What was God doing before he created the universe?

[Guest Libertarius]

According to the story of creation from Egypt,

he MASTURBATED, and ejaculated the world into existence. -- L.

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:49:21 -0700, Libertarius

<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

- Refer: <A_GdndLnqNCyShfYnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com>

>According to the story of creation from Egypt,

>he MASTURBATED, and ejaculated the world into existence. -- L.

 

That would explain why believers in God are a bunch of wankers.

 

--

[Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

Someone wrote:

> On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article

> >

>

> I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take

> Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example,

 

 

there is no such 'thing' as 'the ten commandments' in Judaism or the

hebrew religion of the TaNaKh.

[Guest Someone]

On 12/22/06 12:01 AM, in article

1166774491.179371.237130@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet

Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote:

> Someone wrote:

>> On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article

>>>

>>

>> I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take

>> Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example,

>

>

> there is no such 'thing' as 'the ten commandments' in Judaism or the

> hebrew religion of the TaNaKh.

>

 

The 10 Commandments are indeed part of Jewish Law (as are 603 OTHER

commandments). They are called the "Decalogue" (10 statements) by the

Greeks.. Aseret Ha-something or another in Hebrew (which also stood for "10

Statements").

 

I guess you're just trying to start an argument. 'Tain't gonna happen. I'm

just going to ignore you when you say ignorant stuff again.

[Guest Jim07D6]

Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said:

>

>

>

>On 12/22/06 12:01 AM, in article

>1166774491.179371.237130@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet

>Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote:

>

>> Someone wrote:

>>> On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article

>>>>

>>>

>>> I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take

>>> Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example,

>>

>>

>> there is no such 'thing' as 'the ten commandments' in Judaism or the

>> hebrew religion of the TaNaKh.

>>

>

>The 10 Commandments are indeed part of Jewish Law (as are 603 OTHER

>commandments). They are called the "Decalogue" (10 statements) by the

>Greeks.. Aseret Ha-something or another in Hebrew (which also stood for "10

>Statements").

>

>I guess you're just trying to start an argument. 'Tain't gonna happen. I'm

>just going to ignore you when you say ignorant stuff again.

 

It's all a matter of convention. The "ten commandments" are viewed by

some as the foundational wellspring of all Jewish laws. But Jesus's

admonitions to love God and love thy neighbor is viewed by some as the

wellspring of the ten commandments, the first 3 and the last 7 of them

respectively concerning God and fellow man. Of course Jesus has to be

viewed as either divinely prescient or legitimately authoritative, or

both, to be held in a position to say what the ten commandments boiled

down to.

-- Jim07D6

[Guest stoney]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:44:35 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>

wrote in alt.atheism

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, in alt.atheism

>"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in

><Pine.NEB.4.62.0612170433190.25446@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>>

>>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>>

>>

>>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>>

>>>> Correct.

>>>

>>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>>> in the same room.

>>

>>Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

>>verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

>>asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting

>>that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces.

>>A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>>simple realization.

>

>Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective.

>Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods.

 

Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is?

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:24:55 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in

alt.atheism

>"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

 

[]

>>Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for

>>one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God.

>

>It seems to be an appropriate response to "Scientifically prove God"

>to say "Science is silent on God." But whether the existence of God is

>independent of mind, is another question.

 

Until there's a concise and coherant definition for the g-o-d letter

string there isn't a question.

>-- Jim07D6

 

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On 20 Dec 2006 09:16:36 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>

wrote in alt.atheism

>

>Someone wrote:

>> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article

>> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

>> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

[]

>Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they

>shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which

>do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be

>wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and

>gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite

>manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in

>contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur

>so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the

>goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from

>the goats, and He is going to say to the goats: "Depart from me, ye

>cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues: "And these shall go away

>into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee,

>cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than

>having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be

>quenched, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He

>repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this

>doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of

>cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world, and gave the

>world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if

>you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would certainly

>have to be considered partly responsible for that.

