Top talk.origins poster goes religious

[wiki trix]

Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Say it ain't so.

[SkyEyes]

Really? Interesting. Which one, and why?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/26/2012 01:19 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
>> newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
>> years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
>> Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
>> and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
>
> Really? Interesting. Which one, and why?

Wiki realized the universe is Paganocentric. There is no turning back.

[J. J. Lodder]

You are three months late,

Jan

[jillery]

Wiki trix is pregnant? Now that's a miracle!

[Ron O]

Nyikos beat you to it. Yesterday he was making up his own scripture.
Can you top that?

Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

On Jun 26, 1:19 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
> > newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
> > years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
> > Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
> > and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
>
> Really?  Interesting.  Which one, and why?

Just religion. Period. A sprawling synthesis of Syamsu, prawnster,
Kalkidas, Suzanne, Martinez, and everything else out there. What if I
pick the wrong religion? Every week I'd just be making God madder and
madder.

[Klaus Hellnick]

Um, the synthesized religion would simply consist of worshiping yourself.

[Mitchell Coffey]

You were an atheist?

Mitchell

[wiki trix]

On Jun 26, 10:30 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

As God is my witness... Take a good look my dear. It's an historic
moment you can tell your grandchildren about how you watched Wiki Trix
fall one night. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill, I'll never be
atheist again.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:14:25 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Klaus Hellnick
<khelSP...@sbcglobal.net>:

Apparently he watched "The Ruling Class"...

http://www.amazon.com/Ruling-Class-Criterion-Collection/dp/B00005O3V8/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1340743819&sr=1-1&keywords=the+ruling+class

....and determined to follow in the footsteps of Peter
O'Toole.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[James Beck]

But, after all, tomorrow is another day.

[jonathan]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13e17859-b1e3-41cc...@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is an empty idea, just another word for skepticism.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but the truly important
questions of meaning will ...never be answered with the kind
of scientific proof that can stand up to all comers.

We'll have to settle for the best available evidence, not
definitive proof either way. Else just spend life thinking
...."I don't know".

As a life long atheist and math major that grew up loving
all things science, I have to say I've learned that philosophy
is the science of truth and meaning.

And in trying to boil down the difference between science
and religious philosophy, it comes down to science starts
with the input side of reality in order to understand.
While philosophy just inverses that and looks at the
output first to draw conclusions.

And the output side is the better frame of reference.
for questions of meaning.The input side is better
for building things.

Science, the input side, attempts to simplify simplify simplify
to glean out all the randomness and noise and get to the
core relationships. As if the some magical equation will
just appear and make sense of it all....that's a pipe-dream.


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality."
~Albert Einstein

But the output side leaves....nothing out, all is included.
And we are the result of the sum total of all the complexity
of the universe. Expanding to the whole...first, the more
we can 'see' or feel the utter simplicity and profound meaning
inherent in the universe and our existence.

Nothing in the Universe is alone.


Jonathan



"Their Height in Heaven comforts not
Their Glory nought to me
'Twas best imperfect as it was
I'm finite -- I can't see

The House of Supposition
The Glimmering Frontier that
Skirts the Acres of Perhaps
To Me -- shows insecure

The Wealth I had contented me
If 'twas a meaner size
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow Eyes

Better than larger values
However true their show
This timid life of Evidence
Keeps pleading -- "I don't know."



By E Dickinson


s







>
>

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

Is this 85 days late?

[wiki trix]

On Jun 26, 4:51 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:14:25 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Klaus Hellnick

> <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6/26/2012 6:48 AM, wiki trix wrote:
> >> On Jun 26, 1:19 am, SkyEyes<skyey...@cox.net>  wrote:
> >>> On Jun 25, 8:41 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
> >>>> newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
> >>>> years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
> >>>> Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
> >>>> and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
>
> >>> Really?  Interesting.  Which one, and why?
>
> >> Just religion. Period. A sprawling synthesis of Syamsu, prawnster,
> >> Kalkidas, Suzanne, Martinez, and everything else out there. What if I
> >> pick the wrong religion? Every week I'd just be making God madder and
> >> madder.
>
> >Um, the synthesized religion would simply consist of worshiping yourself.
>
> Apparently he watched "The Ruling Class"...
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Ruling-Class-Criterion-Collection/dp/B00005O3V8...

>
> ....and determined to follow in the footsteps of Peter
> O'Toole.

Read a review... sounds good. I will rent that video. Thanks for the
heads up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:03:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com>:

You're welcome. I saw it on initial release and enjoyed it,
but I like black irony (I think that's the right term); I
also enjoyed "War of the Roses".

