XPost: sci.archaeology, sci.astro, alt.messianic   
   From: jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com   
      
   Roy Jose Lorr wrote:   
   > Matt Giwer wrote:   
   >> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:   
   >>> Matt Giwer wrote:   
   >>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:   
   >>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:   
   >>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Atheists believe in God.  The belief is inherent in the human   
   >>>>>>> condition... cognizance demands it. There is no choice in the   
   >>>>>>> matter.   
   >>>>>>     Can you produce physical evidence of that assertion? Please do   
   >>>>>> so if you can. Argumentation is not physical evidence.   
   >>>>> Every Atheist obsessed with proving to himself that something (God)   
   >>>>> he believes does not exist does not exist, is all the evidence   
   >>>>> necessary.  That is the mental disorder that accompanies all   
   >>>>> Atheists their entire lives.   
   >>>>     Physical evidence is not everything but it is the only thing of   
   >>>> interest to a rational person. Physical evidence is not proof and   
   >>>> has nothing to do with proof. For a thing to exist it must leave   
   >>>> physical evidence, period. That is the nature of this reality.   
   >>> What additional physical evidence beyond the scientific fact of the   
   >>> existence of the world is necessary?   
      
   >>     You mean this dream of the sleeping Vishnu? Why would you choose a   
   >> particular thing for it to mean?   
      
   > Huh?   
      
   >>     Does the scientific fact that Shit Happens show  Loki exists?   
   >   
   > Wha?   
      
   	Are you really so ignorant of the varieties of religious belief and   
   experience?   
      
   >>     Whatever you choose to believe, who told you what you believe and   
   >> how did they know and why did you believe them?   
   >   
   > God is inherent in the human condition.  No one need be told that God   
   > exists.  There's no escaping that fact.   
      
   	Physical evidence for that mere assertion please.   
      
   >>>>>>> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him.   
   >>>>>>     What happened to HER and THEM? And what use does a god have   
   >>>>>> with a sexual identity? It dumber than tits on a boar.   
   >>>>> Irrelevance suits you.   
   >>>>     I am simply asking after this compulsion of yours to insist your   
   >>>> insubstantial god has a penis and testosterone and XY chromosomes.   
   >>>> You claimed it very openly. Why?   
   >>> If you can cite where I've said any such thing your a better man than   
   >>> I am, Gunga Dim.  I never claimed that God is human in any way.  God   
   >>> has no need of 'penis and testosterone and XY chromosomes'.   
   >>     You quoted it yourself in the first >>>>> above.   
      
   >> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him.   
      
   >>     Where does "him" upper or lower case come from?   
      
   > Its one way of out of countless millions for describing God.   
      
   	That is in the category of describing light as square. Using gender means   
   there   
   is sex involved, period.   
      
   > It just   
   > so happens that Scripture describes Him that way, as male essence, not   
   > surprising from a patriarchal society.  The physical properties you   
   > mention are irrelevant.   
      
   	You assume appear to assume they did not mean it literally. But in fact they   
   also had the Goddess Ashara as his consort. Ashara is related to Ishtar and   
   Aphrodite in the region. So your claim is nonsense. We even have very good   
   reason to believe her temple was where now stands the Al Aqsa mosque. Your   
   bible   
   creators meant it literally. The Old Testament creators were polytheists and   
   made no bones about it.   
      
   >>>>>>> This is a moral decision based on the strength of the   
   >>>>>>> individual's dependence on their base desires.   Those who accept   
   >>>>>>> God are prone to be discomforted by those lower desires and would   
   >>>>>>> suppress them when they can.  Those who reject God tend to feel   
   >>>>>>> discomforted when they are advised by conscience to put limits on   
   >>>>>>> expressing those same base desires freely at their own discretion.   
   >>>>>>     Other than the stuff a few perverts in 3rd c. BC Palestine   
   >>>>>> invented as sins just what is a "base" desire and why?   
   >>>>> A base desire is on that goes against conscience.   
   >>>>     Conscience is formed by the culture in which one lives. If there   
   >>>> really were people who lived by the morality of the Old Testament   
   >>>> the civilized people of the world would have destroyed them for   
   >>>> their bestiality and their affront to civilization.   
   >>>>     Should you ever read Acts you will discover Christians are   
   >>>> prohibited from visiting brothels solely for the risk of incest with   
   >>>> the children they sold to the brothels. Some conscience   
   >>> Human societies are formed to thwart the influence of conscience.   
      
   >>     And your evidence of that is what? Please be specific in your   
   >> presentation of the physical evidence.   
   >   
   > All that need be done is to look at human societies and judge their   
   > propensity to legitimize immorality.  One example is the Aztec belief   
   > that murdering/sacrificing humans to their deities is the epitome of   
   > morality.   
      
   	And we can look at all the gods in all the many Indo-European pantheons and   
   discover not one of them ever demanded war or gratuitous slaughter of people he   
   or she designated as enemies nor ever gave any rules as primitive as the ten   
   commandments. In doing so we put your god slightly above the Aztecs and   
   distinctly below the Indo-European gods.   
      
   	Are you really this ignorant? In those pantheons humans decided on war and   
   then   
   sought the favor or their gods in fighting it. None of their gods ever demanded   
   war or genocide as your diabolic god did.   
      
   	So tell me how does it differ from human sacrifice to command the slaughter of   
   every living thing including their animals? That it is done after the battle is   
   won and not on an altar?   
      
   >>>>>>> Formal religions are based on the natural defense mechanism that   
   >>>>>>> promotes collectivization of like attitudes toward man's imagined   
   >>>>>>> perceptions of his own and the world's fallibility.   
   >>>>>>     The motion of objects is never fallible.   
   >>>>> The operative word I used is "perception".  Try rereading what I   
   >>>>> wrote, not what you wish I wrote.   
   >>>>     That which does not occur cannot be perceived.   
   >>> I see, abstractions do not enter the mind.  Might as well throw   
   >>> science and technology out the window while you're at it.   
      
   >>     Science deals with physical evidence. By definition "abstraction"   
   >> have no physical existence. You do not appear to have the least idea   
   >> what you are talking about.   
      
   > Everything that science learns to observe was conceived first as an   
   > abstraction.  That's how cognizance and its product invention occurs.   
      
   	You are ignorance of science. Science begins with observation of physical   
   evidence. Trust me. I am a physicist.   
      
   >>>>>>> Some religions make their deity so much like themselves that   
   >>>>>>> their adherents see themselves as gods, empowered by the   
   >>>>>>> convenient but false tenet of Relativism, to do as they will   
   >>>>>>> regardless of any constraints imposed by God's absolute   
   >>>>>>> morality.  Among the man is god religions is the religion of   
   >>>>>>> Atheism.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)