no useful statement about the authenticity of
religious beliefs. The fact that gullibility is endemic, on the other hand,
does.
pg
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
>toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>>>
>>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>>>would actually read as follows:
>>
>> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
>> worldwide, and 191:1 in the US.
Puke is talkingthrough his rectal orifice, because what makes it the
default is that theism has to be taught. Children who aren't taight
tio be theist grow up not believing in any god or gods - which makes
them atheist.
>Source?
>
>You may be right about the US, it'll take a fair number of them a while to
>enter the 21st century and realise that the first man on Earth wasn't Adam,
>a mere 6,000 years ago. Though if your stats regarding the US are as
>exaggerated as the Christian/atheist ratio, that figure too is probably way
>out.
Probably. China has about a fifth of the World population, and most
Chinese would seem to be some flavour atheist.
>This study suggests that the 'non-religious' comprise as much as 16% of the
>world's population:
>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
>But whatever, it's quality, not quantity that counts, and the fact that
>religions are widespread makes no useful statement about the authenticity of
>religious beliefs. The fact that gullibility is endemic, on the other hand,
>does.
Puke imagines that the majority believing something somehow makes it
true.
>pg
>
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
The non-theist (rather than anti-theist) form of atheism, which tends to
overlap agnosticism, is the perfectly reasonable default position of
refusing to believe what cannot be proven.
Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
sdm_sax
> Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
> are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
> default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
doesn't really know god.
AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
certainly exists. It provides light and life and so on. With the
radition from the sun passing through, the sun is in all of us.
Man recognised the power and might of the sun and saw it had an
important role in controlling life on earth.
All that anthropamorphic stuff giving god sentience is clearly
rubbish.
I thhnk atheists should acknowledge the sun and recognise we don't
need to worship it or talk to it.
(yes, I know)
Javi
Christians are outnumbered 3:1 against non-Christian.
Also, the truth isn't democratic. If most people believed that the sky is
purple, what color would be the sky?
Virgil
<6f0f45d9-1bde-4424...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
sdm_sax <ste...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
There are all sorts of things that I acknowledge as being things.
Some of them on which the quality of my life depends.
None of them do I regard as gods.
bob young
duke wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
Which simply proves that the brain damaged outnumber those who remain sane by 191:1
Nice try Dook, but as ever - you fail again
Oh and you forgot to mention the Muslims around the owrld and the Hindus
bob young
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:22:22 +0100, "PG" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> a ιcrit dans le message de news:
> >toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
> >>>
> >>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >>>would actually read as follows:
> >>
> >> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians
> >> worldwide, and 191:1 in the US.
>
> Puke is talkingthrough his rectal orifice, because what makes it the
> default is that theism has to be taught. Children who aren't taight
> tio be theist grow up not believing in any god or gods - which makes
> them atheist.
Indeed.
Had Duke the misfortune to have been orphaned at age two and then been adopted
by a Hindu family - he would probably still be here. Only now propagating the
merits of the god Ganesh - he is the one that has a fat man's body and the head
of an elephant. Don't scoff duke, religions are full of silly nonsense of this
ilk, yours included. Just ask for examples and we will oblige
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
bob young
Virgil wrote:
Without the 'theist' example that you give above
there would be NO atheists. . . . !
A definition for you:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
bob young
sdm_sax wrote:
> On 16 Dec, 20:16, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
> > are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
> > default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
>
> I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
> doesn't really know god.
> AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
> certainly exists. It provides light and life and so on. With the
> radition from the sun passing through, the sun is in all of us.
> Man recognised the power and might of the sun and saw it had an
> important role in controlling life on earth.
The problem with sun worship was the presence of it could not be
maniptulated by priests. Probably why is was allowed to die out
Yap
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
> >This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> >then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> >would actually read as follows:
>
> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
whether you like it or not.
