| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Li Mu Bai" |
| Date: |
04 Dec 2003 10:06:58 PM |
| Object: |
Question for angelicusrex |
Show me evidence that angels exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 10:58:12 AM |
|
|
On 05 Dec 2003, (Yang) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:3fd02018.767234@news.cox.net:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:58:15 -0700, "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the
argument, you show me evidence angels don't exist.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right
to do so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough
"evidence" for my personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the
only way an angel will show up in your life, when you believe in them.
You are making an assertion by believing that Angels exists, since we
have no more conclusive evidence of it than the eixstence of aliens
and tooth fairies.
To be honest, Yang, I don't think he's making an assertion. He
personally believes that angels exist and that he talks to them, and
while I may think that's a bit kooky, it *is* his personal belief and
he's not asking that I, or anyone else, agree with him unless we tell
him we would like to learn about his beliefs and possibly agree with
him.
I think his stance is perfectly reasonable, though perhaps irrational
IMHO, and I don't think it's reasonable of Li Mu Bai to demand evidence
from someone who shows no desire to argue the point or push his beliefs
on anyone else. You can believe that the sky is purple with orange
polka dots if you so desire, and as long as you're not trying to affect
others with that belief, it's really nobody's business.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bvh" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 12:58:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:10:09 +0000, Yang wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:58:15 -0700, "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the argument,
you show me evidence angels don't exist.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right to do
so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for my
personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel will
show up in your life, when you believe in them.
You are making an assertion by believing that Angels exists, since we
have no more conclusive evidence of it than the eixstence of aliens
and tooth fairies.
But he's not making a requirement for you to agree with him. It really
sounds like its the other way around.
As to further evidence of their existence, I point you to the Koran, The
Torah, the Talmud, the Key of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, the Kabala, the
Bible, the Baghadvadghita, etc. etc. Many people believe in angels and give
evidence of them in their lives from ancient through modern times. You can
either weigh their words and decide for your self, or you can simply close
off your mind and just forget the whole thing...But to those who ask
haughtily for miracles and signs, I say unto you, none shall be given.
Those holy books also describe the existence of talking donkeys,
gazelles that run around having sex with humans, a guy with an
elephant head, the merry witches of Endor, etc etc. Do you believe in
them also?
Why not? You can actually observe the gazelle thing at
alt.binaries.multimedia.gazellehumanlove. Lots of avi's for your perusal.
To disbeleive something simply because you cannot prove it is an
abomination to the scientific principle, to which I'm guessing you're an
avid subscriber.
Think of those books as early works in progress. The bible lists Pi=3,
which is fine if you are running windows on a pentium pro, but we later learned to figure
it more precisely.
We once thought we could prove that electrons move in shaped orbitals
around the nucleus of an atom like planets around a star. Now we know better via more refined
research and observational methods. Talking donkeys and elephant headed
people may be interpretations of things perfectly natural but not
understood by those who encountered them, so a talking donkey or elephant
headed man seemed more plausible.
By the same token, the planets Uranus and Pluto were discovered not by
direct observation (we didn't have powerful enough telescopes until Hubble
-the man not the orbiting platform - came along, but by observing the behavior of visible bodies around
them. By that assertion it could be surmised that by looking around you
and paying attention that angels do exist by oberserving the miraculous in
everyday events. Today we call them angels because we do not fully
understand the workings of the universe, and I hope we never do. Maybe
someone really smart will prove the basis for string theory and multiple
dimensions, and it will turn out that energy can move from one plane of
existence to another, and the manifestation of that energy is construed as
angelic presence. The point is, we give things names that we don't
understand as a first step towards understanding them.
This way of thinking doesn't depreciate the benefits we get from believing in the
miraculous. It simply puts things in a different context.
Ultimately, for things that really matter, there is no proof or ultimate
truth.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -440 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 01:49:51 AM |
|
|
"bvh" <bvh@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.05.06.58.35.157481@localhost.localdomain...
: On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:10:09 +0000, Yang wrote:
:
: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:58:15 -0700, "angelicusrex"
: > <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the
argument,
: >>you show me evidence angels don't exist.
: >>
: >>I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right
to do
: >>so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for
my
: >>personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel
will
: >>show up in your life, when you believe in them.
: >
: > You are making an assertion by believing that Angels exists, since we
: > have no more conclusive evidence of it than the eixstence of aliens
: > and tooth fairies.
:
: But he's not making a requirement for you to agree with him. It really
: sounds like its the other way around.
You can believe whatever you want...however incomprehensible it is to anyone
else *but* if you ask them to believe it you should show good cause
: >
: >>As to further evidence of their existence, I point you to the Koran, The
: >>Torah, the Talmud, the Key of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, the Kabala,
the
: >>Bible, the Baghadvadghita, etc. etc. Many people believe in angels and
give
: >>evidence of them in their lives from ancient through modern times. You
can
: >>either weigh their words and decide for your self, or you can simply
close
: >>off your mind and just forget the whole thing...But to those who ask
: >>haughtily for miracles and signs, I say unto you, none shall be given.
: >
: > Those holy books also describe the existence of talking donkeys,
: > gazelles that run around having sex with humans, a guy with an
: > elephant head, the merry witches of Endor, etc etc. Do you believe in
: > them also?
:
: Why not? You can actually observe the gazelle thing at
: alt.binaries.multimedia.gazellehumanlove. Lots of avi's for your perusal.
:
: To disbeleive something simply because you cannot prove it is an
: abomination to the scientific principle, to which I'm guessing you're an
: avid subscriber.
i dont understand this part...what scientific principle is based on a belief
system without any evidencial back up ? i think it is perfectly logical to
disbelieve something until it has been shown to be valid - If i claim that
the Sydney Harbour Bridge does not remain standing due to its mechanical
structure..but rather to extremely large invisible appartently massless
elephants under the main deck... should this be believed ?? I cant be proved
or disproved..what now ?
: Think of those books as early works in progress. The bible lists Pi=3,
: which is fine if you are running windows on a pentium pro, but we later
learned to figure
: it more precisely.
Im confident that we knew pi more accurately than that way before windows or
PC's..and the bible and koran is a work in progress ??..u mean god is still
figuring things out ??..this should be news to a lot of theologins and i
wouldnt mention the koran is a wip to a fundy moslem - it could ruin your
whole day.
: We once thought we could prove that electrons move in shaped orbitals
: around the nucleus of an atom like planets around a star. Now we know
better via more refined
: research and observational methods. Talking donkeys and elephant headed
: people may be interpretations of things perfectly natural but not
: understood by those who encountered them, so a talking donkey or elephant
: headed man seemed more plausible.
funny these "natural" things only happened a long time ago... nature changed
or something ?...why dont we have talking donkeys now...although ive meet a
few people that thought like donkeys...but thats another thread :-)
: By the same token, the planets Uranus and Pluto were discovered not by
: direct observation (we didn't have powerful enough telescopes until Hubble
: -the man not the orbiting platform - came along, but by observing the
behavior of visible bodies around
: them.
Pluto was photographed in 1930 ... that was *way* before hubble but you are
right that they surmised it was there indirectly.
By that assertion it could be surmised that by looking around you
: and paying attention that angels do exist by oberserving the miraculous in
: everyday events.
like what for example ?? - this would be the proof if u can show an
unaccountable miracle
Today we call them angels because we do not fully
: understand the workings of the universe, and I hope we never do.
nice thought...lets all sit around ...grin at each other and hope we dont
learn anything... better to remain in the dark than learn our *angel* theory
is not right
Maybe
: someone really smart will prove the basis for string theory and multiple
: dimensions, and it will turn out that energy can move from one plane of
: existence to another, and the manifestation of that energy is construed as
: angelic presence. The point is, we give things names that we don't
: understand as a first step towards understanding them.
But above you stated you dont want to understand the workings of the
universe...so you are happier to think that angels are real..rather than
some less romantic energy/plane exchange ?
:
: This way of thinking doesn't depreciate the benefits we get from believing
in the
: miraculous. It simply puts things in a different context.
what benefits would they be ? and what is the context - we should stay
ignorant and happy ??
: Ultimately, for things that really matter, there is no proof or ultimate
: truth.
subjective - what matters to you i might not give two hoots about and no
ultimate truth ? - what does that mean ? your ideas might not be right...but
you just want to believe them ?
Steve
: > -----
: >
: > Yang
: > a.a. #28
: > a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
: > EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
: > Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
: >
: > The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
: > The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
: > The Bush Iraq lie: -440 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
: >
: > Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 04:35:50 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqpdel$3qe$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
: angelic presence. The point is, we give things names that we
don't
: understand as a first step towards understanding them.
But above you stated you dont want to understand the workings of the
universe...so you are happier to think that angels are real..rather
than
some less romantic energy/plane exchange ?
This is an interesting point. I'm trying to figure out what makes
people think Angels exist in the first place, but the newsgroup expert
(angelicusrex) isn't being very helpful with information.
I can take a stab at this, though. Perhaps the idea of angels is a
vestigial instinct from our time in the womb when we were connected to
our mothers who were protecting us from harm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 10:38:48 PM |
|
|
"Li Mu Bai" <green_goddess@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:vt0nt2jpje0t53@corp.supernews.com...
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqpdel$3qe$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
: angelic presence. The point is, we give things names that we
don't
: understand as a first step towards understanding them.
But above you stated you dont want to understand the workings of the
universe...so you are happier to think that angels are real..rather
than
some less romantic energy/plane exchange ?
This is an interesting point. I'm trying to figure out what makes
people think Angels exist in the first place, but the newsgroup expert
(angelicusrex) isn't being very helpful with information.
I can take a stab at this, though. Perhaps the idea of angels is a
vestigial instinct from our time in the womb when we were connected to
our mothers who were protecting us from harm.
My mother drank scotch, rum and cokes and ate Ritz Crackers for nine
months...she wasn't protective at all. I was raised without any protection
and put in danger. When this happens, one must turn to that which is outside
one's normal frame of reference. Which is why I thank the one who has helped
me throughout the years. That one is God.
However you seem to be positing a unconscious fetal "understanding" of
protection. Which seems to me as dubious and unproveable as God is. It is in
fact, pure speculation. Now, you don't seem to like speculation. You got
very testy with me when I speculated Jesus lived and perhaps died or
appeared to die on the cross and subsequently appeared to have resurrected.
So how is your speculation any different?
I gave you my website. Look at that. It's got everything about me and my
life and my experiences you'll ever need to know.
Saint
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nullus fides" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 07:52:16 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:49:51 +1100 didst Steve speak thusly:
i dont understand this part...what scientific principle is based on a belief
system without any evidencial back up ?
The psuedo-science kind.
--
The infrequently updated, terribly pointless
blog nobody reads can be found at:
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
(may be helpful for insomnia)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 11:03:54 AM |
|
|
On 05 Dec 2003, "bvh" <bvh@localhost.localdomain> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:pan.2003.12.05.06.58.35.157481@localhost.localdomain:
Today we call them angels because we do not fully
understand the workings of the universe, and I hope we never do.
Now see, that *really* bugs me. You "hope we never do"? Why? Isn't
knowledge essentially a good thing and ignorance essentially bad?
Are you afraid that understanding the physical workings of a thing
cheapens it? Tell me -- you understand the physical workings of the
pleasure you derive from sex, do you not? And do you still consider sex
a beautiful thing, or has it become low and dirty because you understand
how it works?
Personally, I'd say understanding fully how a thing happens glorifies it
and makes it that much more wonderful than it was.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 03:59:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:58:15 -0700, "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the argument,
you show me evidence angels don't exist.
I will, if you can proof me the Pink Unicorn (PBUH) does not exist.
And the Yeti, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster.
You believe in angels? You proof they exist.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right to do
so.
Proof?
I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for my
personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel will
show up in your life, when you believe in them.
Like the tooth fairy and your invisible buddy. Oh sorry, you call them
'angel'.
If you are going to scorn, cajole, berate and pooh-pooh other people's
beliefs, they aren't going to want to help you.
How about people who would rather be left alone?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
