BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

God Is Imaginary

  
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:33 / 21.08.06
Also, calling someone "Ann Coulter" because they've - what, had the temerity to disagree with your particular brand of criticisms of Christianity? - is so genuinely ironic as to be hilarious. One of many reasons that everyone with half a clue can't stand Ann Coulter is rather than engaging with arguments, she paints anyone who disagrees with her in the slightest bit as being in the same camp as some other, more extreme position that the person in question has, as Coulter knows full well, very little in common with. In other words, if you oppose the US invasion of Iraq for any reason, then you must be an "Islamist" fundamentalist who cheered when the Twin Towers fell. In other words, she employs the exact same rhetorical stunt as you do when you ask Mordant Carnival if ze is "Ann fucking Coulter".
 
 
chairmanWOW
12:03 / 21.08.06
unfortunate habit of lumping people of a faith into one big collective no-brain entity

All's I'm saying is that Christians and Muslims and all religions for that matter should be held accountable for the actions of these so-called 'fundies' or zealots. If you're going to practice a religion which quite blatantly inspires these people to do these things then you have a problem.

Someone made the comment above that there are no religious wars, just wars for social and political reasons that use religion as a tool.

There's never been any religious wars based solely on religion? Odd.

Secondly, it is not my responsibility to come up with a lengthy list of names that satisfies you. You said, and I quote: "we don’t have any examples of people countering the stereotype… at least not that I know" [my italics]. In order for this statement to be shown to be risible nonsense, all any of us had to do was pick, off the top of our heads, a well-known Christian figure who counters your proposed stereotype.

So had I originally asked you to supply me with two or three instead of one example you would still have been able to show this statement to be risible nonsense? Go on name two more...not to prove anything to me but instead to show the audience at home that you can. That Martin Luther isn't the only good, famous, dead Christian they can use for inspiration.

Khorosho...why are you so angry and defensive? If this discussion is to proceed in any useful way likely to benefit you or us, then a calm, centered willingness to listen and carefully consider each others points without getting offended or conflating an opinion with a personality is going to help a lot.

Not angry. I’m the calm centre of the universe itself. Light passes through me and I am there. I am unflapple. Not offended but I do feel as though I'm staring down an angry mob, myself.

You have your Truth. Live it. It is your seal with the Universe. It is your mandate.

Yes, I see that now.

But it's much easier to discuss if you don't jump like an electrocuted ferret every time somebody questions your stance or asks you to acknowledge some inaccuracy in the facts you are using to back up what you are trying to express.

That's me Jumpin' Jack Ferret. I think the main problem came about because I didn't take it as seriously as all of you did. I just thought I'd casually post a few links and people could click on them and that would be that. I now understand that people are willing to defend their believes tooth and claw.

Nobody, believe me, is out to convert you (SINNER!!!;-))

I'm burning, I'm burning

Sorry, last thing - the 'tea' reference was also a kind of in-joke round these parts that you might not get. A friendly joke, not a cruel joke. Sorry if it came across as 'being at your expense'.

Care to explain it to yours truly. To me it just came off as a badly punned 'joke'. Because I said I'm off for a cuppa earlier and then later you said you have some tea for me and well...yeah, I thought it was supposed to be a pun. I wasn’t aware that it was some way cool insider lingo going down.

Also, calling someone "Ann Coulter" because they've - what, had the temerity to disagree with your particular brand of criticisms of Christianity? - is so genuinely ironic as to be hilarious.

Ann Coulter is a good and proud Christian woman. She follows the word of the lord and is willing to defend her faith. Based on Mordants previous comments I honestly thought she might be Ann in hiding. If it was hilarious I’m glad to have brought you happiness.

In other words, she employs the exact same rhetorical stunt as you do when you ask Mordant Carnival if ze is "Ann fucking Coulter".

Then perhaps I too am secretly Ann Coulter. Oh dear, that’s unpleasant.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:15 / 21.08.06
Wait, I'm confused. At what point did I assert that I followed the word of any particular Lord, or speak in defence of any particular faith? I've spoken here to defend the nebulous idea of faith generally, in the sense of expressing the belief that religion is not inherently inimical, but I seem to have blacked out the part where I was doling out Chick tracts.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:38 / 21.08.06
Okay, so as not to get bogged down in a tedious spat: khorosho, if you actually want people to engage with your ideas and consider them seriously, it's not a good idea to resort to namecalling. If you want people to listen to you, you need to present a strong and considered argument rather than offering the rather weak and ill-judged posts you've served up so far and then reacting in a rude and hostile way when people point out the flaws in your argument. Right now I'm still unconvinced that you're not just another single-issue troll.