>

>There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the

>Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put

>the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You

>must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils

>simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is

>the curious story of the fig-tree, which always rather puzzled me. You

>remember what happened about the fig-tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a

>fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find

>anything thereon; and when he came to it He found nothing but leaves,

>for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it:

>'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever'.... and Peter.... saith

>unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered

>away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time

>of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot

>myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of

>virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to

>History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those

>respects.

>

>Me again...I think Christ was a lunatic (my word) based on the above.

 

Disagree. The fictional character wasn't anywhere near that sane.

>> And if you can't get over that mental block, then remove him from the

>> sentence altogether: what harm does it do if we live as if we'll be checked

>> at the end of our lives?

>

>I see a difference between "we might be checked at the end of our

>lives" and "as if we'll be checked at the end of our lives." Both of

>which you're tossing out. "As if" implies that you're acting without

>believing, which I can manage, "might" implies that you're acting on

>belief, which I can't. Either way though, I think acting "good" because

>you're scared a deity might be pissed off is delusional (until you

>prove that a deity actually exists), and acting delusionally can be

>harmful. Look at the number of theists, Christian theists included, who

>thought they were acting "good" when in fact they were inflicting great

>pain and causing tremendous social upheaval. The guys who flew the

>planes into the World Trade Tower thought they were acting good.

>

>I prefer that people base their social behaviour on the rational

>concept that we're all better off if we're all supportive of each

>other, and follow the secular laws of the land. Something like that. No

>threat of god or religious delusions required, since I think any good

>parts of the religious message just get twisted.

 

What the tome flat indicates is; "Don't ask any questions. Just obey.

If you obey I might not torture you forever. Or I might since that is

loving, righteous, just, compassionate, empathic, and good. If I do

take such action you're ordered to rejoyce and sing my praises."

>> >> I'm not saying Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get

>> >> into a tizzy.

>> >

>>

>> And I suppose you didn't understand that sentence either.

>

>It didn't apply to me so I ignored it. I'm not a radical, and you have

>a long ways to go for me to achieve "tizzy." Up to now I've thought you

>were sort of funny.

 

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:52:59 GMT, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net>

wrote in alt.atheism

>

>"Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote

>

>>

>> Why deny it? I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for

>> it (does anyone see a flaw in his logic?)

>

>Philosophers have torn Pascal's Wager apart many years ago. There are

>numerous flaws in it. The biggest of them is his assumption that there are

>only two choices. There are really thousands of religions and religious

>sects, and several times that many possible religions. The chance of

>choosing the one TRUE RELIGION is against you. Chossing the wrong religion

>could be interpreted as worse than joining no religion, therefore you may be

>condemning youself to eternal punishment by choosing to follow a false God..

>

>Another problem is that you are choosing God out of the hope of receiving a

>reward, rather than the purer motive of choosing God because it is right.

>It may be the nature of God to reject you on that point alone.

>

>Finally, people may use that argument in confronting others, but I have

>never heard of anybody giving that as the reason they became religious.

>

>

>> Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes to me and says "Look, I

>> know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was up to you to

>> provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

>>

>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" I'm not saying

>> Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a

>> tizzy.

>

>I follow the theory that Jesus was a political rebel. That is exactly what

>the title "Messiah" means. According to the Old Testament, the messiah will

>sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

>Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and he did not restore the kingdoms

>of Israel and Judah. Therefore Jesus could not have been the messiah.

>

>Christianity has made Jesus into a God. If you are a Christian, you may be

>violating the 2nd Commandment by worshipping a false god, and will bring the

>anger of Yahweh upon your children even unto the fourth generation (Exodus

>20:5). You are gambling your children's souls. You and your children may

>be better off not worshipping any God at all.

 

So much for any resemblance of justice. Blaming the unborn for what an

ancestor did based on the 'Divine Plan'. God/Jesus is a craven

coward, an imbicile, and would have to be killed if it wasn't already

non-existant.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:15:03 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>

wrote in alt.atheism

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:48 -0500, in alt.atheism

>"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in

><Pine.NEB.4.62.0612171946090.27734@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>

>>> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and

>>> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed.

>>

>>The fact that there is no objective evidence of God is not a problem

>>because God has not been objectively investigated.

