On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:53:52 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:43:28 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:36:03 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

1. You saw something awesome.
2. You cannot personally understand it.
3. Therefore there is an invisible old man in the sky.

Push to shove, whatever enriches someone's spirituality or kindness or
consciousness is a good thing. I don't believe in a creator, but I
have no problem with those who do. And orb spiders are indeed
awesome. I don't believe a god created them, but if someone else does
and it touches their heart making them a better person, it's great.
Don't you think?

Any form of self-delusion is a potentially damaging thing.
The real-world evidence for such a case is overwhelming.
Delusion is NOT benign, even if it does make the deludee 'feel
better'.

Yes, I get that and I'm with you on delusion being the cause of great
suffering. That said, I do not believe in bashing someone in the head
with my aethiesm, they wouldn't hear me. So, since I may or may not
be more informed than a believer it's not up to me to make that
correction. People have to come to their own conclusions, many go
along the god train. It's a lot easier for many people think
something is "doing" it for them. I don't get that, but I allow for
it. I couldn't change it if I tried.

Jangchub wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:53:52 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:43:28 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:36:03 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

1. You saw something awesome.
2. You cannot personally understand it.
3. Therefore there is an invisible old man in the sky.

Push to shove, whatever enriches someone's spirituality or kindness or
consciousness is a good thing. I don't believe in a creator, but I
have no problem with those who do. And orb spiders are indeed
awesome. I don't believe a god created them, but if someone else does
and it touches their heart making them a better person, it's great.
Don't you think?

Any form of self-delusion is a potentially damaging thing.
The real-world evidence for such a case is overwhelming.
Delusion is NOT benign, even if it does make the deludee 'feel
better'.

Yes, I get that and I'm with you on delusion being the cause of great
suffering. That said, I do not believe in bashing someone in the head
with my aethiesm, they wouldn't hear me. So, since I may or may not
be more informed than a believer it's not up to me to make that
correction. People have to come to their own conclusions, many go
along the god train. It's a lot easier for many people think
something is "doing" it for them. I don't get that, but I allow for
it. I couldn't change it if I tried.


Atheist trolls save no souls, it's true.

I don't go running into Churches screaming "There is no god, you are
all free!". But what about when the believer intentionally shares his
dellusion with nonbelievers? Do you think the nonbelievers should just
shut up and take it? I think there is a place and a time for the overt
rejection of irrationality. And I think when somebody is attempting to
push their irrationality on you, that is probably a good time to reject
it. The more positive the better. People have to much ego to accept
truths that offend them.

Jangchub wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:55:53 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

Rather than a "leap of faith", I prefer to think of it as "jumping
into the gaping bottomless chasm of superstion".

I am not sure why non believers think people who are believers are
superstitious.


Because it's a tautology when you condsider that belief in
(*) Miraculous and extraordinary events
(*) Supernatural intervention
(*) Angelic apparations
(*) The efficacy of Charms: crucifix, pictures, saint candles
(*) The efficacy of Prayers, Chants, and Ceremony
(*) Biblical Prophecy
(*) ...
are all forms of superstition.

Of course Deists are completely immune to such criticism. Not all
believers are superstitious by definition, just most of them.

It's like saying the story of Jesus the Christ shouldn't be considered
Myth because a lot of people believe it. Strength and number of
conviction is irrelevant.


Spirituality is a very subjective thing and means different things to
different people. When I'm engaged in conversation and the subject of
god comes up, I ask people what they mean by "god." I am always
surprised to find out many people use the term as a metaphor and it
actually means nothing.


Yes, some believers are very rational and lack an anthropomorphic
deity.


My mother is always saying god watches out for her. If she wants to
believe that, and it gives her some solace, I shut my mouth. I don't
engage her in that discussion because I do not believe in god, or that
someone is watching me who created me. It's still nice to allow for
others to have their thoughts and sometimes it's really good to just
shut my mouth.


That sounds like a grade A superstition to me. And I would probably
bite my tongue to. But in a public forum where believers are preaching
to nonbelievers, I think the rules are a bit different. You don't go
out of your way to harrass your mother, and your mother isn't going out
of her way to harrass nonbelievers.

On 20 Aug 2006 09:50:57 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
wrote:

Jangchub wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:55:53 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

Rather than a "leap of faith", I prefer to think of it as "jumping
into the gaping bottomless chasm of superstion".

I am not sure why non believers think people who are believers are
superstitious.


Because it's a tautology when you condsider that belief in
(*) Miraculous and extraordinary events
(*) Supernatural intervention
(*) Angelic apparations
(*) The efficacy of Charms: crucifix, pictures, saint candles
(*) The efficacy of Prayers, Chants, and Ceremony
(*) Biblical Prophecy
(*) ...
are all forms of superstition.

