On Jun 21, 8:55 am, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> cormac wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Are you saying that Con****ians and Buddhists are incapable
> of contemplating the abstract?
No
>
> Excusing God from one's religion does not deter the mind
> from asserting him. Even denial of God's existence asserts
> Him. There is no way to rid the mind of the concept.
>
> Whose mind?
Cormac
>
>
>
> > 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=
'=2E
>
> >>>>> 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
do=
ne
> >>>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
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
