XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.atheism   
   From: psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:43:54 -0500, Dreamer In Colore   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:54:47 -0500, Jonathan  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 1/29/2021 12:06 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit,   
   >>> you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false   
   >>> promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No   
   >>> contest. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story   
   >>> ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced   
   >>> people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who   
   >>> watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And   
   >>> the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does   
   >>> not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things,   
   >>> he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning   
   >>> and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and   
   >>> suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and   
   >>> ever 'til the end of time. But He loves you!"   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>> George Carlin, Dec 23 2005   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>Honestly, you get your opinions on the nature of existence   
   >>from George Carlin?   
   >>   
   >   
   >George Carlin was funny. And his humour is based on the rational   
   >analysis of something invisible, immanent, and unobservable.... and   
   >you seem to think that the nature of existence depends on a   
   >supernatural entity. Why is that?   
   >   
   >>Mainstream religious philosophy does NOT hold there's an   
   >>invisible man out there waving a magic wand.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Sure it does. Have you not read your bible or other ancient tome?   
      
   Sadly, the Bible is not what he is referring to.   
      
   >>That's what is taught to children and others that can't handle   
   >>anything more than simple stories.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Exactly my point. Glad we could agree on that.   
   >   
   >>Only those that have never read a single line of religious   
   >>philosophy could believe that's the definition of God.   
   >   
   >To be honest, I'm not interested in what mainstream religious   
   >philosophy says because I can read that for myself. I'm interested in   
   >what your particular brand of this is.   
      
   Well, you can if it actually exists.   
      
   Don't be surprised if it turns out to be ... very mushy.   
      
   >>And those that haven't read a single line of religious   
   >>philosophy are hardly capable of rendering an intelligent   
   >>criticism of religious beliefs.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Leaving aside the obvious insult there, I defer to the ultimate and so   
   >far indestructible rebuttal of Epicurus.   
   >   
   >“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not   
   >omnipotent.   
   >Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.   
   >Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?   
   >Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”   
   >   
   >>Can you relate, say, how the Catholic Church defines God?   
   >   
   >Can you relate, say, why the Catholic Church diverges from the other   
   >branches of Christianity? Isn't the whole point of God to be   
   >omniscient and omnipotent?   
      
   Only in philosophy. And philosophy-influenced theology. Except   
   Plotinus, of course; in Plotinus, the One provides only one service:   
   existence.   
      
   And, BTW, both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" have wildly divergent   
   alternate meanings.   
   --   
   "I begin to envy Petronius."   
   "I have envied him long since."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)