| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"= Vox Populi ©" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2003 10:48:48 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <OnAub.5287$sb4.5145@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:
... if most religions are false, those followers are relying on
something that doesn't exist.
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
Masturbation makes people feel better, Danny ... than again so
do alcohol and recreational drugs ... for a while anyway
enriches their life,
At the expense of others ...
and
makes them do nice things.
Therein lies the problem, if people must be "made" to
do nice things, then they have an inherent genetic defect
that would be best excised from the gene pool ...
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Still no reason to tolerate, much less encourage or support,
ignorance, superstition and quackery.
--
"This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 11:05:12 AM |
|
|
In article <_7Nub.137$5h1.18743@news.uswest.net>,
=> Vox Populi © <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <OnAub.5287$sb4.5145@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:
... if most religions are false, those followers are relying on
something that doesn't exist.
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
Masturbation makes people feel better, Danny ... than again so
do alcohol and recreational drugs ... for a while anyway
I certainly don't suggest overdosing on religion.
enriches their life,
At the expense of others ...
sometimes....
and
makes them do nice things.
Therein lies the problem, if people must be "made" to
do nice things, then they have an inherent genetic defect
that would be best excised from the gene pool ...
I'll take self-correcting postive effects of religion
to some potentially flawed system of seeking out these
inherently genetically damaged people.
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Still no reason to tolerate, much less encourage or support,
ignorance, superstition and quackery.
Religion is a rather broad subject that includes systems
with no belief required. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 11:24:23 AM |
|
|
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <_7Nub.137$5h1.18743@news.uswest.net>,
=> Vox Populi © <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <OnAub.5287$sb4.5145@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:
... if most religions are false, those followers are relying on
something that doesn't exist.
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
Masturbation makes people feel better, Danny ... than again so
do alcohol and recreational drugs ... for a while anyway
I certainly don't suggest overdosing on religion.
Chronic use leads to terminal damage ...
enriches their life,
At the expense of others ...
sometimes....
You misspelled "oftentimes"
and
makes them do nice things.
Therein lies the problem, if people must be "made" to
do nice things, then they have an inherent genetic defect
that would be best excised from the gene pool ...
I'll take self-correcting postive effects of religion
Self-correcting? You misspelled "science" Danny.
Religion is the anti-thesis of a self-correcting method ...
to some potentially flawed system
So you'd keep the not only "potentially flawed" system
of religion in the world today, but it's actual flaws and
perversions ... and consequent clear and present effects?
of seeking out these
inherently genetically damaged people.
Given your acquiescence and embrace of flawed systems,
we should at least give it a try, eh?
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Still no reason to tolerate, much less encourage or support,
ignorance, superstition and quackery.
Religion is a rather broad subject that includes systems
with no belief required. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Good argument for eliminating ALL of it ... slippery slope and all ...
--
"Imagine the people who believe such things
and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally,
all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written.
And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated,
the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us,
who would make themselves the guides and leaders of
us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs
on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and
homes. I personally resent it bitterly..."
-- Isaac Asimov,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 11:34:56 AM |
|
|
In article <lFNub.151$5h1.20745@news.uswest.net>,
=> Vox Populi © <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
Masturbation makes people feel better, Danny ... than again so
do alcohol and recreational drugs ... for a while anyway
I certainly don't suggest overdosing on religion.
Chronic use leads to terminal damage ...
I don't have a prayer problem. I can quit at any
time. And I only do it socially. :-)
......
Therein lies the problem, if people must be "made" to
do nice things, then they have an inherent genetic defect
that would be best excised from the gene pool ...
I'll take self-correcting postive effects of religion
Self-correcting? You misspelled "science" Danny.
Religion is the anti-thesis of a self-correcting method ...
Certainly self-correcting is completely different in each
context. Religion can sometimes make people nicer. Sometimes
it makes them worse. Sometimes it has no net effect.
One part of the problem is that we don't always agree
as to what is "nicer".
.....
Religion is a rather broad subject that includes systems
with no belief required. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Good argument for eliminating ALL of it ... slippery slope and all ...
Its ubiquity in history suggests an underlying neurological
need. I assume your proposal is theoretical?
