XPost: sci.archaeology, sci.astro, alt.messianic   
   From: Kenthz@comcast.net   
      
   cormac wrote:   
      
   > On Jun 20, 10:31 am, 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:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>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.   
   >>   
   >>One? How about the majority of the Chinese? One billion Confucians?   
   >   
   >   
   > The concept of a god is not necessary in Buddism either.   
      
   Are you saying that Confucians and Buddhists are incapable   
   of contemplating the abstract?   
      
   Excusing God from one's religion does not deter the mind   
   from asserting him.  Even denial of God's existence asserts   
   Him.  There is no way to rid the mind of the concept.   
      
   >   
   > Cormac.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)