[Kermit]

On Jun 26, 3:30 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:13e17859-b1e3-41cc...@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 10:30 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jun 25, 11:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Wiki Trix, who'd been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
> >> > newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
> >> > years of debating many "dumb religious nuts," like Syamsu, prawnster,
> >> > Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
> >> > and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
>
> >> You were an atheist?
>
> > As God is my witness... Take a good look my dear. It's an historic
> > moment you can tell your grandchildren about how you watched Wiki Trix
> > fall one night. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill, I'll never be
> > atheist again.
>
> Atheism is an empty idea, just another word for skepticism.

How is it empty? It means without gods, similar in nature to
"toothless", or "parasite-free", it indicates the lack of something
which is meaningful in some contexts.

> Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but the truly important
> questions of meaning will ...never be answered with the kind
> of scientific proof that can stand up to all comers.

Nothing like made-up stuff for robust answers, I always say!

>
> We'll have to settle for the best available evidence, not
> definitive proof either way. Else just spend life thinking
> ...."I don't know".

Maybe that's the nature of things. I would hate to spend my life
whistling in the dark, believing made-up crap because uncertainty made
me uncomfortable. Denying ignorance or uncertanty really doesn't mean
that you know the answers.

>
> As a life long atheist and math major that grew up loving
> all things science, I have to say I've learned that philosophy
> is the science of truth and meaning.

Absolutely. It truly can mean anything, if motivated by a need for
assurances.
Philosophy should be about clear thinking and communication, not
comfort.

>
> And in trying to boil down the difference between science
> and religious philosophy, it comes down to science starts
> with the input side of reality in order to understand.
> While philosophy just inverses that and looks at the
> output first to draw conclusions.

What sides of reality? For those of us with little brain, could you
expound on this a bit more?

I might have thought that input meant sensory input, and output meant
speech and such, but it doesn't make sense to say "look at what we say
or think in order to draw conclusions", so that can't be it.

>
> And the output side is the better frame of reference.
> for questions of meaning.The input side is better
> for building things.
>
> Science, the input side, attempts to simplify simplify simplify
> to glean out all the randomness and noise and get to the
> core relationships. As if the some magical equation will
> just appear and make sense of it all....that's a pipe-dream.

If the alternative is fantasy, I'll stick with empiricism, thank you.

>
>    "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
>       are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
>        do not refer to reality."
>                                                   ~Albert Einstein
>
> But the output side leaves....nothing out, all is included.
> And we are the result of the sum total of all the complexity
> of the universe. Expanding to the whole...first, the more
> we can 'see' or feel the utter simplicity and profound meaning
> inherent in the universe and our existence.
>
> Nothing in the Universe is alone.
>

Sorry. I can't make heads or tails out of this. Somewhere between "we

are the result of the sum total of all the complexity of the universe"

and "expanding to the whole" you lost me.

> Jonathan
>
> "Their Height in Heaven comforts not
> Their Glory  nought to me
> 'Twas best imperfect  as it was
> I'm finite -- I can't see
>
> The House of Supposition
> The Glimmering Frontier that
> Skirts the Acres of Perhaps
> To Me -- shows insecure
>
> The Wealth I had contented me
> If 'twas a meaner size
> Then I had counted it until
> It pleased my narrow Eyes
>
> Better than larger values
> However true their show
> This timid life of Evidence
> Keeps pleading -- "I don't know."
>
> By E Dickinson

Kermit

[Stephen]

Bokononism?

--

[Frank J]

Well, yeah. Unless he's really Ray Martinez. ;-)

>
> Mitchell

[Frank J]

Was it the "Have you consisdered Islam" threads?

[wiki trix]

Busted.

[osugeography]

With "God (as) my witness"... Sounds like a reincarnation of Scarlett
O.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[wiki trix]

The rest of it sounds that way too.

[SkyEyes]

On Jun 26, 3:30 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

So you think what, that we should believe in a god, or gods, "just in
case"?

[jonathan]

"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:43a7ce1f-e09f-476b...@m2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

>
> So you think what, that we should believe in a god, or gods, "just in
> case"?

Thanks for replying.

No, I think we should try to understand the true meaning
of the word. I use the Vatican Encyclopedia since it's the
more complete and thoughtful source of religious philosophy.
And the Vatican merely describes God as the 'uncaused cause',
or the infinite and metaphors along those lines.

And The Vatican clearly believes as the Creator, God
must predate this universe and hence can have no
direct contact within the Universe.

