On 13-Aug-2005, howdydave Howdy! My whole point was: Can a person bow to the divine element within another person if s/he has not first recognized/discovered it within him/herself?

Yes, they can, but they are missing the best part.

Response:

Howdy Dave, You have asked about Namaste… To me the important point is the intention not the words we use. Your HOWDY to me is much better than NAMASTE. Because it is HONEST…It does not try to make big meanings…. In other words some times even the word BLASPHEMOUS might mean a perfectly good feeling…If it was used same as DAVE has done. With compassion, Puma

Response:

Puma, Couldn’t agree with you more Jared Lates…

Response:

Howdy! My whole point was: Can a person bow to the divine element within another person if s/he has not first recognized/discovered it within him/herself? — howdydave This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org

Response:

My dear jared, Even salutations in this world can be a dividing instrument. As all the religions are…Therefore BLASPHEMOUS to me is perfectly allright. I was raised in Islamic notions in my early years…And now I see that there are very few people in this world,who really know GOD…. And most of them are the ones who  are called BLASPHEMOUS. Because their GOD is not a jewish god,is not  a Muslim God and is not a Christian God either! But these people really know GOD…And therefore things are in completely opposite directions. Therefore  some of them are called Ateist! That means they do not recognise any known religious GOD…Because almost all the religions except Buddhism,try to monopolise GOD! Unless we get rid of our conditioned minds , we will have a very hard time to realize this sort of matters…Just look around and see how GODLY terror is going on on the globe… They are all believers…But they are fighting by each other…I never seen any ateist fighting for a religious reason! With compassion, Puma

Response:

Howdy Dave, You have asked about Namaste… To me the important point is the intention not the words we use. Your HOWDY to me is much better than NAMASTE. Because it is HONEST…It does not try to make big meanings…. In other words some times even the word BLASPHEMOUS might mean a perfectly good feeling…If it was used same as DAVE has done. With compassion, Puma

Howdy Puma! Exactly my point (re: intention)… Are we talking about a standard social salutation or about spiritual recognition? To use a parallel in English salutations, are we talking about: "Hello" (which is an appropriate salutation to anybody) or "He is risen!"/"He is risen indeed!" (which is usually only appropriate between Christians.) — Namaste Dave

Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God

Because… Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity.

Exactly. Islam is the name of a religious tribe. Nobody knows what it’s supposed to stand for. What it’s supposed to stand for is irrelevent. Everything else is hot air. "We are Muslims, we will plead guilty to that, and we are proud of it."

Proud of what? What has it ever achieved? Proud of membership of a tribe? Anyone can do that. Pride only becomes justified when you find the courage to quit.

Response:

You seem to be intent on promoting your ideas even if it includes distortions, false assumptions, incorrect statements and overlooking the obvious shortfalls of your own religion.

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed —— Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures?

CORRECTION:  The rest of the world has many view points of religion and God. It only views Islam as a burden on mankind created and maintained by backward cultures. Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? :

Islam is a (not the) faith which attempts to identify the meaning of life and a proper way to live. It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God.

CORRECTION:  Jews and Christians have believed the same a long time before Islam was even a thought. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous.

CORRECTION:  You are referring to Christian doctrine in existence prior to any thought of Islam. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds.

CORRECTION:  You are referring to Christian doctrine in existence prior to any thought of Islam. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured.

You are advocating that man is capable of saving himself and thus there is no need for God.  I believe this is exactly what occurred in the Garden of Eden and what managed to get us in this fix. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group.

I guess that is why many Arabic Muslims believe one has to learn to read Arabic to have a proper understanding of the Quran. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute.

Originally, Adam and Eve could do no wrong against God.  They did not, as you state, bequeath their sin.  Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  This awareness was now a part of mans mental makeup.  Humans are not born into sin but rather born with the knowledge of good and evil.   One is not accountable for anothers mistakes.  You are confusing two seperate concepts:  The ability to understand good and evil and being blamed for someone else’s misdeeds. When one does something against Gods will, that is sin.  Once the deed is done, it cannot be undone.  What you propose is salvation through your own works.  I’ll provide an example.  Suppose your child, who is loving and obedient, one day, in anger, curses you.  The child realizes what he has done, promises he will never do such a thing again.  The child is ashamed and promises to do many extra chores to make atones for his disrespect. Regardless of what the child does or how sorry he feels, the words can never be erased.  The only way the situation can be corrected is for the father to forgive the son and for the father to erase, from his   memory, the harsh words.  All the good works of the son mean nothing and are nothing but an effort to gain the forgiveness what only the father can give. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation.

Righteous deeds are not necesary for salvation.  The deeds only make you aware of your wrong doings but only the love of God forgives your sin.  In Christianity, one is accountable for all his deeds but there is still a requirement to continually ask for forgiveness.  Acceptance of Jesus Christ is not carte blanche to do as you please. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc.

I guess you’ve never heard of the Ten Commandments.  Unfortunetly, you do not understand Luke 14:26. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close.

Some Christians believe as you have stated but it is not in accordance with the bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican

… read more »

Response:

Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures?

it’s so simple, why can’t you morons figure it out? Either the Koran is the word of god, or it is not. If it is, why is God so cruel to muslims? They are at the bottom of everything productive and beautiful that man has figured out so far, and at the top of everything violent and ugly. If islam were the true way, muslims would be the light unto the masses. They would lead humanity forward through good works, inventions, moral examples, works of art, etc. etc. But what do we get from muslims? A pathetic inability to cope with life’s most basic problems, this inability often through frustration leading to violence, just like a child lashing out. Either the Koran is the word of god, or it is not. What does the evidence show? Think about it, Abu….

Response:

 Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? :

Answer – there are many things like Islam on earth.  A spiritual system founded by a lunatic creating an inherently xenophobic and fearful religion can be found with little searching. Answer to ‘revolutionary’ – easy, it isn’t.  Islam is one of the most conservative religions out there.  Its biggest battle is an internal one – does Islam modernize or return to fundamentalism?  Revolutionary doesn’t even begin to describe Islam. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured.