This will come along since more education will help to eliminate blind
teaching and unfulfilled following.
hypa...@comcast.net
> "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> K24Wm.3593$2u1.2...@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
> >>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
> > This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> > then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> > would actually read as follows:
>
> >>> But
>
> > [[[...now that science has looked on mountaintops and above the clouds,
> > and out into space,
> > and not found the Jehovah that the ancient Jews heard and saw and spoke
> > to, we've had to
> > re-define God in a way that explains why he wasn't anywhere we looked;
> > therefore we now
> > insist that...]]]
>
> >>> "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object existing
> >>> alongside other objects in the world
>
> > [[[...Because if we continued to say what we always used to say, we'd now
> > have to regard
> > God as a failed hypothesis, and give it up as a silly idea. And we simply
> > can't do that...]]].
>
> > HTH...
>
> Exactly. I've been saying as much on the Christian ng ukrc for a while, and
> it irks them of course. I usually receive a flow of ad hominems in response
> from fundies, or am told by liberals that scripture was only allegorical in
> the first place (my translation : 'pick 'n mix' theology)
We call them 'buffet Christians' in the US. They pick what they like,
and ignore the rest.
, or that I simply
> don't understand, or that I tar liberals with the fundamentalist brush, or
> other variations on the wriggling theme.
>
People don't like being told that they are wishy-washy Christians.
J D@home.com Mark J D
>> worldwide,
>> and 191:1 in the US.
>
Ooooh, look! Puke doesn't even know what a 'default' is...!
Harharharharrr....!!!!
M.
Alex W.
wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:27�am, "PG" <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
>> "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
In the UK, they are called "Church of England", and they are the
state church.
Happy days.
Alex W.
>
> This study suggests that the 'non-religious' comprise as much as 16% of the
> world's population:
> http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
That depends entirely on how one defines "atheist". Even this
study lumps together secular, non-religious, agnostic and atheist
respondents -- a mistake, in my view. The study acknowledges as
much by writing in their pie chart "Half of this group is
theistic but non-religious". In this day and age of pick'n'mix
beliefs, it is perfectly possible for someone to tick the "none
of the above religions" box and still be religious by virtue of
spiritual interests.
Alex W.
> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>> On 16 Dec, 20:16, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>
>>> Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
>>> are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
>>> default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
>>
>> I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
>> doesn't really know god.
>> AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
>> certainly exists. It provides light and life and so on. With the
>> radition from the sun passing through, the sun is in all of us.
>> Man recognised the power and might of the sun and saw it had an
>> important role in controlling life on earth.
>
> The problem with sun worship was the presence of it could not be
> maniptulated by priests. Probably why is was allowed to die out
Ah, but the advantage of sun worship is that the "proof" is right
before your eyes, from sunrise to sunset. Better yet, a priest
can "prove" the efficacy of his rituals: Look here, I sacrificed
a goat and hey presto, the sun rises!
Alex W.
> On 12嚙踝蕭17嚙踝蕭, 嚙磕嚙踝蕭2嚙踝蕭47嚙踝蕭, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
#
>> Atheism is hardly a default, being outnumbered 8:1 against Christians worldwide,
>> and 191:1 in the US.
> Perhaps in a few more year, atheism will be the default position,
> whether you like it or not.
> This will come along since more education will help to eliminate blind
> teaching and unfulfilled following.
Doubtful.
The West has had several centuries of education and rationalism,
and yet we have rather more believers than atheists. In the
Soviet Bloc, religion was actively suppressed for generaitons,
and yet the moment the Evil Empire fell apart religion sprang
back with a vengeance.
PG
1es661tg0485n.a...@40tude.net...
mean how do you establish that either :
1) people stating that they are Christian really have no beliefs but just
fill the form in with, say C of E, rather than reveal their lack of belief,
or:
2) they state they have no beliefs but in fact secretly harbour 'spiritual
interests', as you put it.
I'm not so sure that it's a mistake to sum up humanists, atheists, certain
agnostics, deists, secularists, as a group when we are comparing numbers of
theists - in the main Christian and Moslem - with those who have no belief
in personal, interventionist deities. I mean, it's virtually impossible to
get into an argument with a deist, or a Buddhist even, but when a
supercilious Xian comes on the scene, that's another matter.