No ...serious religious philosopher believes there's some
wise old man out there watching over us or waiting for us.
But they all agree the infinitely nested complexity and
connectedness means there is something 'more' than
science and observation can explain. And that 'more'
happens to be the source of our creation and meaning.

Do you believe in things like ideas, collective intelligence,
market forces or Darwinian evolution? Do you believe
they often guide the whole towards the better solution?
Towards good? And are the souce of creativity and
resilience?

If so, you already believe in God.

There's no contradiction between science and
religion, one begins where the other ends.
They compliment each other. Being afraid to
say the word God, is being aftaid to admit
"I don't know everything, and never will".

Vatican Encyclopedia

God

"It has never been claimed that God's existence can be proved
mathematically, as a proposition in geometry is proved, and
most Theists reject every form of the ontological or
deductive proof. "

"In the universe we observe that certain things are effects,
i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and
these again on others; but, however far back we may
extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must,
if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause
that is not itself an effect, in other words to an uncaused
cause or self-existent being which is the ground and
cause of all being."

"Beauty is literally and truly realized both in the portrait and
its living original, and retains its proper meaning as applied
to either; there is sufficient likeness or analogy to justify
literal predication but there is not that perfect likeness or
identity between painted and living beauty which univocal
predication would imply. And similarly in the case of God
and creatures. What we contemplate directly is the portrait
of Him painted, so to speak, by Himself on the canvas
of the universe and exhibiting in a finite degree various
perfections, which, without losing their proper meaning
for us, are seen to be capable of being realized in an infinite
degree; and our reason compels us to infer that they
must be and are so realized in Him who is their
ultimate cause."

"Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs,
or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and
this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of
metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly
Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really
a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever
truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions,
or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds,
it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical
Theism.The same reasons that justify and recommend the use
of metaphorical language in other connections justify and
recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence
ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies,
or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means
to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a
cunning one a fox."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

[jonathan]

"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19af86e9-3e81-42ea...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 26, 3:30 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:13e17859-b1e3-41cc...@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 10:30 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Jun 25, 11:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Wiki Trix, who'd been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
>> >> > newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
>> >> > years of debating many "dumb religious nuts," like Syamsu,
>> >> > prawnster,
>> >> > Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one
>> >> > himself,
>> >> > and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
>>
>> >> You were an atheist?
>>
>> > As God is my witness... Take a good look my dear. It's an historic
>> > moment you can tell your grandchildren about how you watched Wiki Trix
>> > fall one night. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill, I'll never be
>> > atheist again.
>>
>> Atheism is an empty idea, just another word for skepticism.
>
> How is it empty? It means without gods, similar in nature to
> "toothless", or "parasite-free", it indicates the lack of something
> which is meaningful in some contexts.

Thanks for replying.

Atheism has no positive view of it's own. Nothing to defend
or refute. It's the lack of an opinion on the subject at hand, which
is the ultimate source of creation, and the meaning behind
our existence.

In addition, atheists routinely misrepresent the position
of religious philosophy. God means essentially the
unknowable aspects of creation. Atheists can't simply
take a contrary opinion since they would have to assert
they...can or will someday have all the answers.
Atheists ....have to misrepresent or grossly simplify
religious beliefs else be caught in an intractable logical
contradiction.

See the bottom of this post for the true definitions of
the word God according to the Vatican. Argue against
that if you can.

>
>> Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but the truly important
>> questions of meaning will ...never be answered with the kind
>> of scientific proof that can stand up to all comers.
>
> Nothing like made-up stuff for robust answers, I always say!
>
>>
>> We'll have to settle for the best available evidence, not
>> definitive proof either way. Else just spend life thinking
>> ...."I don't know".
>
> Maybe that's the nature of things. I would hate to spend my life
> whistling in the dark, believing made-up crap because uncertainty made
> me uncomfortable. Denying ignorance or uncertanty really doesn't mean
> that you know the answers.

You might be surprised just how much in agreement
religious philosophy is with your view. God is an admittance
that certain key questions are beyond our proof or
direct knowledge, again see quotes below.
No serious religious philospher believes there's some
wise old man out there waving a wand. God is a
metaphor for the beauty and mystery of creation
and the universe. The Vatican accepts all of the
established scientific beliefs including Darwin.

>
>>
>> As a life long atheist and math major that grew up loving
>> all things science, I have to say I've learned that philosophy
>> is the science of truth and meaning.
>
> Absolutely. It truly can mean anything, if motivated by a need for
> assurances.
> Philosophy should be about clear thinking and communication, not
> comfort.