Ludicrous.  Faith is the absence of reason.  Faith is belief without facts. WRT to the rest of the essay – its nothing more than Islamic propaganda – complete with lies, historical revisionism, and stupid conclusions.

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed —— Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures?

Where is it a tremendous bounty? Even the man in charge of Pakistan realizes that the whole Islmaic world does not match the GNP of the 85 million people in Germany. Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what

Simplicity is not necessarily a virtue. It could just be a state of ignorance. Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? :

Maybe because most people who came up with something like it were killed by thier sensible neighbours. It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God.

I do think that the Jews came up with that one first, and there were others before Islam as well. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an

Unless the are female or non-muslim, or poor Pakistanis. Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on

Unless they are non-muslim. aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith.

That’s why Mohommed said muslim men could have as many slave girls as they wanted. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured.

So belief in Jinn, and the idea that devils attack you when your performing normal bodily function, and that the virtuous will have mansions of Cartier jewels, and run-way model houris, that all comes from reason? It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group.

I do believe that Christianity also preaches the equality of each individual soul. And Islam tries to be the monopoly of the Arabic linguistic group, or rather tries to extend that group. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others.

So when a woman is raped, but not in front of four muslims of good standing who are willing to testify for here, and she’s silly enough to bring charges, and is then charged herself and punished, is she not being punished for the sins of others? By the way, is any rape commited in front of four witnesses? And if they are of good standing, how could they just stand around and watch? And about this crying out in town rule. What if the man has a knife at the woman’s throat, or otherwise prevents her from crying out (but no rapist ever thought of that, did they)? Is she a rape victim, are an adulteress (for this one you are allowed to assume that four muslim witness of good standing stoos around and watched)? Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute.

Well, every religion has its ridiculous doctrines. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next.

That’s why mullahs are against music, dancing, kite-flying. Some of them are even against smiling (but raping sheep is OK). Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam

Tyranny is being under the rule of a non-muslim, right? does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change.

Struggle, yes. But change? The muslim world has pretty musch stayed in the same miserable state for the past 1000 years. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc.

There is one of the commandments, which insists Honour the mother and thy father. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs.

That is why women are considered the source of evil, and men are innocently led by their gonads. ( if the men are so susceptible to the influence of women, why aren’t the the ones in purdah) Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality.

All too easily it seems. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions.

So you can have temporary marriages, exchange a little money, get a divorce, all in about … read more »

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed There is so much in Islam that can truly make the West, and indeed the whole world, a safer, better, and more decent place to live in. Islam is a formidable force with potential great enough to revolutionize the world and radically change the course of history as it once did some 1400 years ago. http://www.dawanet.com/nonmuslim/intro/islam/revolut1.html

The concept behind these words is discussed in depth in the bible.  For those who have ears- listen.  For those who have eyes – see.   In the end times, Allah will deceive some of the very elect.

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed There is so much in Islam that can truly make the West, and indeed the whole world, a safer, better, and more decent place to live in. Islam is a formidable force with potential great enough to revolutionize the world and radically change the course of history as it once did some 1400 years ago. http://www.dawanet.com/nonmuslim/intro/islam/revolut1.html

Response:

