| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"aka Nurse Betty" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2004 12:34:33 AM |
| Object: |
Agnostic |
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else? You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
02 Jul 2004 12:52:45 AM |
|
|
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God, that no
one else has?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so far?
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Nurse Betty" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
02 Jul 2004 01:35:01 AM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
:
: "aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
: > Since none of us really know what the
: > f religion and God are all about or what
: > it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
: > be anything else?
:
: Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God, that
no
: one else has?
:
: You have to make us
: > something to not believe in. Or you have
: > to take someone else's word what God is
: > to reject it.
: >
: > Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
: > you are talking about."
:
: And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
:
: Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
: Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so far?
The God of the universe, the god within.
The God who drowned the world but
who cares about every sparrow. The
God who is a spirit. The God who is
the word made flesh. But what I really
don't know is what the individuals who
use the words mean. I don't think they
know what they mean and they sure
don't mean the same things as each
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
02 Jul 2004 09:35:30 PM |
|
|
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sm7Fc.40585$Yu.20513@fed1read04...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
:
: "aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
: > Since none of us really know what the
: > f religion and God are all about or what
: > it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
: > be anything else?
:
: Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God,
that
no
: one else has?
:
: You have to make us
: > something to not believe in. Or you have
: > to take someone else's word what God is
: > to reject it.
: >
: > Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
: > you are talking about."
:
: And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
:
: Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
: Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so
far?
The God of the universe, the god within.
The God who drowned the world but
who cares about every sparrow. The
God who is a spirit. The God who is
the word made flesh. But what I really
don't know is what the individuals who
use the words mean. I don't think they
know what they mean and they sure
don't mean the same things as each
other.
I think when most people say the word, God,
they are referring to a superpowerful, controlling
Spirit that has the capacity to make things right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
02 Jul 2004 10:37:08 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God, that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you think is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen table. Do you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or maybe he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in dust; this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
regards
abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
04 Jul 2004 01:14:47 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you think is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen table. Do you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in dust; this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
04 Jul 2004 03:18:27 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen table. Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
regards
abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 08:05:39 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen table. Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 09:24:19 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove
God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen table.
Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in
dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, unicorns,
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
regards
Abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 08:49:49 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:n3oGc.3938$Rt4.499@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or disprove
God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to
look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen
table.
Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in
dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns,
unicorns,
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
But if you don't look, you won't know whether your assumption that he is
like the Easter Bunny is correct..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 09:54:22 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccd0fn$vn6@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:n3oGc.3938$Rt4.499@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or
disprove
God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do
you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what
you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you
cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed to
look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen
table.
Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well hidden
or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered in
dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns,
unicorns,
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
But if you don't look, you won't know whether your assumption that he is
like the Easter Bunny is correct..
It is not an assumption, it is a confirmation.
And maybe you have not looked for the Easter Bunny long and hard enough.
Have you? Look a bit more, maybe you will find it.
regards
abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 03:42:07 AM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yvoGc.3939$Rt4.898@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
:
: "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: news:ccd0fn$vn6@library2.airnews.net...
: >
: > "Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
: > news:n3oGc.3938$Rt4.499@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
: > >
: > > "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: > > news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
: > > >
: > > > "Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
: > > > news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
: > > > >
: > > > > "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: > > > > news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
: > > > > >
: > > > > > "Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
: > > > > > news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > > "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: > > > > > > news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
: > > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > "aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in
: > > > message
: > > > > > > > news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
: > > > > > > > > Since none of us really know what the
: > > > > > > > > f religion and God are all about or what
: > > > > > > > > it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
: > > > > > > > > be anything else?
: > > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or
: disprove
: > > God,
: > > > > > that
: > > > > > > no
: > > > > > > > one else has?
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > > Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do
: you
: > > > think
: > > > > is
: > > > > > > going to carry the story?
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > You have to make us
: > > > > > > > > something to not believe in. Or you have
: > > > > > > > > to take someone else's word what God is
: > > > > > > > > to reject it.
: > > > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > > Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
: > > > > > > > > you are talking about."
: > > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what
: you
: > > > mean.
: > > > > > > >
: > > > > > > > Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you
: cannot
: > > > know.
: > > > > > > > Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed
to
: > look
: > > > so
: > > > > > far?
: > > > > > > >
: > > > > > >
: > > > > > > I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen
: > table.
: > > Do
: > > > > you
: > > > > > > think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well
hidden
: or
: > > > maybe
: > > > > > he
: > > > > > > is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered
in
: > > dust;
: > > > > this
: > > > > > > is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
: > > > > >
: > > > > >
: > > > > > Hint of God's location: everywhere.
: > > > > >
: > > > >
: > > > > As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
: > > >
: > > > Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
: > > > Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
: > > > somewhere.
: > > > You just have to find him.
: > > >
: > > No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
: > > Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns,
: > unicorns,
: > > Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
: >
: > But if you don't look, you won't know whether your assumption that he is
: > like the Easter Bunny is correct..
: >
:
: It is not an assumption, it is a confirmation.
: And maybe you have not looked for the Easter Bunny long and hard enough.
: Have you? Look a bit more, maybe you will find it.
: regards
: abakus
:
:
If you were sure you'd be on to something else.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 09:01:54 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yvoGc.3939$Rt4.898@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccd0fn$vn6@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:n3oGc.3938$Rt4.499@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or
disprove
God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal do
you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is what
you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you
cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed
to
look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen
table.
Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well
hidden
or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered
in
dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns,
unicorns,
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
But if you don't look, you won't know whether your assumption that he is
like the Easter Bunny is correct..
It is not an assumption, it is a confirmation.
And maybe you have not looked for the Easter Bunny long and hard enough.
Have you? Look a bit more, maybe you will find it.
I have; he's made of chocolate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 02:41:22 PM |
|
|
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccd168$7qk@library1.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yvoGc.3939$Rt4.898@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccd0fn$vn6@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:n3oGc.3938$Rt4.499@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:ccctsv$u6f@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nCZFc.782$do6.192@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc9hel$u99@library2.airnews.net...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ERpFc.370$1Y4.360@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cc2t7e$165@library2.airnews.net...
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote
in
message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else?
Why do you assume that just because you can't prove or
disprove
God,
that
no
one else has?
Damn, I'm waiting for the paper to come out. Which journal
do
you
think
is
going to carry the story?
You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
And that is fine...if you just let us know that this is
what
you
mean.
Maybe just because you don't know, does not mean that you
cannot
know.
Could God be in one of the places in which you have failed
to
look
so
far?
I still have to look in the attic and underneath the kitchen
table.
Do
you
think god might be there? If he is I bet he is very well
hidden
or
maybe
he
is very very small. If he is in the attic he must be covered
in
dust;
this
is a bit embarassing, really. I hope he doesnt mind.
Hint of God's location: everywhere.
As I said, he must be very well hidden or very small, then.
Actually, you have just the right idea. He is very well hidden.
Also, like your idea that he is in the attic, he very definitely
is
somewhere.
You just have to find him.
No, I dont. That's the beauty of it. I dont.
Other things I dont have to find are: ghosts, trolls, leprechauns,
unicorns,
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie, the Easter Bunny and Donald Duck.
But if you don't look, you won't know whether your assumption that he
is
like the Easter Bunny is correct..
It is not an assumption, it is a confirmation.
And maybe you have not looked for the Easter Bunny long and hard enough.
Have you? Look a bit more, maybe you will find it.
I have; he's made of chocolate.
That's just an image of the Easter Bunny. You must find the *real* Easter
Bunny. Some say he is inside each one of us.
regards
Abakus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnostic |
02 Jul 2004 10:58:51 AM |
|
|
"aka Nurse Betty" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mt6Fc.40004$Yu.19747@fed1read04...
Since none of us really know what the
f religion and God are all about or what
it means or doesn't, then how can anybody
be anything else? You have to make us
something to not believe in. Or you have
to take someone else's word what God is
to reject it.
Agnostic should mean "I don't know what
you are talking about."
So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism
represents an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into
the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly
speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate
issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.
"A" means "without" and "gnosis" means "knowledge." Hence, agnostic: without
knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. It may be technically
correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well,
for example: "I am agnostic about whether O.J. Simpson actually killed his
ex-wife."
Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is
used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not?
Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible
are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is
possible or that they have such knowledge might be called "gnostics" (note the
lowercase 'g').
Here "gnostics" is not referring to the religious system known as Gnosticism, but
rather the sort of person who claims to have knowledge about the existence of
gods. Because such confusion may come easily and because there is generally
little call for such a label, it is unlikely that you will ever see it used; it
is only presented here as a contrast to help explain agnosticism.
Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that "agnosticism"
actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists,
and also that "atheism" is limited to "strong atheism" - the assertion that no
gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate
to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of "third way" between atheism and
theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation,
Gordon Stein wrote in his essay "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism":
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a
God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe
or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made
an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither
affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because
the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's
definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of
reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends
judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that
the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible,
therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still
suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain
knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also
possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold
(as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such
a person would be a theistic agnostic.
Philosophically, agnosticism can be described as being based upon two separate
principles. The first principle is epistemological in that it relies upon
empirical and logical means for acquiring knowledge about the world. The second
principle is moral in that it insists that we have an ethical duty not to assert
claims for ideas which we cannot adequately support either through evidence or
logic.
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or at least know for sure, if any gods
exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves; at
the same time, this person likely insists that it would be wrong on some level to
claim that gods either definitely do or definitely don't exist. This is the
ethical dimension of agnosticism, arising from the idea that a strong atheism or
strong theism is simply not justified by what we currently know.
Although we now have an idea of what such a person knows or thinks she knows, we
don't actually know what she believes. As Robert Flint explained in his 1903 book
Agnosticism, agnosticism is:
....properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a
Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may
deny that there is God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not
agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the
ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds the arguments
which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is
critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.
It is a simple fact that some people don't think that they know something for
sure, but believe anyway, and that some people cannot claim to know, and decide
that that is reason enough to not bother believing. Thus agnosticism is not an
alternative, "third way" going between atheism and theism: it is instead a
separate issue compatible with both.
As a matter of fact, a majority of people who consider themselves either atheist
or theist might also be justified in calling themselves agnostics. It is not at
all uncommon, for example, for a theist to be adamant in their belief, but also
be adamant in the fact their belief is based on faith and not on having absolute,
incontrovertible knowledge.
Moreover, some degree of agnosticism is evident in every theist who considers the
ir god to be "unfathomable" or to "work in mysterious ways." This all reflects a
fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the believer with regards to the
nature of what they claim to believe in. It might not be entirely reasonable to
hold a strong belief in the light of such acknowledged ignorance, but that rarely
seems to stop anyone.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blag_what.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blag_index.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22history%20of%20agnosticism%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gw
(inserted without comment, beware)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "urantiagate" |
|
| Title: re:Agnostic |
07 Jul 2004 07:39:01 AM |
|
|
I am NOT putting you down, but your expressed attitudes show why
some
people must hit bottom before they will honestly and sincerely
investigate this possible means of direct help. Others,
fortunately,
do not have such strong, fixed disbelief to overcome before
learning
the truth for themselves and within themselves.
Are you saying that god is a crutch and that is good? Fine.
Hi!
God is a direct help in character growth and personality development.
It is often our lack of character and/or of healthy personalities
which gets us (and not, say, another) into deep trouble. Often such
growth and development will get us out of it. If you call this a
"crutch", then yes, it is good! This is NOT to suggest that God does
not help us in other ways, as well.
: Our ideas of God are projections of our parents.
This is of course simply a conjecture.
I think it is obvious that parents' behavior and attitudes project our
first concepts of God. As we grow up we come to view them as human,
yet our early concepts -- as they concern God -- are not necessarily
dislodged.
Peter
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
07 Jul 2004 05:25:24 PM |
|
|
"urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:40ebeee5$1_1@127.0.0.1...
I am NOT putting you down, but your expressed attitudes show why
some
people must hit bottom before they will honestly and sincerely
investigate this possible means of direct help. Others,
fortunately,
do not have such strong, fixed disbelief to overcome before
learning
the truth for themselves and within themselves.
Are you saying that god is a crutch and that is good? Fine.
Hi!
God is a direct help in character growth and personality development.
It is often our lack of character and/or of healthy personalities
which gets us (and not, say, another) into deep trouble. Often such
growth and development will get us out of it. If you call this a
"crutch", then yes, it is good! This is NOT to suggest that God does
not help us in other ways, as well.
Such as?
: Our ideas of God are projections of our parents.
This is of course simply a conjecture.
I think it is obvious that parents' behavior and attitudes project our
first concepts of God. As we grow up we come to view them as human,
yet our early concepts -- as they concern God -- are not necessarily
dislodged.
Peter
You may think it is obvious. I just see it as Freud' s views. Other people
have other views. If you think that Freud's views are obvious, please suit
yourself.
regards
Abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
07 Jul 2004 06:34:43 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oL_Gc.306$yw.37@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
:
: "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message
: news:40ebeee5$1_1@127.0.0.1...
: > >
: > > I am NOT putting you down, but your expressed attitudes show why
: > some
: > > people must hit bottom before they will honestly and sincerely
: > > investigate this possible means of direct help. Others,
: > fortunately,
: > > do not have such strong, fixed disbelief to overcome before
: > learning
: > > the truth for themselves and within themselves.
: > >
: > > Are you saying that god is a crutch and that is good? Fine.
: >
: > Hi!
: >
: > God is a direct help in character growth and personality development.
: > It is often our lack of character and/or of healthy personalities
: > which gets us (and not, say, another) into deep trouble. Often such
: > growth and development will get us out of it. If you call this a
: > "crutch", then yes, it is good! This is NOT to suggest that God does
: > not help us in other ways, as well.
:
: Such as?
:
:
: > > : Our ideas of God are projections of our parents.
: > >
: > > This is of course simply a conjecture.
: >
: > I think it is obvious that parents' behavior and attitudes project our
: > first concepts of God. As we grow up we come to view them as human,
: > yet our early concepts -- as they concern God -- are not necessarily
: > dislodged.
: >
: > Peter
:
: You may think it is obvious. I just see it as Freud' s views. Other people
: have other views. If you think that Freud's views are obvious, please suit
: yourself.
:
: regards
: Abakus
:
:
One of the things that people do not overcome,
imo, is the mystery of language experienced as
a child who doesn't speak yet. Others have magic
that the child doesn't gain when he learns to talk.
The original magic is... oh never mind. It's not
worth arguing about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "urantiagate" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
04 Jul 2004 09:41:02 AM |
|
|
aka Nurse Bettywrote:
That is a nice and intelligent explanation. But I would not
call what you experience God since the name is being
fought over by several mean religions. And by using God
for your experience you are saying that theirs is something
else. I suggest higher power although you might have to
fight with AA groups. : -) or "better self" or "higher consc-
iousness"...
There is more to this than could be put in my thumbnail version.
Historical religion consists of the outworkings of "God
consciousness" of people in all times and places, as modified by
human tendencies.
Horizontally, people who have attained "God consciousness" can
communicate it to each other. This is true of many shared experiences
which are hard to explain to the uninitiated -- NOT just religious
experiences. But the inner spirit seems to augment it. Thus we have
the parallel concept of "spiritual brotherhood".
It is NOT just a multitudenous number of single individuals with
unique religious experiences, but a spirit-based unity.
The problem is that many religionists are unwitting secularists,
posessing only the form of religion. These people have confused the
issue, but the field ought not therefore to be abandoned to them, as
you suggest.
Peter
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 03:18:51 AM |
|
|
"urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:40e816fe$3_1@127.0.0.1...
: > aka Nurse Bettywrote:
:
: > That is a nice and intelligent explanation. But I would not
: > call what you experience God since the name is being
: > fought over by several mean religions. And by using God
: > for your experience you are saying that theirs is something
: > else. I suggest higher power although you might have to
: > fight with AA groups. : -) or "better self" or "higher consc-
: > iousness"...
:
: There is more to this than could be put in my thumbnail version.
: Historical religion consists of the outworkings of "God
: consciousness" of people in all times and places, as modified by
: human tendencies.
It doesn't seem possible to know what people can communicate
to each other. If you say that you can communicate it to other
people and know that there is no one else that has something
real that they call God and deserves the name then go ahead
and fight for the word, God. But understand that you wil be saying
that no one else has God because you have the only true version.
: Horizontally, people who have attained "God consciousness" can
: communicate it to each other. This is true of many shared experiences
: which are hard to explain to the uninitiated -- NOT just religious
: experiences. But the inner spirit seems to augment it. Thus we have
: the parallel concept of "spiritual brotherhood".
Is initiation a good thing? You can be initiated into things without
knowing anything. Are you lonely, as many of us are and wisht to
have a shared experience at the expence of a true one?
: It is NOT just a multitudenous number of single individuals with
: unique religious experiences, but a spirit-based unity.
There are a bunch of groups of people who say they share a
knowledge of God that is true and unique and does not intersect
with any other God. And they are willing to kill for their God.
: The problem is that many religionists are unwitting secularists,
: posessing only the form of religion. These people have confused the
: issue, but the field ought not therefore to be abandoned to them, as
: you suggest.
Do you really believe that God is the same for Donald Trump and
a child who will starve today in a third world country without ever
hearing the word God?
: Peter
:
:
: Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: http://www.usenet.com
:
:
: ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
: http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
: ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "urantiagate" |
|
| Title: re:Agnostic |
03 Jul 2004 07:54:47 AM |
|
|
Hi All!
God exists outside of time and space, so obviously there can be no
scientific proof. But the existence of God is amenable to being
proved by personal experience. The problem with this is that such
experiences, being subjective, are not provable to others (except in
things like character growth).
So everyone has to find the proof of God's existence for him or
herself. But what has happened is that many religions, Christianity
in particular, are not particularly disposed to individual religious
experience as constituting the only authority for personal belief.
They have their doctrines and heirarchies to maintain. So the
personal God gets lost in the confusion of the institutional "God".
And when people look for this outer, institutional "God" they cannot
find "Him".
But God is always responsive to the inner longings for spiritual truth
of a sincere heart and mind. One must come to know God within or not
at all.
Peter
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Nurse Betty" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
03 Jul 2004 05:25:03 PM |
|
|
"urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:40e6ac97_2@127.0.0.1...
: Hi All!
:
: God exists outside of time and space, so obviously there can be no
: scientific proof. But the existence of God is amenable to being
: proved by personal experience. The problem with this is that such
: experiences, being subjective, are not provable to others (except in
: things like character growth).
:
: So everyone has to find the proof of God's existence for him or
: herself. But what has happened is that many religions, Christianity
: in particular, are not particularly disposed to individual religious
: experience as constituting the only authority for personal belief.
: They have their doctrines and heirarchies to maintain. So the
: personal God gets lost in the confusion of the institutional "God".
: And when people look for this outer, institutional "God" they cannot
: find "Him".
:
: But God is always responsive to the inner longings for spiritual truth
: of a sincere heart and mind. One must come to know God within or not
: at all.
:
: Peter
That is a nice and intelligent explanation. But I would not
call what you experience God since the name is being
fought over by several mean religions. And by using God
for your experience you are saying that theirs is something
else. I suggest higher power although you might have to
fight with AA groups. : -) or "better self" or "higher consc-
iousness"...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
04 Jul 2004 03:56:17 PM |
|
|
"urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:40e6ac97_2@127.0.0.1...
Hi All!
God exists outside of time and space, so obviously there can be no
scientific proof. But the existence of God is amenable to being
proved by personal experience. The problem with this is that such
experiences, being subjective, are not provable to others (except in
things like character growth).
So everyone has to find the proof of God's existence for him or
herself. But what has happened is that many religions, Christianity
in particular, are not particularly disposed to individual religious
experience as constituting the only authority for personal belief.
They have their doctrines and heirarchies to maintain. So the
personal God gets lost in the confusion of the institutional "God".
And when people look for this outer, institutional "God" they cannot
find "Him".
But God is always responsive to the inner longings for spiritual truth
of a sincere heart and mind. One must come to know God within or not
at all.
Peter
Gods get their celebrity via the institutions which promote their history
and their prowesses, much like rock stars, soft drinks, jeans or trainers.
If it wasnt for the propaganda exercises of such institutions, which we call
churches or sects or cults, and the millions they invest in such advertising
campaigns, we wouldnt know that there are things called gods. So, you may
choose to think of gods as a "personal" thing, and dislike the
institutional gods, but it is through the institutionalized variety that you
were able to make up the concept of your personal gods.
regards
abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 03:09:51 AM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:R9_Fc.856$do6.400@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
:
: "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message
: news:40e6ac97_2@127.0.0.1...
: > Hi All!
: >
: > God exists outside of time and space, so obviously there can be no
: > scientific proof. But the existence of God is amenable to being
: > proved by personal experience. The problem with this is that such
: > experiences, being subjective, are not provable to others (except in
: > things like character growth).
: >
: > So everyone has to find the proof of God's existence for him or
: > herself. But what has happened is that many religions, Christianity
: > in particular, are not particularly disposed to individual religious
: > experience as constituting the only authority for personal belief.
: > They have their doctrines and heirarchies to maintain. So the
: > personal God gets lost in the confusion of the institutional "God".
: > And when people look for this outer, institutional "God" they cannot
: > find "Him".
: >
: > But God is always responsive to the inner longings for spiritual truth
: > of a sincere heart and mind. One must come to know God within or not
: > at all.
: >
: > Peter
: >
:
: Gods get their celebrity via the institutions which promote their history
: and their prowesses, much like rock stars, soft drinks, jeans or trainers.
: If it wasnt for the propaganda exercises of such institutions, which we
call
: churches or sects or cults, and the millions they invest in such
advertising
: campaigns, we wouldnt know that there are things called gods. So, you may
: choose to think of gods as a "personal" thing, and dislike the
: institutional gods, but it is through the institutionalized variety that
you
: were able to make up the concept of your personal gods.
:
: regards
: abakus
:
:
Maybe I experience transcendent things through
my own mind, perception, dreams, intuition...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
05 Jul 2004 01:27:35 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:R9_Fc.856$do6.400@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
:
: "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message
: news:40e6ac97_2@127.0.0.1...
: > Hi All!
: >
: > God exists outside of time and space, so obviously there can be no
: > scientific proof. But the existence of God is amenable to being
: > proved by personal experience. The problem with this is that such
: > experiences, being subjective, are not provable to others (except in
: > things like character growth).
: >
: > So everyone has to find the proof of God's existence for him or
: > herself. But what has happened is that many religions, Christianity
: > in particular, are not particularly disposed to individual religious
: > experience as constituting the only authority for personal belief.
: > They have their doctrines and heirarchies to maintain. So the
: > personal God gets lost in the confusion of the institutional "God".
: > And when people look for this outer, institutional "God" they cannot
: > find "Him".
: >
: > But God is always responsive to the inner longings for spiritual truth
: > of a sincere heart and mind. One must come to know God within or not
: > at all.
: >
: > Peter
: >
:
: Gods get their celebrity via the institutions which promote their history
: and their prowesses, much like rock stars, soft drinks, jeans or trainers.
: If it wasnt for the propaganda exercises of such institutions, which we
call
: churches or sects or cults, and the millions they invest in such
advertising
: campaigns, we wouldnt know that there are things called gods. So, you may
: choose to think of gods as a "personal" thing, and dislike the
: institutional gods, but it is through the institutionalized variety that
you
: were able to make up the concept of your personal gods.
:
: regards
: abakus
Some have said that God is a projection of the
perception of our parents. That doesn't need
much PR. Somehow the tribes in Africa probably
don't have a lot of tv commercials. : -)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
03 Jul 2004 01:49:28 PM |
|
|
To Peter:
A nice explanation. Unfortunately, it will have little effect on the
prevailing, mostly futile arguments, past, present, and furure,
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1881/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "urantiagate" |
|
| Title: re:Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 09:29:15 AM |
|
|
Hi All!
Our ideas of God are projections of our
parents. Our parents are, in fact, our first revelation of God. (So,
we need good parenting). Those who equate God with the Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus were likely lied to by their parents about the
existence of these fabrications, and your immature minds logically
put "God" into the same category.
I am NOT putting you down, but your expressed attitudes show why some
people must hit bottom before they will honestly and sincerely
investigate this possible means of direct help. Others, fortunately,
do not have such strong, fixed disbelief to overcome before learning
the truth for themselves and within themselves.
A belief in God and/or experiential "God consciousness" does NOT
presuppose a acceptance of all of the traditional distortions
concerning both God and history (or pre-history). But that does not
mean that the myths you recount did not have at least some factual
bases.
A belief in an inerrant Bible does NOT follow from an personal
experientially-derived belief in God and Jesus. It is a
[u:281f104ec6]doctrine[/u:281f104ec6] taught by Christianity. It is a
teaching of man -- priestcraft. This is NOT to suggest that it is not
sincerely held, however.
The Bible is a gold mine where truth must be mined out from the
detritus. We apprehend these truth by the work of the spirit within
us, yet our understanding of them is fallible and relative to our
level of truth-comprehension.
Peter
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 04:15:15 PM |
|
|
"urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:40eab73b$1_2@127.0.0.1...
Hi All!
Our ideas of God are projections of our
parents.
This is of course simply a conjecture.
Our parents are, in fact, our first revelation of God.
Another conjecture.
(So,
we need good parenting). Those who equate God with the Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus were likely lied to by their parents about the
existence of these fabrications, and your immature minds logically
put "God" into the same category.
Those who equate gods with the easter bunny are simply indicating that there
is as much evidence for the existence of gods as there is for the easter
bunny. It is an intellectual exercise which illustrates a point and not a
reflection of any psychological trait.
I am NOT putting you down, but your expressed attitudes show why some
people must hit bottom before they will honestly and sincerely
investigate this possible means of direct help. Others, fortunately,
do not have such strong, fixed disbelief to overcome before learning
the truth for themselves and within themselves.
Are you saying that god is a crutch and that is good? Fine.
A belief in God and/or experiential "God consciousness" does NOT
presuppose a acceptance of all of the traditional distortions
concerning both God and history (or pre-history). But that does not
mean that the myths you recount did not have at least some factual
bases.
I would imagine that the keen followers of positive religions dont perceive
their gods and the collection of doctrines and lithurgies which accompany
them as distortions, while they probably think that your god-consciousness
is heresy perhaps inspired by satan. It is a matter of opinion, obviously.
A belief in an inerrant Bible does NOT follow from an personal
experientially-derived belief in God and Jesus. It is a
[u:281f104ec6]doctrine[/u:281f104ec6] taught by Christianity. It is a
teaching of man -- priestcraft. This is NOT to suggest that it is not
sincerely held, however.
The inerrancy of the bible is a doctrine taught by some christian sects. All
teachings are of course teachings of men. Undoubtely many people who believe
in the inerrancy of the bible hold this belief sincerely.
The Bible is a gold mine where truth must be mined out from the
detritus. We apprehend these truth by the work of the spirit within
us, yet our understanding of them is fallible and relative to our
level of truth-comprehension.
The bible is a collection of myths, legends, poetry, historical facts,
distorted historical facts, epistles, propaganda, poetry, and visual and
auditory hallucinations. There is some good stuff and some bad stuff in
there -like in most texts. The Ecclesiastes, for instance, is rather good.
The song of Solomon is rather good erotic poetry. Bits and pieces of the
gospels contain some valuable ethical points. Most of the rest is full of
violence, hatred, cruelty and intolerance.
Peter
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 06:45:43 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DDEGc.443$rS4.289@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
:
: "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message
: news:40eab73b$1_2@127.0.0.1...
: > Hi All!
: >
: > Our ideas of God are projections of our
: > parents.
:
: This is of course simply a conjecture.
And psychoanalytic research means nothing.
If only measurable data is real then why be
talking about phil. Go to physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
06 Jul 2004 09:12:50 PM |
|
|
"aka Cat arranger" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EQGGc.54319$Yu.54088@fed1read04...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DDEGc.443$rS4.289@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
:
: "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message
: news:40eab73b$1_2@127.0.0.1...
: > Hi All!
: >
: > Our ideas of God are projections of our
: > parents.
:
: This is of course simply a conjecture.
And psychoanalytic research means nothing.
If only measurable data is real then why be
talking about phil. Go to physics.
Philosophy and psychoanalysis have a few letters in common and it is not
surprising that some dodos may confuse them. But they are different things.
Secondly, if you think that it is not acceptable to challenge a statement
uttered without any support you should go back to your videogames instead of
participating in a newsgroup where the point is that you discuss and debate
ideas.
Freud did say many interesting things --some may have been illuminating,
some were indeed clever explanations, some have been challenged, some have
been completely abandoned and some have been forgotten. The idea that god is
a projection of our need for a father, etc, is an interesting conjecture,
but a conjecture nonetheless.
Thirdly, if you believe in psychoanalytic research then you should also
believe that there is some experimental data to support the conjectures
posited by psychoanalysis and offer them instead of making infantile
remarks. For example, how would you test the hypothesis that "our ideas of
god are projections of our parents"?
regards
Abakus
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka Cat arranger" |
|
| Title: Re: re:Agnostic |
07 Jul 2004 05:03:00 AM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:C_IGc.502$rS4.322@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
:
: "aka Cat arranger" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:EQGGc.54319$Yu.54088@fed1read04...
: >
: > "Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
: > news:DDEGc.443$rS4.289@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
: > :
: > : "urantiagate" <urantiagate@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
: > message
: > : news:40eab73b$1_2@127.0.0.1...
: > : > Hi All!
: > : >
: > : > Our ideas of God are projections of our
: > : > parents.
: > :
: > : This is of course simply a conjecture.
: >
: > And psychoanalytic research means nothing.
: > If only measurable data is real then why be
: > talking about phil. Go to physics.
: >
:
: Philosophy and psychoanalysis have a few letters in common and it is not
: surprising that some dodos may confuse them. But they are different
things.
:
: Secondly, if you think that it is not acceptable to challenge a statement
: uttered without any support you should go back to your videogames instead
of
: participating in a newsgroup where the point is that you discuss and
debate
: ideas.
:
: Freud did say many interesting things --some may have been illuminating,
: some were indeed clever explanations, some have been challenged, some have
: been completely abandoned and some have been forgotten. The idea that god
is
: a projection of our need for a father, etc, is an interesting conjecture,
: but a conjecture nonetheless.
:
: Thirdly, if you believe in psychoanalytic research then you should also
: believe that there is some experimental data to support the conjectures
: posited by psychoanalysis and offer them instead of making infantile
: remarks. For example, how would you test the hypothesis that "our ideas of
: god are projections of our parents"?
:
: regards
: Abakus
:
:
You make a good point, unfortunately it's mine.
You can not prove things in areas like dream
study. It is intuitive and 'insight based'. Therefore
of no meaning to you and your sentence diagramming
instead of life-living butt nuggets.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