And no, dear, I'm not a Christian.
 
 
Ticker
12:42 / 21.08.06
All's I'm saying is that Christians and Muslims and all religions for that matter should be held accountable for the actions of these so-called 'fundies' or zealots. If you're going to practice a religion which quite blatantly inspires these people to do these things then you have a problem.

Should we hold all scientists accountable for the few who have participated in unethical experiments?

A nother example

Dude, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
As pointed out elsewhere the Communist governments are notorious for being anti-religion and having epic death tolls.

the source of the human ability to kill comes from the process of Othering, dehumanizing someone else and jusifying your violence. Yes, religion has been used for this purpose, but so has science, skin color, sexual habits, and autism.

Your righteous anger should not be directed against belief in religions but the belief that anyone has the right to kill or torment another for any reason. Your motives are noble but you are looking at the wrong aspect of the problem.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:47 / 21.08.06
We're not defending our beliefs, darling. We're defending the relatively high quality of discussion that takes place on the message board. If you just want to say "OMG T3H CHRISTIANS ARE STUPID", then you are more than welcome to get a myspace page, where you will find many intellectual and ideological peers. As has been stated, and you appear to be having trouble understanding, many of the people highlighting the poor quality of your research and ratiocination are not Christians - they are simply better able to consider the angles than you.

For example:

All's I'm saying is that Christians and Muslims and all religions for that matter should be held accountable for the actions of these so-called 'fundies' or zealots. If you're going to practice a religion which quite blatantly inspires these people to do these things then you have a problem.

I am not a Christian, a Muslim or indeed a member of any religion. However, I do read things. Recently, I've been reading the analysis of the published work of Robert Pape - possibly the world's leading expert on the practice of suicide bombing. He looked at the photographs and names, where available, of every known suicide bomber so far. Of 41 suicide bombers in Lebanon, they identified 38. Of those 38, eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Three were Christians. The only thing they all had in common was that they were Lebanese. What they wanted was not, one might assume, driven by a desire to do the work of God, but to make occupation of Lebanon as unpleasant as possible for the Israelis with a view to eventually forcing an Israeli withdrawal - a perfectly strategic, perfectly secular aim toward which the suicide bombings were tactical strikes.

There. An actual factual example, with some supporting discussion, rather than a google search for "atheist quotations". See the difference?
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:50 / 21.08.06
So had I originally asked you to supply me with two or three instead of one example you would still have been able to show this statement to be risible nonsense? Go on name two more...not to prove anything to me but instead to show the audience at home that you can. That Martin Luther isn't the only good, famous, dead Christian they can use for inspiration.

Nanne Zwiep a Christian pastor was killed for speaking out against the opression of the Jews by the Nazis.

Colin Winter an Anglican priest and strong opponent of apartheid.

Mary Elizabeth Clark campaigner for AIDS awareness and transgender rights.

That enough for you?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
12:59 / 21.08.06
I just thought I'd casually post a few links and people could click on them and that would be that. I now understand that people are willing to defend their believes tooth and claw.

Right. Well certainly, you haven't seemed defensive at all when your opinions about God (which haven't been presented as FACTS!11!!! in any sense) have been called into question.

You're against blind, unthinking dogma about religious matters; fair enough. I'm not sure anyone, not even all the faith-driven maniacs who've started all those wars all those times would stand up and be counted as mindless, bigoted zealots. They'd just be sure they were right, that's all, and that everyone who disagreed was wrong, and thus not worth listening to.

Accordingly, is it really necessary to point out the gaping flaw in your thoughts so far on this issue?

I will write your reply to this post for you;

'I don't know what the frikkin' hell you're talkin' 'bout buddy, but you need to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! You God-bothering nob.'
 
 
EvskiG
13:36 / 21.08.06
Dear Khorosho:

Hi, I'm Evan.

Khorosho, that's Russian for "good," isn't it? I'm guessing you picked it up from A Clockwork Orange, right? Very clever.

You might not realize it, but your posting style is extremely rude.

You might want to think about changing the way you post -- not only for politeness' sake, but because you're currently giving the impression that you're a bright (but not too bright), snotty eighteen year old who just discovered atheism.