>

>How would you objectively investigate God?

 

Logically. 'God' is bronze age fiction.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:11:19 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in

alt.atheism

>"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

><...>

>>

>>It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>>itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

><...>

>

>Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

>exist. (Read this very carefully.)

>-- Jim07D6

 

Sam lacks the required two functioning neurons.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:14:49 GMT, Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote in

alt.atheism

>In article <9s7eo25e5i5am5r60oq33hoh97o48p2knc@4ax.com>,

> Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:

>

>> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>>

>> <...>

>> >

>> >It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>> >itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

>> <...>

>>

>> Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

>> exist. (Read this very carefully.)

>> -- Jim07D6

>

>This provides an interesting way of contemplating the postulate Jim

>proposed:

>

>http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-00/cover/

>

>Barbour's central argument is that a mistaken belief in the reality of

>time prevents physicists from achieving their ultimate goal: the

>unification of the submicroscopic atomic world of quantum mechanics with

>the vast cosmic one of general relativity. The problem arises because

>each theory provides a radically different conception of time, and

>physicists simply don't know how to reconcile the two views. Until they

>do, they will never have one seamless theory of the universe comprising

>the very smallest objects to the very largest. And certain

>middling-sized objects-- human beings-- will never understand the true

>nature of time and existence.

>

>What makes the two versions of time so different? Time in the quantum

>realm has no remarkable properties at all. In theories of quantum

>mechanics, time is essentially taken for granted; it simply regularly

>ticks away in the background, just as it does in our own lives. Like a

>clock at a sporting event, it provides an invisible framework in which

>events unfold. That's not the case in Einstein's general theory of

>relativity.

>

>To describe the universe on the largest scale, Einstein had to weave

>time and space together into the very fabric of the universe. As a

>result, in general relativity, there is no invisible framework, no clock

>ticking outside the universe against which to measure events. How could

>there be? Time and space joined together have weird consequences: Space

>and time curve around stars and other massive bodies and make light bend

>away from straight-line paths. Near black holes, time seems to slow down

>or even come to a full stop.

>

>Barbour is not alone in recognizing that the pictures of time in general

>relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible.

>Theoretical physicists around the world, spurred by Nobel dreams, sweat

>over the problem. But Barbour has taken perhaps the most unorthodox

>approach by proposing that the way to solve the conundrum is to leave

>time out of the equations that describe the universe entirely. He has

>been obsessed with this solution for more than 10 years, since he

>learned of a vexing mathematical tour de force by a young American

>physicist named Bryce DeWitt.

>

>DeWitt, with the help of the eminent American physicist John Wheeler,

>developed an equation in 1967 that apparently melded quantum mechanics

>with general relativity. He did this by taking the principles from

>quantum mechanics that describe the interactions of atoms and molecules

>and applying them to the entire universe, a mind-bending feat not unlike

>trying to make a jockey's suit fit Michael Jordan.

>

>Specifically, DeWitt hijacked the Schrodinger equation, named for the

>great Austrian physicist who created it. In its original form, the

>equation reveals how the arrangement of electrons determines the

>geometrical shapes of atoms and molecules. As modified by DeWitt, the

>equation describes different possible shapes for the entire universe and

>the position of everything in it. The key difference between

>Schrodinger's quantum and DeWitt's cosmic version of the equation--

>besides the scale of the things involved-- is that atoms, over time, can

>interact with other atoms and change their energies. But the universe

>has nothing to interact with except itself and has only a fixed total

>energy. Because the energy of the universe doesn't change with time, the

>easiest of the many ways to solve what has become known as the

>Wheeler-DeWitt equation is to eliminate time.

>

>Most physicists balk at that solution, believing it couldn't possibly

>describe the real universe. But a number of respected theorists, Barbour

>and Stephen Hawking among them, take DeWitt's work seriously. Barbour

>sees it as the best path to a real theory of everything, even with its

>staggering implication that we live in a universe without time, motion,

>or change of any kind.

 

But things do change. Constantly. Time passes, seasons progress, life

begins, matures, and dies. Without time there is only stasis.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:30:49 GMT, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net>

wrote in alt.atheism

>

>"Samuel W. Heywood" wrote

>>

>> There is only one God, and He is known by many names.

