Re: Why fear of God is stupid



 Religions > Atheism > Re: Why fear of God is stupid

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 2 of 5

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Monday Mourning"
Date: 20 Nov 2003 08:42:03 PM
Object: Re: Why fear of God is stupid
"bear163" <bear163@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<U3Gqb.752$6c3.371@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Why is it dangerous not to fear God? Is God cruel? Ought we dread our maker?
The Bible insists that God is good. Is the Bible wrong? No, indeed? God is
good and God is dangerous. In fact, God is dangerous precisely because he is
good. God is so good that he will be entirely impartial on the coming day
when he judges the world.

Many years ago I accompanied to the court a woman being divorced by her
famous husband. The judge sold his soul while we all watched. In order to
serve the interests of the team for whom the husband played, the judge
ignored the facts that favored the wife and ruled for the husband. When God
reopens that case the outcome will be entirely different. Because God is
good and cannot be bribed he will render a righteous judgment. We who
believe ought to live out our days with the reverence and awe of God that
the Bible rightly calls fear. It is this fear of the Lord that is the
beginning of wisdom.

Fear is not the beginning of wisdom, moron. It's the end of intelligence.
.

User: "t_nasimith"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 04:25:11 PM
"Anatid Bonecki" <Analickrex> wrote:

"Zsarnok" wrote:

It is more than a little frightening to watch. Like a death vigil.

Zsarnok
"t_nasimith" wrote:

That one thinks he was Jeebus' teacher and uncle 'Dave'.
Then he woke up screaming that his little paper pill-cup
had somehow gone empty.


Sounds like you have a lot of experience with mental institutions. Are
you a doctor or a patient?

I was comparing your performance to Brad Pitt's character in
Twelve Monkeys. You make his look quite sane, "analickrex".
Additionally, his portrayal possessed humor whereas yours is
merely possessed.
T.N.

Anatid

.

User: "Zsarnok"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 04:33:35 PM
On the outside looking in. You put on a heck of a show.
Zsarnok
Anatid Bonecki wrote:

"Zsarnok" wrote:


It is more than a little frightening to watch. Like a death vigil.

Zsarnok
"t_nasimith" wrote:


That one thinks he was Jeebus' teacher and uncle 'Dave'.
Then he woke up screaming that his little paper pill-cup
had somehow gone empty.



Sounds like you have a lot of experience with mental institutions. Are
you a doctor or a patient?

Anatid

.

User: "Anatid Bonecki"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 11:53:11 AM
I wonder why it is suddenly considered a "derangement" to believe in
past lives? Heck, Shirley McLaine may be equally "deranged" but I bet
she makes more money in one month that these idiots ever made in a
year! I guess most Hindus and Buddhsists are equally "deranged." It's
amazing how in atheism everything non-atheistic must filter down into
essential insanity. What a sterile world view these guys have.
Anatid
.
User: "the cutest atheist"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 04:59:43 AM
"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0311250953.5c150cbd@posting.google.com...

I wonder why it is suddenly considered a "derangement" to believe in
past lives? Heck, Shirley McLaine may be equally "deranged" but I bet
she makes more money in one month that these idiots ever made in a
year! I guess most Hindus and Buddhsists are equally "deranged." It's
amazing how in atheism everything non-atheistic must filter down into
essential insanity. What a sterile world view these guys have.

Anatid

riiiight. I used to be a buddhist. not all sects of buddhism believe in
reincarnation or the soul. all buddhist sects are atheist. just to let you
know
.
User: "Therion Ware"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 06:02:11 AM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:59:43 GMT in alt.atheism, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> ("the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism


"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0311250953.5c150cbd@posting.google.com...

I wonder why it is suddenly considered a "derangement" to believe in
past lives? Heck, Shirley McLaine may be equally "deranged" but I bet
she makes more money in one month that these idiots ever made in a
year! I guess most Hindus and Buddhsists are equally "deranged." It's
amazing how in atheism everything non-atheistic must filter down into
essential insanity. What a sterile world view these guys have.

Anatid


riiiight. I used to be a buddhist. not all sects of buddhism believe in
reincarnation or the soul. all buddhist sects are atheist. just to let you
know

Are they though? In a strict sense I mean. While I spent two years
eating lunch in a Buddhist Temple in KL, I wouldn't claim to be an
expert on it (though ask me about the sign), I vaguely recall that
when asked about the Gods, Buddha replied to the effect that the Gods
are irrelevant. Of course I might have misremembered, but if not, that
doesn't sound very atheist to me!
Rgds
Therion "purist" Ware.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
User: "the cutest atheist"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 07:20:23 AM
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:a959sv4091qvfjvorfc5r9kq4mebn37194@4ax.com...



On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:59:43 GMT in alt.atheism, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> ("the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism




"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0311250953.5c150cbd@posting.google.com...

I wonder why it is suddenly considered a "derangement" to believe in
past lives? Heck, Shirley McLaine may be equally "deranged" but I bet
she makes more money in one month that these idiots ever made in a
year! I guess most Hindus and Buddhsists are equally "deranged." It's
amazing how in atheism everything non-atheistic must filter down into
essential insanity. What a sterile world view these guys have.

Anatid


riiiight. I used to be a buddhist. not all sects of buddhism believe in
reincarnation or the soul. all buddhist sects are atheist. just to let

you

know


Are they though? In a strict sense I mean. While I spent two years
eating lunch in a Buddhist Temple in KL, I wouldn't claim to be an
expert on it (though ask me about the sign), I vaguely recall that
when asked about the Gods, Buddha replied to the effect that the Gods
are irrelevant. Of course I might have misremembered, but if not, that
doesn't sound very atheist to me!

Rgds
Therion "purist" Ware.

they don't believe in creator deities and gods as we understand them in the
west. some sects think of past buddhas like the hindus (their spiritual
ancestors and contemporaries) think of their non-creative gods, more like
angels in the biblical tradition. my favourite type of buddhism, now that
I'm more grown up, is zen
of course, I could be wrong and just generalising about the more well-known
branches of buddhism. there may well be some out there who believe in a
deity as we think of them in the monotheistic west. seeing all the different
brands of whacky christians has made me realise a few things about religious
belief...
.

User: "angelicusrex"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 01:18:24 PM
Rigggght...And I am a Buddhist NOW.

not all sects of buddhism believe in
reincarnation or the soul. all buddhist sects are atheist. just to let

you

know

This is not true. Tibetan Buddhists have many deities. And my little "sect"
believes in an Ultimate creative Force. So too bad for you. Most believe in
reincarnation as well. Please peddle your cheap wares someplace else.
Saint
.
User: "the cutest atheist"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 07:59:25 PM
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bq2u9g$1u2i46$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...



Rigggght...And I am a Buddhist NOW.

I only ceased being one about a year ago. I was one from the age of 12


not all sects of buddhism believe in
reincarnation or the soul. all buddhist sects are atheist. just to let

you

know


This is not true. Tibetan Buddhists have many deities. And my little

"sect"

believes in an Ultimate creative Force.

nice that you cut out everything that I said and try to make it appear to be
the opposite. people can read, you know
So too bad for you. Most believe in

reincarnation as well.

I did say that, freak

Please peddle your cheap wares someplace else.

I, unlike you, am not selling anything. so you're a jesus freak and a
buddhist hey? lol, you're in need of a canvas dinner jacket, sir
.




User: "Zsarnok"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 04:37:02 PM
Making money is not a sign of sanity.
If I don't know something I don't make up a story to explain it, I
figure it out.
Sterility is an end point. Easily achieved by sticking with an illusion
instead of learning something new.
Zsarnok
Anatid Bonecki wrote:

I wonder why it is suddenly considered a "derangement" to believe in
past lives? Heck, Shirley McLaine may be equally "deranged" but I bet
she makes more money in one month that these idiots ever made in a
year! I guess most Hindus and Buddhsists are equally "deranged." It's
amazing how in atheism everything non-atheistic must filter down into
essential insanity. What a sterile world view these guys have.

Anatid

.


User: "Nevermore"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 24 Nov 2003 08:05:34 AM
In <bps3gp$1ribis$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de> angelicusrex wrote:


"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message

We lack belief because there is no evidence for a god.


There is evidence for a God. It's all around you and indwelling you.
You simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You say there is no
evidence because it makes it easier to believe that there is nothing
to believe in.

I have no personal 'evidence' that there are tiny mites living in my
eyebrows. Only scientists with powerful electron microscopes and lots
of money and time can find this fact out. They relay it to us and we
tend to believe it.