I'm not expecting you to use all of the tropes of classical rhetoric, but instead of links to articles on atheism, and your snarky, scattershot retorts to people's comments, you might want to start with a nice firm proposition (take a look at the Sam Harris paragraph I posted above for an example), build an argument from that proposition, and engage other people's arguments with specificity, thought, and some courtesy.

Just a thought.

By the way, I'm horribly sorry to hear about the lynching of your friend Stu. Could you please post a link to a news article about it? (I haven't been able to find one, but I'm sure it must have received some coverage somewhere.)

You've been using a bit of English slang in your posts (e.g., "cuppa"), but since your profile says you're located in "Dah Bronx" (not "Da Bronx" but "Dah Bronx?" That's an odd turn of phrase to this New Yorker), I'd like to refer the matter to a few friends who work for major gay rights organizations. Thanks.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:51 / 21.08.06
Alex's grandma made me larf. Thanks, old lady!
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:59 / 21.08.06
I wonder, could we have a new thread where- instead of all this mess- we talked about the concepts of "mythos" and "logos" and how they were applied at the time the Bible, Torah, Koran and others were written?
 
 
Saturn's nod
14:16 / 21.08.06
Possibly offtopic, in that I don't think the point be proved by exhaustion, but I like the idea of lists of faith-based activists (in spite of the general trend against lists on Barbelith). Great list, Evil Scientist. I find it hard to pick just ten - what are the criteria? Best contribution to compassion and alleviation of suffering? As judged by whom? How can faith be demonstrated, is cultural origin or formal membership sufficient, etc? Or just that their writing comes from a faith perspective? How can you prove what kind of divine force they are referring to? But anyway, here're a few I'd pick, in no particular order:


(living)

Dekha, peacemaker of the Wajir, & others of Peace Direct

Julia Cameron, creative writing teacher.

Starhawk, pagan activist, teacher and campaigner

Angie Zelter, campaigner against nuclear weapons and the arms trade

Ellen Moxley and Helen Steven, campaigners for peace and against nuclear weapons.

Jackie Leach Scully, molecular biologist and ethicist.

Steve Whiting, nonviolent direct activist and trainer with Turning the Tide

Simon Fisher and colleagues, staff of Responding to Conflict peacemaker training organisation

Wendell Berry


(dead)

Sojourner Truth, and Sarah Grimke and Angelina Grimke Weld, campaigners against slavery and for women's rights.

John Woolman, campaigner against cruelty to humans and animals on many fronts.

Lucretia Mott, campaigner for women's rights.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi & colleagues, noviolent direct activist in India and South Africa (with apologies for being obvious).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, revolutionary theologian and resister in Nazi Germany.

Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker movement

Gustavo Gutierrez, early liberation theologian

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania state, U.S.: "True godliness don't turn men out of the world, but enables them to live better in it, and excites their endeavours to mend it..."

Henry Hodgkin/Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze, founders of the Fellowship of Reconciliation “We are one in Christ and can never be at war.”

Tom Fox & the others, both living and dead, in Christian Peacemaker Teams
 
 
LVX23
22:18 / 21.08.06
Add me as a signatory to EvkG's exceedingly polite letter.

Legba, that would be an excellent thread topic.

Otherwise, I don't have much else to offer since I've completley lost the point of this thread amongst the clatter and caterwauling. There were some fine insights along the way though.
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:02 / 22.08.06
This may be too many responses to process, but khorosho, you should realise that you aren't the only atheist around here. I'm one too, and I think you are arguing far too agressively and simplistically.

For instance, depending on how you define religiosity, you either have to admit that there have been precious few atheists in recorded history (so saying that religion goes hand in hand with violence doesn't say anything, since it goes hand in hand with everything) or you can separate out particular religions and notice that people can be pretty nasty even without the big white bearded fella. (Man, I *hate* Santa.)

You really would do yourself, us and atheism a favour by calming down a bit, engaging and being a little more polite. That said, is this thread still salvageable?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:27 / 22.08.06
I have to echo Lurid, I consider myself an atheist, at least when it comes to Christianity, but the behaviour of khorosho, just like that of Richard Dawkins, makes me want to cringe in embarasment.

But khorosho, on reading the thread it seems to me that your real problem isn't Christianity so much as the ways it's been used over the centuries, your problem is actually politics, the politics that decided what gospels would be included in the bible and what ones, like those that suggested you could get to heaven on your own and didn't need a church, would be suppressed and their followers killed. The politics that started the Crusades, the politics that today tell people in the Third World not to use condoms because God really doesn't like men putting bits of rubber on their willies.