>> Call Him Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit.

>> It doesn't matter. By whatever name,

>> we are speaking of only The One True God.

>>

>> Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham

>> by realization. He differs only by attempted description.

>

>There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you three

>examples right now:

>

> First, there is what Libertarius referred to as Spinoza's God.

>Basically Spinoza's God is identical with nature and cannot be separated

>from it.

>

> Second is the Christian God which is separate from his creation and

>exists outside of time and in a separate world.

>

> Third is the biblical God. That God was made in the image of man and

>exhibits many of man's characteristics, such as anger, greed, and conceit.

>He sits on a throne with angels constantly singing "Holy, Holy, Holy."

 

What an unholy bore and imbicile!

 

Christian prays to God.

 

"Holy, Holy, Holy."

 

I need a sign!

 

"Holy, Holy, Holy."

 

God, do you have a sense of humour?

 

"Holy, Holy, Holy."

 

Hey, God! What about these contradictions, errors, and just plain

bullshit?

 

"Holy, Holy, Holy."

> Isaiah 6:1-3 Revelations 4:6-8

>

>--Wax.

>

 

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On 18 Dec 2006 14:29:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>

wrote in alt.atheism

>

>Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>

>> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>

>> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote:

>>

>> >>> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>> >>> There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you

>> >>> three examples right now:

>> >>

>> >> <snip>

>> >>

>> >> You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions.

>> >> I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in

>> >> the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come

>> >> across an elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is.

>> >> One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's

>> >> tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different

>> >> conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the

>> >> same thing.

>> >

>> > It explains a lot that you think an elephant's trunk and an

>> > elephant's ass are the same thing.

>>

>> Nope. It explains why none of the three blind men can perceive that

>> it is an elephnt because they can't behold the whole thing at once

>> like the people of vision can.

>

>See now, that isn't what you said. Re-read your last sentence, "They

>each had different

>conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the

>same thing," and tell me that you didn't say they were all perceiving

>the same thing. One had an ear, the other had a tail, the other had a

>tail (2 of them had the tail! what were they, Siamese Twins?) They

>were conceiving different things (well, some of them were,

>anyway...nice storytelling), according to you. If you could write in a

>clear manner and read for comprehension (even with your own writing!)

>it might help.

>

>> Thank you very much for your reply. I really needed that because

>> I have been waiting for an appropriate opportunity to tell all my

>> fellow newsgroup readers a very interesting story I heard about you.

>>

>> It was reported that you were recently seen riding an elephant along

>> the avenue. As you and your mount passed by a couple of pedestrians

>> they pointed at you and they laughed and snickered while exclaiming

>> "Look at the asshole on that elephant." Then you dismounted from the

>> elephant, and you walked around to the rear end of the elephant, and

>> you lifted up its tail to take a look.

>

>Nice. You fuck up a parable and blame it on me. You're a real gem.

 

That's the Christian Way

[Guest stoney]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:58:53 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote

in alt.atheism

>On 13 Dec 2006 14:34:43 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your

>>research just might find God

>

>Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will

>be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't

>research, it's religion.

 

Disagree. It's superstition. Religion is merely new 'wrapping paper'

with the same old rotten fish.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On 13 Dec 2006 22:15:26 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in

alt.atheism

>> Science doesn't provide evidence, it investigates observed evidence.

>> And there's never been any evidence of any god.

>>

>> Are you beginning to see the common thread?

>

>Sure, you've been brain washed into thinking that everything can be

>explained

>through science and you risk your eternity on a belief system that has

>many gaps.

 

Lying sack of cowardly and pig ignorant Christian dog shit.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:28:30 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in

alt.atheism

>"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> said:

>

>>

><...>

>>No reasonable person would be criticized for not believing in invisible

>>minuature unicorns. Why are atheists criticized for not believing in God,

>>when the evidence for God is no better than the evidence for invisible

>>minuature unicorns?

>

>Because the prevailing illusion is God?

 

The prevailing delusion in the former USA.