Islam

Mohammed the Deceiver Mohammed lived in Arabia in the 7th century. Arabian society  was predominately  Pagan but with ever increasing numbers of  Christians and Jews. Pagan landlords owned most of the wealth. The masses of people were poor and landless. Slavery had been institutionalized from time immemorial and was common worldwide. The Christian message was spreading out from the Holy Land by Christians. The Roman empire area of influence was increasingly becoming Christian. Slavery was anathema to Christians and Jews. They both had a Sabbath or day of rest. A slave was never allowed to rest. Slaves worked from sunrise to sunset and more. There was a small minority of Jewish traders and businessmen  living in Arabia. Jews did not preach their Religion while Christians eagerly spread their message. Jesu was the Jew who exported Judaism to the Gentiles or non Jews. Both Jews and Christians obey the 10 commandments of God. There were no newspapers, radio, television, telephone or Internet. Slavery was anathema to Jews because their forefathers had been enslaved. Ever since that, they were the only slave free race on the planet. Christianity held massive appeal for serfs and slaves because of it’s "love thy neighbour" morality. Slaves became Christians in droves. They looked to Christ as their Redeemer. This posed a serious threat to pagan slave owners and dealers. Pagans worshipped many Gods such as the Sun, Lightning, Fire etc. There were many rich women in Arabic society until Mohammed gained control. Women always enjoyed equal status with men until Mohammed prevailed. Mohammed, who never knew his father, was orphaned and later was a slave trader. He made his money by buying and selling slaves, other human beings of all ages and race. Young strong slaves made good money. Young girls were sold for sex. Young boys were castrated and used for housework. Old and infirm were cheap and expendable. When they could no longer work they were killed off like an old dog. This was his business. This was how the prophet made his money. This was the pagan way of life that he determined to preserve from the threat of Christianity. Although illiterate, he was a shrewd businessman who married his boss, an older and rich widow. He despised her with a vengeance. When she died, he inherited all her wealth. He went on to have 13 wives and many concubines, whom he treated as personal property. Mohammed’s youngest wife was only 9 years old. He bought her from her parents because of her great beauty. He clearly had a voracious sexual appetite and was well known to be promiscuous. His life revolved around his harem, his slaves,battles and talk of god and satan. He always carried a knife or a sword. He killed by his own hand many of his enemies. He personally abused, castrated, flogged and killed rebellious slaves. He became very rich and influential. His ideals of human rights extended only to his own faithful followers or brotherhood. All infidels or non-Muslims were fair game for conquest or enslavement. He began to claim he was in direct personal contact with God. There are good and bad in every society. Like Hitler, Mohammed courted the bad. He commanded his faithful followers and associates to believe him Mohammed put the dogs and perverts in control of his society. He dictated his God’s words, whom he called Allah, and ordered them to memorise it. He borrowed Jewish doctrine and combined some of it with his brand of morality. It was a pick and mix of the good with the bad and he called it Islam. Islam means submission of woman to the will of man. It is clear today for all to see and experience. All Islamic women, our mother and sisters, live a life of extreme fear. He called it a new religion and proclaimed himself God’s prophet. He nominated one deity, Allah, as his God, emphasising Allah as the one true God. This God was not to be confused with the Jewish or Christian God. Those baser male elements in Arabia embraced his philosophy. He offered them a life style they craved in the name of Allah, their single new God. The decent people were silenced, murdered, maimed or fled abroad. Our ancestors were murdered if they were not with him. Those who rejected him were vanquished in wars he provoked and won. By deceit and ambush he captured his opponents and beheaded the men. He subjugated the cultured peoples of Mecca and Arabia and made it a land of fear. His followers terrorised the surrounding lands and one by one subjugated them. Conquered people either became Muslim or died. Millions chose to die. The best people died because they would not accept him as a good man. Centuries of Arabian learning and culture was burned and destroyed. Arabia, the crossroads of the world, became a no go zone. Egypt’s Pharisaic history and culture was plundered and lost in the turmoil. Museums, libraries and universities of learning were burned. Mohammed’s Koran was to be the only book allowed to the people. North Africa suffered a similar fate all the way to Morocco. The ancient cultures of Babylon, Syria and Persia were destroyed in the upheaval. Fear ruled the lands as his bloodthirsty followers spread his religion after his death. Mohammed became a successful warlord and ruled his followers with an iron fist. Dissent to any degree was deemed blasphemy, demanding death. He hijacked the Jewish Bible proclaiming himself as the latest and greatest prophet of the book. Then he acted in flagrant contradiction of those books. He enlisted Jesu, the Christ as another prophet, but he put Jesu to the back of the class. The slave trader who never performed a miracle placed himself above Jesu. Christ promised to send a comforter and Mohammed claimed to be this man. Christ also said there would come an Anti Christ. Mohammed was bitterly hated by large sections of an advanced Arabian society. He led his followers in battle until he established himself by conquest. He terrorised the vanquished and beheaded thousands of captives, enslaving their children. His new religion held great appeal to many men and he promoted this religion by his own example. The position of women was reduced to the status of little more than a slave. Any Islamic born woman who denounced his religion was put to death for blasphemy. Once he established himself, the same fate was assured to any man who denounced him. To even question the prophet Mohammed was blasphemy and invited death. He instilled fear in everyone. His Mullahs do it in his name by his Sharia laws. The same applies today. Salman Rushdie is but one well known example. The others are dead apostates. Islam consumes its dissenters and there were many. Every Islamic country in the world is ruled by extreme fear. The moral adherents of his religion who doubted his piety always remained silent. The clerics and mullahs would be the interpreters and judges of all, in his name. It held massive appeal to some because women were more influential than men financially. There were many men who resented the influence of powerful women. The base and amoral man became his most ardent believers and later, worshippers. His was a male dominated religion. Every man was a king in his own home. Women lost all rights, all their property, and became servants of menfolk. No woman would ever raise her voice to a man in future. They would have to hide behind a veil. They would have to walk behind their man. They would have to endure any chastisement or even death without protest. The tragedy was that many terrified women accepted their lot in the name of Allah. They would survive only as home makers and sex objects for their man. Produce his offspring,  make his bed and cook his food. This was their destiny, negotiated by Mohammed with Allah, his self proclaimed prophet. A murderer, a slave trader and a sexually deviant psychopath. Like Hitler, who plunged the world into a war without end for the Reich, He plunged a cultured Middle East into war, darkness and fear in the name of Allah. His own people suffered more than anyone. Women were reduced to low status. A minority of rich men had it all. Land, palaces, slaves and harems. He directed his faithful to proclaim their Religion aloud for all to see. He told them to face his birth place in Mecca and prostrate themselves to Allah. He retained the Kabba, an ancient and sacred pagan temple, as the focus of his new religion. He prayed to Allah in the desecrated Temples and Synagogues of his conquered opponents His followers and imitators repeated this practice worldwide ever since. Muslims prefer to use other faiths’ temples as their mosques to assert their superiority. Mohammed set the trend for this by literally dancing on his detractors graves. The prayer is always the same; that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet; ad nauseum. Mohammed cloaked a dark Satanic force with an aura of Godliness. His religion had no Sabbath because slaves never had free time. The Moslem male goes to pray to Allah while the woman and his slaves work. Mohammed maintained a luxury harem which is emulated by rich Muslims ever since. His faithful prostrate and pray in an outward show of godliness five times daily. Their lives revolve around this daily ritual of washing and praying. They fast during the daytime for the month of Ramadan, then party all night. They give charity of one fortieth of their income to the poor. Both religious pretenses. Mohammed harnessed the word Religion with evil. He was the Antichrist, predicted by Christ, who put Christ behind himself. He emulated the Bible with his verses of godliness and righteousness. The outward show of goodness masked the evil, lurking in his followers. He was poisoned by one of the women he violated and died in agony. After his death they spread his … read more »

Response:

I have answered each and everyone of the non sense in this post. But somehow this is repeated daily by the brainwashed. Let me tell this again. No book, be in Quran or Bible, can define God. No person, be it Mohammad or Jesus can claim only they are the defining authorities for God. Anyone claiming that God had spoken to him is a fraud. Anyone claiming that God will not talk to anyone else after God had spoken to him is a bigger fraud. Anyone claiming the final prophethood or last son is a complete fraud. God is unknowable. Anyone claiming that he knew God is total fraud. Anyone following such nonsense is just allowing the tyrants to rule over them in the name of God. ** – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A Revolution Without Revolutionaries by Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures?  Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall  to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions.  There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity ; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity.  Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: ‘Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it that attracted you particularly ?’ — and I must confess: I don’t know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates

… read more »

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries by Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures?  Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall  to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions.  There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity ; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity.  Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: ‘Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it that attracted you particularly ?’ — and I must confess: I don’t know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is ‘in its proper place,’ has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally: It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation. It was Islam that taught the Arabs who never agreed on any form of law to build a nation … read more »

Response:

EOM.

Response:

faith is the fruit of reason. that is a lie-faith is ilogical. faith is unreasonable. faith requires no more than to be stupid. religion is for the weak and stupid-ergo-muslims.