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 02:44:20 PM |
|
|
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <lFNub.151$5h1.20745@news.uswest.net>,
=> Vox Populi © <vox@popu.li> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works.
That is, it works if it makes people feel better,
Masturbation makes people feel better, Danny ... than again so
do alcohol and recreational drugs ... for a while anyway
I certainly don't suggest overdosing on religion.
Chronic use leads to terminal damage ...
I don't have a prayer problem. I can quit at any
time. And I only do it socially. :-)
As long as you don't exhale in public ...
.....
Therein lies the problem, if people must be "made" to
do nice things, then they have an inherent genetic defect
that would be best excised from the gene pool ...
I'll take self-correcting postive effects of religion
Self-correcting? You misspelled "science" Danny.
Religion is the anti-thesis of a self-correcting method ...
Certainly self-correcting is completely different in each
context.
"completely different" ...?
Religion can sometimes make people nicer. Sometimes
it makes them worse. Sometimes it has no net effect.
One part of the problem is that we don't always agree
as to what is "nicer".
One know it when they see it ...
....
Religion is a rather broad subject that includes systems
with no belief required. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Good argument for eliminating ALL of it ... slippery slope and all
...
Its ubiquity in history suggests an underlying neurological
need.
Your spellchecker is wacky today Danny, you misspelled - psychological
dysfunction.
I assume your proposal is theoretical?
What good is a theory without practical testing ...?
--
"How can you have order in a state without religion?
For, when one man is dying of hunger near another
who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this
difference unless there is an authority which declares
´God wills it thus.´ Religion is excellent stuff for
keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 12:21:36 PM |
|
|
Daniel Packman wrote:
[snip]
I certainly don't suggest overdosing on religion.
Chronic use leads to terminal damage ...
I don't have a prayer problem. I can quit at any
time. And I only do it socially. :-)
Socially? But that method of application
is specifically prohibited in the
instructions! RTFM!! ;-)
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 11:26:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:48:48 -0700, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
ejaculated:
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <OnAub.5287$sb4.5145@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
<howard@brazee.net> wrote:
... if most religions are false, those followers are relying on
something that doesn't exist.
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
<sorry - piggybacking>
Some persons with bipolar disorder go off their meds because the rush
of the manic episode "makes [them] feel better". Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their lithium?
Some persons with epilepsy have very positive religious experiences
during the course of their seizures which "makes [them] feel better"
about their life, the universe, everything. Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their meds and suffer the concommitant brain
and other damage inherent in having seizures?
Heroin addicts consume dangerous quantities of the drug to the
detriment of their health and personal lives because it "makes [them]
feel better". Is their use of heroin good?
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 11:48:45 AM |
|
|
In article <0m9nrvompept6mngr4vmkina7ssv94votq@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
<sorry - piggybacking>
Some persons with bipolar disorder go off their meds because the rush
of the manic episode "makes [them] feel better". Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their lithium?
They are sometimes much more creative and regain a part of
their being that is otherwise shut off to them. There is no
way to make a blanket statement that this is good or bad unless
their manic state endangers themselves or others.
Some persons with epilepsy have very positive religious experiences
during the course of their seizures which "makes [them] feel better"
about their life, the universe, everything. Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their meds and suffer the concommitant brain
and other damage inherent in having seizures?
Probably less defensible, but again it depends on the specific
negative consequences of no meds. In some cases, this can be fatal.
Heroin addicts consume dangerous quantities of the drug to the
detriment of their health and personal lives because it "makes [them]
feel better". Is their use of heroin good?
I don't think so, but it is largely their issue, not mine.
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Religion is a big subject and only some fits that description.
But again, what business is it of ours?
To the extent that they don't damage other people, it is fine
with me. That means that religion itself or pseudo-science
(such as creation myth or creation by design or other BS)
isn't taught in the public schools.
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 02:54:11 PM |
|
|
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <0m9nrvompept6mngr4vmkina7ssv94votq@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
<sorry - piggybacking>
Some persons with bipolar disorder go off their meds because the rush
of the manic episode "makes [them] feel better". Is it good for
these persons to stop taking their lithium?
They are sometimes much more creative and regain a part of
their being that is otherwise shut off to them. There is no
way to make a blanket statement that this is good or bad unless
their manic state endangers themselves or others.
Some persons with epilepsy have very positive religious experiences
during the course of their seizures which "makes [them] feel better"
about their life, the universe, everything. Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their meds and suffer the concommitant brain
and other damage inherent in having seizures?
Probably less defensible, but again it depends on the specific
negative consequences of no meds. In some cases, this can be fatal.
Heroin addicts consume dangerous quantities of the drug to the
detriment of their health and personal lives because it "makes [them]
feel better". Is their use of heroin good?
I don't think so, but it is largely their issue, not mine.
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Religion is a big subject and only some fits that description.
But again, what business is it of ours?
Exactly the point. If the deluded nitwits keep their perverse
psychological dysfunctions (religious beliefs) so profoundly
discrete that no one outside of themselves even knows they
exist, then there is no problem whatsoever ...however not
one single religion/bleater as it/they exist today even approaches
that threshold of discretion, nay, in fact the entire debate and
fury over these delusional blithering idiots and their ecclesiastical
masters is that they insist and demand that others share/experience
their particular disease.
To the extent that they don't damage other people, it is fine
with me.
Ibid.
That means that religion itself or pseudo-science
(such as creation myth or creation by design or other BS)
isn't taught in the public schools...
....among myriad other prohibitions and restrictions.
--
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.
As nations become more corrupt and vicious,
they have more need of masters. "
- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous Sender" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 04:51:37 PM |
|
|
these delusional blithering idiots and their ecclesiastical
masters is that they insist and demand that others share/experience
their particular disease.
you are correct.
Reminds me of some modern day fecal eaters and associates.
They felt giving feces to unwitting people will make them more
christ-like, more like them.
When confronted with arrest one started naming many people involved with
the practice and who supports them, cops, judges, politics, ect, ect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 8.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 05:24:21 PM |
|
|
Anonymous Sender wrote:
these delusional blithering idiots and their ecclesiastical
masters is that they insist and demand that others share/experience
their particular disease.
you are correct.
Reminds me of some modern day fecal eaters and associates.
They felt giving feces to unwitting people will make them more
christ-like, more like them.
When confronted with arrest one started naming many people involved
with the practice and who supports them, cops, judges, politics, ect,
ect.
Their pathetic gawd creature commands it ...!
--
Ezekiel 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled
bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou
shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
2 Kings, 18:27:
Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may
eat their own dung, and drink their own ***** with you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 01:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:51:37 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
you are correct.
Poxie's latest sock puppet...sad...
.
|
|
|
| User: "cor" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 01:19:23 PM |
|
|
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:51:37 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
you are correct.
Poxie's latest sock puppet...sad...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 06:39:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:19:23 -0800, cor
<corDELETETHISTOANSWER@exchangenet.net> wrote:
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Hi, this is boulder.general, and I did not set the groups protocol on
this thread.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 04:03:09 PM |
|
|
So Vox, are you an Athiest?
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.
As nations become more corrupt and vicious,
they have more need of masters. "
- Benjamin Franklin
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 08:05:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:03:09 -0600, wrote:
So Vox, are you an Athiest?
To the core...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 09:41:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:48:45 +0000 (UTC), (Daniel
Packman) ejaculated:
In article <0m9nrvompept6mngr4vmkina7ssv94votq@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
False or true has nothing to do with whether a religion works. That
is, it works if it makes people feel better,
<sorry - piggybacking>
Some persons with bipolar disorder go off their meds because the rush
of the manic episode "makes [them] feel better". Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their lithium?
They are sometimes much more creative and regain a part of
their being that is otherwise shut off to them. There is no
way to make a blanket statement that this is good or bad unless
their manic state endangers themselves or others.
So, the only litmus test is outright danger to themselves or others?
What about going on wild spending sprees, running up mountainous debt
or alienating their friends with their manic behavior?
If a person's mania is so benign as to not contain an element of harm,
is it likely that the person would have even been diagnosed and
medicated?
Some persons with epilepsy have very positive religious experiences
during the course of their seizures which "makes [them] feel better"
about their life, the universe, everything. Is it good for these
persons to stop taking their meds and suffer the concommitant brain
and other damage inherent in having seizures?
Probably less defensible, but again it depends on the specific
negative consequences of no meds. In some cases, this can be fatal.