It's the know-it-all, we're-saved-you're-doomed Xians than are the biggest
problem, along with the Moslem equivalent.
pg
Les Hellawell
<ste...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On 16 Dec, 20:16, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>> Both anti-theists (there are no gods) and the theist (there is a god)
>> are claiming belief in what they cannot prove, which is hardly a proper
>> default position, but the non-theist makes no claim of belief at all.
>
>I think the problem lies with religion and its failoure to admit it
>doesn't really know god.
>AS I've mentioned before the most worshipped god was the sun which
>certainly exists. <snip>
"We believe that the Sun God is all-powerful, for every
Spring he makes the trees to bud and the grass to
grow. We see these things with our own eyes, and
therefore know that all life comes from him."
- anon Blackfoor Tribe
"What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night.
It is the breath of a buffalo in the winter time.
It is the little shadow which runs across the grass
And loses itself in the sunset"
- crowfoot of the Blackfoot tribe
"He of the sun
She of the Moon,
Stood they
With arms outstretched
A moment
Silent.
Then, in the first shadow of evenfall,
They leaped into space;
Came to rest
On the new world of their love;
Thus; the first man and woman.
- from The beginning of the World
The ancient secret songs of the Chiiliwack Tribe
- as quoted by their chief Khalserten Sepass 1840-1945
All as quoted in
"Native American Wisdom" edited by Alan Jacobs
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from: YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County
graham
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1es661tg0485n.a...@40tude.net...
under religion, they put: "spiritual but not religious", whatever the hell
that means!
PG
"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> a �crit dans le message de news:
1DrWm.107089$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
Some sort of cross between Gaia worship and new vogue Buddhism, I imagine,
that kind of thing...
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Most people who say thay are CofE are cultural rather than believing
Christians and use it as a best fit even though they're not members
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:22:22 +0100, PG wrote:
It also includes theidiots who pretend Christianity isn't a religion
but a relationship with a pretend friend.
>
>
johnbee
The West has had several centuries of education and rationalism,
and yet we have rather more believers than atheists. >
We should be fairly careul interpreting reported results of surveys of
religious belief, in particular of the biggest survey, the UK census.
There is a major discrepancy, for example, between surveys of peoples'
claims about what food they eat, and of actual food sales.
Reports of numbers vary, but if, as we are told, 50% of British people
really do think that there is a God who watches over us, answers prayers,
decides whether we go to heaven or hell and which of us become fatally
diseased, then one would expect that rather more of us would pop along to
church on Sunday.
Incidentally, Do you realise that the usually quoted figures on church
attendance are produced by an organisation called Tearfund, which is plainly
a Christian organisation, produces its figures by carrying out opinion
polls, not by researching actual attendances. From memory, I think that
they claim that 13% of people who say they are Christian attend church
regulary (i.e. once per month). Yeah right.
The best indication I can give you about the spin on the figures is that
they say that the biggest single religion is Pentecostal. There is not
actually a Pentecostal religion - it seems to be a term they apply by their
own definition. Unless of course you believe that the most common reply
they got to the question of 'What is your religion?' was 'Pentecostal' in
which case I give up.
Of course I am not knocking Tearfund, I am sure they do a lot of good, and I
am not knocking what is termed the Pentecostal movement, they are probably
as good as the rest of us, and I am well aware that producing doubtful
statistics from carefully done surveys is commonplace these days. All I am
doing is saying that many of the oft quoted figures on religion are little
better than urban myths.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>< "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1rij9ys4rudce$.dzg7syoeadv5.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>The West has had several centuries of education and rationalism,
>and yet we have rather more believers than atheists. >
>
>We should be fairly careul interpreting reported results of surveys of
>religious belief, in particular of the biggest survey, the UK census.
>
>There is a major discrepancy, for example, between surveys of peoples'
>claims about what food they eat, and of actual food sales.