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures? Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? :   a.. It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God.   b.. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous.   c.. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds.   d.. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured.   e.. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group.   f.. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute.   g.. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation.   h.. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change.   i.. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc.   j.. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close.   k.. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions.   There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity ; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity.   Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: ‘Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it that attracted you particularly ?’ — and I must confess: I don’t know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is ‘in its proper place,’ has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.   It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally:   l.. It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority.   m.. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation.   n.. It was Islam that taught

… read more »

Response:

You don’t have any creditability because you are crook and thief with criminal record. YOU are one of Juno forgers aliases. The record indicate his criminal activities such as forgery, identity fraud, shoplifting and identity theft. you are a deceiver who has the same juno forger connection.

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures? Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? : It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one’s heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its ‘original sin.’ Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another’s mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance…Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one’s father, mother, wife, children,…(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one’s mother, father, family, neighbors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one’s sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one’s sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God’s help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions. There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity ; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity. Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: ‘Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it that attracted you particularly ?’ — and I must confess: I don’t know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is ‘in its proper place,’ has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally: It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation. It was Islam that taught the … read more »

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures? Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? : http://www.ummah.org.uk/what-is-islam/islam/revolut1.htm

Response:

A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures? Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand’s Islam will be well aware of it’s simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary?

Yes, it is man’ purpose to follow the ways of Allah.  Adam & Eve ensured our enslavement to evil when they fell to the temptation of Allah. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.ummah.org.uk/what-is-islam/islam/revolut1.htm

Response:

> Yes, I will stick with Jesus the Christ. HCV is just a temporary thing. You > hang in there.

AMEN!

Response:

Mustard or mayo? /// Ya that and a pastrami sandwich. Cactus Jammies "sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1111827396.826745.306510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… Perhaps this means that GOD’s goodness and love of humanity, as taught in the scriptures are found in each of us. At least this is food for thought?? Sharon http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/TheFamilyAlbum

Response:

"sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1111827396.826745.306510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… > Perhaps this means that GOD’s goodness and love of humanity, as taught > in the scriptures are found in each of us.  At least this is food for > thought?? > Sharon

You’re getting close but it isn’t a god. It’s a condition of life. "God" doesn’t exist except in the minds of superstitous people. Alias

Response:

Ya?  We’re celebrating the humilation and the abandonment of one of the trilogy right now.  Humans are nice folk!  God lives in Aruba.   Get there on air miles, save your knee caps. cactus jammies "sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1111827572.998873.245310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> YOu haave a believe in some kind of higher power, whatever it is called. > THat’s > enough to bring peace to your mind, EH/? > Sharon

Response:

Ya that and a pastrami sandwich. Cactus Jammies "sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1111827396.826745.306510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps this means that GOD’s goodness and love of humanity, as taught > in the scriptures are found in each of us.  At least this is food for > thought?? > Sharon

Response:

"Cactus Jammies" <n…@joshuatree.nemor> wrote > Ya that and a pastrami sandwich. > Cactus Jammies

Hate to change the subject to Hep C but pastrami with all its fat probably isn’t very good for you liver. Alias – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message > news:1111827396.826745.306510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… >> Perhaps this means that GOD’s goodness and love of humanity, as taught >> in the scriptures are found in each of us.  At least this is food for >> thought?? >> Sharon

Response:

I have been permanently bumped, it seems. Did I break rules>  I was much more gentle in my opinions than others in the argument.  WHat did I do? Sharon

Response:

"sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote >I have been permanently bumped, it seems. Did I break rules>  I was > much more gentle in my opinions than others in the argument.  WHat did > I do? > Sharon

You were not bumped. This is an unmoderated forum. Google usually takes hours to post your messages. How do you think Elmo gets away with his bathroom/fart obessesive posts? Alias

Response:

I am just being petulant, Sharon.  I am not really nasty.  It would help if you quoted the message you refer to in your comments so that those wishing to make comments, no matter how flatulent, have a better idea of the background.  By the way, about a third or more of the messages that come into this group get filtered out (killfied) before I ever see them, so that can confuse things.  If it is Alias, then just forget it. Thanks  8-) and sorry if I offended you.  I had the context all wrong. Cactus Jammies "sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1111837338.661406.309950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have been permanently bumped, it seems. Did I break rules>  I was > much more gentle in my opinions than others in the argument.  WHat did > I do? > Sharon

Response:

"Scott" <beefeea…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OeKdncxSOqfc6tnfRVn-tA@intertex.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Keep your Website Hosting in America > http://www.texasdomainsonline.com/ > "Alias." <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:R9W0e.27822$US.12386@news.ono.com… >> <tobees…@webtv.net> wrote in message >> news:27776-424427FC-372@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net… >>>i have no need to argue with you. you have made your statements. I have >>> made mine. Enough bickering. Its useless for me to assault you. Randy >> Back pedaling again, Randy? Usual method of getting out of an argument >> one is losing: insult the other debater and take your bible and go home. >> Heh. >> Alias > Randy took the high road.

Randy took the freeway exit. Alias – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Perhaps this means that GOD’s goodness and love of humanity, as taught in the scriptures are found in each of us.  At least this is food for thought?? Sharon

Response:

Well THAT’S a positive note.  For each of GOd is personal.  YOu haave a believe in some kind of higher power, whatever it is called.  THat’s enough to bring peace to your mind, EH/? Sharon

Response:

"sharon" <csharonx…@msn.com> wrote > Well THAT’S a positive note.  For each of GOd is personal.  YOu haave a > believe in some kind of higher power, whatever it is called.  THat’s > enough to bring peace to your mind, EH/? > Sharon

I believe in the Mystic Law. Don’t misrepresent this as a god. It is the natural law that is the foundation for reality and is based on cause and effect. It is not a "higher power" as it flows through everything, low and high. It is not a being, cranking out destinies as in the Christian god. It is your innermost core, your basic being. It can only be tapped through a correct practise. You can’t legislate world peace. You can’t change others. You can only change yourself for the better and if everyone, or at least a great majority, would do that, then world peace would be a natural consequence. The faith I practise concentrates on changing oneself and that’s the only way this fucked up world will change from the warring, blood soaked divided place it is now. AND, the reason the world is the way it is today with millions dying from preventable diseases as I type, is due to misleading religions and philosophies. Alias

Response:

"Alias." <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:R9W0e.27822$US.12386@news.ono.com… > <tobees…@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:27776-424427FC-372@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net… > >i have no need to argue with you. you have made your statements. I have > > made mine. Enough bickering. Its useless for me to assault you. Randy > Back pedaling again, Randy? Usual method of getting out of an argument one > is losing: insult the other debater and take your bible and go home. > Heh. > Alias

It’s difficult to know that we lived before..It is easier to know that we were dead before and from death we were made alive for we are the evidence.