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

Jim07D6 wrote:

> Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said:

>

> >

> >

> >

> >On 12/22/06 12:01 AM, in article

> >1166774491.179371.237130@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet

> >Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote:

> >

> >> Someone wrote:

> >>> On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>> I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take

> >>> Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example,

> >>

> >>

> >> there is no such 'thing' as 'the ten commandments' in Judaism or the

> >> hebrew religion of the TaNaKh.

> >>

> >

> >The 10 Commandments are indeed part of Jewish Law (as are 603 OTHER

> >commandments). They are called the "Decalogue" (10 statements) by the

> >Greeks.. Aseret Ha-something or another in Hebrew (which also stood for "10

> >Statements").

> >

> >I guess you're just trying to start an argument. 'Tain't gonna happen. I'm

> >just going to ignore you when you say ignorant stuff again.

>

> It's all a matter of convention. The "ten commandments" are viewed by

> some as the foundational wellspring of all Jewish laws.

 

 

 

they are not "commandments" they are `dvarim`

--abstractions /categories of hundreds of `mitzvot` "commandments".

"Jesus" i.e. `Iesou` `yeshua` taught these hundreds of mitzvot and

naturally obeyed them.

 

the Christian revision of "ten commandments" is a revision of torah

--impossible (according to torah) and basically a complete abandonment

of the hebrew religion, which is rooted in torah which itself is a

covenant which is linked to the land `aretz` not "immortality".

 

> But Jesus's

> admonitions to love God and love thy neighbor

 

is irrelevant.

but there again, there is more than one distinct "Jesus" in the New

testament, an anthology of books from different cults/religions.

take for instance the Gospel of John, where "Jesus" is (according to

p75) the only "begotten God" --contradicting Pauline theology (not

mention the other Gospels).

 

call them commandments if you don't care what they are in reality.

Christianity has no commandments --it has "the law of Christ" --go try

and define that.

 

any appeal to nomov in the New testament must be an appeal to torah.

so what Christianity is saying is that it can 'reduce' torah to general

principles.

but that is what the ten `dvarim` were all along --the ten principles

of the hundreds of mitzvot.

 

it is as if one claims to own a cow, and produces a set of horns, but

there is no cow attached to them !

[Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

stoney wrote:

> >

> >Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective.

> >Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods.

>

> Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is?

>

 

 

quite a one-sided and silly view to say the least.

"religions" may and often do contain super-stitions and zoomorphic

deities.

'religion' requires none of those.

 

without a language there could be no 'religion' to provide a root

proposal.

without 'religion' we would not have human 'cult' --cultures.

 

learn what 'religion' truly is,

it's the essence of all human contexts.

[Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

stoney wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:24:55 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in

> alt.atheism

>

> >"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

> >

> >>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

>

> []

>

> >>Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for

> >>one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God.

> >

> >It seems to be an appropriate response to "Scientifically prove God"

> >to say "Science is silent on God." But whether the existence of God is

> >independent of mind, is another question.

>

> Until there's a concise and coherant definition for the g-o-d letter

> string there isn't a question.

 

yes, and the dilemma is defining must/is bound to occur within a

cultural stream.

[Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]]

stoney wrote:

> On 20 Dec 2006 09:16:36 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>

> >of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot

> >myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of

> >virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to

> >History.

 

that may be, but you are obviously in the dark.

 

>> I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those

> >respects.

> >

> >Me again...I think Christ was a lunatic (my word) based on the above.

>

> Disagree. The fictional character wasn't anywhere near that sane.

>

 

 

both of you are enjoying yourselves playing sophisticated

science-oriented 'atheists' perhaps (i won't assume) but you've been

snookered:

 

each `Iesou` character, whether pythagorean or whether the tragic

Bar-abbas, were noble and authentic representations of their profound

truths.

 

that these accounts suffer severe tampering by some mystery religion

editors who couldn't read Aramaic (or hebrew) , and are bound together

in one anthology by Roman administrators attempting to stabilize a

chaotic and disintegrating empire,

does not justify your ignorance.

 

 

read more, opine less.