Of course Deists are completely immune to such criticism. Not all
believers are superstitious by definition, just most of them.

It's like saying the story of Jesus the Christ shouldn't be considered
Myth because a lot of people believe it. Strength and number of
conviction is irrelevant.


Spirituality is a very subjective thing and means different things to
different people. When I'm engaged in conversation and the subject of
god comes up, I ask people what they mean by "god." I am always
surprised to find out many people use the term as a metaphor and it
actually means nothing.


Yes, some believers are very rational and lack an anthropomorphic
deity.


My mother is always saying god watches out for her. If she wants to
believe that, and it gives her some solace, I shut my mouth. I don't
engage her in that discussion because I do not believe in god, or that
someone is watching me who created me. It's still nice to allow for
others to have their thoughts and sometimes it's really good to just
shut my mouth.


That sounds like a grade A superstition to me. And I would probably
bite my tongue to. But in a public forum where believers are preaching
to nonbelievers, I think the rules are a bit different. You don't go
out of your way to harrass your mother, and your mother isn't going out
of her way to harrass nonbelievers.

FOLKS COULD YOU PLEASE TAKE THIS TO EMAIL! YOU'RE CLUTTERING UP A
GARDEN GROUP WITH YOUR "SPIRITED" (pun intended) DEBATE!

Persephone

On 20 Aug 2006 09:50:57 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
wrote:


Because it's a tautology when you condsider that belief in
(*) Miraculous and extraordinary events
(*) Supernatural intervention
(*) Angelic apparations
(*) The efficacy of Charms: crucifix, pictures, saint candles
(*) The efficacy of Prayers, Chants, and Ceremony
(*) Biblical Prophecy
(*) ...
are all forms of superstition.

I have many images and statues and articles which are considered holy
objects. They are motivating to me, and the sole reason why they are
here. Then again, I'm a Buddhist who is aethiest. There is no
creator god, but there are people who have purified their minds to the
point they no longer need a body. This could be called superstitious.
The whole of it suits me. I can live a spiritual life and not believe
in god.


My mother is always saying god watches out for her. If she wants to
believe that, and it gives her some solace, I shut my mouth. I don't
engage her in that discussion because I do not believe in god, or that
someone is watching me who created me. It's still nice to allow for
others to have their thoughts and sometimes it's really good to just
shut my mouth.


That sounds like a grade A superstition to me. And I would probably
bite my tongue to. But in a public forum where believers are preaching
to nonbelievers, I think the rules are a bit different. You don't go
out of your way to harrass your mother, and your mother isn't going out
of her way to harrass nonbelievers.

Well, that's kind! My mother is beyond superstition and deep into
mental illness. I don't say this as a mean statement, but at my age I
can no longer ignore it and she has no intention of doing anything
about it at 72.

I do get annoyed within my thoughts when people either blame or give
thanks to an invisible man in the sky. I shrivel up when I'm anywhere
and people are discussing that.

As for believers who harrass non believers, I would ignore them. It's
a problem IMO when someone has to or tends to defend a position as
fact. When asked about reincarnation and if science disproved it, The
Dalai Lama simply said, "Then we will get rid of it immediately!"

In article , Jangchub
wrote:

On 20 Aug 2006 09:50:57 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
wrote:


Because it's a tautology when you condsider that belief in
(*) Miraculous and extraordinary events
(*) Supernatural intervention
(*) Angelic apparations
(*) The efficacy of Charms: crucifix, pictures, saint candles
(*) The efficacy of Prayers, Chants, and Ceremony
(*) Biblical Prophecy
(*) ...
are all forms of superstition.

I have many images and statues and articles which are considered holy
objects. They are motivating to me, and the sole reason why they are
here. Then again, I'm a Buddhist who is aethiest. There is no
creator god, but there are people who have purified their minds to the
point they no longer need a body. This could be called superstitious.
The whole of it suits me. I can live a spiritual life and not believe
in god.


My mother is always saying god watches out for her. If she wants to
believe that, and it gives her some solace, I shut my mouth. I don't
engage her in that discussion because I do not believe in god, or that
someone is watching me who created me. It's still nice to allow for
others to have their thoughts and sometimes it's really good to just
shut my mouth.


That sounds like a grade A superstition to me. And I would probably
bite my tongue to. But in a public forum where believers are preaching
to nonbelievers, I think the rules are a bit different. You don't go
out of your way to harrass your mother, and your mother isn't going out
of her way to harrass nonbelievers.

Well, that's kind! My mother is beyond superstition and deep into
mental illness. I don't say this as a mean statement, but at my age I
can no longer ignore it and she has no intention of doing anything
about it at 72.