Having seizures is bad. It causes changes in brain chemistry, can
cause bodily injury and depending on what the person is doing can
endanger others. However, you'd have us believe that we should look
the other way because they feel better because of it? Is that right?
Heroin addicts consume dangerous quantities of the drug to the
detriment of their health and personal lives because it "makes [them]
feel better". Is their use of heroin good?
I don't think so, but it is largely their issue, not mine.
So if they asked you for advice about whether they should try to get
into rehab, you'd have no opinion on whether heroin addiction is bad?
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Religion is a big subject and only some fits that description.
But again, what business is it of ours?
It is my business when the religious seek to inject their insanity
into public policy. When they seek to steal my liberty to further
their agenda. When they seek to brain wash my children. When they
promote the de facto assumption that the godless are inferior in moral
character and worth.
It is my business because I live in a society awash in religious
insanity that considers me to be the one who is somehow damaged or
deranged because I lack faith.
To the extent that they don't damage other people, it is fine
with me.
A person damaging their self has an impact for others when that person
lives in society. If religion is a bad thing, the bad effects it has
on an individual will ripple out from them. In this sense religion
isn't special. If I am an alcoholic, even if I don't beat my children
or in other ways abuse them, that will still have bad effects on them
because drug addiction is not good. No man is an island.
I would agree with your statement, if it were possible for religiosity
to be truly kept to one's self. I don't know if that is possible.
That means that religion itself or pseudo-science
(such as creation myth or creation by design or other BS)
isn't taught in the public schools.
We agree on this point.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
19 Nov 2003 08:05:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 09:43:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism.
I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the
non-delusional religions here:
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Packman" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 04:51:32 PM |
|
|
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
.....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 05:04:43 PM |
|
|
Daniel Packman wrote:
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
Does it fit your personal delusions, Danny?
--
"A cult is a religion with no political power."
- Tom Wolfe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 09:38:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC), (Daniel
Packman) ejaculated:
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
From what I can see, that kind of view of gods and the supernatural
(as a metaphor for abiding aspects of the human psyche) is an
acceptable one.
In that case the gods are not claimed to have some metaphysical
reality which leaves no evidence on the "physical plane".
How many theists, though, subscribe to this view versus the numbers
that thing there god is a real being that lives "in heaven" and with
whom they interact through prayer? I could be wrong, but I'd suspect
that the Joseph Campbell view of Christianity is a minority.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 09:08:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC), (Daniel
Packman) wrote:
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
I love it when PBS replays those old Campbell seminars...
.
|
|
|
| User: "cor" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 01:19:07 PM |
|
|
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC), (Daniel
Packman) wrote:
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
I love it when PBS replays those old Campbell seminars...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 06:39:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:19:07 -0800, cor
<corDELETETHISTOANSWER@exchangenet.net> wrote:
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Hi dolt-head, this is boulder.general and I did not set the groups
protocol on this thread.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "= Vox Populi ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 03:03:38 PM |
|
|
cor wrote:
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Uhhh, the rabid idiot babble-thumpers in the Colorado legislature, and
the populace in the Hillbilly areas of the state, want to force the rest
of us to not only accept, but chant, their grotesque superstitious beliefs ...?
.... there, any questions?
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC), (Daniel
Packman) wrote:
In article <i7oprv0fa6pmdklnv2kotvvqjai95nbalg@4ax.com>,
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism. ....
That is certainly one area. But the standard theological thrust
of a religion is often at odds with the actual concepts in the
field. This is true for many who profess to be christian or
jewish. They view the supernatural aspects of their religion as
poetic license and imagery. This view fits Joseph Campbell's
view of myth.
I love it when PBS replays those old Campbell seminars...
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 08:00:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:03:38 -0700, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
cor wrote:
OK, Uncle Bozo, how is this relatad to Colorado state wide politics?
Uhhh,
That's quite enough from you butthead...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 11:57:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:43:23 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
So there is a paucity of evidence for the Creator?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism.
And Taosim.
I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the
non-delusional religions here:
That would depend on your given culture and nationality, religions,
like languages all seek to confer a meaning through a set of
communications, but speaking Russian to a Spaniard will always produce
mixed results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 01:41:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:57:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:43:23 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
So there is a paucity of evidence for the Creator?
