XPost: sci.archaeology, sci.astro, alt.messianic   
   From: Kenthz@comcast.net   
      
   Matt Giwer wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
      
   No.  I just can't see any relevance to the conversation in   
   your comments about loki and vishnu.   
      
   >   
   >>>     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.   
      
   Name one human being that has escaped having a concept of   
   God or gods.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   Arguing semantics is a waste of time.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   Mind saying where you got the notion you expressed about   
   ashara being God's consort?   
      
   I have one guide and on guide only; the Five Books of Moses   
   (Genesis - Deuteronomy).  There alone exists the word of   
   Moses' God.   Every word before and after that Book is the   
   fallible word of fallible men.  Further, if you take the   
   words in the Book literally you can't possibly understand 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.   
      
   Dearheart, you understand nothing of "Indo-European   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)