On Jun 20, 10:31 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> >> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> >>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Atheists believe in God. The belief is inherent in the human
> >>>>>>>> condition... cognizance demands it. There is no choice in the
> >>>>>>>> matter. =20
>
> >>>>>>> Can you produce physical evidence of that assertion? Please
> >>>>>>> do so if you can. Argumentation is not physical evidence.
>
> >>>>>> Every Atheist obsessed with proving to himself that something
> >>>>>> (God) he believes does not exist does not exist, is all the
> >>>>>> evidence necessary. That is the mental disorder that accompanies
> >>>>>> all Atheists their entire lives.
>
> >>>>> Physical evidence is not everything but it is the only thing
of
> >>>>> interest to a rational person. Physical evidence is not proof and
> >>>>> has nothing to do with proof. For a thing to exist it must leave
> >>>>> physical evidence, period. That is the nature of this reality.
>
> >>>> What additional physical evidence beyond the scientific fact of the
> >>>> existence of the world is necessary?
>
> >>> You mean this dream of the sleeping Vishnu? Why would you choose
> >>> a particular thing for it to mean?
>
> >> Huh?
>
> >>> Does the scientific fact that **** Happens show Loki exists?
>
> >> Wha?
>
> > Are you really so ignorant of the varieties of religious belief
and
> > experience?
>
> No. I just can't see any relevance to the conversation in
> your comments about loki and vishnu.
>
>
>
> >>> Whatever you choose to believe, who told you what you believe
and
> >>> how did they know and why did you believe them?
>
> >> God is inherent in the human condition. No one need be told that God
> >> exists. There's no escaping that fact.
>
> > Physical evidence for that mere assertion please.
>
> Name one human being that has escaped having a concept of
> God or gods.
>
> One? How about the majority of the Chinese? One billion Con****ians?
The concept of a god is not necessary in Buddism either.
Cormac.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him.
>
> >>>>>>> What happened to HER and THEM? And what use does a god have
> >>>>>>> with a ***ual identity? It dumber than tits on a boar.
>
> >>>>>> Irrelevance suits you.
>
> >>>>> I am simply asking after this compulsion of yours to insist
> >>>>> your insubstantial god has a ***** and testosterone and XY
> >>>>> chromosomes. You claimed it very openly. Why?
>
> >>>> If you can cite where I've said any such thing your a better man
> >>>> than I am, Gunga Dim. I never claimed that God is human in any
> >>>> way. God has no need of '***** and testosterone and XY
chromosomes'.
>
> >>> You quoted it yourself in the first >>>>> above.
>
> >>> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him.
>
> >>> Where does "him" upper or lower case come from?
>
> >> Its one way of out of countless millions for describing God. =20
>
> > That is in the category of describing light as square. Using
gender
> > means there is *** involved, period.
>
> Arguing semantics is a waste of time.
>
>
>
> >> It just so happens that Scripture describes Him that way, as male
> >> essence, not surprising from a patriarchal society. The physical
> >> properties you mention are irrelevant.
>
> > You assume appear to assume they did not mean it literally. But in
> > fact they also had the Goddess Ashara as his consort. Ashara is
related
> > to Ishtar and Aphrodite in the region. So your claim is nonsense. We
> > even have very good reason to believe her temple was where now stands
> > the Al Aqsa mosque. Your bible creators meant it literally. The Old
> > Testament creators were polytheists and made no bones about it.
>
> Mind saying where you got the notion you expressed about
> ashara being God's consort?
>
> I have one guide and on guide only; the Five Books of Moses
> (Genesis - Deuteronomy). There alone exists the word of
> Moses' God. Every word before and after that Book is the
> fallible word of fallible men. Further, if you take the
> words in the Book literally you can't possibly understand it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> This is a moral decision based on the strength of the
> >>>>>>>> individual's dependence on their base desires. Those who
> >>>>>>>> accept God are prone to be discomforted by those lower desires
> >>>>>>>> and would suppress them when they can. Those who reject God
> >>>>>>>> tend to feel discomforted when they are advised by conscience
to
> >>>>>>>> put limits on expressing those same base desires freely at
their
> >>>>>>>> own discretion.
>
> >>>>>>> Other than the stuff a few perverts in 3rd c. BC Palestine
> >>>>>>> invented as sins just what is a "base" desire and why?
>
> >>>>>> A base desire is on that goes against conscience.
>
> >>>>> Conscience is formed by the culture in which one lives. If
> >>>>> there really were people who lived by the morality of the Old
> >>>>> Testament the civilized people of the world would have destroyed
> >>>>> them for their bestiality and their affront to civilization.