Is this not where your real problem is?
 
 
Yagg
06:56 / 22.08.06
Why are we fighting? I'm too busy laughing that the
author(s) of this site have Jesus say "BWA HA HA HA HA!"

Now THAT'S comedy!

http://www.godisimaginary.com/i21.htm
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:42 / 22.08.06
Well thanks for that Rev.K/VN-7, now would you care to make an actual contribution to the thread?
 
 
Charlie's Horse
14:52 / 22.08.06
Hey, sheer comedy is both contributing and actual. And that full quote at godisimaginary is fucking hilarious.

All's I'm saying is that Christians and Muslims and all religions for that matter should be held accountable for the actions of these so-called 'fundies' or zealots. If you're going to practice a religion which quite blatantly inspires these people to do these things then you have a problem.

I think there's a bit of a problem with this, really. I mean, are you also going to hold Chuck Palahniuk responsible for dumbasses not getting it and starting fight clubs, or committing acts of vandalism and terrorism, or for waiters tainting food? Is that his fault? 'Cause he wrote a book all about it, and made it sound pretty damn great. Is he at fault for what others do, though? Does he control those other people, or do they in fact have their own minds and their own will and their own ability to choose? Religious figures, like authors, present ideas. They don't control people, and ultimately, they're not responsible for other people. Only their own acts.

I'm a white male, living in America. Am I now responsible for all the actions of every white male originating in the US? Is some US leader who is a white male responsible for all the actions of every other white male in my country?

That asked, please relax. Please take a deep breath. You are not your arguments. (That was not a rip-off.) We're not attacking you, khorosho. We have issues with your ideas, and we want you to engage in a dialogue. You explain, we explain, and so on. It's relatively nonviolent. Though not always painless. You come expecting a mob, and you'll find yourself fomenting one. I don't think anyone here feels that much anger with regard to you, except perhaps the people you've deliberately attacked. (Ann Coulter my muscular buttocks.) No doubt they'd turn around if you first had one of those 180 degree turns and actually started talking to us. As opposed to sniping at us. You know. You might convince people that way. 'Cause this frontal attack shit is not spreading the Good Word of Atheism.
 
 
sn00p
15:29 / 22.08.06
It's not what they believe it's how they believe.
It's not even a debate. You could say adults having an imaginary friend is harmless but it's clearly not, the masacares, jihads, oppresion and terrorist attacks prove that.

I.e It's not that because some people who are religious do horrific things, so therefore all people who are religous are to blame. It's because what drove them to do thosse things is the same fundamental idiocy at the heart of every religion: faith.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:41 / 22.08.06
I am not a Christian, a Muslim or indeed a member of any religion. However, I do read things. Recently, I've been reading the analysis of the published work of Robert Pape - possibly the world's leading expert on the practice of suicide bombing. He looked at the photographs and names, where available, of every known suicide bomber so far. Of 41 suicide bombers in Lebanon, they identified 38. Of those 38, eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Three were Christians. The only thing they all had in common was that they were Lebanese. What they wanted was not, one might assume, driven by a desire to do the work of God, but to make occupation of Lebanon as unpleasant as possible for the Israelis with a view to eventually forcing an Israeli withdrawal - a perfectly strategic, perfectly secular aim toward which the suicide bombings were tactical strikes.
 
 
electric monk
15:54 / 22.08.06
You could say adults having an imaginary friend is harmless but it's clearly not, the masacares, jihads, oppresion and terrorist attacks prove that.

You might want to consider that there are other factors in play in those instances. Having faith doesn't automatically equate to blowing up one's self or other people. Not every Christian bombs abortion clinics and assaults homosexuals. Not every Muslim is a suicide bomber. More likely, violent action on the part of believers stems from some other aspect of themselves and gets mixed in with faith as justification for the deeds. I'll grant you that there may be some set of circumstances and/or characteristics that are common for extremists on all sides, but I don't think it's faith, and you've got quite a bit more work in front of you if you'd like to attempt to prove that point. It isn't at all self-evident.

And please, sn00p, less of the loaded words (like "fundamental idiocy") next time round. Also, realize that, when posting in the Temple, you are literally surrounded by a lot of people with a lot of imaginary friends. You're making it rather difficult to take your argument seriously by blindly equating the god(s) in one's head with the most despicable acts a human can commit. Just sayin'.
 
 
electric monk
16:02 / 22.08.06
God bless your jarred brain, Haus.
 
 
EvskiG
16:26 / 22.08.06
Having faith doesn't automatically equate to blowing up one's self or other people. Not every Christian bombs abortion clinics and assaults homosexuals. Not every Muslim is a suicide bomber. More likely, violent action on the part of believers stems from some other aspect of themselves and gets mixed in with faith as justification for the deeds.

Here's Sam Harris again on that subject:

As I have said, people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man's baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors. If we would speak of the baseness of our natures, our willingness to live, kill, and die on account of propositions for which we have no evidence should be among the first topics of discussion.
 
 
sn00p
17:55 / 22.08.06
I'm sorry for the "idiotic" comment.

" More likely, violent action on the part of believers stems from some other aspect of themselves and gets mixed in with faith as justification for the deeds"

So we agree?
I'm not saying everyone with faith is going to blow up a building. I'm saying faith is a very bad thing, it's applying objective reality to concepts because you like them. It's an inherinatly bad thing that can lay dormant, like the old lady down the street who goes to church every sunday. She's not causing any harm.
But if you combine that 'socialy aceptable bad logic' with other factors it can leads to extreme acts of bad logic.
 
 
Ticker
18:13 / 22.08.06
How many people here have checked via lab time that water is indeed H2O?

Yet how many of us believe this is fact?

How many of us can accurately describe the mechanical process of how a cellphone works?

Yet how many of us believe this process is fact?

Humans take many things on faith, perhaps some base that faith on Science rather than Religion. Yet faith is required a tool when dealing with a high level of complexity. It is not just assumption of fact, it is the belief in the validity of the fact.

The social contract operates 'in good faith' that decent ethical people will behave accordingly without constant negotiations at every turn. Faith is not the problem and when you simplify in order to vilify you are enacting the same process of Othering you are currently condemning, a procces that justifies mass destruction.
 
 
sn00p
18:15 / 22.08.06
That is nonsense.
Faith is not the same as a base sense of rationality.
 
 
sn00p
18:24 / 22.08.06
If religion made mobile phones:
Pope: "You see, it works by the passion of christ who transmits your messages through his all encompasing love."
Me: "Really? Wouldn't radiowaves or microwaves work better?"
Pope: "No, have faith, it works."
*Dials*
Me: "It not working..."
Pope: "THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE FAITH!!!!"
 
 
Feverfew
18:33 / 22.08.06
As odd as that is, Snoop, that did make me smile...
 
 
Feverfew
18:39 / 22.08.06
Although I should add that "That is nonsense", whether 'true' or not, is not the best way to phrase your objections in my humble opinion - would you mind expounding?
 
 
EvskiG
18:46 / 22.08.06
How many people here have checked via lab time that water is indeed H2O?

How many of us can accurately describe the mechanical process of how a cellphone works?

Both of these things can be checked by anyone genuinely willing to learn the theory and put in the practical work.

How many people here have checked that Jesus was born of a virgin?

How many of us can say whether there is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet?

Neither of these things can be checked under any circumstances. Each must only be accepted on faith if it is to be believed at all.

How many people here have determined that meditation leads to a feeling of inner peace?

How many of us can say whether tarot cards can predict the future?

Are these statements more like the first set of statements, or the second set?

Here's where Crowley said "We place no reliance/On Virgin or pigeon/Our method is science/Our aim is religion."
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:48 / 22.08.06
I'm saying faith is a very bad thing, it's applying objective reality to concepts because you like them.

You think? Seems a bit..slim on detail, somehow.

How much of your own conceptual grid/framework do you suppose is based on this Very Bad Thing called faith, then? I'm guessing (could be wrong, though) from your tone that you don't think you operate from a faith based position. Not where it counts, anyway. But just try turning your Very Bad Radar on your own BS, unpack it a bit, see if there isn't a little 'applying objective reality to concepts because you like them' going on there.

Wait, I'm guessing we have a kind of 'All faith is bad, but some faith is badder than other' kind of clause here somewhere, don't we? There's another of those pesky lines creating the Other, isn't there? I stand on this side, which is always, without fail, the Reasonable Side, and the problem is The Set To Which I Do Not, Could Not and Never Will Belong on the Other Side.

I think the second or third post in this thread is the most apposite and relevant point to consider in this entire thread : Define what you mean by God, and define what you mean by Imaginary.

If we then check to see whether :

A) The apparently problematic teachings of the sages in history who have suggested the presence of God bear any resemblance at all to this first definition

and

B) Whether the definition of Imaginary renders this first definition in any way redundant or necessary to abandon or adjust.

Khorosho?

See, whether you believe there was a sage called Isho / Yahshua or not, the fact remains that texts exist which suggest that someone - maybe a committee of authors, maybe a real person - left some teachings behind which mention this Concept which is Not A Concept. Aramaic, the language in which these teachings are written, has no word nor concept for 'God'. 'God' is an English / Indo-European word, etymologically related to the root 'gheu', itself probably drawn from 'deus', the Greek. The Greeks had very particular ideas about 'Gods', with their 'Heaven' in Olympus, and dry-ice and pillars and wotnot. Again, no Heaven in Aramaic. No such concept in the Middle Eastern mystical thought generally, I'm afraid.

The teachings left by the person/made up figure called Isho / Yahshua refer only to 'Alaha'...sound familiar? Bit like 'Allah', isn't it? Also, you can see the link with 'Elohim'...so that's the Middle East bazaar of 'God' right there : Aramaic, Mesopotamian/Arabic and Hebrew. All derived from the same root : AL or EL. All meaning the same thing.

It means, simply, 'That'.

It can, also, mean 'One' or 'Oneness'.

And you see that 'Heaven' business? Isho / Yahshua (or the authors who portmanteau-ed him together, if you like, if it makes you more comfortable) would not have recognised the concept as taught in the Roman-Catholic / Greek conceptual framework.

The Aramiac word translated to Hebrew then Greek, maybe Latin, and finally English is shmaya. The root, shm or shem means 'Every possibility for expression, every potential, every event which may or may not come to pass' and the addition of aya to this root carries the meaning of 'rising and shining in space'.

So, it could well be that you did not know this...can you see how this knowledge might affect your argument a little? As has been pointed out by numerous posters already, your argument has the definite appearance of a Straw Man.

If, on the other hand, you are saying : People, generally, are lazy, ignorant, and spoonfed, and will gladly swallow garbled, polluted, perverted versions of sacred teachings because they cannot be arsed to actually do any spiritual work, but believe they stand, at some level, to gain something from accepting that garbled, polluted, perverted version from whichever dressed-up ape happens to be claiming authority over it in the name of Glory or Alleluia or Bob Dobbs or Whatever, and because of this lazy, ignorant, spoonfed stupidity, demagoguery and dogmatic rigidity runs rampant and riot throughout organised religion, fomenting division and hatred and fundamentalism then you will find little argument from most of the people here on the board.

That hardly means the Oneness of the Universe (Universe - Do.You.See?) is imaginary, now, does it?

We all have brains, you know, and, based solely (and thus inadequately, to be fair) on the content and style of your prose, I would hazard that quite a few of the respondents here are trained in the use of theirs considerably better than you. So wading in with 'YOU SCURED HUMATONS!!! OMG!!!11! I AM TEH N30, COME TO FREE YOUR M1ND3!!111' makes you look, as Mordant so (incredibly restrainedly) put it, like a Pudding.

Is there a God?

Tell you what, answer this one first, it's a little koan. Think about it for 10 minnutes before answering.

Is there a Question?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:55 / 22.08.06
Both of these things can be checked by anyone genuinely willing to learn the theory and put in the practical work.

As can the presence of Alaha. What's your point?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
19:01 / 22.08.06
Wait, I see : nobody can be arsed, just like with the water.

Most people are willing to take it on faith and just drink the stuff.

Faith is not required to know God. A lot of fucking hard work and study is required to know God, just like any other challenging and difficult knowledge.

However, you don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car. If your goal is to get from A to B, why bother? Just drive.

You'll need to rely on one when it goes wrong if you don't have the skills and knowledge yourself to get your hands dirty and fix the bastard, though. Small price for all that A to B, though.
 
 
EvskiG
19:06 / 22.08.06
Both of these things can be checked by anyone genuinely willing to learn the theory and put in the practical work.

As can the presence of Alaha. What's your point?

Ah.

How?

Somehow I suspect the etymology of the word God has nothing to do with the subject.

And I might be more inclined to take you seriously if you drop the arrogance.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
19:09 / 22.08.06
You perceive an arrogant tone in my post, and this leads you to doubt my seriousness? Arrogance=frivolous?
 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
  
Add Your Reply