Exactly. That's called SCIENCE. When scientists (and others) the world
over can use the same information and techniques to build microscopes
and look through them and see the same things in different people's
eyebrows again and again and again and again around the world then over
time people tend to believe them. Conversely when myths and rumors are
subjected to scientific analysis again and again and again and they fail
to come up with repeatable, explicable proof then people tend to
disbelieve them. Do rumors and myths persist despite scientific
debunking? Sure, they do! You are in the proud company of the Flat
Earth Society, UFO cultists, and Atlantis theorists who can propagate a
sliver of initial fact or theory infinitely by simply refusing to take
"No" for an answer. Any four-year-old can cling to a belief at all
costs but few of them can build an electron microscope.

You have no personal evidence that there is a God.
Yet if someone tells you that you can have the evidence, free, no
charge and nothing to have faith in even if you do find out there is a
God, you will continue to argue against it.

If someone told me that they had built a magic portal to another
Universe and all I have to do is step through a tree-chipper to get
there - free of charge - I am going to retain massive skeptism until
somebody proves CONCLUSIVELY that they know exactly what they are
talking about. Just because an idea is free doesn't make it worthy of
devoting my life to it. Some of the best things in life are expensive.

"It makes no sense! It is
not logical!" You say. "There is no evidence!" And you keep saying it
over and over like a battle cry.

You're catching on! It's the Battle Cry of Intelligent People!

The very fact that you are here talking about it rationally in a world
which allows you to have food on your plate every night and a computer
to play with, is proof of God working in your life.

That has got to be one of the stupidest statements in the history of
religious apologism. Food gets to my plate each night involving an
elaborate process involving hundreds of days PER ITEM of planning,
planting, growth, processing, washing, sterilization, packaging,
shipping identification, warehousing, transportation, commodity futures
bidding, insurance, short haul trucking, sorting, presentation, and
minimum wage cashiering. If God provided food it would grow in my yard.
Every piece of this here eMac can be traced back to human effort,
ingenuity, and financing. If God wanted us to have computers he'd have
mailed out the ten commandments on a billion CDs like AOL.

Instead of sharing
your good fortune with others

Step out on the salt marsh after midnight sometime, Dearie, and the
Witches will give you a little something.

or finding out how you can make a real
difference in our world

You arrogant, presumptuous, twit you.

you would rather play the hair-splitting game.

Known as "religion".

Thankfully God allows even for that.

Funny how Mr. Omnipotent who controls everything has to "allow"
everything his followers claim he doesn't like. Sounds more like
rationalizing the non-existant to me.

Now, you bastards crossposted to our NG first. And you are still there,
every day spreading your creepy materialistic world view around like
it was the New Gospel.

No. We're watching it multiply in and of itself because it's real and
needs no help nor belief to set it in motion.

You take alt.religion.angels out of your
headers and stop telling people who do believe in God and Angels to
stop believing.

Believe all you like - it tends to keep you off the streets and out of
our hair.
Just don't expect us to enjoy your lame little attempts at self-
justification known as evangalism. For a bunch of sheep you guys have
an amazing capacity to come crashing through other people's campfire's
waving your magic book of confusing salvation stories.

Otherwise, crossposting will go one between us. You
people proselytize as much as any bunch of fundies or Jehovah's
Witnesses, and you pat one another on the back about it as well!
"We're Atheists and we're proud! We see no evidence of God, that makes
us smarter than the rest!"

Well, actually, I can only speak for the Witches here, but we're
definitely smarter than YOU:)

Essentially how is this different from any
other group of people who all believe the same thing? You might as
well be a cult or a political party or a lodge or any other group of
people who all think they finally have the secret answer to the
universe.

Face it, Saint, the simple problem with the "public" answers to the
Universe provided by religion are that they don't hold up under scrutiny
by reasonable people. The mechanisms for believing in God and believing
in the Tooth Fairy are indistinguishable becuase they are one and the
same.

You are fooling yourselves.

You would love us to think so but when something is obvious there's a
reason.
Nevermore
.

User: "quibbler"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 24 Nov 2003 05:30:48 PM
In article <bps3gp$1ribis$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>,
whisperindave@msn.com says...


"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message

We lack belief because there is no evidence for a god.


There is evidence for a God. It's all around you and indwelling you.

'Fraid not loser. Claiming the whole universe as your "evidence" is
pathetic cop out which could be retreaded for all kinds of arguments.
For example, atheists could claim that the whole universe proves that god
doesn't exist. It is funny, after all, that you try to use the material
universe to prove the existence of your invisible, immaterial gawd.

You
simply refuse to believe what is obvious.

One of my favorite professors was fond of saying that the statement,
"Proposition X is obvious" usually means, "I haven't got a friggin clue
how to show that X is true". I suspect that's so in your case.

You say there is no evidence
because it makes it easier to believe

I could just as easily recycle your rhetoric and say, "You say there is
evidence because it makes it easier to believe".

that there is nothing to believe in.

Atheists don't renounce all beliefs of any kind. They simply find no
good reason or evidence to believe in a god. Your attempt to tell us
what we actually think is laughable and nothing but wild assertion.


I have no personal 'evidence' that there are tiny mites living in my
eyebrows.

Nobody asked for personal 'evidence'. It is an objective question for
physical science and microbiology.

Only scientists with powerful electron microscopes and lots of
money and time can find this fact out. They relay it to us and we tend to
believe it.

Religious "beliefs" are altogether different than secular beliefs.
Nobody is threatening to throw you into hell for all eternity because you
don't believe in dust mites. People did not declare that it was
"obvious" that there are dust mites living on your eyebrows before
microscopes were invented. Scientists didn't say "you must just be a
dust mite hater" or "the only reason you deny dust mites is so that you
can continue to live in sin!" These are, of course, things theists say,
mutatis mutandis, to others who don't share their religious views.

You have no personal evidence that there is a God. Yet if
someone tells you that you can have the evidence, free, no charge

Is there some distinction between "free" and "no charge"?

and
nothing to have faith in even if you do find out there is a God, you will
continue to argue against it.

WTF?

"It makes no sense! It is not logical!" You
say. "There is no evidence!" And you keep saying it over and over like a
battle cry.

Those are hardly the only things atheists say on the matter. However,
yet again, theists are no less guilt of repetitive battle cries. I seem
to recall one used during the Crusades. Often times, when they hacked
down an old lady or baby who happened to be a pagan they would piously
declare, "God wills it!" Wasn't that a sweet mantra?


The very fact that you are here talking about it rationally in a world which
allows you to have food on your plate every night

Hummm....the world doesn't allow people in Ethiopia to have food on their
plates every night.

and a computer to play
with, is proof of God working in your life.

Yawn. So I guess if someone doesn't have a computer than gawd must hate
their guts, eh? You don't seem very bright. Try waiting to smoke your
crack pipe until after you post your messages. You might get better
results.

Instead of sharing your good
fortune with others, or finding out how you can make a real difference in
our world,

I don't know if you're just ignorant or an intentional liar, but either
way, you're quite wrong. There are plenty of atheists who are humanists
and who do a great deal to help other people out. I belong to many
humanist organizations and have volunteered to a variety of community
causes. You don't need to believe in gawd in order to help people,
despite what some fundy idiots might claim.

you would rather play the hair-splitting game.

Sorry if we play the game better than you.

Thankfully God
allows even for that.

Yep, he even allows hurricanes to hit pediatric wards full of innocent
babies.


Now, you bastards crossposted to our NG first.

Maybe. So what? Who's forcing you to read what we say?

And you are still there,
every day spreading your creepy materialistic world view around like it was
the New Gospel.

It is the new gospel. Didn't you get the memo?

You take alt.religion.angels out of your headers and stop
telling people who do believe in God and Angels

Angels are not necessarily confined to monotheism. Technically, such
beings might be something more akin to aliens and not require theistic
explanations at all.

to stop believing.

Who has told you that you have to "stop believing"? Even if someone had,
which I haven't seen, I kinda doubt that would have much effect.

Otherwise, crossposting will go one between us.

You're way out of your league, squirt. Flame wars that only go on for a
few months are considered short around these parts. Considering that
this one's gone on for a grand total of four days, I don't think you're
scaring anybody.

You people proselytize as
much as any bunch of fundies or Jehovah's Witnesses

So? The difference is that we know what we're talking about and can
easily refute fundy or je-hahas witless arguments.

