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:   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
      
   	One god is as good as another until you establish otherwise with physical   
   evidence.   
      
   >>>>     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.   
      
   	We are back to Vishnu and Loki with that statement. You are hawking the   
   Christian god.   
      
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   	You are using words and words have meanings. I have always proposed "it" for   
   your god but believers don't seem to like it much. It is certainly more in line   
   with what you claim about that god.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   	From inscriptions found in bibleland saying "yahweh and his consort ashara"   
   and   
   from the many mentions of Astarte's Temple down to the first century AD   
   although   
   believers translate it Strato's Tower it is BYT STRT just as it is BYT YHWH. I   
   have no idea why people are afraid to use consistent translations.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   	It should be obvious Abraham and Moses never existed because the Egypt   
   described in Genesis and Exodus is absolutely nothing like Egypt in those days.   
   In fact Egypt was never as described in those five books.   
      
   	Not to put too fine a point on it, who told you they were the infallible word   
   and why did you believe them? Even a cursory survey of ancient Egypt shows the   
   contain only nonsense. How could an unwashed goat herder talk to the god-king   
   of   
   Egypt like that? How can there be any words about the gods of Egypt when the   
   king was in fact one of those gods?   
      
   	How could the incestuous pimp and con artist Abraham sell his ugly wife to the   
   god-king of Egypt and then have that king with his dozens of wifes and from the   
   inbred line of kings give a damn about the silly superstitious marriage customs   
   of Ur? Speaking of Ur how could he be from a city that was abandoned centuries   
   before the begats say he was born?   
      
   	I have no idea which idiot invented the idea the pentateuch was the word of   
   god   
   but he was obviously not very educated. And educated person would at least know   
   the Code of Hammurabi was around a thousand years before the big ten and is   
   vastly superior while covering much the same material.   
      
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)