I think philosophy should begin where science ends.
For instance, what came before the Big Bang?
Any chance of answering that in our lifetimes?
Creation.....wipes out...all evidence of what came
before. But if the ultimate source of creation has
created things like life and intelligence, what should
we call the source? What word would you use for
that which is the source of all order and meaning?

The world has a perfectly good word for it
already.

>
>>
>> And in trying to boil down the difference between science
>> and religious philosophy, it comes down to science starts
>> with the input side of reality in order to understand.
>> While philosophy just inverses that and looks at the
>> output first to draw conclusions.
>

> What sides of reality? For those of us with little brain, could you
> expound on this a bit more?

Science has long reduced to the simplest parts, forces
and so on to try to find the ultimate explanation for reality.
A holistic approach expands to the whole and goes from
there.

>
> I might have thought that input meant sensory input, and output meant
> speech and such, but it doesn't make sense to say "look at what we say
> or think in order to draw conclusions", so that can't be it.
>
>>
>> And the output side is the better frame of reference.
>> for questions of meaning.The input side is better
>> for building things.
>>
>> Science, the input side, attempts to simplify simplify simplify
>> to glean out all the randomness and noise and get to the
>> core relationships. As if the some magical equation will
>> just appear and make sense of it all....that's a pipe-dream.
>
> If the alternative is fantasy, I'll stick with empiricism, thank you.
>
>>
>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
>> are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they
>> do not refer to reality."
>> ~Albert Einstein
>>
>> But the output side leaves....nothing out, all is included.
>> And we are the result of the sum total of all the complexity
>> of the universe. Expanding to the whole...first, the more
>> we can 'see' or feel the utter simplicity and profound meaning
>> inherent in the universe and our existence.
>>
>> Nothing in the Universe is alone.
>>
>
> Sorry. I can't make heads or tails out of this. Somewhere between "we
> are the result of the sum total of all the complexity of the universe"
> and "expanding to the whole" you lost me.

Try reading below, where are the logical flaws?


From the Vatican Encyclopedia

[Perseus]

On Jun 29, 8:22 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19af86e9-3e81-42ea...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>

------------------ snipped ---------------

> >> Atheism is an empty idea, just another word for skepticism.
>
> > How is it empty? It means without gods, similar in nature to
> > "toothless", or "parasite-free", it indicates the lack of something
> > which is meaningful in some contexts.
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> Atheism has no positive view of it's own.  Nothing to defend
> or refute. It's the lack of an opinion on the subject at hand, which
> is the ultimate source of creation, and the meaning behind
> our existence.
>
> In addition, atheists routinely misrepresent the position
> of religious philosophy. God means essentially the
> unknowable aspects of creation. Atheists can't simply
> take a contrary opinion since they would have to assert
> they...can or will someday have all the answers.
> Atheists ....have to misrepresent or grossly simplify
> religious beliefs else be caught in an intractable logical
> contradiction.

Atheism, I think, is to accept as valid the doctrine of religions
about their gods.

if one attacks the abstract concept of a god, it makes not any sense.
It is a metaphysical concept we cannot grasp at all. But the apparent
abstract concept is a later development or more simpler stories about
the gods. When, we attach the idea of god to the religious stories,
on the different holy books, you see, those stories make not any sense
at all. They are puerile and unbelievable stories. Then, the idea of
the gods, come precisely from those stories about Zeus, Apollo,
Krishna, Tor, Brahma, Vishnu, Ganesh, Aphrodite, Jupiter, Artemis,
etc, etc. The roots of all the gods are buried in the mythology.
Our rational minds cannot accept these stories without considering
them puerile. But the modern way to trap more or less serious
thinkers is to separate the gods from the mythologies that made them
to be born.
If you present a rational being with an abstract and metaphysical god,
there is not any way to reject it, for we are not use to analyze the
validity of a metaphysical statement. But if you somewhat
anthropomorphizyse god by telling he created the Universe and us
humans, you are pushing to far the abstraction. The next in line is
for us to ask you, how do you know? Or who observed that? Then,
suddenly all the beautiful abstraction collapses. It becomes again a
mere myth about a god.

Then, we have some right to ask, from where comes the need for us to
inquire about the origins of the Universe? Before starting to inquire
about the origins of the universe, you have try to inquire about what
is the universe. We have done our intent to reply to the questions
about what is the universe. But we are learning more and more about
matter, and energy, we find the answer to our queries as rather
elusive. String theory of matter, all those quarks, had proved rather
abstract, and then rather dubious also. Then, you add the ideas of
dark energy and dark matter to the picture and we are even more
puzzled. Then, the realization that we can barely understand
objective elements of matter, make pointless the idea of doing jumping
into the void and ask ourselves, "what are the origins of the
Universe?"