>
>Reports of numbers vary, but if, as we are told, 50% of British people
>really do think that there is a God who watches over us, answers prayers,
>decides whether we go to heaven or hell and which of us become fatally
>diseased, then one would expect that rather more of us would pop along to
>church on Sunday.
Most English (religion is taken more seriously in Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland) know that the majority of people who call themselves
Christian are cultural Christians, celebrating weddings, Christenings
and funerals for traditional reasons.
The surveys ask loaded questions which don't take the strength of the
belief into account.
>Incidentally, Do you realise that the usually quoted figures on church
>attendance are produced by an organisation called Tearfund, which is plainly
>a Christian organisation, produces its figures by carrying out opinion
>polls, not by researching actual attendances. From memory, I think that
>they claim that 13% of people who say they are Christian attend church
>regulary (i.e. once per month). Yeah right.
That's about right.
>The best indication I can give you about the spin on the figures is that
>they say that the biggest single religion is Pentecostal. There is not
>actually a Pentecostal religion - it seems to be a term they apply by their
>own definition. Unless of course you believe that the most common reply
>they got to the question of 'What is your religion?' was 'Pentecostal' in
>which case I give up.
The usual answer is CofE as a sort of default even from people who
never go to church. Pentacostals are seen as a cult.
>Of course I am not knocking Tearfund, I am sure they do a lot of good, and I
>am not knocking what is termed the Pentecostal movement, they are probably
>as good as the rest of us, and I am well aware that producing doubtful
>statistics from carefully done surveys is commonplace these days. All I am
>doing is saying that many of the oft quoted figures on religion are little
>better than urban myths.
Yep.
SkyEyes
I'd rather acknowledge that cats are gods. If you worship them
properly, they'll cuddle with you and purr you to sleep.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Puck Greenman.
They like a drop to drink, but they aint going to church, to get it.
Randy Day
51144f...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, skye...@cox.net
says...
[snip]
> I'd rather acknowledge that cats are gods. If you worship them
> properly, they'll cuddle with you and purr you to sleep.
It's too bad we don't still have the QOTM.
This'd be a keeper!
--
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
Budikka666
Because it's there!
Budikka
Ian Smith
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>> This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>> then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>> would actually read as follows:
>
> and 191:1 in the US.
Here in the UK, less than 6% regularly worship. That splits (very
roughly) into:
2% CofE
2% Other christian
2% Other religions
Even this is falling fast. Attendance at Sunday school was falling
nearly linearly when I last saw figures - predicting zero attendance
in less than 10 years. Now that is quite remarkable - as a linear
fall indicates an accelerating trend with the proportion leaving
increasing with time.
About 60% of kids leaving school are atheist.
Religion really seems to be entering the terminal phase.
regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
Oddly enough I think that's a pity.
There's nothing wrong with cultural and traditional religion when it's
not taken too seriously. It's the stupidity of those who believe myths
and legends expecting everybody else to, that is the problem.
In-denial bishops and other church high-ups who insult everybody
else's intelligence by earnestly telling them they need to return to
something that means no more than Santa Claus to them, have only
themselves to blame for showing how out of touch they are.
I wonder how much is due to Blair showing the country what a religious
loonie he is by saying he consulted God before starting an unpopular
war, so people who hadn't given it a thought saw its evil side.
>regards, Ian
Alex W.
I was thinking of the church itself. In doctrinal terms, the
CofE is a mansion with a great many rooms, uniting under its roof
the whole gamut from scriptural literalists to bishops who doubt
the divinity of Jesus, and from Low Church hardline Protestants
to Anglo-Catholics.
Robibnikoff
"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1DrWm.107089$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
It makes they take yoga classes.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
>
Smiler
Why classes you need to me speak like?
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:toaii598smrud08id...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:06:07 -0000, "Mark J D" <Mark J D...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>>
>>This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
>>then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
>>would actually read as follows:
>
> worldwide,
> and 191:1 in the US.
>
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Your ignorance MUST be very painful!
Try taking the survey on groups that have had less brainwashing - like those
under five years old.
