| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"TOR" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 05:50:19 PM |
| Object: |
"Truth is My God" by Andrew Zito |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C56EC3.F1DBA930
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark Richardson" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message=20
news:hi1ja11v191v9phgvjoueond31loigqf60@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:03:44 GMT, "TOR"
<temple_of_reason<remove>@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
***
Where he states "Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a =
truce
between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished. " =
he
also states no foundation for such unsupported conjecture as he =
presents.
I thought he supported it well.
I prefered his article to your reply on every level.
Cheers, Mark
Rushdie defines nothing about "god", as you and many defines nothing =
about=20
god they merely believe or don't believe, argue for or against.
Gandhi as a much more valid measure of sanity wrote "Truth is my God", =
and=20
so since you as an Atheist don't believe in what you call "god", do you =
are=20
automatically and dogmatically oppose what Gandhi called TRUTH? Yes, =
Gandhi=20
in nation building was a much better and more experienced judge than =
those=20
of cheap commercial literary design whither they were secular or =
evangelical=20
in design. As Gandhi struggled in a country of many diverse groups =
sometimes=20
rightly and sometimes wrongly he was a better judge.
If one says "Truth is my God.", one can ask "What is your god?", and =
then=20
conject by sarcastically adding "Is it lies?". Many months ago here I =
asked=20
what is the distinction between "the Big Bang" and "god" and was mostly =
was=20
attacked by brainless Rusdie like clones that were die stamped from the =
same=20
forges of neo-liberal rhetoric with a bogus label of atheist.
But what makes them atheists? Just because people claim to be Atheists =
does=20
that make them Atheists?
By merely opposing those who called themselves "Theists" and "Deists" =
does=20
not make them Atheists.
In the debate on god the arguments presented are not fair they are =
extremely=20
dogmatic and demagoguery,
If Atheists are correct in opposing what ever Theists and Deists say, by =
saying themselves there is no basis to show god exists
is that correct? and can they then can't honestly turn around and then =
argue=20
against what they claim doesn't exist? No they can't so then they resort =
to=20
name calling and labeling the religious as entirely psychotic, insane,=20
delusional, child molesters, hypocrites, money grubbing, adulters when =
those=20
same "Atheists" don't believe to there anything wrong with what they =
attack=20
others for.
So what are they trying to accomplish?
So if "truth is god" should atheists be automaticly against it? If one=20
should not automaticly oppose what someone calls "god"
at what measure or demarcation should one stop in their attacks =
irrespective=20
of their senseless arguments of abstract agnostic existential subjective =
contentions and conjecture without foundation basis relevance or=20
materiality?
Conversely at what point should Theists resist equal temptations to act=20
against others.
I do not believe in the supernatural, the mystical, the metaphysical or=20
anything outside of the realm of the materialist conception but also I=20
recognize that materialist existence as an extension of what people call =
"god", nature", which has basis in creation one way or another:
So why must I and others suffer when so-called atheist and theist =
*****=20
congregate to cause havoc in that they disturb the peace and lawful=20
expression by means of impassioned unholy alliances of adversely design =
that=20
knows no limit in any manner or form without honesty or truth?
Dave in this group is a perfect example case in pointed as he correctly=20
stated:
You have no idea what my "brand" of Secular Humanism is, so how
can you make such an absurd statement?
BECAUSE HIS WHOLE BASIS IS ATTACKING OTHERS (LIKE A COWARD) WITHOUT EVER =
ACTUALLY REVEALING HIS OWN VIEWS THOUGH HE HAS BEEN TROLLING ME FOR =
MONTHS.
SO DOES THE FBI have his number (maybe and perhaps he works for them) as =
his=20
firm stated purpose of existing is alleged to attack anything Theist and =
Deist sole for the label alone perhaps he is a anti-religious nut, or=20
stalking anti-religious nutz to infiltrate them in any case he deserves =
our=20
pity.
EVEN RIGHTEOUS LUNATICS LIKE YOU CAN CLAIM TO BELIEVE THAT DOESN'T MEAN =
THEY=20
ARE CORRECT, NOR SAVED!
~A~
TEMPLE OF REASON (Deist)
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa 16603
http://zito.biz http://templeofreason.org https://www.zito.biz/ssl=20
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
universally copyrighted 2005 Temple of Reason
------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C56EC3.F1DBA930
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Mark Richardson" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au">spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au</A>=
>=20
wrote in message <BR><A=20
href=3D"news:hi1ja11v191v9phgvjoueond31loigqf60@4ax.com">news:hi1ja11v191=
v9phgvjoueond31loigqf60@4ax.com</A>...<BR>>=20
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:03:44 GMT, "TOR"<BR>>=20
<temple_of_reason<remove>@yahoo.co.uk>=20
wrote:<BR>***<BR>>>Where he states "Evans' "Atheism Lite," which =
seeks to=20
negotiate a truce<BR>>>between religious and irreligious world =
views, is=20
easily demolished. " he<BR>>>also states no foundation for such=20
unsupported conjecture as he presents.<BR>>><BR>> I thought he=20
supported it well.<BR>> I prefered his article to your reply on every =
level.<BR>> Cheers, Mark<BR><BR>Rushdie defines nothing about "god", =
as you=20
and many defines nothing about <BR>god they merely believe or don't =
believe,=20
argue for or against.<BR><BR>Gandhi as a much more valid measure of =
sanity wrote=20
"Truth is my God", and <BR>so since you as an Atheist don't believe in =
what you=20
call "god", do you are <BR>automatically and dogmatically oppose what =
Gandhi=20
called TRUTH? Yes, Gandhi <BR>in nation building was a much better and =
more=20
experienced judge than those <BR>of cheap commercial literary design =
whither=20
they were secular or evangelical <BR>in design. As Gandhi struggled in a =
country=20
of many diverse groups sometimes <BR>rightly and sometimes wrongly he =
was a=20
better judge.<BR><BR>If one says "Truth is my God.", one can ask "What =
is your=20
god?", and then <BR>conject by sarcastically adding "Is it lies?". =
Many=20
months ago here I asked <BR>what is the distinction between "the Big =
Bang" and=20
"god" and was mostly was <BR>attacked by brainless Rusdie like clones =
that were=20
die stamped from the same <BR>forges of neo-liberal rhetoric with a =
bogus label=20
of atheist.<BR><BR>But what makes them atheists? Just because people =
claim to be=20
Atheists does <BR>that make them Atheists?<BR>By merely opposing those =
who=20
called themselves "Theists" and "Deists" does <BR>not make them =
Atheists.<BR>In=20
the debate on god the arguments presented are not fair they are =
extremely=20
<BR>dogmatic and demagoguery,<BR><BR>If Atheists are correct in opposing =
what=20
ever Theists and Deists say, by <BR>saying themselves there is no basis =
to show=20
god exists<BR>is that correct? and can they then can't honestly turn =
around and=20
then argue <BR>against what they claim doesn't exist? No they can't so =
then they=20
resort to <BR>name calling and labeling the religious as entirely =
psychotic,=20
insane, <BR>delusional, child molesters, hypocrites, money grubbing, =
adulters=20
when those <BR>same "Atheists" don't believe to there anything wrong =
with what=20
they attack <BR>others for.<BR><BR>So what are they trying to=20
accomplish?<BR><BR>So if "truth is god" should atheists be automaticly =
against=20
it? If one <BR>should not automaticly oppose what someone calls =
"god"<BR>at what=20
measure or demarcation should one stop in their attacks irrespective =
<BR>of=20
their senseless arguments of abstract agnostic existential subjective=20
<BR>contentions and conjecture without foundation basis relevance or=20
<BR>materiality?<BR><BR>Conversely at what point should Theists resist =
equal=20
temptations to act <BR>against others.<BR><BR>I do not believe in the=20
supernatural, the mystical, the metaphysical or <BR>anything outside of =
the=20
realm of the materialist conception but also I <BR>recognize that =
materialist=20
existence as an extension of what people call <BR>"god", nature", which =
has=20
basis in creation one way or another:<BR><BR>So why must I and others =
suffer=20
when so-called atheist and theist ***** <BR>congregate to cause havoc =
in that=20
they disturb the peace and lawful <BR>expression by means of impassioned =
unholy=20
alliances of adversely design that <BR>knows no limit in any manner or =
form=20
without honesty or truth?<BR><BR>Dave in this group is a perfect example =
case in=20
pointed as he correctly <BR>stated:<BR><BR>> You have no idea what my =
"brand"=20
of Secular Humanism is, so how<BR>> can you make such an absurd=20
statement?<BR><BR>BECAUSE HIS WHOLE BASIS IS ATTACKING OTHERS (LIKE A =
COWARD)=20
WITHOUT EVER <BR>ACTUALLY REVEALING HIS OWN VIEWS THOUGH HE HAS BEEN =
TROLLING ME=20
FOR MONTHS.<BR><BR>SO DOES THE FBI have his number (maybe and perhaps he =
works=20
for them) as his <BR>firm stated purpose of existing is alleged to =
attack=20
anything Theist and <BR>Deist sole for the label alone perhaps he is a=20
anti-religious nut, or <BR>stalking anti-religious nutz to infiltrate =
them in=20
any case he deserves our <BR>pity.<BR><BR>EVEN RIGHTEOUS LUNATICS LIKE =
YOU CAN=20
CLAIM TO BELIEVE THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY <BR>ARE CORRECT, NOR=20
SAVED!<BR><BR>~A~<BR>TEMPLE OF REASON (Deist)<BR>P.O.Box =
1615<BR>Altoona, Pa=20
16603<BR><BR><A href=3D"http://zito.biz">http://zito.biz</A> <A=20
href=3D"http://templeofreason.org">http://templeofreason.org</A> =
<A=20
href=3D"https://www.zito.biz/ssl">https://www.zito.biz/ssl</A> <BR><A=20
href=3D"http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito">http://uk.geocities.com/andr=
ew_zito</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason">http://groups.yah=
oo.com/group/temple_of_reason</A><BR>universally=20
copyrighted 2005 Temple of Reason<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C56EC3.F1DBA930--
.
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: "Truth is My God" by Andrew Zito |
13 Jun 2005 09:19:19 PM |
|
|
TOR <temple_of_reason wrote:
If Atheists are correct in opposing what ever Theists and
Deists say, by saying themselves there is no basis to show god
exists is that correct?
Yes. And not one theist has come up with any reason to believe a
god exists.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: "Truth is My God" by Andrew Zito |
15 Jun 2005 04:35:37 AM |
|
|
TOR wrote:
Mark Richardson" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:hi1ja11v191v9phgvjoueond31loigqf60@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:03:44 GMT, "TOR"
<temple_of_reason<remove>@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
***
Where he states "Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce
between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished. " he
also states no foundation for such unsupported conjecture as he presents.
I thought he supported it well.
I prefered his article to your reply on every level.
Cheers, Mark
Rushdie defines nothing about "god",
Correct.
Not intersting or important or noteworthy - but perfectly correct.
as you and many defines nothing about
god they merely believe or don't believe, argue for or against.
Your use of english is very hard to understand - but I think you are
saying atheists are guilty of not defining god very well.
I dont think this is a fault.
It is the believers that get to define what it is they believe in, not
the unbelievers.
That's just how reality works - railing against it will not help.
You may as well complain that cats dont have enough legs or the sun is
the wrong color.
Things are as they are - deal with it.
Gandhi as a much more valid measure of sanity wrote "Truth is my God", and
so since you as an Atheist don't believe in what you call "god", do you are
automatically and dogmatically oppose what Gandhi called TRUTH?
No.
I understand exactly what Ghandi meant by "Truth is my god" - he meant
that truth was the highest thing - the thing he valued above all.
I agree with him, and I am godless.
If the truth is that "God (magic being sitting in the clouds) does not
exist" Would Ghandi honor that truth?
I hope he would.
He didnt mean that "truth" was a sentient being (a man who sits in the
sky) that did magic and conjured worlds out of nothing.
I hope that helps.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: "Truth is My God" by Andrew Zito |
15 Jun 2005 05:15:27 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 21:35:37 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
TOR wrote:
Mark Richardson" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:hi1ja11v191v9phgvjoueond31loigqf60@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:03:44 GMT, "TOR"
<temple_of_reason<remove>@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
***
Where he states "Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce
between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished. " he
also states no foundation for such unsupported conjecture as he presents.
I thought he supported it well.
I prefered his article to your reply on every level.
Cheers, Mark
Rushdie defines nothing about "god",
Correct.
Not intersting or important or noteworthy - but perfectly correct.
as you and many defines nothing about
god they merely believe or don't believe, argue for or against.
Your use of english is very hard to understand - but I think you are
saying atheists are guilty of not defining god very well.
I dont think this is a fault.
It is the believers that get to define what it is they believe in, not
the unbelievers.
Correct, atheist simply do not share the beliefs of the theist. I
reject all of the religions that I know of, that is not a belief.
Merely a assessment of religions.
That's just how reality works - railing against it will not help.
But fighting against religion helps keep religion from becoming more
powerful.
BTW if any god/s should exist they don't need man to enforce their
rules.
You may as well complain that cats dont have enough legs or the sun is
the wrong color.
Things are as they are - deal with it.
Gandhi as a much more valid measure of sanity wrote "Truth is my God", and
so since you as an Atheist don't believe in what you call "god", do you are
automatically and dogmatically oppose what Gandhi called TRUTH?
No.
I understand exactly what Ghandi meant by "Truth is my god" - he meant
that truth was the highest thing - the thing he valued above all.
I agree with him, and I am godless.
If the truth is that "God (magic being sitting in the clouds) does not
exist" Would Ghandi honor that truth?
I hope he would.
He didnt mean that "truth" was a sentient being (a man who sits in the
sky) that did magic and conjured worlds out of nothing.
I hope that helps.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