From where I'm sitting it looks like a total lack. Do you have any
evidence you'd care to offer up for a Creator? What rational method
do you use to make the jump from a Creator to *your* god?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism.
And Taosim.
I guess that depends on which form of Taoism. In most forms, the Tao
takes on decidedly mystical qualities and belief in angels and spirits
is included.
I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the
non-delusional religions here:
That would depend on your given culture and nationality, religions,
like languages all seek to confer a meaning through a set of
communications, but speaking Russian to a Spaniard will always produce
mixed results.
No, it wouldn't depend on my given culture or nationality. Languages
confer meaning by given us arbitrary tokens to use in thinking and
speaking about real-world referents.
Religions, on the other hand, tend to make reference to non-existent,
unevidenced entities. As such, they are delusional because they claim
that something exists which does not.
You are welcome to enumerate for me your list of religions which do
not make reference to non-existent things, though. I'm interested in
learning.
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Samuel stars@bars" |
|
| Title: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
20 Nov 2003 09:08:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:41:10 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:57:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:43:23 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
So there is a paucity of evidence for the Creator?
From where I'm sitting it looks like a total lack.
Well maybe you'd best climb out of your hole of unenlightenment...
Do you have any
evidence you'd care to offer up for a Creator?
Nature, man, everything.
What rational method
do you use to make the jump from a Creator to *your* god?
I don't.
I see no distinction between God ( never mentioned my own btw) and the
Creator.
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism.
And Taosim.
I guess that depends on which form of Taoism. In most forms, the Tao
takes on decidedly mystical qualities and belief in angels and spirits
is included.
Well there are different flavors of most philosophies and religions.
I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the
non-delusional religions here:
That would depend on your given culture and nationality, religions,
like languages all seek to confer a meaning through a set of
communications, but speaking Russian to a Spaniard will always produce
mixed results.
No, it wouldn't depend on my given culture or nationality.
Don't be a pendantic twit, you know exactly what I mean.
Languages
confer meaning by given us arbitrary tokens to use in thinking and
speaking about real-world referents.
And they grow and evolve over time and are modified by other cultures.
Religions, on the other hand, tend to make reference to non-existent,
unevidenced entities.
You have no proof of "non-existence" - don't presume that your own
fatally flawed misconceptions carry even the slightest weight.
As such, they are delusional because they claim
that something exists which does not.
Prayer exists.
Prayer is empirically proven.
Prayer is universally defines as a path to the divine.
You are welcome to enumerate for me your list of religions which do
not make reference to non-existent things, though. I'm interested in
learning.
No you're certainly not, don't be a soulless hypocrite, I've seen
enough of that crap here to last 3 lifetimes.
You'd have to be a composite moron to flit through the discussion not
understanding that the extra-dimensional definitive of spirit is
anything but fully resolved in a solid plane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Personal Bankruptcy Filings Jump 7.8 Pct. |
21 Nov 2003 09:35:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:08:41 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:41:10 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:57:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:43:23 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:05:19 -0700, Uncle Samuel <stars@bars>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:26:34 -0500, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. Religion is a delusion, often a dangerous
one, and just because people like it in no way diminishes its
deleterious effects.
Not all religion is a "delusion" - that's a moronic claim to make.
So, there are religions that don't postulate unevidenced entities?
So there is a paucity of evidence for the Creator?
From where I'm sitting it looks like a total lack.
Well maybe you'd best climb out of your hole of unenlightenment...
Gee, an uninteresting insult. Did it occur to you that I may have
believed in a god at one time?
Do you have any
evidence you'd care to offer up for a Creator?
Nature, man, everything.
Would you care to explicate exactly how nature, man, everything is
evidence for a Creator? Would you also care to explain how your
reasoning based on nature, man, everything isn't yet another
re-working of the fallacious "Argument from Design"?
What rational method
do you use to make the jump from a Creator to *your* god?
I don't.
So, then you make the jump based on wishful thinking. There is no
evidence that suggests *even if* there is a Creator that it is your
particular god of choice. So, that is a delusional belief.
I see no distinction between God ( never mentioned my own btw) and the
Creator.
Plenty of religious people do. That is, they see the Creator as a god
different from your particular god of choice. They offer the same
evidence to "support" the existence of *their* Creator. Why are you
right about the nature of who this putative Creator is and other
theists wrong?
Perhaps some forms of Buddhism.
And Taosim.
I guess that depends on which form of Taoism. In most forms, the Tao
takes on decidedly mystical qualities and belief in angels and spirits
is included.
Well there are different flavors of most philosophies and religions.
Agreed. Also, many religions use the same so-called evidence to come
to very different conclusions. Why is yours better than any of the
others? You've admitted that you have no rational basis for your
conclusion that any supposedly existent Creator is your god of choice.
I am more than willing to be shown wrong. Please enumerate the
non-delusional religions here:
That would depend on your given culture and nationality, religions,
like languages all seek to confer a meaning through a set of
communications, but speaking Russian to a Spaniard will always produce
mixed results.
No, it wouldn't depend on my given culture or nationality.
Don't be a pendantic twit, you know exactly what I mean.
No I don't. I see you've decided to insult me again. Why do you need
to resort to ignoring the issue? If it's so self-evident that you are
right about this whole god/Creator issue, what use is there for
vitriol? Why not just trot out your evidence and shut me up?
Languages
confer meaning by given us arbitrary tokens to use in thinking and
speaking about real-world referents.
And they grow and evolve over time and are modified by other cultures.
Yes.
Religions, on the other hand, tend to make reference to non-existent,
unevidenced entities.
You have no proof of "non-existence" - don't presume that your own
fatally flawed misconceptions carry even the slightest weight.
I don't need proof of non-existence. The fact that no theist to date
has offered evidence of existence is sufficient justification to
withhold my assent to the proposition "There is a god". The burden of
"proof" falls to the person asserting the existence of something.
For example, if I were to claim that you owe me $8000 dollars. It
would be up to me to prove the claim true, rather than you having to
prove that you don't owe me $8000 dollars.
There is nothing fatally flawed in my process. It is the exact same
rational process people use to gain knowledge all the time. In the
absence of any evidence for a given thing, that thing either does not
exist or is irrelevant (the same as non-existent pragmatically).
I'd welcome you to show me explicit evidence for a Creator and to show
me how I can make the jump to concluding that this putative Creator is
your particular god of choice.
As such, they are delusional because they claim
that something exists which does not.
Prayer exists.
I've never contested the existence of prayer. I've seen people pray,
so I know prayer exists.
Prayer is empirically proven.
Care to substantiate that claim? The well-formed studies that I've
seen on the "power of prayer" show that performs no better than
chance. The true "power of prayer", as far as I can tell, is
personal. Prayer is a form of meditation and it has been medically
verified that regular meditation confers health benefits to the person
doing it. The reasons for this are well understood in terms of
physiology and psychology with no reference to gods or spirits.
What has yet to be empirically verified (since proof isn't really a
empirical matter) is that me praying for someone else does that other
person any good or that me praying for some event to occur which is
outside my control acts to bring it to pass. Again, I'd welcome you
to point me to any studies that prove me wrong.
Prayer is universally defines as a path to the divine.
No, not really. There are many religions that don't define prayer in
that way. Buddhism, shamanism, pantheism, for example. Just about
any religion that doesn't posit personal gods wouldn't define prayer
in that manner.
You are welcome to enumerate for me your list of religions which do
not make reference to non-existent things, though. I'm interested in
learning.
No you're certainly not, don't be a soulless hypocrite, I've seen
enough of that crap here to last 3 lifetimes.
Would you care to explain me to how you've attained the ability to
read my mind. It seems that you may not have room for it in your
constrained worldview, but I really am an atheist who is interested in
the truth about whether god exists or not.
The fact that you think you know better than I do what my motives are
speaks more to your conceit and arrogance to my moral character.
If you have a good objective reason to believe as you do, why don't
you just offer it instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me?
You'd have to be a composite moron to flit through the discussion not
understanding that the extra-dimensional definitive of spirit is
anything but fully resolved in a solid plane.
So, are you saying that there isn't any empirical evidence for spirit
Or just that it is subtle/hard to find? If the latter, what steps do
I need to take to be able to discern this subtle evidence?
What exactly is spirit? How does it relate to the Creator and your
particular god of choice?
--
Jesus is my crush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
