Owing to the gregarious nature of your antiquated jargon and ever
rambling prose and unashamedly verbose verbiage and fallacious
reasonings as evidenced in unintelligible modes of thought depicted
in the most ill-shaped grammatical constructions imaginable to the
finite reasoning of most fellow two-legged homo sapien humanoid
beings possessing analytic and emotive rationality, as defined on
the one hand by the great German Enlightenment philosopher and sage
of the European rationalist traditionalist, Immanuel Kant, and on
the other by the arch-nemesis of rationality and bearer of what some
have termed "Satanic" notions of the manner of human existence and
its relation to the wholly conceived or partially conceived realm of
the divine, the deep yet psychologically afflicted German
philosopher-prophet, Friedrich Nietszche, I hereby declare you a
self-inflated and pompous know-it-all who manages to splay across
the ink-splattered page, or rather, across the electronic likeness
thereof, a plethora of words that appear to convey quite a
substantive degree of subtle and profound knowledge, but in reality
conveys quite a lot of absolute nothingness, that is, in the common
tongue, 'pure boloney', and so I thus and therefore hereby declare
you in contempt of the civil code obedience which governs even the
most casual visitors of this public forum, and heretofore place you
under house arrest, until which time you show yourself capable and
desirous of civil discourse in a manner agreeable to the inhabitants
of this peaceful and genteel community of fellow deists, free-
thinkers, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, theists, pantheists,
panentheists, and any other subcategory not herein listed.

Thank you for your kind attention to this grave matter, and I look
forward to your most kind and sincere cooperation.

The Right Honorable Message Board Founder and Moderator,

Sir Greg
--- In deism_now@yahoogroups.com, "A1" <andrew_zito@y...> wrote:

IS"G-d" the Big Bang? THE TEMPLE OF REASON

http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito

I think I have all your posts to date to excerpt in their

pertinent parts.

Though frankly I am not the most inclined to free and open forums

as I have

never found them either free or open, nor the participants always

the most

honest, in that as free agents often take opportunistically and
rhetorically respond what they wish; and, banter as they may

without any

respect to disciplines examined or integrity of the topics ....
alternatively that the static "conservative" forums preserve for

which I

post my sites where those finding my posts here lacking can

alternatively

seek answers..

GRGaud responded else where identified himself as a free thinker

with

baggage (grgaud at sympatico dot ca

http://grgaud.exchristian.info.)

where in comment of my article ( A DEIST REBUTTAL on being

asked "God-Is

There Proof?" LABEL IS THAT THE QUESTION?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason/message/7 )

he stated his cynical discouragements ("[GR] Desperately trying

to start a

Deist discussion group, eh? Good luck. Deism is a dead duck on the
Internet." ,

painfully taken as he presumed I really cared of the matter in some
opportunistic sense [though success is always appreciated and has

its

rewards]), and left never to be heard of again though an entire

page was

written just for him
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason/message/9), and

a "woman"

who reacted appropriately in retort to his catchy phrase
(talk.religion.pantheism group) that "God was conceived as a

universal

substitute when no valid explanation was available.",

saying "Oooh, I like

that sig line! Fits right in with my 'ancient book by ancient men

with no

understanding of the universe around them'." (Ann annbal@t...).

I was both sadden and encouraged by the mixed blessings of these

two noble

people who were so close yet so far apart.

My immediate response was what I wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason/message/9 as they

seemed to

be contending with the same difficulty.

I find it all too comfortable to be some sort of humanist as I am

human, and

though I was not born but merely human labels have been regularly

attached

to me my whole life, but I ask for what purpose. True we know

things often

by the labels we give them (e.g. soup) but Shakespeare reminds us

eternally

that "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet". TRUE.

And in that Bernard Connor aka "Jim Browning" <revjwb@w...>
wrote in message
news:<mB%dc.5977$K_.189404@b...>...

" Deism, Theism, Divinity, Theology are all nonsense.
We do not know whether God exists, or if She does, how can we tell
whether She wants us to know anything about Her?"

in which GRgaud <grgaud at sympatico dot ca>
<http://grgaud.exchristian.info.> concurred that "Deism, Theism,

Divinity

and Theology are all nonsense." Before he went on sarcastically

speaking

rhetorically saying:

"[gr] Or maybe if God exists, IT doesn't want us to know

anything

about IT. Why does God have to be a male or a female, a Father or

a

Mother? God was conceived as a universal substitute when no valid
explanation was available."

As they did so without addressing the issues for themselves, nor

the

subject matter at hand, which in law is called an unresponsive

pleading.

Undoubtedly if they were to optimally express positions

representing their

own views those can be torn to shreds by unruly mob justice and

wild wolves

(if they actually had the temerity to express some views as

actually full

discussion and debate doesn't appropriately occur).

Generally ATHEIST, HUMANIST, AGNOSTIC, MUCH LIKE THEIST,

SHAMANISTIC,

SATANISTIC, or METAPHYSICAL VIEWS can be seen as equal

Thru a scientific, pantheist, deist, materialist, point of view

compatible

with traditional religion/theology as the significant and required

points

are not the traditional ones.

As a life long rationalist and materialist (conservatively

schooled in

schools of materialism) I started searching out modern day

Unitarians,

Universalists,, Ethical Culture, Reconstructionists, Humanists,

Atheists,

studies of Thomas Aquinas, Herbert De Herbert, Aristotle,

Socrates, Alfred

J. Ayers (whose work on Language Truth and Logic I highly

recommend),

BERTRAND RUSSELL, Theravada, Zen and found the world schools of

thought

lacking including the Deists (whom I accuse of adopting corrupt

and self

serving "liberal" "existentialist" practices and methodologies).

Orthodox Jews have often gotten upset in discussion mentioning

pantheist

concepts (much as they treated Spinoza) equating g-d to material

existence

(perhaps rightfully so as I would not gain comfort in thoughts of

spitting,

defecating, or walking on g-d) but also forgetting, that material

existence

is in a study of physics that study also includes the empty spaces

between

the particles, and the elements of particles (which humanists are

so quick

to remind us of but conveniently are less apt to explain, which

conversely

in debate Theists remind us of , but whom stop before explaining

the unknown

and mysterious.

Which Deists such as ourselves advance are not I esoteric need

of:

initiation, clerical explanation, nor in need of words and

religious

scriptures for the seeds exist in the very sinews and fiber of

existence or

should be if not so.

In the sciences (who atheists and most rationalist rely on to

explain

existence, of what they call g-d [I believe Atheists are in

methodology

mostly Theists without using that same terminology]) we use

algebraic

symbols to represent gives in order to deduce the unknown, here

the they the

Atheists/rationalists act hypocritically and to the contrary by

their

disallowing anything not merely what is un-provable but also which

is

undiscernable to them personally in some selfish existentialist

argument to

which sane people must object, as personal perogatives should not

dictate

social necessities, nor social necessities dictate private

concerns in what

often has taken fratricidal proportions at times.

As for me for the most part since I am constrained economically

and make

such efforts as I can my limitations as an individuals beg an

answer as to

the relevance of the individual in that which I challenge and

which can not

be decided objectively by humans (though they should try to do so
collectively in some responsible manner but proberly won't as their
mob/gang/tribal mentality and language in the only form of

ignorance they

often understand.

Generally Theists can be critiqued just as severely if not more so

but that

would be too easy as humanists rationalists agnostics deists

mostly all

adopted a similar use of terminology as they play a liberal but
obstructionist role where they refuse to define themselves (or

even try to

do so) for no other reason than selfish gain and interests.

TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito