| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM |
| Object: |
WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Combs" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 12:53:10 PM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161044006.018083.254620@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
There was a documentary about a man who was blind from birth and his
sight was restored. He simply could not understand the signals his eyes
were sending him. Though he could 'see' the image it meant nothing.
They put him in front of a statue and allowed him to understand the
spatial nature of it by feeling it all over and then his brain
'understood' that. It took him months before he could adequately use
it.
I wonder if this was the same guy I heard about. I remember one of his
stories was that when he went home to his apartment, he saw, rather to his
surprise, that outside the window of his apartment was a little gutter with
lots of toy cars in it. When he opened the window to reach one of the toy
cars, he almost fell several stories to the street below!
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 07:16:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:20:20 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160678960.186553.52240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I
was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences
for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
What do you mean by 'actual experience' ? Do you mean they really left
their body.
I see some problems with claims about so called 'out of body
experience' (as distinct from out of body dreaming) in that the
physical body is allegedly left with its eys, ears and brain and yet
the 'oob' claim they can see, hear, remember, think.
If it is possible to see without the physical eyes, the lens, the
retina, the optic nerve, the parts of the brain used to interpret the
signals then how come people can go blind ?
One of the best recorded examples in a hospital , recorded by the surgeon,
was of a patient who described everything that went on during the
proceedure,. The number of people coming and going, their gender and a
whole lot of compelling info. What freaked the surgen, was that the patient
was blind from birth.
One would think there would be more research into such phenomena, but the
problem is, the very arenas do not like delving into phenomena that they
cannot explain.
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
A lot more common than many would imagine. Just about everybody I have spoke
to who have had such experiences, have very rearly spoke of it to even their
closest friends or family.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
16 Oct 2006 06:55:01 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mi94j25m6bed64vufp7a88c65g2ab9ccet@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:20:20 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160678960.186553.52240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I
was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences
for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic
experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
What do you mean by 'actual experience' ? Do you mean they really left
their body.
I see some problems with claims about so called 'out of body
experience' (as distinct from out of body dreaming) in that the
physical body is allegedly left with its eys, ears and brain and yet
the 'oob' claim they can see, hear, remember, think.
If it is possible to see without the physical eyes, the lens, the
retina, the optic nerve, the parts of the brain used to interpret the
signals then how come people can go blind ?
One of the best recorded examples in a hospital , recorded by the surgeon,
was of a patient who described everything that went on during the
proceedure,. The number of people coming and going, their gender and a
whole lot of compelling info. What freaked the surgen, was that the
patient
was blind from birth.
One would think there would be more research into such phenomena, but the
problem is, the very arenas do not like delving into phenomena that they
cannot explain.
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
HEADLINES
NASA finds cure for blindness. Just starve the brain of oxygen....:-)
Of course such circumstances have certain effects, but one can never prove
metaphysical phenomena with physical means, only record the observations,
such as the encephalograph case. The evidence will then either confirm ones
own experience, of confirn the 'belief' (group think)..in the devil, or
whatever.
BOfL
BOfL
A lot more common than many would imagine. Just about everybody I have
spoke
to who have had such experiences, have very rearly spoke of it to even
their
closest friends or family.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 06:21:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:16:35 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
Or incomplete anesthesia, in the case of the hospital patient. (Why
would it amaze a doctor that a blind person could identify people?
Hasn't that doctor actually known any actual blind people?)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 07:28:19 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pjg5j2lrqphbus508co74niqg2fnhhhqq2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:16:35 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
Or incomplete anesthesia, in the case of the hospital patient. (Why
would it amaze a doctor that a blind person could identify people?
Hasn't that doctor actually known any actual blind people?)
Um, how could a blind person identify people coming and going in an
operating theatre that they hadn't met or known, or "seen" what they were
doing and when unconscious on an operating table?
If the anesthesia was incomplete, wouldn't the most important report by the
patient have been the PAIN during surgery?
Was NASA there and monitoring the guys oxygen levels?
Before leaping to automatic denial and alternatives, why not actually find
out what the doctor and the patient reported first .... like get some real
facts about the actual case before wandering off into neverland and wild
belief s about what might have been????
Bloody witchdoctors, sheeesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 08:43:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:28:19 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pjg5j2lrqphbus508co74niqg2fnhhhqq2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:16:35 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
Or incomplete anesthesia, in the case of the hospital patient. (Why
would it amaze a doctor that a blind person could identify people?
Hasn't that doctor actually known any actual blind people?)
Um, how could a blind person identify people coming and going in an
operating theatre that they hadn't met or known, or "seen" what they were
doing and when unconscious on an operating table?
How can you "identify" someone you don't know, seeing or blind?
"Oh, there's someone I've never seen before. Her name is Mary Smith
and she lives on Jones Street."
Who said anything about his identifying people he'd never met? Just
people coming and going. If you've never seen a blind person greet
someone who walked into a room, you haven't spent much time with blind
people.
If the anesthesia was incomplete, wouldn't the most important report by the
patient have been the PAIN during surgery?
I've been partially awake during surgery under a general - the only
sense that was working was hearing, not pain. So no.
Before leaping to automatic denial and alternatives
Before leaping to unevidenced fantasy, try the simplest explanation.
It's usually the correct one.
A blind person was aware of what was going on in a room in which
(possibly) he could hear. Your first reaction is that something
supernatural happened. Why?
He lived his entire life being aware of what was going on around him
without seeing anything, and without anything supernatural happening.
(The blind-from-birth don't dream visually either. They have no more
concept of sight than you have of what it feels to have sunlight
impinge on your antennae.)
why not actually find out what the doctor and the patient reported first .... like get some real
facts about the actual case before wandering off into neverland and wild
belief s about what might have been????
Who reported the situation? Not I. Why didn't you report what they
reported? We're commenting on the facts as presented here. And the
facts are that someone used senses in ways that you and I don't
normally use them. So what?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 10:50:14 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u9o5j2hs2qavj7uigft6t63devvccmkga3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:28:19 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pjg5j2lrqphbus508co74niqg2fnhhhqq2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:16:35 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
NASA has shown it is due to random nerve impulses during oxygen
starvation of the brain.
Or incomplete anesthesia, in the case of the hospital patient. (Why
would it amaze a doctor that a blind person could identify people?
Hasn't that doctor actually known any actual blind people?)
Um, how could a blind person identify people coming and going in an
operating theatre that they hadn't met or known, or "seen" what they were
doing and when unconscious on an operating table?
How can you "identify" someone you don't know, seeing or blind?
"Oh, there's someone I've never seen before. Her name is Mary Smith
and she lives on Jones Street."
Who said anything about his identifying people he'd never met? Just
people coming and going. If you've never seen a blind person greet
someone who walked into a room, you haven't spent much time with blind
people.
If the anesthesia was incomplete, wouldn't the most important report by
the
patient have been the PAIN during surgery?
I've been partially awake during surgery under a general - the only
sense that was working was hearing, not pain. So no.
gosh, lucky you, my wife screamed in agony. Amazing, your personal
experiences are not universal. Isn't that amazing. I'd never have thought
that. I thought you knew everything, what a surprise.
Before leaping to automatic denial and alternatives
Before leaping to unevidenced fantasy, try the simplest explanation.
It's usually the correct one.
here's what brian said.
One of the best recorded examples in a hospital , recorded by the surgeon,
was of a patient who described everything that went on during the
proceedure,. The number of people coming and going, their gender and a
whole lot of compelling info. What freaked the surgen, was that the patient
was blind from birth.
WHEN you have read the original record .... do get back to me. <VBG>
Bye!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
16 Oct 2006 10:40:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:50:14 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u9o5j2hs2qavj7uigft6t63devvccmkga3@4ax.com...
If the anesthesia was incomplete, wouldn't the most important report by
the patient have been the PAIN during surgery?
I've been partially awake during surgery under a general - the only
sense that was working was hearing, not pain. So no.
gosh, lucky you, my wife screamed in agony. Amazing, your personal
experiences are not universal. Isn't that amazing. I'd never have thought
that. I thought you knew everything, what a surprise.
I know that 'partially awake' ranges from just not quite alert to not
totally in a coma. I also know that you're acting like a child.
Before leaping to automatic denial and alternatives
Before leaping to unevidenced fantasy, try the simplest explanation.
It's usually the correct one.
here's what brian said.
One of the best recorded examples in a hospital , recorded by the surgeon,
was of a patient who described everything that went on during the
proceedure,. The number of people coming and going, their gender and a
whole lot of compelling info. What freaked the surgen, was that the patient
was blind from birth.
Blind people can tell who comes into a room without sight. If you
know who came into the room, you know their gender. Ask a person
who's been blind from birth. "a whole lot of compelling info" would
depend on what impresses you. Some people find it compelling that a
blind person can tell a person's weight when he come into a room with
fair accuracy. I know how it's done so I don't. At any rate "a whole
lot of compelling info" is scientifically meaningless.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
16 Oct 2006 07:04:12 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:um97j21isitivndcotsaagcba7br6phjsi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:50:14 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:u9o5j2hs2qavj7uigft6t63devvccmkga3@4ax.com...
If the anesthesia was incomplete, wouldn't the most important report by
the patient have been the PAIN during surgery?
I've been partially awake during surgery under a general - the only
sense that was working was hearing, not pain. So no.
gosh, lucky you, my wife screamed in agony. Amazing, your personal
experiences are not universal. Isn't that amazing. I'd never have thought
that. I thought you knew everything, what a surprise.
I know that 'partially awake' ranges from just not quite alert to not
totally in a coma. I also know that you're acting like a child.
Before leaping to automatic denial and alternatives
Before leaping to unevidenced fantasy, try the simplest explanation.
It's usually the correct one.
here's what brian said.
One of the best recorded examples in a hospital , recorded by the surgeon,
was of a patient who described everything that went on during the
proceedure,. The number of people coming and going, their gender and a
whole lot of compelling info. What freaked the surgen, was that the
patient
was blind from birth.
Blind people can tell who comes into a room without sight. If you
know who came into the room, you know their gender. Ask a person
who's been blind from birth. "a whole lot of compelling info" would
depend on what impresses you. Some people find it compelling that a
blind person can tell a person's weight when he come into a room with
fair accuracy. I know how it's done so I don't. At any rate "a whole
lot of compelling info" is scientifically meaningless.
Not if you were interested enough to follow up. Some people need hand
feeding.
I listened to the actual surgeon speak. He was a reasonable intelligent man,
in fact I would put my life in his hands. He also confirmed that his
collegues didnt want to know.
It is perfectly legitimate for people to defend their position, because such
realisations are life changing, and people are conservative by nature.
If you are one of those I suggest you dont check out the work by prof Brian
Weiss at the Sinai hospital in New York.
BOfL
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
16 Oct 2006 08:37:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:04:12 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I listened to the actual surgeon speak. He was a reasonable intelligent man,
in fact I would put my life in his hands. He also confirmed that his
collegues didnt want to know.
Many fruitcakes sound like reasonable, personable, likable men. That
he sounds reasonable, and that he's intelligent as far as some things
go, doesn't mean that he isn't deluded as far as other things go.
Idi Amin sounded reasonable and intelligent. The kind of guy you'd
like to have as a friend. Until he ordered the guy behind you to
crush your skull in with a hammer.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 09:30:09 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:foc8j29lpo6ks1qju40smrpr0uqq4llvmm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:04:12 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I listened to the actual surgeon speak. He was a reasonable intelligent
man,
in fact I would put my life in his hands. He also confirmed that his
collegues didnt want to know.
Many fruitcakes sound like reasonable, personable, likable men. That
he sounds reasonable, and that he's intelligent as far as some things
go, doesn't mean that he isn't deluded as far as other things go.
Idi Amin sounded reasonable and intelligent. The kind of guy you'd
like to have as a friend. Until he ordered the guy behind you to
crush your skull in with a hammer.
Both irrelevant strawman comments that do not address in any way the
credibility specific surgeon himself, or his reports.
I do not know anything about the man or what he reported except what Brian
said, But I never said it was true, or that I believed it either. So I am
not leaping to any fantasies in the first place.
You appear to be assuming it must be just another "fruitcake", but without
any information to support that belief whatsoever.
WHEN you have at least read the original record .... your opinion may be of
some value. Untill then, all you are doing is talking about fruticakes and
Idi Amin.
Which is fine if that's what you like to talk about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 10:05:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:30:09 +1000, "Sean" <peace@earth.globe> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:foc8j29lpo6ks1qju40smrpr0uqq4llvmm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:04:12 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I listened to the actual surgeon speak. He was a reasonable intelligent
man,
in fact I would put my life in his hands. He also confirmed that his
collegues didnt want to know.
Many fruitcakes sound like reasonable, personable, likable men. That
he sounds reasonable, and that he's intelligent as far as some things
go, doesn't mean that he isn't deluded as far as other things go.