Response:

– Keep your Website Hosting in America http://www.texasdomainsonline.com/ "Alias." <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:R9W0e.27822$US.12386@news.ono.com… > <tobees…@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:27776-424427FC-372@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net… >>i have no need to argue with you. you have made your statements. I have >> made mine. Enough bickering. Its useless for me to assault you. Randy > Back pedaling again, Randy? Usual method of getting out of an argument one > is losing: insult the other debater and take your bible and go home. > Heh. > Alias

Randy took the high road.

Response:

In article <9e59b6dad6e1a4b6742e274f25747…@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com>,  "burningdaylight" <burningdayli…@private.com> wrote: > Maybe we created God to make ourselves better people who care for each > other, and to develop ethics. Also to give us hope for the future, a life > after death so-to-speak. > With out some kind of belief we become bitter anarchists.

Not necessarily.   [...] > I’m not sure if there is a God or if we were developed by a superior alien > race (hopefully not as a food crop soon to be harvasted) but not all shit > just happens.

I wonder if HCV makes us inedible, or more flavorful? > Some kind of belief is still better than none, maybe that’s why you are so > damn miserable and why communism failed.

Communism failed for a lot of reasons.  One of them is that like with what’s going on with that poor woman in Florida, people in power had enough power that they thought no laws applied to them, only to those they wanted to control.

Response:

<tobees…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:27776-424427FC-372@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net… >i have no need to argue with you. you have made your statements. I have > made mine. Enough bickering. Its useless for me to assault you. Randy

Back pedaling again, Randy? Usual method of getting out of an argument one is losing: insult the other debater and take your bible and go home. Heh. Alias

Response:

Maybe we created God to make ourselves better people who care for each other, and to develop ethics. Also to give us hope for the future, a life after death so-to-speak. With out some kind of belief we become bitter anarchists. Creating our own God’s gives us a meaning to our lives. I agree that it is hard to believe in something that we can’t use our 5 senses on. I also can’t comprehend infinity or when time began, but I know that it’s there.  The human brain is to small to fully understand these things. I’m not sure if there is a God or if we were developed by a superior alien race (hopefully not as a food crop soon to be harvasted) but not all shit just happens. Some kind of belief is still better than none, maybe that’s why you are so damn miserable and why communism failed.

Response:

"burningdaylight" <burningdayli…@private.com> wrote in message

news:9e59b6dad6e1a4b6742e274f2574765c@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com… > Maybe we created God to make ourselves better people who care for each > other, and to develop ethics.

More like a way to control the superstitous masses. > Also to give us hope for the future, a life > after death so-to-speak.

Believing in something that isn’t true can’t lead to a hopeful future. It’s called living a delusion. > With out some kind of belief we become bitter anarchists.

Having faith is fine. What one has faith in, however, is different. > Creating our own God’s gives us a meaning to our lives.

Please. > I agree that it is hard to believe in something that we can’t use our 5 > senses on. I also can’t comprehend infinity or when time began, but I know > that it’s there.  The human brain is to small to fully understand these > things.

Please. The cop out is *always*, "god works in mysterious ways". > I’m not sure if there is a God or if we were developed by a superior alien > race (hopefully not as a food crop soon to be harvasted) but not all shit > just happens. > Some kind of belief is still better than none, maybe that’s why you are so > damn miserable and why communism failed.

Um, I do have faith. I recite our liturgy twice a day and invoke the Mystic Law, anywhere from 45 minutes to a couple of hours. Yaknow, your jumping to conclusions on things you know nothing of needs to be looked at, doncha think? And, I am not miserable, thank you. I am quite happy with my life. Oh, and I don’t believe in communism either. Alias

Response:

<tobees…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:17577-4243AB34-476@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net… > thru the years, i have learned a lot about hcv. in the liver, in the > blood. And how hcv and medicine can wreak havoc on people mentally. I > see the need for this ng. I see all of us come back here. No matter our > babbling. We all come here because of our ties. HCV. We have hope > thru-out our world. But we "feel hope" in here. We need this. HCV is a > "Grim thing." Some of you know of medical success in eliminating hcv. > from your body. Some of us pray for the miracle to happen to us. Alias, > maybe its not God for you. Then you must have greater faith in man. I > believe man is inspired by God. Thats what I feel. With this said and > written, I shall close. Randy

Yes, I will stick with Jesus the Christ. HCV is just a temporary thing. You hang in there. — Keep your Website Hosting in America http://www.texasdomainsonline.com/

Response:

thru the years, i have learned a lot about hcv. in the liver, in the blood. And how hcv and medicine can wreak havoc on people mentally. I see the need for this ng. I see all of us come back here. No matter our babbling. We all come here because of our ties. HCV. We have hope thru-out our world. But we "feel hope" in here. We need this. HCV is a "Grim thing." Some of you know of medical success in eliminating hcv. from your body. Some of us pray for the miracle to happen to us. Alias, maybe its not God for you. Then you must have greater faith in man. I believe man is inspired by God. Thats what I feel. With this said and written, I shall close. Randy

Response:

<tobees…@webtv.net> wrote  I > believe man is inspired by God. Thats what I feel. With this said and > written, I shall close. Randy

People used to believe the world is flat too but that didn’t make it so. There is no god, Randy. You have to take responsibility for your life yourself and stop trying to sluff it off on a non existant god. Alias

Response:

your opinion, Alias. you have no proof.

Response:

i have no need to argue with you. you have made your statements. I have made mine. Enough bickering. Its useless for me to assault you. Randy

Response:

<tobees…@webtv.net> wrote > your opinion, Alias. you have no proof.