I am of the idea, that we have enough problems, very near us, rather
observable matters and issues to make an effort to understand and to
solve. There are lots of problems to solve, overpopulation, energy
exhaustion, criminality, inequality, hunger, poverty, etc. Most of
these problems are related to excess population as a prime cause. The
excess or poor people made rational to pay them the minimum over
starvation salary. Then, those parents have to enslave themselves to
earn a living, giving thus scant attention to their children that
learn to become criminals in our streets.

If there were not excessive growth of the population, most or the ills
of humanity, would not exist at all. But humans procreate at high
rate, like most animals in nature; the result have to be suffering,
starvation and wars. So far, the industrial revolution had prove
Malthus wrong, for steam power first, and later combustion engines
burning oil derivatives, had giving humans a lot of power to produce
food and to transport them. This is a main reason why most of us
think that Malthus was wrong. But we can see many signs that oil
reservoirs are on the verge of exhaustion, and that fresh water is
also on the same path. These are serious problems as well, and
eventually they would prove that Malthus was right in his famous
essay.

I thinks is rather pointless to worry about the origins of the
universe, if it exists a creator god, when we have more pressing
problems at present, that probably could be solved if we work hard on
them.
I am not sure that we would be able solve them, for I am rather
pessimistic, but we should try to worry about in a quest to solve
them.

Perseus

[prawnster]

On Jun 25, 8:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
> newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
> years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
> Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
> and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.

That's a good first step, trickiwiki.

Let me help you in your quest.

You can safely reject any religion that puts you in a position of
power over God or gods. That is, you can safely reject every religion
except for Christianity. Any religion that says you somehow earn your
way into everlasting life inverts the relationship of Creator and
created. You cannot make claims on your Creator: you don't have the
wisdom to do so.

That should help clear the air some.

You're welcome.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Since we create gods we should reassert our authority over them before
more people get killed due to disputes over the intended meaning of
schizo-delusions, temporal lobe epileptic episodes or hallucinogenic
substance trips of the various "seers" people revere to this day and
hold sacrosanct.

Religious people are seers-suckers. Ironically the bible-thumpers are
most likely to uphold draconian drug laws when it is all too obvious
that the book they most revere Revelation is just a bad psychedelic
experience ("trip" in 60s vernacular).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

Just say no to drug-induced eschatology!

[*Hemidactylus*]

In other words I uphold prawnster's right to smoke whatever black-market
synthetic bath salt product he's smoking out of a crumpled beer can
before he posts his drug-induced nonsense to talk.origins. He's as much
a "seer" as some of the great religious visionaries. Some cult may
compile his glossolalic output into scripture. I just hope they don't go
the way of Manson's "family".

[Frank J]

What was the reaction of Michael Medved and David Klinghoffer when you "enlightened" them of that?

[Frank J]

On Friday, June 29, 2012 11:42:55 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 06/29/2012 11:19 PM, prawnster wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 8:41 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Wiki Trix, who’d been a prominent atheist poster on the Darwinist
> >> newsgroup talk.origins, announced on his knees this week that after
> >> years of debating many “dumb religious nuts,” like Syamsu, prawnster,
> >> Kalkidas, Suzanne, and Martinez, he has decided to become one himself,
> >> and that he has begun the process of converting to Religion.
> >
> > That's a good first step, trickiwiki.
> >
> > Let me help you in your quest.
> >
> > You can safely reject any religion that puts you in a position of
> > power over God or gods. That is, you can safely reject every religion
> > except for Christianity. Any religion that says you somehow earn your
> > way into everlasting life inverts the relationship of Creator and
> > created. You cannot make claims on your Creator: you don't have the
> > wisdom to do so.
> >
> > That should help clear the air some.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> Since we create gods we should reassert our authority over them before
> more people get killed due to disputes over the intended meaning of
> schizo-delusions, temporal lobe epileptic episodes or hallucinogenic
> substance trips of the various "seers" people revere to this day and
> hold sacrosanct.
>
> Religious people are seers-suckers.

Sorry, can't resist:

I asked my wife to go to Cox's to get me a seers-sucker suit. Guess what she did instead.

> Ironically the bible-thumpers are
> most likely to uphold draconian drug laws when it is all too obvious
> that the book they most revere Revelation is just a bad psychedelic
> experience ("trip" in 60s vernacular).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen
>
> Just say no to drug-induced eschatology!