Idi Amin sounded reasonable and intelligent. The kind of guy you'd
like to have as a friend. Until he ordered the guy behind you to
crush your skull in with a hammer.
Both irrelevant strawman comments that do not address in any way the
credibility specific surgeon himself, or his reports.
We have a cardiologist with an MD and a PhD posting to alt.atheism,
and he's a kook who shouldn't be allowed to say the word 'patient',
let alone work on one. 'MD' doesn't mean 'never says anything he
doesn't know anything about' - it doesn't even guarantee 'sane'.
You appear to be assuming it must be just another "fruitcake", but without
any information to support that belief whatsoever.
I'm just not accepting an assertion. But, then, I don't have much
practice accepting assertions that seem to fly in the face of reason.
Those who regularly accept such assertions probably find it easier to
do so.
WHEN you have at least read the original record
Unless it has more than assertion (and it can't in the case of OOB
experiences), it won't change anything. "I think" isn't evidentiary,
but that's all anyone can have at this time - opinion. When someone
actually measures something external to the body I'll read the
peer-reviewed report.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart.
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 04:03:53 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pvr9j2dpb5vgjqmch2ve8ibsvo7m35t9vp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:30:09 +1000, "Sean" <peace@earth.globe> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:foc8j29lpo6ks1qju40smrpr0uqq4llvmm@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:04:12 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I listened to the actual surgeon speak. He was a reasonable intelligent
man,
in fact I would put my life in his hands. He also confirmed that his
collegues didnt want to know.
Many fruitcakes sound like reasonable, personable, likable men. That
he sounds reasonable, and that he's intelligent as far as some things
go, doesn't mean that he isn't deluded as far as other things go.
Idi Amin sounded reasonable and intelligent. The kind of guy you'd
like to have as a friend. Until he ordered the guy behind you to
crush your skull in with a hammer.
Both irrelevant strawman comments that do not address in any way the
credibility specific surgeon himself, or his reports.
We have a cardiologist with an MD and a PhD posting to alt.atheism,
and he's a kook who shouldn't be allowed to say the word 'patient',
let alone work on one. 'MD' doesn't mean 'never says anything he
doesn't know anything about' - it doesn't even guarantee 'sane'.
Strawman ... again.
You're personal opinion and judgements about an MD posting to alt.a, is
totally irrelevant to the credibility, sanity, and information/evidence of
some other surgeon you know nothing about.
You appear to be assuming it must be just another "fruitcake", but without
any information to support that belief whatsoever.
I'm just not accepting an assertion.
No one said you needed to. But what's fruit cake and Idi Amin got to do with
not accepting an assertion anyway?
You're actually rejecting everything out of hand, with no evidence, based
purely on your pre-existing belief that something is not possible.
WHEN you have at least read the original record
Unless it has more than assertion (and it can't in the case of OOB
experiences), it won't change anything. "I think" isn't evidentiary,
but that's all anyone can have at this time - opinion. When someone
actually measures something external to the body I'll read the
peer-reviewed report.
How would you know that isn;t part of the surgeons report, without even
looking into it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 07:10:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:03:53 +1000, "Sean" <peace@earth.globe> wrote:
You're actually rejecting everything out of hand, with no evidence, based
purely on your pre-existing belief that something is not possible.
The default position when an assertion is made is to not accept it if
there's no reason to.
Unless it has more than assertion (and it can't in the case of OOB
experiences), it won't change anything. "I think" isn't evidentiary,
but that's all anyone can have at this time - opinion. When someone
actually measures something external to the body I'll read the
peer-reviewed report.
How would you know that isn;t part of the surgeons report, without even
looking into it?
Because it would have been all over the peer-reviewed press, and it
hasn't been - ever. Spectacular breakthroughs in science get
announced, not mumbled.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
17 Oct 2006 10:24:46 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4saj2du2o8fk077vl0st7ioifs5gh1m9e@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:03:53 +1000, "Sean" <peace@earth.globe> wrote:
You're actually rejecting everything out of hand, with no evidence, based
purely on your pre-existing belief that something is not possible.
The default position when an assertion is made is to not accept it if
there's no reason to.
My point regarding conservatism. They are having a more difficult time these
days with the advent of the internet, where such information is not
surpressed by the "power brokers".
At least there is good exercise to be had, which is always good, whereby one
shovels more and more sand to keep one's head buried.
Believe it or not, I understand your pov entirely. Spent the first half of
my adult life willing to fight to the death to espouse it.
Miracles happen. Thats the only way shifts in consciousness can happen.
Dynamite is not a preferred option :-)
Unless it has more than assertion (and it can't in the case of OOB
experiences), it won't change anything. "I think" isn't evidentiary,
but that's all anyone can have at this time - opinion. When someone
actually measures something external to the body I'll read the
peer-reviewed report.
How would you know that isn;t part of the surgeons report, without even
looking into it?
Because it would have been all over the peer-reviewed press, and it
hasn't been - ever. Spectacular breakthroughs in science get
announced, not mumbled.
Not in such cases. The religiosity to too well entrenched in many peoples
psyche to even broach the subject.
So following your logic, he was lying about something that disrupted his
'status quo', and risked looking like a fool to his peers and colleagues.By
his own statement, the experience "freaked him out".How would have he
reacted if it was a second hand experience. Answer. The same way as most
others do with the exception of those who have had similar experiences
Have you any idea how long western medicine rejected accupunctire? Its now
acccepted nearly everywhere, even though it still is not understood. Mind
you, I have yet to speak to any scientist/philosopher that understands why
the cell decides to "split" and start another human life.The fundemental
process can only be observed.
BOfL
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
18 Oct 2006 02:31:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:24:46 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4saj2du2o8fk077vl0st7ioifs5gh1m9e@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:03:53 +1000, "Sean" <peace@earth.globe> wrote:
How would you know that isn;t part of the surgeons report, without even
looking into it?
Because it would have been all over the peer-reviewed press, and it
hasn't been - ever. Spectacular breakthroughs in science get
announced, not mumbled.
Not in such cases. The religiosity to too well entrenched in many peoples
psyche to even broach the subject.
If there's objective evidence of something new, scientists publish.
Silence is almost always a sign that there's nothing to say.
So following your logic, he was lying about something that disrupted his
'status quo', and risked looking like a fool to his peers and colleagues.
No, people in this country believe in the supernatural.
By his own statement, the experience "freaked him out".How would have he
reacted if it was a second hand experience. Answer. The same way as most
others do with the exception of those who have had similar experiences
Scientists publish objective evidence. This obviously wasn't such a
situation.
Have you any idea how long western medicine rejected accupunctire? Its now
acccepted nearly everywhere, even though it still is not understood. Mind
you, I have yet to speak to any scientist/philosopher that understands why
the cell decides to "split" and start another human life.The fundemental
process can only be observed.
We're talking about observing something objective and publishing the
observation, not creating an hypothesis from it. There's been no
observation of any part of the human soul, essence, whatever you want
to call it, that's not in and part of the body.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
11 Oct 2006 10:45:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:45 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
There is no "debate over the valisidty of atheism" outside the
imagination of those who don't know what atheism is.
And the reason they get it wrong,is because they attempt to describe
us according to presumptions that only (logically) work inside the
theist's worldview.
We're simply people who aren't theist.
Including so-called strong atheists. They aren't theist, and they also
perform the action of believing it doesn't exist.
We have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" or any of the other
emotionally prejudicial verbs which are used to describe us.
Nor do we have anything to be agnostic about.
Think of the implicit presumptions behind the common usage
definitions: that it exists and atheists believe it doesn't, that it
exists and agnostics don't know.
Beause that's how language works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
12 Oct 2006 06:21:01 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:45 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
There is no "debate over the valisidty of atheism" outside the
imagination of those who don't know what atheism is.
I would love to hear a debate between you and Einstein on that topic.
And the reason they get it wrong,is because they attempt to describe
us according to presumptions that only (logically) work inside the
theist's worldview.
I understand that . I am not a theist.
We're simply people who aren't theist.
Including so-called strong atheists. They aren't theist, and they also
perform the action of believing it doesn't exist.
We have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" or any of the other
emotionally prejudicial verbs which are used to describe us.
Do you not agreee that can be reasonably interpreted as "knowing it doesnt
exist"?
Nor do we have anything to be agnostic about.
I have always seen agnosticism as health scepticism.
Think of the implicit presumptions behind the common usage
definitions: that it exists and atheists believe it doesn't, that it
exists and agnostics don't know.
Beause that's how language works.
I appreciate your definition and now have a better understanding of the use
of the word.
Having said that, some people interpret their 'metaphysical experiences'
religiously.
How would you (assuming you havn't had any).