I do get annoyed within my thoughts when people either blame or give
thanks to an invisible man in the sky. I shrivel up when I'm anywhere
and people are discussing that.

Many little kiddies have an Invisible Friend that they either grow out of
as childish & silly, or else their invisible friend turns into God for
them. The tragedy is how so many people love their invisible friend more
than they care about their children, friends, or humanity. And the
invisible friend can be used to justify any harmful thing they want to do.

-paghat the ratgirl
--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt he
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot." -Thomas Jefferson

Jangchub wrote:
On 20 Aug 2006 09:50:57 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
wrote:

snip

snip


I do get annoyed within my thoughts when people either blame or give
thanks to an invisible man in the sky. I shrivel up when I'm anywhere
and people are discussing that.

As for believers who harrass non believers, I would ignore them. It's
a problem IMO when someone has to or tends to defend a position as
fact. When asked about reincarnation and if science disproved it, The
Dalai Lama simply said, "Then we will get rid of it immediately!"

The more relevant question would be why teach something for which there
is no objective reason to believe is true?

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:16:57 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:


Many little kiddies have an Invisible Friend that they either grow out of
as childish & silly, or else their invisible friend turns into God for
them. The tragedy is how so many people love their invisible friend more
than they care about their children, friends, or humanity. And the
invisible friend can be used to justify any harmful thing they want to do.

-paghat the ratgirl

Good point. I don't deny there is a god, I simply don't care and
personally don't believe in a god.

Another interesting thing I've noticed is how people go from one thing
to the other and god becomes the drug of choice.

Your last sentence is why my husband and I don't have a flock of
friends. There's no bullshit "fellowshipping" going on around here.

On 21 Aug 2006 03:09:15 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub wrote:

As for believers who harrass non believers, I would ignore them. It's
a problem IMO when someone has to or tends to defend a position as
fact. When asked about reincarnation and if science disproved it, The
Dalai Lama simply said, "Then we will get rid of it immediately!"


The more relevant question would be why teach something for which there
is no objective reason to believe is true?

If you are talking about reincarnation, there are extensive tests
performed when a young Tulku or Rinpoche manifests in another body
after they die. I'm not saying you should belive, I am saying I
believe this to be true and it would take me far too much time to
explain karma and rebirth in a forum like this. I don't find I have
any authority to discuss, or defend the position.

However, there are many books written with Gelugpa traditions. His
Holiness has a newish book, "The Universe In A Single Atom." I could
be off on the title.

In article MarkA writes:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:46:32 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article Xns982284D935994vicmanŽ.196.97.136 Uncle Vic
writes:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Victor Faraday
) made the light shine upon us with this:

Fantastic design without designer is a harder thing to buy into than
belief in an Almighty alpha and omega. These atheist types are
trying hard to reply in clever & witty ways, but they remind me of
hayseeds who see priceless works of art as miscellaneous smearing of
paint on a canvas.

One must believe something is a design before he can designate a
designer. Take the human body, for example. Perfect in every way. Or
is it? If we were designed, why did the designer build in a
self-destruct module known as the appendix, which serves no purpose
other than to become inflamed and destroy us? And what can be said of a
designer whose design fails during the critical stage of reproduction?
A designer (described by worshipers as perfect in every way) that allows
horrible birth defects to happen is either a monster, or a figment of
your imagination.



And beyond that, the Intelligent Design enthusiast needs to justify a
moral Designer who creates the various astonishingly clever mechanisms
which allow organisms to inflict endless misery and death on humanity.

Such examples are endless, but my favorite is the trypanosome which causes
malaria. This organism sports a mechanism whereby it continually shuffles
the proteins on its cell surface, thereby causing the human immune system
to be forever one step behind, playing an endless futile game of catch-up.
This amazingly simple and elegant Design feature has caused the death of
countless millions.

As I say, such examples of intricate, elegant, and seemingly malevolent
Design can be multiplied endlessly; parasitology alone provides many more.
It's hard to see any way out of this dilemma for the ID'er. I suppose
some possible justifications might be:


-- the Designer didn't create THOSE bits, subsequent
evolution did.

-- the Designer's evil twin, the Malicious Designer,
got to muck about in the Workshop.

-- humans deserve it, so what's the problem here?

-- the Designer's ways are mysterious indeed.

-- any other suggestions?



-- cary

You forgot the best one of all:

-- suffering is good for you.

Oooh, yes. So noted.


-- cary

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:13:37 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:53:52 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:43:28 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:36:03 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

1. You saw something awesome.
2. You cannot personally understand it.
3. Therefore there is an invisible old man in the sky.