[Guest dingaling]

josh wrote:

> Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God

> with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so

> hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities

> attributed to him.

>

> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he

> could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of

> thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them?

> Just daydreaming?

>

> It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he

> sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum

> somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and

> memory, which suggests a previous round of creation.

>

> Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If

> it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a

> time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there.

> So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no

> word 'happen' in a place outside time!

>

> This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before

> there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem

> arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come

> into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe.

>

> Please argue.

 

(He was trying to figure out how to make woman out of spare

parts.(Spare ribs yet.)

[Guest stoney]

On 14 Dec 2006 22:11:52 -0800, "Geoffrey Lin" <geoflin@gmail.com> wrote

in alt.atheism

>I am bisexual, the homosexual community would say. I like women, but I

>also am interested in men (of which I don't tend to disassociate to

>people because it would ruin my reputation as a lawyer).

>

>Anyway, since it is the Internet and my idntity is hidden I will

>continue.

>

>Let's call me Bob, for example.

>

>So I Bob, in University, I studied a subject called cutomology which is

>the study of humans and reasoning. (This was apart of my Economics

>degree - it was indeed an elective)

>

>Anyway, I believe that it should be a constitutional right, in the

>United States (and even the world), that homosexuals should have

>similar rights to heterosexuals.

 

It is so written in the constitution. Sadly, the former USA hasn't ever

had the courage to follow the document.

>God said "love thy neighbor", and it's

>not about Biblical values or anything, but it's about loving thy

>neighbor - and letting people do whatever they wish to - whatever the

>consequence.

>

>That is what I, Bob, believe.

 

 

 

--

Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

[Guest stoney]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:09:39 -0800, Someone

<someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism

 

 

Note: It is very rude to top post.

>I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age.

>And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to

>believe that life was meaningless.

>

>I'm not espousing, by the way, any particular faith (or un-faith). But here

>are some thoughts...

>

>If our consciousness ends when we die (e.g., all our ability to observe,

>feel, witness, etc. vanishes when we close our eyes that final time), then

>what is the point of planning for being responsible for anything during our

>lives? If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment,

>feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of

>a life well-lived, would we?

 

Why not?

> If we go ahead and just "live our lives"

>running amok if we feel like it, then after we die, we wouldn't have the

>capability of feeling remorse (or pride "man, that was fun!"). It'd be

>over, wouldn't it?

 

It is over. However, above and below you're describing a psychopath.

>And if we can't feel the consequences of our lives after death and we're

>just here to enjoy the moment, then why not take HUGE risks now (i.e. Armed

>bank robbery, or kidnapping Bill Gates)--and just make sure that if we're

>caught, the SWAT team gets us... Because if we die, well it's over--but if

>we succeed, then we can live our remaining years in comfort. Why feel sorry

>for children being raped and murdered--after all, they're not around anymore

>to feel the pain or even remember that it happened. And if life sucks for

>someone, then why doesn't he just blow his brains out--it isn't like he'll

>feel remorse or anything afterward would he? What's the use of "propgating

>the species" if your consciousness isn't there to know that it's been

>propagated? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVE TO GO ON LIVING IF THERE IS

>NOTHING AFTER DEATH?

 

There is no scientific incentive to go on liviing since there's nothing

after death. Why would one think there was such an 'incentive?'

>You see, my interest in all this religion stuff is that life doesn't

>scientifically make sense.

 

Who ever said life is supposed to make sense, 'scientifically' or

otherwise? And superstition certainly not any answer.

>I can hear the clamoring arguments now--and I concur. There is a

>possibility that I could be wrong and there ISN'T anything after I die...

>But then I won't be around to realize my error, would I?

 

Correct.

> So while I am living my life, I prefer to believe that there is something afterward and

>that my life does have meaning.

 

It has the meaning you give it. With the christian deity construct, for

one, life is meaningless.

> Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress

>and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed

>creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a

>spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of

>religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real

>happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the

>demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

> Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel

[Guest Someone]

On 12/23/06 7:35 AM, in article ieiqo2hpomtur949fgbtti9t15lnasnnp3@4ax.com,

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:09:39 -0800, Someone

> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>

>

> Note: It is very rude to top post.