, and you pat one another
on the back about it as well! "We're Atheists and we're proud! We see no
evidence of God, that makes us smarter than the rest!"

Well, the shoe does seem to fit, so I see no harm in wearing it.

Essentially how is
this different from any other group of people who all believe the same
thing?

Why should it be different on that dimension?

You might as well be a cult or a political party or a lodge

Those people all have additional types of general and specific beliefs.
However, just as many fundies bring their religious beliefs into politics
I bring my anti-religious beliefs there as well.

or any
other group of people who all thinkthey finally have the secret answer to
the universe.

Only that's not what we're claiming. Nice try distorting what atheism is
though.


You are fooling yourselves.

Coming from someone who believes in angels I would have to say that's
more than a little ironic.
.

User: "Martin Crisp"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 23 Nov 2003 11:54:40 PM
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:04:32 +1100, angelicusrex wrote
(in message <bps3gp$1ribis$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>):


"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message

We lack belief because there is no evidence for a god.


There is evidence for a God. It's all around you and indwelling you. You

such as?

simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You say there is no evidence

Well 'believe' is a strange word to use for the keyboard that is
_obvious_ under my fingertips, for the screen in front of me, for
the chair I'm sitting on, for the coffee bucket near the ashtray
to the right of my right speaker.... All obvious things. I have no
trouble /acknowledging/ these _obvious_ things exist; but I don't
'believe' they exist, I don't need to - they _do_ exist.
Less obvious things are items such as the planet Pluto, which I
cannot observe, but have no reason to doubt its existence (given
I've seen photos and so on). I accept Pluto's existence, though I
still don't find 'believe' a good word - the evidence is there,
belief is unnecessary.
Even less obvious things, like respect from my daughters, I do
maintain some belief in. [For a variety of reasons, which I won't
bore you with]
Now where is this 'obvious' evidence of this 'god'? Shouldn't
'obvious' evidence cause 'acceptance' rather than 'belief'? Why is
it you need to 'believe' if the evidence is 'obvious'?

because it makes it easier to believe that there is nothing to
believe in.

As far as I can see there is zero evidence of 'gods'

I have no personal 'evidence' that there are tiny mites living in my
eyebrows. Only scientists with powerful electron microscopes and lots of
money and time can find this fact out. They relay it to us and we tend to
believe it. You have no personal evidence that there is a God. Yet if

I know where I can get access to such a microscope. I can
therefore examine this evidence for myself, where can I see
evidence of 'God'?

someone tells you that you can have the evidence, free, no charge and
nothing to have faith in even if you do find out there is a God, you will
continue to argue against it. "It makes no sense! It is not logical!" You
say. "There is no evidence!" And you keep saying it over and over like a
battle cry.

well, if you show me the evidence, we can talk. [You say things
are evidence of god, but they don't have any discernable
charactistic that indicates this to me, what am I missing?]

The very fact that you are here talking about it rationally in
a world which allows you to have food on your plate every night

/allows/?
So 'God' is the Australian Department of Social Security? Or 'God'
is the massed Australian Taxpayer?

and a computer to play with, is proof of God working in your

Oh, 'God' is the board of AMP, who floated their company on the
stock market, and gave me a windfall packet of shares (from which
the computer was purchased)?

life. Instead of sharing your good fortune with others, or
finding out how you can make a real difference in our world,
you would rather play the hair-splitting game. Thankfully God
allows even for that.

How I can make a real difference.... hmm, you mean like donating
blood to save lives? [~55 donations so far] You mean like giving
up a pretty good, and very secure, job so I can care for my
invalid wife?
Actually, since you apparently think your 'God' /allows/ these
things, why did it /allow/ my wife to be born blind? Why does it
/allow/ thousands of people to starve to death each day? Is it
because it can do nothing else? That's the crux of it, really,
isn't it? Whatever happens, 'God' allows. 'God', in other words,
can _do_ nothing. Things that have no effect on reality are1)
undetectable (like your 'God' seems to be) and 2) are identical
with things that don't exist.
Where's your evidence for this do-nothing you label 'God'?

Now, you bastards crossposted to our NG first. And you are still there,

I've been in alt.atheism for several years, I've never seen
'Monday Mourning' in here before, nor have I seen 'bear163', who
'Monday Mourning' replied to, to initiate this thread in
alt.atheism. i.e as far as I can see the crossposting is initiated
by someone outside alt.atheism. To conclude that 'we' started it
is slightly more logical than concluding your 'God' exists
(because it isn't actually contradicted by reality).
groups.google.com suggests that Monday Mourning tends to play in
other groups than alt.atheism [only been posting for a week, from
google,

every day spreading your creepy materialistic world view around
like it was the New Gospel. You take alt.religion.angels out of
your headers and stop telling people who do believe in God and
Angels to stop believing. Otherwise, crossposting will go one
between us. You people proselytize as

In other words you don't have the self-control that you espouse in
others. Do you often wear the label 'hypocrite' so proudly and
openly?

much as any bunch of fundies or Jehovah's Witnesses, and you
pat one another on the back about it as well! "We're Atheists
and we're proud! We see no evidence of God, that makes us
smarter than the rest!" Essentially how is this different from

Hopefully most of aren't stupid enough to engage in quite so
obvious a non sequitur. Lovely strawman though, you must have been
practicing.

any other group of people who all believe the same thing? You
might as well be a cult or a political party or a lodge or any
other group of people who all thinkthey finally have the secret
answer to the universe.

Umm, you seem to have a really bizarre concept of what atheism
involves.
When you say "I believe in a god", atheists are those who answer
"I don't". It doesn't involve "therefore I have the 'answer to the
universe'" (whatever the ***** that's meant to mean); nor does it
mean "therefore I'm your intellectual superior" (I know some
utterly _stupid_ atheists - the sort that legend would have a
WordPerfect tech support person telling them they were too stupid
to own a computer - yes, stupider than you! Amazing, really!)

You are fooling yourselves.

No, you have fooled yourself into thinking you were attacking us,
rather than your strawman.
i.e your post has had slightly less than this -><- much impact.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
User: "the cutest atheist"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 24 Nov 2003 02:47:56 AM
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBE7E8500B58EBC4F0284600@news.ozemail.com.au...
<snip>


So 'God' is the Australian Department of Social Security? Or 'God'
is the massed Australian Taxpayer?

that would actually explain *a lot* about the crappy way this universe is
run
<snip>
.

User: "angelicusrex"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 24 Nov 2003 07:01:15 PM
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message > >

There is evidence for a God. It's all around you and indwelling you. You


such as?

Well, you're pretty smart, so perhaps you can give me and science and
religion and all humans an explanation of what life is and how it works?
Maybe you know how the universe was created and how it works, because
apparently Einstein and Hawkings still don't have the answers. You are
alive. That's proof number one. The fact that you are functioning and can
ask these questions is two. Of course you will say "those aren't proofs." I
beg to differ. Because I say they are proofs. Because God is whatever it is
making us conscious and motivated to ask questions. God is Self.


simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You say there is no evidence


Well 'believe' is a strange word to use for the keyboard that is
_obvious_ under my fingertips, for the screen in front of me, for
the chair I'm sitting on, for the coffee bucket near the ashtray
to the right of my right speaker.... All obvious things. I have no
trouble /acknowledging/ these _obvious_ things exist; but I don't
'believe' they exist, I don't need to - they _do_ exist.

Do you believe your pancreas exists? Better yet, do you need to KNOW it
exists for it to function? Have you seen the cells that go to make up your
right toenail lately? or do you just see the toenail and "believe" the cells
exist? Do you see the oxygen you are breathing? How about the water vapor in
the air? How about the carcinogens in your coffee? All those "obvious"
things you cannot see are just as "real" as the not so obvious ones. Can
anyone see electricity? Not even the sparks and light you see from lightning
are the actual electrons, but rather photons stirred by the invisible
electrons. You can't see the bottom of the sea, do you believe one exists or
are you absolutely dead positive it does on some other level than having
seen it or felt it?


Less obvious things are items such as the planet Pluto, which I
cannot observe, but have no reason to doubt its existence (given
I've seen photos and so on).

So photographic evidence for the atomic structure of irridium are lacking.
Do you still "believe" irridium" exists? BTW, photos can be easily fudged.

I accept Pluto's existence, though I
still don't find 'believe' a good word - the evidence is there,
belief is unnecessary.