Puck Greenman.
Where they too then moi andsom?
huge
> On 2009-12-18, Puck Greenman <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:18:23 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
>><witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:1DrWm.107089$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>
>>>> One often sees a manifestation of this in women's ads on dating sites
>>>> where, under religion, they put: "spiritual but not religious",
>>>> whatever the hell that means!
>>>
>>>It makes they take yoga classes.
>>
>>
>> Where they too then moi andsom?
>
> And in English?
Readers should differentiate this Huge from me,
huge, without the capital first letter.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Puck Greenman.
>On 2009-12-18, Puck Greenman <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:18:23 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
>><witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:1DrWm.107089$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>
>>>> One often sees a manifestation of this in women's ads on dating sites
>>>> where, under religion, they put: "spiritual but not religious", whatever
>>>> the hell that means!
>>>
>>>It makes they take yoga classes.
>>
>>
>> Where they too then moi andsom?
>
>And in English?
Tha' be west country English moi andsom, oh arrr.
But if e still need it translat'n:
Where are these Yoga classes, good sir?
Alroight?
Robibnikoff
"Huge" <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:7p1j9v...@mid.individual.net...
>><witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"graham" <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:1DrWm.107089$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>
>>>> where, under religion, they put: "spiritual but not religious",
>>>> whatever
>>>> the hell that means!
>>>
>>>It makes they take yoga classes.
>>
>>
>> Where they too then moi andsom?
>
Goddamn my fucking typos :P
sdm_sax
> The problem with sun worship was the presence of it could not be
> maniptulated by priests. Probably why is was allowed to die out
>
Perhaps. I think though that maybe we should declare that god is the
sun and we now there is no need to worship such an entity. I always
had an issue with worship. I just dont' see how any all-powerful being
would give a damn what we thought. It's like us worrying about what
woodlice think about us. Ridiculous!
M
>
>> The problem with sun worship was the presence of it could not be
>> maniptulated by priests. Probably why is was allowed to die out
In reality, the problem with Sun-worship was that increasing scientific
knowledge allowed people to realise that the Sun was simply 'there' whatever
you did or said... so there was no fucking point worshipping the thing...
Just as the problem with Jehovah-worship was that increasing scientific
knowledge allowed people to realise that Jehovah was simply 'not there'
whatever you did or said... so there was no fucking point worshipping the
thing...
Hope that helps...
M.
Interesting Ian
news:K24Wm.3593$2u1....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>> But "God" does not exist within the world. "God" is not an object
>>> existing alongside other objects in the world.
>
> This just shows how these people continually *move the goalposts* -- and
> then *forget that they've done so*...! Because the full form of the above
> would actually read as follows:
>
>
> [[[...now that science has looked on mountaintops and above the clouds,
> and out into space,
> and not found the Jehovah that the ancient Jews heard and saw and spoke
> to, we've had to
> re-define God in a way that explains why he wasn't anywhere we looked;
> therefore we now
> insist that...]]]
>
No goalposts have ever been moved. It's a naive and simplistic notion of
God because it's a naive and simplistic notion of God; not because of what
we've discovered about the world.
Do you imagine someone like Aquinas believing in such a daft conception of
God?
Christopher A. Lee
Nope.
It's what believers have left when they start applying reality to
their belief and still need to call something God.
>Do you imagine someone like Aquinas believing in such a daft conception of
>God?
Aquinas was brainwashed to believe in childhood. Why should anybody
who doesn't already believe or who lost their belief as they grew up,
start from its presumption?
Because they don't even have that presumption
When you don't it's merely somebody's religious belief. No more.
His concept of God was just as daft because it had no real world
justification.
He's suposed to be one of Christianity's great thinkers. But compare
him with the ancoient Greeks.
graham
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xRQZm.2815$5l1...@newsfe06.ams2...
sdm_sax
wrote:
> Do you imagine someone like Aquinas believing in such a daft conception of
> God?
People believe in many different concepts of god. How daft it is
doesn't seem to be an issue.