>

>> I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age.

>> And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to

>> believe that life was meaningless.

>>

>> I'm not espousing, by the way, any particular faith (or un-faith). But here

>> are some thoughts...

>>

>> If our consciousness ends when we die (e.g., all our ability to observe,

>> feel, witness, etc. vanishes when we close our eyes that final time), then

>> what is the point of planning for being responsible for anything during our

>> lives? If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment,

>> feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of

>> a life well-lived, would we?

>

> Why not?

>

 

Well, because your consciousness ceases to exist. Without consciousness,

there can be no elation or remorse, right? In fact, without you being

conscious of the fact, it would be the same as if you never existed.

>> If we go ahead and just "live our lives"

>> running amok if we feel like it, then after we die, we wouldn't have the

>> capability of feeling remorse (or pride "man, that was fun!"). It'd be

>> over, wouldn't it?

>

> It is over. However, above and below you're describing a psychopath.

>

 

I'm describing one extreme of pure amorality. If I die, and death

essentially means an end to all existence (past, present and future), then

why not act completely in my self-interest (not that it matters, since when

I die, existence ends)? Or at the other extreme, why not be completely

altruistic even to the extent of letting myself starve to death?

>> And if we can't feel the consequences of our lives after death and we're

>> just here to enjoy the moment, then why not take HUGE risks now (i.e. Armed

>> bank robbery, or kidnapping Bill Gates)--and just make sure that if we're

>> caught, the SWAT team gets us... Because if we die, well it's over--but if

>> we succeed, then we can live our remaining years in comfort. Why feel sorry

>> for children being raped and murdered--after all, they're not around anymore

>> to feel the pain or even remember that it happened. And if life sucks for

>> someone, then why doesn't he just blow his brains out--it isn't like he'll

>> feel remorse or anything afterward would he? What's the use of "propgating

>> the species" if your consciousness isn't there to know that it's been

>> propagated? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVE TO GO ON LIVING IF THERE IS

>> NOTHING AFTER DEATH?

>

> There is no scientific incentive to go on liviing since there's nothing

> after death. Why would one think there was such an 'incentive?'

>

 

There should exist an incentive, because people choose to continue

living--and there is generally an adversity to suicide. Is it biological (a

"don't slit your own wrists" gene)? Is it spiritual (God breathed his word

so that you continue living)?

 

But in truth, if existence really ceases to exist when one dies, why keep up

the pretense of living. A kind of weak analogy is--if you know that you

won't get graded, paid, or rewarded in any way, why would you keep working

at a job that doesn't benefit you or anyone else?

>> You see, my interest in all this religion stuff is that life doesn't

>> scientifically make sense.

>

> Who ever said life is supposed to make sense, 'scientifically' or

> otherwise? And superstition certainly not any answer.

>

 

Everything else in needs to make scientific sense (e.g., evolution,

creation, the cause of zits)--but consciousness and the reason of life

doesn't need to make scientific sense?

>> I can hear the clamoring arguments now--and I concur. There is a

>> possibility that I could be wrong and there ISN'T anything after I die...

>> But then I won't be around to realize my error, would I?

>

> Correct.

>

>> So while I am living my life, I prefer to believe that there is something

>> afterward and

>> that my life does have meaning.

>

> It has the meaning you give it. With the christian deity construct, for

> one, life is meaningless.

>

 

Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe that life is a way to "prove one's

worthiness" to live eternally with God. Christians' simplified the rules so

that one is deemed worthy if one accepts Christ. Buddhists and Hindu (the

latter I only vaguely understand) believe one's actions determines what one

will be in the next life. So each of these religions attribute meaning to

this current life in terms of what happens after.

 

But if nothing happens after, and one truly believes it, then what kind of

life doctrines can that person follow considering he KNOWS he isn't being

graded, paid, or rewarded in any way? Answer: any doctrine he feels like,

it doesn't matter.

 

>> Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress

>> and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed

>> creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a

>> spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of

>> religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real

>> happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the

>> demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

>> Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel