[continued from previous message]   
      
   > It's a basic principle of humanity itself, not Christianity.  Jesus   
   > just happens to have been famously associated with it, historically   
   > and culturally.  Certainly he didn't invent the idea.   
   >    
   > >> >Why do you think it is "obvious that God does not exist"?   
   > >> >In regards to how you think, obvious how so?   
   > >>    
   > >> If God existed, there would be no suffering in the world, because a   
   > >> loving God would have removed it.  It follows that a loving God does   
   > >> not exist.    
   > >   
   > >"NO suffering?" That is extreme.    
   >    
   > As it should be, considering God's supposed extreme power and love.   
   >    
   > >That would be to say that if a man and   
   > >woman sire a baby, then if at any point that baby causes any suffering   
   > >for itself or another then that man and/or woman should immediately kill   
   > >that baby so that it will not cause suffering ever again.    
   >    
   > The correct course of action is not to kill the baby but to ease its   
   > suffering by some means.  God should have the same responsibility.   
   >    
   > >This extreme   
   > >position and extreme action are what do not make sense, and would actually   
   > >be unloving of the man and woman rather than loving of the man and woman,   
   > >including that tolerance and patience are two of the fruits of a loving   
   > >heart. Thus God himself is allowing his offspring a certain amount of time    
   > >to exercise their free will.   
   >    
   > Here you're using a fallacy called "the fallacy of excess," which is   
   > "that because a little bit of something is a good thing, it follows   
   > that a lot of the same thing is even better."  In the case of free   
   > will, we don't allow our children the free will to run around like   
   > hellions, and neither should God do the same for us.   
   >    
   > I think, for example, that Adolph Hitler, after gassing his 4   
   > millionth Jew, had long since lost all rights to his "free will,"   
   > considering what he had done.   
   >    
   > > You cannot blame God for what people do.   
   >    
   > In fact, we can --  because God is more powerful than people and is   
   > therefore responsible for their actions if they begin to harm others.   
   >    
   > >However, God has had a plan and program from the very beginning after he   
   > >created all souls at once, knowing ahead of time that by giving them free   
   > >will what the result might be. He does intend at a certain point to remove   
   > >all of the wicked off of the earth.    
   >    
   > A delay of 1000 years, given the amount of cruelty that the wicked   
   > inflict, is a form of either cruelty, incompetence,  or laziness on   
   > God's part.   
   >    
   > >Then after one thousand years shortly   
   > >later remove them from the universe [via decreation - separation of   
   > >consciousness & will portions from the spirit portion]. GOD WOULD ONLY BE   
   > >CRUEL IF HE WOULD ALLOW THE WICKED TO CAUSE SUFFERING TO THEMSELF AND   
   > >OTHERS *FOREVER*, WHICH HE IS NOT GOING TO DO, SEE? AND ISN'T IT TRUE   
   > >THAT ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL? THERE *IS* A HAPPY ENDING!   
   >    
   > Precisely why a lot of Christian theology is wrong, because it claims   
   > that God will allow people to suffer "forever" in hell.  If ever there   
   > were "cruel and unusual punishment," or "punishment that does *not*   
   > fit the crime," eternal torture in hell would be it.   
   >    
   > >> In general, there is no evidence for the existence of God, so we   
   > >> conclude that he does not exist, in the same way that we conclude that   
   > >> the Easter Bunny does not exist, because there's no evidence for the   
   > >> existence of that creature.   
   > >   
   > >Well, that depends on what each individual person is willing to consider   
   > >to be EVIDENCE and ENOUGH EVIDENCE. And it also depends on whether an   
   > >individual person is INTERESTED or WILLING to have such a belief, because   
   > >if an individual person DOES NOT WANT to have a certain belief, they will   
   > >refuse any evidence that there is.   
   >    
   > False dichotomy.  There's a third option: a person may not care one   
   > way or the other, neither "wanting to believe in God," nor "wanting to   
   > not believe in God."  I and many other atheists belong in this third   
   > category:  We don't care whether or not God exists -- we simply see no   
   > evidence for that existence, and therefore reject it.   
   >    
   > > Another important distinction in    
   > >regards to this subject matter is that there are two different positions   
   > >that can be taken in regards to realities, truths, facts: 1. A person can   
   > >decide that they can figure out what these must be; and 2. A person can   
   > >decide that they will make effort by various means to discover what   
   > >these are. See the difference? The latter is the correct position to    
   > >take and will lead a person to the most accurate results.   
   >    
   > To me, you've got a distinction without a difference there, but seeing   
   > that there *is* no difference between the two hairs you're attempting   
   > to split in 1 and 2, I'll agree with your Version 2, since it's as   
   > sensible to me as Version 1.  Either one will do.    
   >    
   > >Evidence For God:   
   > >   
   > >Do you believe in intuition? Have you ever had a thought come into your   
   > >mind, which ended up being correct, and which if you did not follow it   
   > >you lived to regret? Have you ever had a "gut feeling", which ended up   
   > >being correct, and which if you did not follow it you lived to regret?   
   > >Most people have had both of these experiences, including me.   
   >    
   > Yes, intuition exists.  It has two origins:   
   >    
   > a)  people making lucky guesses and not realizing that it was just the   
   > laws of statistics that did it, and not some "higher force" (e.g. "I   
   > won the lottery!  It must be fate!" to which we reply, "Well, no,   
   > there were a lot of people who bought lottery tickets -- somebody had   
   > to win")    
   >    
   > b) the emotional association of certain things with certain other   
   > things that rational thought isn't capable of, that makes me people   
   > say "Well, *I* didn't figure that out!  How the hell did I know that?"   
   > and the answer is that your emotions can sometimes associate   
   > themselves with things better than your conscious brain can -- so as a   
   > survival mechanism, the lower brain functions can sometimes bypass the   
   > higher brain functions and lead to predictions of future events that   
   > don't seem rational -- and in fact, they're not; they're an   
   > *irrational* means of knowing about  what's going on around in the   
   > world.   
   >    
   > But it has nothing to do with God or spirits or anything -- it's just   
   > the emotional parts of your brain focusing in on cues about what's   
   > going on in your environment faster or better than your rational brain   
   > is.   
   >    
   > > I never   
   > >knew what these things were until I read in The Edgar Cayce Readings   
   > >that there were two portals in the human body for contact between   
   > >spirit God and spirit Soul: 1. The area that is a soft-spot on a   
   > >baby's head, which accounts for the thought coming into one's mind;   
   > >and    
   >    
   > The soft spot is there because the baby's head hasn't fused together   
   > completely yet in its developmental process; it's not because there's   
   > a place for the soul to enter into it there.   
   >    
   > >2. The area of the navel, which accounts for the "gut feeling".   
   >    
   > No, the navel is formed when the umbilical cord is cut and tied up by   
   > the person who delivers the baby.     
   >    
   > And there's no reason to take the location of your physiological   
   > sensations as an indication of anything unusual going on.  That's just   
   > where they happen to be.   
   >    
   > >Having had these experiences since I was born, and which have    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)