> >>>>> Should you ever read Acts you will discover Christians are
> >>>>> prohibited from visiting brothels solely for the risk of *****
> >>>>> with the children they sold to the brothels. Some conscience
>
> >>>> Human societies are formed to thwart the influence of conscience.
>
> >>> And your evidence of that is what? Please be specific in your
> >>> presentation of the physical evidence.
>
> >> All that need be done is to look at human societies and judge their
> >> propensity to legitimize immorality. One example is the Aztec belief
> >> that murdering/sacrificing humans to their deities is the epitome of
> >> morality.
>
> > And we can look at all the gods in all the many Indo-European
> > pantheons and discover not one of them ever demanded war or gratuitous
> > slaughter of people he or she designated as enemies nor ever gave any
> > rules as primitive as the ten commandments. In doing so we put your
god
> > slightly above the Aztecs and distinctly below the Indo-European gods.
>
> > Are you really this ignorant? In those pantheons humans decided on
> > war and then sought the favor or their gods in fighting it. None of
> > their gods ever demanded war or genocide as your diabolic god did.
>
> Dearheart, you understand nothing of "Indo-European
> religions". I suggest you do a google search using the key
> words: Indo-European religions.
>
>
>
> > So tell me how does it differ from human sacrifice to command the
> > slaughter of every living thing including their animals? That it is
done
> > after the battle is won and not on an altar?
>
> Killing mortal enemies down to the last molecule is moral -
> such killing can in no way be compared to the immoral
> practice of human "sacrifice".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Formal religions are based on the natural defense mechanism
that
> >>>>>>>> promotes collectivization of like attitudes toward man's
> >>>>>>>> imagined perceptions of his own and the world's fallibility.
>
> >>>>>>> The motion of objects is never fallible.
>
> >>>>>> The operative word I used is "perception". Try rereading what I
> >>>>>> wrote, not what you wish I wrote.
>
> >>>>> That which does not occur cannot be perceived.
>
> >>>> I see, abstractions do not enter the mind. Might as well throw
> >>>> science and technology out the window while you're at it.
>
> >>> Science deals with physical evidence. By definition
"abstraction"
> >>> have no physical existence. You do not appear to have the least idea
> >>> what you are talking about.
>
> >> Everything that science learns to observe was conceived first as an
> >> abstraction. That's how cognizance and its product invention occurs.
>
> > You are ignorance of science. Science begins with observation of
> > physical evidence. Trust me. I am a physicist.
>
> Even if I take your word that you are a physicist, it
> doesn't change the fact that few in your trade understand
> that the mind fools itself into putting carts before horses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Some religions make their deity so much like themselves that
> >>>>>>>> their adherents see themselves as gods, empowered by the
> >>>>>>>> convenient but false tenet of Relativism, to do as they will
> >>>>>>>> regardless of any constraints imposed by God's absolute
> >>>>>>>> morality. Among the man is god religions is the religion of
> >>>>>>>> Atheism.
>
> >>>>>>> All educated people know that the Judeans, aka Jews, first
> >>>>>>> appear in history in the 2nd c. BC. There is no prior mention of
> >>>>>>> them when there should be. There is no archaeological evidence
of
> >>>>>>> biblical Israel. Thus Israel is in the same category as Camelot
> >>>>>>> and Atlantis. But you are not educated so you do not know these
> >>>>>>> things.
>
> >>>>>> More ad hoc irrelevance.
>
> >>>>> Those are facts. Deal with them. The Old Testament is an
> >>>>> invention like the Book of Mormon, Dianetics and the Koran. Yahweh
> >>>>> and his Ashara were in the region for at least a thousand years.
> >>>>> Her temple was in Jerusalem even after the temple of Yahweh was
> >>>>> destroyed. She was wor****ped by the Jews/Judeans. Idols of her
only
> >>>>> disappear after Rome rebuilt Jerusalem into a civilized city with
> >>>>> running water and sanitation.
>
> >>>> Typically flawed Atheist sermon.
>
> >>> A recitation of the facts is not a sermon. That you choose not
to
> >>> know the facts does not make them disappear.
>
> >> When you have some facts not made of whole cloth, present them.
>
> > I did recite the facts that are known.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> If you can produce any
>
> > mention of Judea, the bible, the people in the bible (beyond simply
> > similar names), Israel, Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham or any of the
> > many events in the OT please do so. No one else has. Be the first. Get
> > all the credit. You can make a great name for yourself if you can be
the
> > first.
>
> The efficacy of the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
> Deuteronomy) ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