Push to shove, whatever enriches someone's spirituality or kindness or
consciousness is a good thing. I don't believe in a creator, but I
have no problem with those who do. And orb spiders are indeed
awesome. I don't believe a god created them, but if someone else does
and it touches their heart making them a better person, it's great.
Don't you think?

Any form of self-delusion is a potentially damaging thing.
The real-world evidence for such a case is overwhelming.
Delusion is NOT benign, even if it does make the deludee 'feel
better'.

Yes, I get that and I'm with you on delusion being the cause of great
suffering. That said, I do not believe in bashing someone in the head
with my aethiesm, they wouldn't hear me. So, since I may or may not
be more informed than a believer it's not up to me to make that
correction. People have to come to their own conclusions, many go
along the god train. It's a lot easier for many people think
something is "doing" it for them. I don't get that, but I allow for
it. I couldn't change it if I tried.

Except that Theists steal my money, in the form of tax exemption.
They get preferential treatment in the law.
They can force me to choose between going to one of their wars, or
face punishment.
The direct an palpable effects are legion, and very real.
I do not have to lift a finger, nor even squeak about atheism to have
my taxes stolen from me and given to fund church officials and
directly enable them to sexually and mentally molest my children.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:09:12 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:55:53 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

Rather than a "leap of faith", I prefer to think of it as "jumping
into the gaping bottomless chasm of superstion".

I am not sure why non believers think people who are believers are
superstitious.

It could be because: they ARE superstitious!
Believing something that you know ain't so, is the acme of
superstition.
Trusting an effect that has failed all tests since recorded history,
IS SUPERSTITION!

I am not sure why anyone would possibly think otherwise, unless they
have been so effectively brainwashed to exclude certain select
categories of superstitions from the definition.

Chirstians think that native animist beliefs are superstitious (but
Christianity is not), and the natives think that Christianity is
superstitious, (but their beliefs are not)!!!

It is quite laughable, when seen from the outside.

Spirituality is a very subjective thing and means different things to
different people. When I'm engaged in conversation and the subject of
god comes up, I ask people what they mean by "god." I am always
surprised to find out many people use the term as a metaphor and it
actually means nothing.

My mother is always saying god watches out for her. If she wants to
believe that, and it gives her some solace, I shut my mouth. I don't
engage her in that discussion because I do not believe in god, or that
someone is watching me who created me. It's still nice to allow for
others to have their thoughts and sometimes it's really good to just
shut my mouth.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:58:50 +0930, Michael Gray
wrote:

Except that Theists steal my money, in the form of tax exemption.
They get preferential treatment in the law.
They can force me to choose between going to one of their wars, or
face punishment.
The direct an palpable effects are legion, and very real.
I do not have to lift a finger, nor even squeak about atheism to have
my taxes stolen from me and given to fund church officials and
directly enable them to sexually and mentally molest my children.

This is a whole other subject. By the way, I have been misspelling
"aetheist." I picture in my head "aerobic" and it comes out. Anyway,
I am in full agreement with you, but this is a program as a result of
the U.S. and its current administration.

Our president is a fanatic, maybe even evil. This faith based
initiative is complete shit and we all know it, including him. How
much money has this program given to anyone outside of fundamental
Christian churches? That's easy, none.

I can't really argue because everything you said is true, so we agree
on this.

Jangchub skrev:

On 21 Aug 2006 03:09:15 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub wrote:

As for believers who harrass non believers, I would ignore them. It's
a problem IMO when someone has to or tends to defend a position as
fact. When asked about reincarnation and if science disproved it, The
Dalai Lama simply said, "Then we will get rid of it immediately!"


The more relevant question would be why teach something for which there
is no objective reason to believe is true?

If you are talking about reincarnation, there are extensive tests
performed when a young Tulku or Rinpoche manifests in another body
after they die. I'm not saying you should belive, I am saying I
believe this to be true and it would take me far too much time to
explain karma and rebirth in a forum like this. I don't find I have
any authority to discuss, or defend the position.

There are no, objective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide
any evidence at all for reincarnation. There really is nothing there
but a belief based on nothing of substance.



However, there are many books written with Gelugpa traditions. His
Holiness has a newish book, "The Universe In A Single Atom." I could
be off on the title.

See above.

On 23 Aug 2006 02:50:26 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:



There are no, objective, repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that provide
any evidence at all for reincarnation. There really is nothing there
but a belief based on nothing of substance.

There are no objective Or subjective, repeatable, peer-reviewed
studies that provide any evidence that reincarnation does NOT exist.
That's why with most religions confidence is underlying.

Not too different is suspension of disbelief when you see a movie
which makes no sense.