I meet a lot of people who deny such experiences because of the associated
connection (in their imagination) with religiosity.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
12 Oct 2006 06:30:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:21:01 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:45 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
There is no "debate over the valisidty of atheism" outside the
imagination of those who don't know what atheism is.
I would love to hear a debate between you and Einstein on that topic.
A standard non-response from somebody who has no idea what it means to
be atheist.
Once again - ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THEISTS.
How the heck can there be any validity or otherwise in that?
And the reason they get it wrong,is because they attempt to describe
us according to presumptions that only (logically) work inside the
theist's worldview.
I understand that . I am not a theist.
Yet you refuse to let atheists and atheism be what they actually are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
12 Oct 2006 10:07:08 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:tm9si29b92s2f7d8s7kms94ktc4ti3rc9m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:21:01 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:45 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I
was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences
for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
There is no "debate over the valisidty of atheism" outside the
imagination of those who don't know what atheism is.
I would love to hear a debate between you and Einstein on that topic.
A standard non-response from somebody who has no idea what it means to
be atheist.
Once again - ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THEISTS.
How the heck can there be any validity or otherwise in that?
And the reason they get it wrong,is because they attempt to describe
us according to presumptions that only (logically) work inside the
theist's worldview.
I understand that . I am not a theist.
Yet you refuse to let atheists and atheism be what they actually are.
They need my permission? I see why you avoided the questions.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
12 Oct 2006 11:55:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:07:08 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:tm9si29b92s2f7d8s7kms94ktc4ti3rc9m@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:21:01 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:45 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I was caught up in the debate regarding the validity of atheism, and I
was
wondering, if one could be an atheist and have out of body experiences
for
example, or any of the myriad of well documented psychic experiences.I'm
not
talking of belief or non belief, but actual experience.
There is no "debate over the valisidty of atheism" outside the
imagination of those who don't know what atheism is.
I would love to hear a debate between you and Einstein on that topic.
A standard non-response from somebody who has no idea what it means to
be atheist.
Once again - ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THEISTS.
How the heck can there be any validity or otherwise in that?
And the reason they get it wrong,is because they attempt to describe
us according to presumptions that only (logically) work inside the
theist's worldview.
I understand that . I am not a theist.
Yet you refuse to let atheists and atheism be what they actually are.
They need my permission? I see why you avoided the questions.
Then why do you keep insisting they're something they're not?
BOfL
FOAD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert van der Horst" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
14 Oct 2006 01:39:24 PM |
|
|
In article <co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
We're simply people who aren't theist.
<SNIP>
Including so-called strong atheists. They aren't theist, and they also
perform the action of believing it doesn't exist.
We have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" or any of the other
emotionally prejudicial verbs which are used to describe us.
Nor do we have anything to be agnostic about.
Think of the implicit presumptions behind the common usage
definitions: that it exists and atheists believe it doesn't, that it
exists and agnostics don't know.
Beause that's how language works.
Dutch language is much accurate.
"
Zijn moeder is katholiek, en zijn vader is gewoon niets.
"
His mother is catholic, and his father is ordinarily nothing.
("just nothing").
This literal translation doesn't do right to the interjection
"gewoon" that might be translated with "as a default".
But it is more feeling than information.
A heavy handed accurate translation would be
"
His father has no affiliation with a belief of any kind, which is
-- as we all know -- the default.
"
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
15 Oct 2006 07:06:36 AM |
|
|
"Albert van der Horst" <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:j752ho.i9n@spenarnc.xs4all.nl...
In article <co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
We're simply people who aren't theist.
<SNIP>
Including so-called strong atheists. They aren't theist, and they also
perform the action of believing it doesn't exist.
We have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" or any of the other
emotionally prejudicial verbs which are used to describe us.
Nor do we have anything to be agnostic about.
Think of the implicit presumptions behind the common usage
definitions: that it exists and atheists believe it doesn't, that it
exists and agnostics don't know.
Beause that's how language works.
Dutch language is much accurate.
"
Zijn moeder is katholiek, en zijn vader is gewoon niets.
"
His mother is catholic, and his father is ordinarily nothing.
("just nothing").
This literal translation doesn't do right to the interjection
"gewoon" that might be translated with "as a default".
But it is more feeling than information.
A heavy handed accurate translation would be
"
His father has no affiliation with a belief of any kind, which is
-- as we all know -- the default.
Ok if it is topic specific, but I bet he believes eating his Mars Bar will
help him "work rest and play".
BOfL
"
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in metaphysics versus reality atheism. |
14 Oct 2006 02:54:56 PM |
|
|
On 14 Oct 2006 18:39:24 GMT, Albert van der Horst
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
In article <co3qi296ojlr8j7jfsop84fn268c920rp4@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
We're simply people who aren't theist.
<SNIP>
Including so-called strong atheists. They aren't theist, and they also
perform the action of believing it doesn't exist.
We have nothing to "believe doesn't exist" or any of the other
emotionally prejudicial verbs which are used to describe us.
Nor do we have anything to be agnostic about.
Think of the implicit presumptions behind the common usage
definitions: that it exists and atheists believe it doesn't, that it
exists and agnostics don't know.
Beause that's how language works.
Dutch language is much accurate.
"
Zijn moeder is katholiek, en zijn vader is gewoon niets.
"
His mother is catholic, and his father is ordinarily nothing.
("just nothing").
This literal translation doesn't do right to the interjection
"gewoon" that might be translated with "as a default".
But it is more feeling than information.
A heavy handed accurate translation would be
"
His father has no affiliation with a belief of any kind, which is
-- as we all know -- the default.
A good description.
I lived and worked in Amsterdam 30 years ago. One of the happiest
times of my life. I attended Dutch language evening classes, but every
time I tried to speak it, they spoke English to me. I was embarrassed
because living in somebody else's country I should use their language.
But their English was far better than my Dutch.
Groetjes Albert
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 11:23:44 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
Atheism is a religion.
I base it on my definition of 'atheism' and 'religion'.
Religion is the belief system the mind employs to make its version of
reality coherent and orderly.
Atheism is a belief system the mind employs to make its version of reality
coherent and orderly while denying the existence of a deity.
The difference is negligible.
Religion fails to make _reality_ coherent and orderly, it creates a
fictional version which may, or may not be, coherent and/or orderly.
Actually each of the thousands of religions create their own fictional
version of what they think of as some sort of reality, each of which is
not reality, nor orderly nor coherent to any of the others.
Each religion also denies the existence of the deities of the others,
or claims that the other deities are really just their deity in some
confused way.
You may be correct in asserting that I, for example, would say that
'Rastas' is not devine, is not a deity, but except for Rastafarians
most religionists would deny that as well. So how is this a distinction
?
The point here is that Rastas was Ras Tafari, later known as Haile
Salassie. He was a real person, in fact in 1922 he presented a lion
skin cape to my grandfather who was the Indian Army OC in Aden at the
time of Tafari's vist there. There is no question of his existence,
merely that of his deification. Rastafarians deify him, I do not, and
probably you do not. In fact most religionists of almost all religions
probably do not deify Tafari (Ras is ethiopian for Prince).
Similarly for other deities known to be actual real people: Hirohito,
Xian, and those that are semi-deified by certain groups: Hitler,
Stalin, PolPot, Idi Amin, ... Bush.
Most religions are based around a person who has been deified. It is
most likely that there was an actual Jehovah, the Canaanites have him
as a son of their El (hence Elohim - family or house of El) as was
Baal. This Jehovah was probably a warlord (or 'Lord' as in 'House of
Lords' in UK or 'Lord of the Manor' in fuedal England) or possibly a
dynasty or succession of several descendants.
The Hebrew who became his subjects deified him (or them) and adapted
and modified mythology and stories to make him the hero of those.
That is to say that I don't "deny the existence", it is immaterial
whether he did or did not exist, but I reject the deification.
In fact I reject deification of any and all deities, many of which may,
or may not, have been real people.
Your _opinion_ of what an atheist is or is not is flawed and
irrelevant. But then you are probably attempting to make something
"orderly and coherent" out of your confusion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 03:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wqedndrMQ9ArhLbYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
Wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 03:49:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <wqedndrMQ9ArhLbYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
Baldness is a hair colour.
Non-smokers smoke non-smoke.
You are mistaken/lying/ignorant.
Only one of the above is true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 12:31:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ Rose" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 06:58:43 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9vbmi21s3us0vml7b32f1b6tfc44qjcnll@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot.
Maybe I'm both.
It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.
Last time I checked watching baseball was not a sport.
Perhaps you meant "not playing baseball"...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Ruth" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 12:49:20 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.
Well, that would depend on which definition of religion you use:
"A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance :
_consumerism is the new religion_"
For some people, Atheism could meet that definition, but I really doubt
it was used that way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
