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:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 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.
One god is as good as another until you establish otherwise with physical
evidence.
>>>> 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.
We are back to Vishnu and Loki with that statement. You are hawking the
Christian god.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> That is in the category of describing light as square. Using
>> gender means there is *** involved, period.
> Arguing semantics is a waste of time.
You are using words and words have meanings. I have always proposed "it"
for
your god but believers don't seem to like it much. It is certainly more in
line
with what you claim about that god.
>>> 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?
From inscriptions found in bibleland saying "yahweh and his consort
ashara" and
from the many mentions of Astarte's Temple down to the first century AD
although
believers translate it Strato's Tower it is BYT STRT just as it is BYT
YHWH. I
have no idea why people are afraid to use consistent translations.
> 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.
It should be obvious Abraham and Moses never existed because the Egypt
described in Genesis and Exodus is absolutely nothing like Egypt in those
days.
In fact Egypt was never as described in those five books.
Not to put too fine a point on it, who told you they were the infallible
word
and why did you believe them? Even a cursory survey of ancient Egypt shows
the
contain only nonsense. How could an unwashed goat herder talk to the
god-king of
Egypt like that? How can there be any words about the gods of Egypt when
the
king was in fact one of those gods?
How could the *****uous pimp and con artist Abraham sell his ugly wife
to the
god-king of Egypt and then have that king with his dozens of wifes and
from the
inbred line of kings give a damn about the silly superstitious marriage
customs
of Ur? Speaking of Ur how could he be from a city that was abandoned
centuries
before the begats say he was born?
I have no idea which idiot invented the idea the pentateuch was the word
of god
but he was obviously not very educated. And educated person would at least
know
the Code of Hammurabi was around a thousand years before the big ten and
is
vastly superior while covering much the same material.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
The Greek Pantheon is included and that is roughly the same from Persia
to Rome
in the ancient world. They did NOT demand wars at all much less wars of
extermination. The same is true of the Egyptian pantheon. I wrote only of
the
gods and what they did NOT do and I compared that to the bloodthirsty,
murderous
god you think is so hot **** even though its infallible word is clearly
bull****.
>> 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".
As you know that diabolical god of yours ordered the slaughter of
everyone from
elderly to newborn and their animals with the usual exception to take
virgin
females as *** slaves for their harems. And with the conquest of bibleland
the
people were not enemies until that bloodthirsty god ordered their
slaughter.
Of course we can read in Exodus that the god would drive out the
inhabitants
before his people arrives, hornets and such. As that in to you infallible
and as
Joshua invaded an inhabited land either your god lied or Joshua invaded
the
wrong land.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
As I said, every rational person requires physical evidence before
accepting
anything. ALL progress in science is based upon that. You have not
presented the
least physical evidence for you diabolic god. All of your supposed
evidence
applies to any and all gods as I noted with Vishnu and Loki. You have not
presented anything of interest to sup****t your god. Please start doing so.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
I again invite you to make a name for yourself by being the first to
present
physical evidence of a biblical Israel.
>> 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) does not
> stand or fall on the testimony of contem****aneous witness but on the
> absolute truth of its message. No where at any time or any place has
> human invention shown itself capable of producing a like work that is
> completely accurate in the realm of moral distinctions.
Until there is physical evidence of the events in those five books there
is no
way to distinguish them from the stories of Atlantis and Camelot and no
rational
person would take them seriously without such evidence. If you said you
believed
Oz was a real place I would not consider you any dumber than I do now.
>>>>>> Get over it and get on with real life.
>>>>> Thanks for the advice. LOL
>>>> But you won't take it.
>>> Consider the source.
>> Please produce the physical evidence beyond vague name
>> similarities that are laughable for any prominent person or event in
>> the Old Testament. Bibleland should be littered with artifacts of the
>> great king Solomon and his Israel. So be the first to produce a single
>> artifact mentioning the Great King Solomon and his mighty Israel.>
>> I have been through EVERY single claim and find them all no more than
>> overactive imaginations. Please post what you believe is true so I can
>> show you what nonsense you have been led to believe.
> Repeat: The efficacy of the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy)
> does not stand or fall on the testimony of contem****aneous witness but
> on the absolute truth of its message. No where at any time or any place
> has human invention shown itself capable of producing a like work that
> is completely accurate in the realm of moral distinctions.
To repeat if you believed there was an Oz and a Wizard thereof and the
good
witch Glinda I would not think you any dumber than I do now.
--
Sickos of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your health!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3797
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html
a2
|