You have no personal evidence Pluto exists. You have only blurry photos and
hearsay evidence. Two years ago, Pluto was a planet. Today it is an object.
Why? Because someone with more money and a bigger telescope than you decided
it was. Definitions change. Objects appear and disappear. Quantum physics
posits a universe where things act as the viewer expects them to act, even
when two viewers have two different expectations. Photons seem to be able to
"clone" themselves and appear at two different places at the same time. But
if a whole person appears to do this is is suddenly "unbelievable." And of
course God is unbelieveable too! So what? That does not prove God doesn't
exist. And to me the existence of the unbelievable is good evidence for God.

Now where is this 'obvious' evidence of this 'god'? Shouldn't
'obvious' evidence cause 'acceptance' rather than 'belief'? Why is
it you need to 'believe' if the evidence is 'obvious'?

That's why I KNOW God exists. I don't need to believe. I have direct
evidence. You could have it too. Just like mine. But if you won't believe it
is possible, then for you it ceases to be possible.

because it makes it easier to believe that there is nothing to
believe in.


As far as I can see there is zero evidence of 'gods'

As far as I can see there is zero evidence for your appendix. Maybe you have
one, maybe you don't. How am I to know, unless I ask you? Hint: You want to
find God? You want evidence? ASK HIM. But ooooh! Spooky, if you get an
answer, guess what? Everyone assumes you are nuts!

I know where I can get access to such a microscope. I can
therefore examine this evidence for myself, where can I see
evidence of 'God'?

He's all around you. And guess what. He can speak! So ask Him.

well, if you show me the evidence, we can talk.

I can't give it to you. God does not make Himself evident unless you
specifically ask. I can't ask for you. You have to really want it. Most
people are happy without it. Happy as clams in the mud. Generally speaking,
knowing God really complicates your life.

/allows/?

So 'God' is the Australian Department of Social Security? Or 'God'
is the massed Australian Taxpayer?

That's right. More importantly, God is Everything. God is even YOU.

Oh, 'God' is the board of AMP, who floated their company on the
stock market, and gave me a windfall packet of shares (from which
the computer was purchased)?

Of course God is that. God is the PATTERN that makes your life work.

How I can make a real difference.... hmm, you mean like donating
blood to save lives? [~55 donations so far] You mean like giving
up a pretty good, and very secure, job so I can care for my
invalid wife?

Right. Of course though this is not evidence to you of God, this is evidence
of how special you feel about your contribution. And you should fee special
about these contributions. However you should try not to be so glib about
evidence of God, because when you are laughing at others, you tend to miss
the evidence. The love you have for your wife is God working in you. The
concern you have for the donating of blood is God working in your life. It
is really hard for me to believe no one has told you this yet...


Actually, since you apparently think your 'God' /allows/ these
things, why did it /allow/ my wife to be born blind?

A better question is why did God allow your blind love partner to survive to
her present age with your help and other people's help? Do you know how long
a blind calf or lion cub in the wild would live? Yet God is in them too.
Sometimes it is more of a merciful thing to allow a handicapped animal to
succumb to nature. But for people, we tend to reject this cold process. Yet
before we believed in any God, that process happened to us. 17,000 years
ago, had your wife been born blind, she might have never reached maturity.
And so no one would know her wonderful nature. Or her beauty. Nor would they
know what it is like to be blind or aid a blind person, the reward it gives
the soul to help and cherish another being. You helped and others helped
give her a life. That is God working. We are actually the ones who make the
choice to come into the physical body. That choice carries a lot of "riders"
or attachments with the contract. I could go blind because my pancreas which
I have never seen, is doing things I don't quite understand. It's called
diabetes. I don't blame God. I am happy that I lived and am alive. Once you
find God, another hint: You won't feel the need to blame Him anymore.
Because He'll inform you as to the why's of your life.
Why does it

/allow/ thousands of people to starve to death each day?

We allow them to starve, my friend. When God ceases to work within us and we
deny the sacredness of all life.

Is it
because it can do nothing else? That's the crux of it, really,
isn't it? Whatever happens, 'God' allows. 'God', in other words,
can _do_ nothing. Things that have no effect on reality are1)
undetectable (like your 'God' seems to be) and 2) are identical
with things that don't exist.

You simply don't understand the contract or the nature of the terms yet. It
might take several lifetimes to do so. But you'll "get it." At least you are
asking questions instead of just belligerently telling me your opinion and
trying to get me to believe it is absolute truth.


Where's your evidence for this do-nothing you label 'God'?

God does things, my friend. He does things through you. But only if you
allow it. So one might ask, Why are you not allowing God to do His work? Why
are you interfering? Why aren't you asking for some assistance? The contract
is about Free Will. As long as you have it, God will do nothing, if this is
what YOU want.



Now, you bastards crossposted to our NG first. And you are still there,


I've been in alt.atheism for several years, I've never seen
'Monday Mourning' in here before, nor have I seen 'bear163', who
'Monday Mourning' replied to, to initiate this thread in
alt.atheism. i.e as far as I can see the crossposting is initiated
by someone outside alt.atheism. To conclude that 'we' started it
is slightly more logical than concluding your 'God' exists
(because it isn't actually contradicted by reality).

First of all the "bastards" I was refering to were not the NG known as
alt.atheism. I do not know where the bastards posted from. So I have to
include all the headers to talk to them. They claim to be atheists. So one
assumes they are posting from alt. atheism. However I found out recently
that a lot of them post from other places, some with Christian in the title!
Now that really is sick. I never heard of you before. So apparently I said
something to offend your sensibilities. Sorry. But really I wasn't speaking
to you specifically. Accept my apologies. Note the headers. This is no
longer a cross post, but a response to your post.
You have fun too. You ask good questions. Perhaps I made a mistake in
answering them because you were just being glib and already KNOW God simply
is a big fairy tale. But believe me, you'll have all the time in the world
to find out differently. Meanwhile, pat yourself on the back for being a
good husband, father and devoted Australian taxpayer.
Saint
.
User: "Martin Crisp"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 24 Nov 2003 08:44:31 PM
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:15 +1100, angelicusrex wrote
(in message <bpu9kh$1ss45e$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>):


"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message > >

There is evidence for a God. It's all around you and indwelling you. You


such as?


Well, you're pretty smart, so perhaps you can give me and

So I'm sometimes told. Frankly I don't consider myself so.

science and religion and all humans an explanation of what life
is and how it works? Maybe you know how the universe was
created and how it works, because apparently Einstein and
Hawkings still don't have the answers. You are alive. That's
proof number one. The fact that you are functioning and can ask
these questions is two. Of course you will say "those aren't
proofs." I beg to differ. Because I say they are proofs.
Because God is whatever it is making us conscious and motivated
to ask questions. God is Self.

i.e. all you have is assertion, no actual evidence.

simply refuse to believe what is obvious. You say there is no evidence


Well 'believe' is a strange word to use for the keyboard that
is _obvious_ under my fingertips, for the screen in front of
me, for the chair I'm sitting on, for the coffee bucket near
the ashtray to the right of my right speaker.... All obvious
things. I have no trouble /acknowledging/ these _obvious_
things exist; but I don't 'believe' they exist, I don't need
to - they _do_ exist.


Do you believe your pancreas exists?

No, I know it does.

Better yet, do you need to KNOW it exists for it to function?

No, I don't.

Have you seen the cells that go to make up your right toenail
lately? or do you just see the toenail and "believe" the cells
exist? Do you see the oxygen you are breathing? How about the
water vapor in the air? How about the carcinogens in your
coffee? All those "obvious" things you cannot see are just as
"real" as the not so obvious ones. Can anyone see electricity?
Not even the sparks and light you see from lightning are the
actual electrons, but rather photons stirred by the invisible
electrons. You can't see the bottom of the sea, do you believe
one exists or are you absolutely dead positive it does on some
other level than having seen it or felt it?

I can see the bottom of the sea, I've stood on the bottom of the
sea.
Like all the rest I can gather evidence for these things, I can
demonstrate that evidence for anyone who cares to examine it.
That's what evidence is. That's what I expected you to be able to
do, since you claimed to have evidence.


Less obvious things are items such as the planet Pluto, which I
cannot observe, but have no reason to doubt its existence (given
I've seen photos and so on).


So photographic evidence for the atomic structure of irridium
are lacking. Do you still "believe" irridium" exists? BTW,
photos can be easily fudged.

The word you seem to be trying to use is "Iridium".
No, I don't 'believe' (the element named) Iridium exists, I know
it does.
As to fudging photos, yes I'm well aware of that, I'm also well
aware of methods to detect such [one of my better subjects at
university was digital image processing...]

I accept Pluto's existence, though I
still don't find 'believe' a good word - the evidence is there,
belief is unnecessary.


You have no personal evidence Pluto exists. You have only

I didn't claim I did. I was responding to your assertion that
evidence of God was obvious. I proferred Pluto as an example of
something for which evidence was less than obvious, but for which
'belief' seemed _to me_ to be an unusual term.

blurry photos and hearsay evidence. Two years ago, Pluto was a
planet. Today it is an object. Why? Because someone with more
money and a bigger telescope than you decided it was.
Definitions change. Objects appear and disappear. Quantum
physics posits a universe where things act as the viewer
expects them to act, even when two viewers have two different
expectations. Photons seem to be able to "clone" themselves and
appear at two different places at the same time. But if a whole
person appears to do this is is suddenly "unbelievable." And of
course God is unbelieveable too! So what? That does not prove
God doesn't exist. And to me the existence of the unbelievable
is good evidence for God.

Where did I claim 'God' doesn't exist? I'm waiting for you to
present evidence that it does. Your handwaving and red herrings
doesn't change the fact that you have an unsubstantiated assertion
awaiting support.
Do you plan to support your assertion, or just ***** on?

Now where is this 'obvious' evidence of this 'god'? Shouldn't
'obvious' evidence cause 'acceptance' rather than 'belief'? Why is
it you need to 'believe' if the evidence is 'obvious'?


That's why I KNOW God exists. I don't need to believe. I have
direct evidence. You could have it too. Just like mine. But if
you won't believe it is possible, then for you it ceases to be
possible.

How could I have it? [Please: bear in mind I'm an ex-christian, so
I've probably tried most things you care to suggest]

because it makes it easier to believe that there is nothing to
believe in.


As far as I can see there is zero evidence of 'gods'


As far as I can see there is zero evidence for your appendix.
Maybe you have one, maybe you don't. How am I to know, unless I

I do.

ask you? Hint: You want to find God? You want evidence? ASK
HIM. But ooooh! Spooky, if you get an answer, guess what?
Everyone assumes you are nuts!

I have tried, no response.
As to being 'nuts', no, delusions are only considered such if
there isn't large acceptance of the delusion in the society in
which it occurs. [So believing in reincarnation is borderline
delusional here, believing the same thing in Tibet probably isn't]
http://www.a-silver-lining.org/BPNDepth/glossary.html

I know where I can get access to such a microscope. I can
therefore examine this evidence for myself, where can I see
evidence of 'God'?


He's all around you. And guess what. He can speak! So ask Him.

I have. _Silence_.

well, if you show me the evidence, we can talk.


I can't give it to you. God does not make Himself evident
unless you specifically ask. I can't ask for you. You have to
really want it. Most people are happy without it. Happy as
clams in the mud. Generally speaking, knowing God really
complicates your life.

I /really/ wanted it. I still really want it, if it exists.

/allows/?

So 'God' is the Australian Department of Social Security? Or 'God'
is the massed Australian Taxpayer?


That's right. More importantly, God is Everything. God is even YOU.

Huh? Then, as God¨, I'll tell you (authoritatively) that I'm _not_
a god.

Oh, 'God' is the board of AMP, who floated their company on the
stock market, and gave me a windfall packet of shares (from which
the computer was purchased)?


Of course God is that. God is the PATTERN that makes your life work.

How I can make a real difference.... hmm, you mean like donating
blood to save lives? [~55 donations so far] You mean like giving
up a pretty good, and very secure, job so I can care for my
invalid wife?


Right. Of course though this is not evidence to you of God,
this is evidence of how special you feel about your
contribution. And you should fee special about these
contributions. However you should try not to be so glib about

Why should I feel special about them? What makes you think I feel
special about them? They are simply things I felt I should do,
same as shitting in places designated for such, rather than on my
neighbours' doorsteps. Shitting in the 'right' place doesn't make
me 'special'. Donating blood or other signs of empathy don't make
me 'special'.

evidence of God, because when you are laughing at others, you

I'm not even smiling, let alone laughing.

tend to miss the evidence. The love you have for your wife is
God working in you. The concern you have for the donating of
blood is God working in your li e. It is really hard for me to
believe no one has told you this yet...

According to you I am God, though, and that everything else is
also God. So if I hacked my wife & kids to bits that would still
be 'God working in my life'.
Is it right that I kill and eat God (vegetables), or buy butchered
God to cook (meat and processed God products)?

Actually, since you apparently think your 'God' /allows/ these
things, why did it /allow/ my wife to be born blind?


A better question is why did God allow your blind love partner

If you want to beg the question of 'God', yes, perhaps. I don't
wish to beg that question, which is why I was interested in your
claim of 'evidence'.
It's odd that you seem able to state God is everyone one minute,
and then treat it as though it is a separate entity the next. It
seems to me that this God of yours isn't as obvious to you as you
claim, else you would be unable to distinguish between God and the
rest of reality (since the rest of reality is, according to you,
God).

to survive to her present age with your help and other people's
help? Do you know how long a blind calf or lion cub in the wild
would live? Yet God is in them too. Sometimes it is more of a
merciful thing to allow a handicapped animal to succumb to
nature. But for people, we tend to reject this cold process. Yet
before we believed in any God, that process happened to us.
17,000 years ago, had your wife been born blind, she might have

Given her other health circumstances if her mother had lived more
than a few kilometres from a modern hospital she would have died
even in modern times.

never reached maturity. And so no one would know her wonderful
nature. Or her beauty. Nor would they know what it is like to

Yeah, her 'wonderful nature' ("I am not _a_ *****, I am _the_
*****, and to you I'm 'Ms *****'"). Her beauty (physically) is
such that her father became an atheist the day of her birth, and
stopped his training in midwifery.

be blind or aid a blind person, the reward it gives the soul to
help and cherish another being. You helped and others helped
give her a life. That is God working. We are actually the ones

No, it's me working, and medical 'science'. Are the assualts she
sometimes suffers in public also "God's work"? [e.g. the people
who spat on her in public a few months back? or the people who
pushed her into traffic a few years ago?]

who make the choice to come into the physical body. That choice
carries a lot of "riders" or attachments with the contract. I
could go blind because my pancreas which I have never seen, is
doing things I don't quite understand. It's called diabetes. I

Yes, I'm well aware of diabetes, thanks (both her parents, and my
deceased father, have (had) diabetes).

don't blame God. I am happy that I lived and am alive. Once you
find God, another hint: You won't feel the need to blame Him
anymore. Because He'll inform you as to the why's of your life.

I /don't/ blame god - how difficult is it for you to comprehend? I
don't _believe_ a 'god' exists either for blame, or thanks, and
least of all for worship.
If you showed this 'God' exists, which you haven't, then I might
be able to bring myself to thank or blame it (though orship seems
unlikely, since I don't regard anything as worship-worthy).

Why does it

/allow/ thousands of people to starve to death each day?


We allow them to starve, my friend. When God ceases to work

Don't include me in 'we', thanks. I do what little I can, given my
other circumstances.

within us and we deny the sacredness of all life.

Such as the sacredness of amoebas responsible for amoebic
dysentry?
Life is life, I don't see any reason to regard it as /sacred/.
Feel free to provide one.
[I regard /some/ life as /extremely/ important, mind; some less
so. And to escape a possible equivocation, I should point out that
some individual creatures lives I find incredibly unimportant
while absolutely requiring that colonies of those individuals
exist (e.g. E.coli).]

Is it
because it can do nothing else? That's the crux of it, really,
isn't it? Whatever happens, 'God' allows. 'God', in other words,
can _do_ nothing. Things that have no effect on reality are1)
undetectable (like your 'God' seems to be) and 2) are identical
with things that don't exist.


You simply don't understand the contract or the nature of the
terms yet. It might take several lifetimes to do so. But you'll
"get it." At least you are asking questions instead of just
belligerently telling me your opinion and trying to get me to
believe it is absolute truth.

Ironic. Given you seem to be telling me what is absolute truth.
[Evidence of your claim that I can have 'multiple lifetimes'?]

Where's your evidence for this do-nothing you label 'God'?


God does things, my friend. He does things through you. But
only if you allow it. So one might ask, Why are you not
allowing God to do His work? Why are you interfering? Why

You have already made claims that suggest that anything I do is
'God', since I and everything else are 'God' according to you.
Your position is unsupported and contradictory, as far as I can
see, perhaps you'd like to actually supply some evidence, now?

aren't you asking for some assistance? The contract is about
Free Will. As long as you have it, God will do nothing, if this
is what YOU want.

As I said above, I sought 'God' - no answer came as the stern
reply.

Now, you bastards crossposted to our NG first. And you are still there,


I've been in alt.atheism for several years, I've never seen
'Monday Mourning' in here before, nor have I seen 'bear163', who
'Monday Mourning' replied to, to initiate this thread in
alt.atheism. i.e as far as I can see the crossposting is initiated
by someone outside alt.atheism. To conclude that 'we' started it
is slightly more logical than concluding your 'God' exists
(because it isn't actually contradicted by reality).



First of all the "bastards" I was refering to were not the NG
known as alt.atheism. I do not know where the bastards posted
from. So I have to include all the headers to talk to them.
They claim to be atheists. So one assumes they are posting from
alt. atheism. However I found out recently that a lot of them

They were posting from google.com. People don't post 'from' a
newsgroup. [I'm reading this in a 'combined' subscription of
alt.atheism and talk.origins, and posting _to_ alt.atheism _and_
your group; I'm not posting 'from' either group.]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~martincrisp/groups.gif
A little bit of looking at the evidence available would have
indicated that you could have restricted yur postings to your own
group and the people who first xposted would still have seen it.

post from other places, some with Christian in the title! Now
that really is sick. I never heard of you before. So apparently
I said something to offend your sensibilities. Sorry. But

Yes, you claimed to have evidence for 'God', but didn't (and
haven't) provided any. You also attributed attitudes to atheists
as a group, rather than the attitudes of individuals who are
atheists. This is called 'bigotry'. Something which always gets my
back up (especially when I unthinkingly do it :-()
Saying sorry doesn't mean much unless you're going to address the
issues that cause your 'sorrow'.

really I wasn't speaking to you specifically. Accept my
apologies. Note the headers. This is no longer a cross post,
but a response to your post.

You have fun too. You ask good questions. Perhaps I made a
mistake in answering them because you were just being glib and
already KNOW God simply is a big fairy tale. But believe me,

No, I don't /know/ that, but such certainly doesn't contradict the
evidence I've seen.

you'll have all the time in the world to find out differently.
Meanwhile, pat yourself on the back for being a good husband,
father and devoted Australian taxpayer.

Nope, I'm not into self-congratulation for things that seem
'normal', or for things I have no choice in.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
User: "Anatid Bonecki"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 05:49:33 PM
Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message news

So I'm sometimes told. Frankly I don't consider myself so.

Too bad. Your low self-esteem makes me sad. I assure you that you are
smart.

i.e. all you have is assertion, no actual evidence.

I told you how to find evidence. If you don't take it from me, then
you simply will have to find it on your own. Sort of like taking it
from someone else that they have been to the bottom of the Marianas
Trench.

No, I know it does.

How do you "know?"
Ever seen it? (Your pancreas,)Or have you just seen pictures of other
people's and descriptions from doctors of medicine? Then why is a Dr.
of Theology suddenly without any credibility in your eyes? They say
there is a God. Why don't you believe it? Or did you need a picture of
God?

I can see the bottom of the sea, I've stood on the bottom of the
sea.

You've stood on the Continental Shelf. This is not the "bottom of the
sea." Unless you are some sort of extra special diver.


Like all the rest I can gather evidence for these things,

As I have for my understanding of God.

I can
demonstrate that evidence for anyone who cares to examine it.
That's what evidence is. That's what I expected you to be able to
do, since you claimed to have evidence.

I have evidence. We'd have to get together to show it to you. It is
not photographic. It is not literary either.

No, I don't 'believe' (the element named) Iridium exists, I know
it does.

Really, got a chunk of it, do you?
Or is this again coming from descriptions others gave you?


As to fudging photos, yes I'm well aware of that, I'm also well
aware of methods to detect such [one of my better subjects at
university was digital image processing...]

Then you know evidence is not always evidence.



I accept Pluto's existence, though I
still don't find 'believe' a good word - the evidence is there,
belief is unnecessary.

Acceptance and belief are the same things. Don't mince words.


You have no personal evidence Pluto exists.

I didn't claim I did.

then you cannot "Prove" it to me. You can only reiterate other
people's scholarly ideas about it.

I was responding to your assertion that
evidence of God was obvious.

It is to we who understand the concept of God.

I proferred Pluto as an example of
something for which evidence was less than obvious, but for which
'belief' seemed _to me_ to be an unusual term.
Where did I claim 'God' doesn't exist?

Look, if you keep demanding evidence of God, it would infer that you
can't prove God to your own mind.

I'm waiting for you to
present evidence that it does.

The evidence is all around you.

Your handwaving and red herrings

I have not put a red herring into this argument once! I feel this is
an unfair slight to my posts. I told you God exists. You said prove
it. I said the proof is all around you. You beg to differ. I applied
some logic to your ideas of what "proof" is. Evidently you think this
is all besides the point.
Then what exactly IS your point?

Why is

it you need to 'believe' if the evidence is 'obvious'?

I don't need to believe. I know God exists, better than I know my own
pancreas exists!

How could I have it? [Please: bear in mind I'm an ex-christian, so
I've probably tried most things you care to suggest]

So? God is also an Ex Christian. Or should I say, never was a
Christian.

I do. (Have an appendix)

Prove it. ;-)

I have tried, no response.

You are getting a response right now. But you keep judging it
fallacious.


As to being 'nuts', no, delusions are only considered such if
there isn't large acceptance of the delusion in the society in
which it occurs. [So believing in reincarnation is borderline
delusional here, believing the same thing in Tibet probably isn't]

And I wonder at what point was the beliefs of certain Tibetans
considered "deluded?" At what point were they later "accepted" so that
now they are no longer delusions? And why do you accept their ideas
about past lives to be acceptable based on aage or traditions (both
fallacious arguments" and mine are delusional based on "what society
believes?" (argumentum ad populum.)

I have. _Silence_.

God is talking to you every day. Right now! But you can't see it!


I /really/ wanted it. I still really want it, if it exists.


If you really want it, you shall have it.

Donating blood or other signs of empathy don't make
me 'special'.

In this world it does, son.

I'm not even smiling, let alone laughing.

You are mocking me and my beliefs and demanding proof from me, a
simple human being to support your view that God would exist if only
He would show himself to you or give evidence. I am trying hard to get
through to you. But you don't seem to think what I am saying is worth
listening to. You don't even understand the concept that YOU are GOD.


tend to miss the evidence. The love you have for your wife is
God working in you. The concern you have for the donating of
blood is God working in your life. It is really hard for me to
believe no one has told you this yet...


According to you I am God, though, and that everything else is
also God. So if I hacked my wife & kids to bits that would still
be 'God working in my life'.

No that is when you stop allowing God to work in your life and start
thinking you know what is best, and ridding yourself of others for
your own self gratification or some other reason. God does not act
through us at all times. But God is Us. It's a bit complicated. You
are God under the illusion that you are not God. Once we begin to
believe we are "not God" we can do awful things to others. Because God
is outside or nonexistant and our "judgment" comes later, etc. So you
hack up your family (pretty morbid thoughts there, for a rational
human being!) But you are still God, hacking up your family,
pretending not to be God. When you come to your sense you will be a
repentent God. When you come to Be God you will see your family never
died. You just scared them and made a hideous mess out of their
physical bodies.


Is it right that I kill and eat God (vegetables), or buy butchered
God to cook (meat and processed God products)?

That's how this world works. God doesn't mind. That's how it is
supposed to work here. You can stop doing it and return to your true
home anytime.

It's odd that you seem able to state God is everyone one minute,
and then treat it as though it is a separate entity the next.

It's the paradox of our illusion. And as long as we dwell in illusion,
it will be impossible for me not to seem to have a dual consciousness
of these things.

It
seems to me that this God of yours isn't as obvious to you as you
claim, else you would be unable to distinguish between God and the
rest of reality (since the rest of reality is, according to you,
God).

I dwell in illusion too. Only fitfully do I begin to understand daily
how much everything and everyone is God.
More later.
Saint
.
User: "Martin Crisp"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 25 Nov 2003 08:01:29 PM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:49:33 +1100, Anatid Bonecki wrote
(in message <ac57a0d7.0311251549.18ece06e@posting.google.com>):

Martin Crisp <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message news



So I'm sometimes told. Frankly I don't consider myself so.


Too bad. Your low self-esteem makes me sad. I assure you that you are
smart.

Not so much low self-esteem, from my persective, just I have an
acute awareness how many people in my and other societies are
smarter than myself. I'm smarter than average (the median, not the
mean), that doesn't imply I should regard myself as 'smart'; half
the population is 'smarter than average'.

i.e. all you have is assertion, no actual evidence.


I told you how to find evidence. If you don't take it from me, then

No, it seems to me you told me how to achieve self-hypnosis of
belief, but not how to find evidence.

you simply will have to find it on your own. Sort of like taking it
from someone else that they have been to the bottom of the Marianas
Trench.

But I don't 'just take it from someone else', I require other
evidence than say-so.

No, I know it does.


How do you "know?"
Ever seen it? (Your pancreas,)Or have you just seen pictures of other
people's and descriptions from doctors of medicine? Then why is a Dr.

I have a reasonably good understanding of human development, and
am aware of the effects of moving and removing organs. All these
things are near the norm for me*, therefore I have a pancreas. On
the balance of the evidence any 'belief' I have about my
pancreas's existence is justified.
I have a similarly reasonable knowledge of mammalian anatomy, and
the similarities between mammals, and have seen/held/excised
pancreases from different species of mammals. Humans are mammals,
I am human, humans have pancreases.
*my body's reaction to excessive sugar intake, the lack of surgery
to remove a pancreas, the lack of need for external sources of
insulin.

of Theology suddenly without any credibility in your eyes? They say

In part because Drs of Medicine, in particular physiologists,
agree on the existence, nature, location, function etc of
pancreases. Drs of theology do not agree on these things. They
can't all be right, they can all be wrong.

there is a God. Why don't you believe it? Or did you need a picture of
God?

I need evidence in addition to say-so. Got any?

I can see the bottom of the sea, I've stood on the bottom of the
sea.


You've stood on the Continental Shelf. This is not the "bottom of the
sea." Unless you are some sort of extra special diver.

I have stood in the Tasman Sea. On the sea floor. If you mean
'ocean', say 'ocean'. again, though I have not personally visited
the ocean floor, I have evidence that such things exist beyond
mere say-so.

Like all the rest I can gather evidence for these things,


As I have for my understanding of God.

Then demonstrate that understanding, show how it implies the
existence of a god, show that this 'understanding' isn't
contradiced by the rest of reality.

I can
demonstrate that evidence for anyone who cares to examine it.
That's what evidence is. That's what I expected you to be able to
do, since you claimed to have evidence.


I have evidence. We'd have to get together to show it to you. It is
not photographic. It is not literary either.

So what is it?

No, I don't 'believe' (the element named) Iridium exists, I know
it does.


Really, got a chunk of it, do you?

No, but I have had access to such in the past.

Or is this again coming from descriptions others gave you?

A combination of things, descriptions included. [Some study in
physics & chemistry, particularly]

As to fudging photos, yes I'm well aware of that, I'm also well
aware of methods to detect such [one of my better subjects at
university was digital image processing...]


Then you know evidence is not always evidence.

No, I know that things claimed as evidence sometimes are not, due
to a misunderstanding of reality, or to deliberate fraud, or other
reasons.

I accept Pluto's existence, though I
still don't find 'believe' a good word - the evidence is there,
belief is unnecessary.


Acceptance and belief are the same things. Don't mince words.

No, they are not. They are related, and they are synonyms (of
similar meaning) but they are not 'the same'.

You have no personal evidence Pluto exists.


I didn't claim I did.


then you cannot "Prove" it to me. You can only reiterate other
people's scholarly ideas about it.

Yes, I was not seeking to prove it to you, or claiming I had
personal evidence of it. Though if I had a sufficiently powerful
telescope, I should be able to find it in the night sky, where it
is predicted to be by different sources. When I find an object
'where Pluto should be', I should be able to perform calculations
that verify I'm looking at the same thing other people call
'Pluto'. I should be able to perform other tests that fail to
disprove it is (what others refer to as) Pluto, also.
You, however, claim to have evidence of this 'god' and that this
evidence is 'obvious'. Yet when I follow the 'formulae' for
examining or finding this evidence, I come up with nothing. It
seems reasonable to conclude that this 'god' doesn't exist, or if
it does is hiding from me, or is different to what you claim.

I was responding to your assertion that
evidence of God was obvious.


It is to we who understand the concept of God.

As Iridium's existence is to those who have studied chemistry and
can predict the behaviour of various elements based on their mass,
reactivity and other attributes.

I proferred Pluto as an example of
something for which evidence was less than obvious, but for which
'belief' seemed _to me_ to be an unusual term.


Where did I claim 'God' doesn't exist?


Look, if you keep demanding evidence of God, it would infer that you
can't prove God to your own mind.

Yes, and? I don't automatically discount the existence of
everything I can't prove.

I'm waiting for you to
present evidence that it does.


The evidence is all around you.

Reality is all around me, how does it show there is a 'god'?

Your handwaving and red herrings


I have not put a red herring into this argument once! I feel this is

Then why do you keep mentioning things that are known (through
multiple lines of enquiry) to exist in comparison to ,something
that is an object of personal belief, and that /can't/ be verified
to exist by examining reality? [You keep not providing a way of
verifiying this thing's existence beyond 'if you believe it
exists, then it does']

an unfair slight to my posts. I told you God exists. You said prove
it. I said the proof is all around you. You beg to differ. I applied

No, I did not say "prove it" [neither of my replies contain the
text 'prove' or 'proof' except in what I have quoted of your
words], I asked you to show me this evidence you claim is all
around. You steadfastly refuse to do so, or even describe it
beyond 'it's everything'. I do not see how my sunglasses,
scissors, tobacco, pencils, computer, legs, toenails, iridium,
pluto, sea floors, or anything else leads to the conclusion 'god
exists'.

some logic to your ideas of what "proof" is. Evidently you think this
is all besides the point.
Then what exactly IS your point?

That you have not provided evidence for your assertion that
'[evidence of god] is all around you and indwelling [in] you'.
You need to show some causal link(s) between the object of belief
and the claimed evidence, you have not done so. That link should
be assessible by people without the existing belief and they
should be able to reach the same (or similar) conclusions. In the
same manner that the twin nested-hierarchies of morphology and
genetics indicate the common descent and diversity of life on
Earth.

Why is

it you need to 'believe' if the evidence is 'obvious'?


I don't need to believe. I know God exists, better than I know my own
pancreas exists!

How do you 'know'? What evidence? What aspects of the evidence
indicte 'God' rather than <something else>?

How could I have it? [Please: bear in mind I'm an ex-christian, so
I've probably tried most things you care to suggest]


So? God is also an Ex Christian. Or should I say, never was a
Christian.

Oh? So seeking the mind of God in Christian prayer will not find
God? Does the evidence only appear if I seek him in a specific
way? Why didn't you specifiy that way? [Oh, you did but it
sounded identical with 'ask and you shall be answered, seek and
you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you' - hence
my erroneous assumption; however, suince what little methodology
you've supplied seems identical with the Christian method, would
you care to explain why such a similar method fails, and how your
method differs, and how/why your method succeeds where the
Christian method fails?]

I do. (Have an appendix)


Prove it. ;-)

Sure, if you mean it seriously enough to cough up the medical
expenses I incur in-so-doing. It's not like it's an essential body
part, what's your mailing address?

I have tried, no response.


You are getting a response right now. But you keep judging it
fallacious.

Because it doesn't indicate 'god' to me. Simply asserting that
belief, particularly another's belief, is evidence is ludicrous.
[Heliocentrism?]

As to being 'nuts', no, delusions are only considered such if
there isn't large acceptance of the delusion in the society in
which it occurs. [So believing in reincarnation is borderline
delusional here, believing the same thing in Tibet probably isn't]


And I wonder at what point was the beliefs of certain Tibetans
considered "deluded?" At what point were they later "accepted" so that
now they are no longer delusions? And why do you accept their ideas
about past lives to be acceptable based on aage or traditions (both

I didn't say I considered them acceptable, I said that they aren't
regarded as delusions (in a society) if a large number of people
in society have a similar view. If a large number of people in
Iraq think Americans are evil that doesn't make them delusional
(nor does it mean they are either right or wrong) - if that is the
predominant view (or even a common view) of that society...

fallacious arguments" and mine are delusional based on "what society
believes?" (argumentum ad populum.)

Only an argument ad populum if putting the position that 'large
number of believers'='beliefs are correct', which is not the case
I was putting.

I have. _Silence_.


God is talking to you every day. Right now! But you can't see it!

So you assert, how can I see it?

I /really/ wanted it. I still really want it, if it exists.


If you really want it, you shall have it.

And yet I don't have it. This seems to indicate you're wrong.

Donating blood or other signs of empathy don't make
me 'special'.


In this world it does, son.

The notice board at the donation centre showing people who have
made over 100 donations suggests otherwise. [It's about 3 feet
square, and is covered in polaroids, none older than about 4
years, as far as I have noticed; not bad for a city of ~180,000
people, particularly given the stringency of the requirements for
donation these days - e.g. must not have visited Northern
Queensland in the last year, must not have travelled overseas in
the last few years, not have eaten british beef since the early
1980s, not...]

I'm not even smiling, let alone laughing.


You are mocking me and my beliefs and demanding proof from me, a

I am not mocking your beliefs, I am asking for you to support your
assertions.

simple human being to support your view that God would exist if only
He would show himself to you or give evidence. I am trying hard to get
through to you. But you don't seem to think what I am saying is worth
listening to. You don't even understand the concept that YOU are GOD.

No, I don't understand that concept, that's _why_ I'm seeking
support for your assertions (including this one).

tend to miss the evidence. The love you have for your wife is
God working in you. The concern you have for the donating of
blood is God working in your life. It is really hard for me to
believe no one has told you this yet...


According to you I am God, though, and that everything else is
also God. So if I hacked my wife & kids to bits that would still
be 'God working in my life'.


No that is when you stop allowing God to work in your life and start
thinking you know what is best, and ridding yourself of others for

But you just finished saying I _am_ God, so _anything_ I do would
be god working through me (including 'me thinking that [I] know
what is best').

your own self gratification or some other reason. God does not act
through us at all times. But God is Us. It's a bit complicated. You

I have no problem with following moderately complicated ideas, my
brain only bails out when things get down to considering more than
4 dimensions (and has trouble grasping a 4th spatial dimension -
strangely enough since mammals haven't evolved to deal with more
than 3 spatial dimensions), and with things like Quantum
Mechanics.
I also have problems grasping things that seem contradictory, as
your notion of 'God' appears to be.

are God under the illusion that you are not God. Once we begin to
believe we are "not God" we can do awful things to others. Because God

Can we? Odd that the worst I do is get snarky with people,
sometimes shouting at them if my patience is really pushed.

is outside or nonexistant and our "judgment" comes later, etc. So you
hack up your family (pretty morbid thoughts there, for a rational
human being!) But you are still God, hacking up your family,

They'd only be morbid if I was considering doing it with any
seriousness, I'm perfectly capable of considering such things with
detachment from a desire to do them. The same as I am perfectly
capable of considering evidence that opposes my usual view of the
world, should such be offered.
[And like 'smart', I don't consider myself particularly rational -
I am, at some levels, capable of rationality, but I am not a
'rational human being' anymore than anyone else is - what rational
beoing continues to take addictive substances (caffeine & nicotine
in my case) when they know the harm they can do? I am a slave, in
large part, to my hormone levels, not to my cerbral acivities at a
conscious level]
"My big disappointment in life is to become aware of how little
part cerebration plays in setting behaviour patterns--it merely
adds the minor variations to the major drives of territorial
imperative, sex drive, dominance drive, etc., and tangles up the
threads of emotion."
- R. Douglas Wright
[3 years later knighted for services to medicine, learning and
education - as far as I can gather his passion was endocrine
systems]

pretending not to be God. When you come to your sense you will

The only time I am not 'to my senses' is when I am 'senseless' for
some reason, or 'unconscious' for some reason. None of my senses
reveal 'God' to me.

be a repentent God. When you come to Be God you will see your
family never died. You just scared them and made a hideous mess
out of their physical bodies.

All my senses tell me that wthout my physical body I cannot exist,
'I' have a knee that hurts in cold weather, or when I walk down
slopes; 'I' have a slighly mangled finger that affects my typing
ability; 'I' have minor deficiencies in my vision... without these
things 'I' would not be 'me'.

Is it right that I kill and eat God (vegetables), or buy butchered
God to cook (meat and processed God products)?


That's how this world works. God doesn't mind. That's how it is
supposed to work here. You can stop doing it and return to your true
home anytime.

That's how this world works at the moment. There are at least
technically (if not technologically or economically) viable
alternatives. [we /can/ make proteins, lipids, carbohydrates etc
in the lab...]

It's odd that you seem able to state God is everyone one minute,
and then treat it as though it is a separate entity the next.


It's the paradox of our illusion. And as long as we dwell in illusion,
it will be impossible for me not to seem to have a dual consciousness
of these things.

And what evidence is there that the way things seem to you is the
way things are?

It
seems to me that this God of yours isn't as obvious to you as you
claim, else you would be unable to distinguish between God and the
rest of reality (since the rest of reality is, according to you,
God).


I dwell in illusion too. Only fitfully do I begin to understand daily
how much everything and everyone is God.

As I would expect, if what you claim is evidence is not, in fact,
evidence. If it were evidence I would expect anyone else examining
it objectively would be able to reach similar conclusions.

More later.

Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
User: "angelicusrex"

Title: Re: Why fear of God is stupid 26 Nov 2003 03:15:08 PM
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message

Not so much low self-esteem, from my persective,

One gauges low self-esteem from the perspective of others. Most people with
low-self esteem don't know they are acting that way. Others have to tell
them.

just I have an
acute awareness how many people in my and other societies are
smarter than myself. I'm smarter than average (the median, not the
mean), that doesn't imply I should regard myself as 'smart'; half
the population is 'smarter than average'.

Hard to accept a compliment is it?

No, it seems to me you told me how to achieve self-hypnosis of
belief, but not how to find evidence.

Self-hypnosis??? So let's see, I'm either deranged, or self-hypnotized. I am
wondering now how I even tie my shoe-laces in the mornings! I'll tell you
who is hypnotized, the masses of those not so smart people you mentioned.
Maybe it is better to be self-hypnotized than to be hypno-lobotomized by
television and media. Be that as it may. They don't know God. You don't know
God. I may know God but your disbelief won't allow you to even consider it.
So therefore, I must be self-hypnotized. You need to look at your logic. It
is warped.

you simply will have to find it on your own. Sort of like taking it
from someone else that they have been to the bottom of the Marianas
Trench.


But I don't 'just take it from someone else', I require other
evidence than say-so.

Well that's all you get. Sorry. Until you take a diving rig down there. It's
all hearsay.

I have a reasonably good understanding of human development, and
am aware of the effects of moving and removing organs. All these
things are near the norm for me*, therefore I have a pancreas. On
the balance of the evidence any 'belief' I have about my
pancreas's existence is justified.

I have a similarly reasonable knowledge of mammalian anatomy, and
the similarities between mammals, and have seen/held/excised
pancreases from different species of mammals. Humans are mammals,
I am human, humans have pancreases.

Humans believe in gods. Does it follow then that humans have gods?
You are missing my entire "pancreas point" here, old chap. I am saying that
for God to work in your life, you don't need to see Him, hear, Him, smell
Him, taste Him or feel Him. Just like an aborigine doesn't need to know
about his pancreas or what it does. We're just aborgines. We are just
primitive souls who have not yet come to an understanding of what God works
and what God is. We are not all ready to meet the God we so desire to meet.
And maybe, like we shouldn't have screwed up the Aborigine's lives, God
doesn't want to totally screw up your life with His presence quite yet.

I have stood in the Tasman Sea. On the sea floor. If you mean
'ocean', say 'ocean'. again, though I have not personally visited
the ocean floor, I have evidence that such things exist beyond
mere say-so.

Have it your way. You are doing nothing but nit-picking. It seems to be how
you and others in your group or mind set get out of attacking the real
question. All I can say is this, if you can't see evidence for God, then you
are blnd to it for whatever reason you choose to remain blind. I cannot heal
you.

I have evidence. We'd have to get together to show it to you. It is
not photographic. It is not literary either.


So what is it?

I just told you, I'd have to get together with you. Here is not a good
place. Now is not a good time.



No, I don't 'believe' (the element named) Iridium exists, I know
it does.


Really, got a chunk of it, do you?


No, but I have had access to such in the past.

And you knew it was iridium because??? Oh, your natural "iridium