I need proof to prove there isn’t a god? No, chum, the burden of proof is on you as you’re the one claiming there is a god, not me. Coupla questions, though. Do you believe it was a godly thing to do to knock up Mary and give Joseph a bastard son? How, exactly, did your god fuck Mary? Who were the witnesses or do we just have to believe without proof? If, as your god fearing superstitous religion says, there is a "spiritual kingdom", would you really want to go to a place where you wouldn’t have a body so you wouldn’t be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell? If god created the universe, where did he stand if nothing was created heretofore to stand on? Can you name me one country that has embraced Christianity that hasn’t gone to war in the name of your god? Explain this: Luke  20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. So, if the "kingdom of God" is within you and the Lord’s Prayer from Matthew, 6:9-12 says in part:  Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. one would think that we ourselves are gods and that heaven will happen when we manifest our god like nature right here on earth. Unfortunately, Christianity doesn’t offer a practise to attain this state and remains a hypocritical, superstitous warring scourge on humanity. Alias

Response:

says… *Some* Christians say it’s blasphemous. Not one of them had seen the show before they said so though.

A bit like muslims over Salman Rushdies satanic verses and the Sikhs over the play in birmingham you mean? And anyway, what does it matter if it is? You going to make it illegal to take the piss out of an unprovable concept? Any such legislation would be completely unworkable. I don’t want to belittle anyone’s religion, but how would you differentiate legislatively between the Christian god and say, the Tooth Fairy? The existence or otherwise of either is unprovable, and both have believers.

A bit like the "incitement to religious hatred" law? We either have a level playing field to take the piss out of all religions or non at all. You can’t have it both ways.

Response:

I think it’s about time we had a little consistency. It seems if you’re a darkie, you’re allowed to use your god given democratic right to demonstrate, regardless of how spurious, but if you happen to be white, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Come on, be fair – there are plenty of white idiot politicians and bible-thumpers willing to condemn things they haven’t watched/seen/read. It’s all just public posturing – it’s called ‘jumping on the bandwagon’. Remember ‘Brass Eye’? Mike — http://www.corestore.org "All I know is that I’m being sued for unfair business practices by Microsoft. Hello pot? It’s kettle on line two" – Michael Robertson

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something….. However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC. *Some* Christians say it’s blasphemous. Not one of them had seen the show before they said so though.

It would be difficult to prove this particular claim.  The show has been on stage for some time now (I saw it in Edinburgh in 2002).  How can you be so sure that none of the complainants had seen the show on stage before complaining about it being shown on BBC? Colin

Response:

It would be difficult to prove this particular claim.  The show has been on stage for some time now (I saw it in Edinburgh in 2002).  How can you be so sure that none of the complainants had seen the show on stage before complaining about it being shown on BBC?

Obviously I can’t! I was referring to those I had seen spouting off on the T.V. Sorry for the confusion. — Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.                 — George Orwell

Response:

It would be difficult to prove this particular claim.  The show has been on stage for some time now (I saw it in Edinburgh in 2002).  How can you be so sure that none of the complainants had seen the show on stage before complaining about it being shown on BBC? Obviously I can’t! I was referring to those I had seen spouting off on the T.V. Sorry for the confusion.

Other people have complained that those who objected shouldn’t have watched it if they found it offensive. It seems that the complainants can’t win either way. I watched it, thought it was utter depraved tripe, and can only suggest that anyone who finds this sort of thing entertaining needs to seriously examine their values.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography? Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line? Child porn isn’t a good analogy because it would be unlawful. A more accurate analogy might be a show which made fun of government ministers and offended those citizens who felt that our politicians deserved more respect and that if we make fun of them the rest of the world will have less respect for our government and for our nation. Child porn is a perfect analogy because blasphemy is also unlawful.

Okay, fair enough. Let us say that the BBC broadcasts a documentary showing naked children playing in a garden or on a beach, and dozens of concerned citizens ring to complain that such images are "plainly indecent",  that the images would appeal to paedophiles and that they amount to child porn. Their argument is that there should be no public display of children’s private parts.  Should we take any notice of such views? Should the moral standards of the entire country be dictated by a vociferous majority of cranks? Both porn and blasphemy are in the eye of the beholder and ultimately it would be up to a jury to decide.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something….. However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC.

*Some* Christians say it’s blasphemous. Not one of them had seen the show before they said so though. And anyway, what does it matter if it is? You going to make it illegal to take the piss out of an unprovable concept? Any such legislation would be completely unworkable. I don’t want to belittle anyone’s religion, but how would you differentiate legislatively between the Christian god and say, the Tooth Fairy? The existence or otherwise of either is unprovable, and both have believers. How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography?

It isn’t though, is it? Child pornography is illegal and has a physical victim. The two scenarios are not even remotely comparable. Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line?

– "All snakes who wish to remain in Ireland will please raise their right hands."                 — Saint Patrick

Response:

I also see he thinks that "The damage that must have done to impressionable young people is incalculable"; doubtless it is, as is the number of fairies living at the bottom of his garden.

That reminds me of one of the highlights of the Scott Inquiry, when William Waldegrave had signed a certificate saying that the disclosure of some information "would cause incalculable damage". He then said that by "incalculable damage" he had meant "incalculably minimal damage". — http://www.election.demon.co.uk "The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders, and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September 1993." – Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm Strange that Christian Voice, who are talking about bringing a prosecution didn’t think so to do earlier.   The show’s been running at the National Theatre and then the Cambridge for the last 2 years, and before that it was at the Battersea Arts Centre and the Edinburgh Festival.   It’s been widely (and generally favourably) reviewed and has   won four awards for best musical, so it’s hardly as if Christian Voice can have been unaware of its existence. AIUI, a private prosecution would require the consent of the Attorney General, and it’s certainly open to him to take over a private prosecution at any stage and discontinue it so it’ll be interesting to see how far it gets. I see from the report that ‘Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "If Jerry Springer – The Opera isn’t blasphemous then nothing in Britain is sacred." ‘He said the show was "much worse" than he expected when he saw it and said it portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant".’ which suggests Mr Green should reread Exodus 20:16 to remind himself of the Almighty’s views on false witness, since the show does no such thing.   I also see he thinks that "The damage that must have done to impressionable young people is incalculable"; doubtless it is, as is the number of fairies living at the bottom of his garden.

Steve, would I be right in thinking that many Christians are watching all this fuss with a certain amount of embarrassment for their more exciteable brethren? The media don’t seem to be interested in getting the views of a cross section of Christianity. — In the beginning was the word. But by the time the second word was added to it, there was trouble. For with it came syntax …                 — John Simon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something….. However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC. How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography? Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line? But was it blasphemous? I didn’t see it. I read reviews and heard reviews on the radio which suggested that the music was very good but the lyrics/script rather infantile at times. If you read "Private Eye" you may have noticed a vigorous debate about one of their front covers a few weeks ago, showing a nativity scene with a supposedly humorous speech bubble saying something like "apparently it’s David Blunkett’s". A number of readers said it was offensive to Christians and they would never buy the magazine again. The next week many readers including some Reverends wrote in to say they found the cover perfectly acceptable and rather funny. Child porn isn’t a good analogy because it would be unlawful. A more accurate analogy might be a show which made fun of government ministers and offended those citizens who felt that our politicians deserved more respect and that if we make fun of them the rest of the world will have less respect for our government and for our nation. As far as the licence fee is concerned, it is difficult to justify it at all. If we are to have a compulsory state broadcasting service maybe it could confine itself to news bulletins and the sort of drama that can be sold at a profit on DVD to recoup its production cost.

Child porn is a perfect analogy because blasphemy is also unlawful.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something….. However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC. *Some* Christians say it’s blasphemous. Not one of them had seen the show before they said so though. And anyway, what does it matter if it is? You going to make it illegal to take the piss out of an unprovable concept? Any such legislation would be completely unworkable. I don’t want to belittle anyone’s religion, but how would you differentiate legislatively between the Christian god and say, the Tooth Fairy? The existence or otherwise of either is unprovable, and both have believers. How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography? It isn’t though, is it? Child pornography is illegal and has a physical victim. The two scenarios are not even remotely comparable.

Blasphemy *is* also illegal. It is *exactly* the same situation. There are degrees of blasphemy as there degrees of CP. Maybe the BBC could start with ‘mild’ CP and work its way down to the hardcore stuff? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line? — "All snakes who wish to remain in Ireland will please raise their right hands."                 — Saint Patrick

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something…..

However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC. How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography? Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Damn. I missed it. What is the likelihood of it appearing again on TV eg on satellite channels?

According to today’s news, if you turn up at the theatre box office with a bible, you get to see the show live for a tenner a ticket. I watched the programme – great fun, and sent the BBC a message of support. — .sigmonster on vacation

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something….. However from a Christians point of view it is blasphemous, and not only is it blasphemous but they are paying for the blasphemy through the license fee. Good grounds for refusing to pay your license fee and for the break up of the BBC. How would you feel if the BBC was broadasting childpornography? Trot out your "you don’t have to watch it, there are other channels" line?

But was it blasphemous? I didn’t see it. I read reviews and heard reviews on the radio which suggested that the music was very good but the lyrics/script rather infantile at times. If you read "Private Eye" you may have noticed a vigorous debate about one of their front covers a few weeks ago, showing a nativity scene with a supposedly humorous speech bubble saying something like "apparently it’s David Blunkett’s". A number of readers said it was offensive to Christians and they would never buy the magazine again. The next week many readers including some Reverends wrote in to say they found the cover perfectly acceptable and rather funny. Child porn isn’t a good analogy because it would be unlawful. A more accurate analogy might be a show which made fun of government ministers and offended those citizens who felt that our politicians deserved more respect and that if we make fun of them the rest of the world will have less respect for our government and for our nation. As far as the licence fee is concerned, it is difficult to justify it at all. If we are to have a compulsory state broadcasting service maybe it could confine itself to news bulletins and the sort of drama that can be sold at a profit on DVD to recoup its production cost.

Response:

Steve, would I be right in thinking that many Christians are watching all this fuss with a certain amount of embarrassment for their more exciteable brethren? The media don’t seem to be interested in getting the views of a cross section of Christianity.

That’s certainly my impression.  Most people I’ve talked to were more bothered about all the swearing than anything else, and aren’t too bothered about that. Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave. ] Some bible bashing idiots are going to bring a private prosecution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm Strange that Christian Voice, who are talking about bringing a prosecution didn’t think so to do earlier.   The show’s been running at the National Theatre and then the Cambridge for the last 2 years, and before that it was at the Battersea Arts Centre and the Edinburgh Festival.   It’s been widely (and generally favourably) reviewed and has   won four awards for best musical, so it’s hardly as if Christian Voice can have been unaware of its existence. AIUI, a private prosecution would require the consent of the Attorney General, and it’s certainly open to him to take over a private prosecution at any stage and discontinue it so it’ll be interesting to see how far it gets. I see from the report that ‘Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "If Jerry Springer – The Opera isn’t blasphemous then nothing in Britain is sacred." ‘He said the show was "much worse" than he expected when he saw it and said it portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant".’ which suggests Mr Green should reread Exodus 20:16 to remind himself of the Almighty’s views on false witness, since the show does no such thing.   I also see he thinks that "The damage that must have done to impressionable young people is incalculable"; doubtless it is, as is the number of fairies living at the bottom of his garden. Steve

Response:

Is it the 1970s again? Mary Whitehouse back on the planet? Ian

It appears that the ghost of Mary Whitehouse has indeed returned. Mabon Dane

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave. ] Some bible bashing idiots are going to bring a private prosecution.

Damn. I missed it. What is the likelihood of it appearing again on TV eg on satellite channels?

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service?

I’d suggest you buy yourself a new TV…..Modern models come equipped with an "off" swicth, and a whole array of other buttons that allow you to change the channel when you don’t want to watch something…..

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service?

The fact that you watched enough of it to realise this, implies that you deliberately watched it with the sole intention of being offended, just so you would have something to complain about….. Sadly, this is often the way with god-botherers……

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? The fact that you watched enough of it to realise this, implies that you deliberately watched it with the sole intention of being offended, just so you would have something to complain about….. Sadly, this is often the way with god-botherers……

At least he watched it and then complained. I remember the Salman Rushdie carry on outside Bradford police station. The local Talibanis were bussed in an masse, much sword waving plus book and effigy burning. The local news reporters were on the scene, and asked "Whats your demonstration in aid of" and they were told of that this book is blasphemous to all muslims etc etc. They were then asked "Have you read it?" and every last man jack of them said "No" I think it’s about time we had a little consistency. It seems if you’re a darkie, you’re allowed to use your god given democratic right to demonstrate, regardless of how spurious, but if you happen to be white, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave.

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave.

] Some bible bashing idiots are going to bring a private prosecution.

Response:

Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave.

Prayer group to sue BBC: Source: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3979484

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Last night I saw some of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 and thought it was blasphemous.    Would a prosecution have a reasonable chance of succeeding?  Has anyone brought this up with the Crown Prosecution Service? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to handle viewing it all; in my opinion the fat man in a nappy wasn’t good enough at singing. Dave. Prayer group to sue BBC: Source: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3979484

Is it the 1970s again? Mary Whitehouse back on the planet? Ian

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   As humans can do more and more of what used to be   attributed only to gawds, the gawds have increasingly   become "gawds of the gaps" – their dominion becoming   restricted to just those things we still can’t do or   don’t understand. It’s an ever-shrinking domain … Famous Atheist Now Believes in God One of the World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence Associated Press NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

        Will you let us know when the Christian God makes this man wealthy and important? Paul

Response:

  As humans can do more and more of what used to be   attributed only to gawds, the gawds have increasingly   become "gawds of the gaps" – their dominion becoming   restricted to just those things we still can’t do or   don’t understand. It’s an ever-shrinking domain …

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God One of the World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence Associated Press NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. "I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. Do you believe in air that you cannot see?  Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?  Do you believe in pluto’s existence?  For all you know, Nasa is lying to you. You don’t have to believe Nasa or anyone else to see Pluto.  You can see it for yourself with a telescope.  Hey…in fact a little bit of looking for yourself can get you quite far! His mind only thinks 1-way. I would put his IQ at around 60.

Well, it pays to be a little generous I guess.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip to Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t. You aren’t going to reach anyone by attacking the gospel. Ah, but I’m not. I’m critiquing your method of spreading it, and believe it or not, there is a difference. God doesn’t exist because we believe. True. So?  We believe because God exists. Facile, but clever couplet.. Everyone knows it in their hearts.  It is not subjective but objective. Those are two diametrically opposed statements. You realize that, right? Your faith is in a fairy tale that you won’t share with others. I don’t share? My dear K.C., I’ll bet I’ve knocked on more doors and taught more people personally than you have posted usenet posts. (looking) Well, perhaps not, but I’ve done my share. My faith is in the God that died for sinners.  Those sinners I will continue to try to reach, no matter what wet blankets you try to throw on the Holy Spirit’s flame. Actually, I’m simply trying to teach you how to do a better job. You may not LIKE this, but just because I don’t agree with you about your methods does not automatically mean that I am A: inexperienced, B. atheist, (or even ‘not Christian’) C stupid or D; headed for hell. Indeed, all it means is that I have been trained in missionary work. I belong to a church that, whether you agree with it or not, or even whether you think it is CHRISTIAN or not, you would have to agree is VERY good at missionary work. We know what works. Indeed, no matter what else is thought of us, nobody has ever accused us of not being good missionaries for our beliefs. It’s not the gospel I am criticizing here. It’s your method of spreading it. I’m trying to do you a favor. On the other hand, considering that your version is probably something I don’t agree with completely, perhaps I should let you stumble along with your own methods. After all, I can always do it my way and teach all the people you have annoyed. When, that is, the bad taste has worn off and they are actually ready to listen. Diana

Diana, here is what I see.  You aren’t witnessing yourself and instead are spending your time on my thread telling me what I am doing wrong. K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods. Dear God, please let me be there when he gets the word .. Well, comfort ye in this…no matter which one of you is right about this, you are the only one who will be able to say ‘I told you so". Which is as far toward Pascal as I’m willing to go.

Not so. You seem to have forgotten the third option; if there is a god and it turns out to be other than the Christian god then both will be in trouble. Though the Christian will really be in for it for worshiping a false god. .. All religions, with their gods, demigods, prophets, messiahs and saints, are the product of the fancy and credulity of men who have not yet reached the full development and complete possession of their intellectual powers. — Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

To say that you know there is a "creator" is hogwash. You get your reasoning from a 2,000 year old book written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Your cosmology is hellenist not hebraist ..

But what about santa clause?

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods.

I agree but obsessive compulsives dont have a second to relax.  They aint gonna get it. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually.

It is tragic that these people waste their lives with Hebrew voodoo hobgoblinism and trying to control everyone’s life like dictators. Its pathetic.  They are already in hell and full of existential pains. They cant help it because of religion. Makes em stupid. CHALLENGING CHRISTIANITY’S STORY OF ITSELF When the victors who write history lie:

http://community-2.webtv.net/Tales_of_the_Western_World/RL/ HUMOR – HUMOR – HUMOR – HUMOR – …….:-)) THE POST ELECTION 2004 MAP:

http://community-2.webtv.net/Tales_of_the_Western_World/2004/ EGYPT, IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN, SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND BENGLADESH ARE RED STATES, TOO!!!

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods. I agree but obsessive compulsives dont have a second to relax.  They aint gonna get it. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. It is tragic that these people waste their lives with Hebrew voodoo hobgoblinism and trying to control everyone’s life like dictators. Its pathetic.  They are already in hell and full of existential pains. They cant help it because of religion. Makes em stupid.

I Disagree. They are not "stupid". Until 6 years ago, I followed the christian clan, I was (at the time) the only one in my family to question our beliefs. The low point of my life was when my mother said " You must be Satan if you won’t do as we do. " Yeah, I’m the Freak.

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods. Dear God, please let me be there when he gets the word ..

Well, comfort ye in this…no matter which one of you is right about this, you are the only one who will be able to say ‘I told you so". Which is as far toward Pascal as I’m willing to go.

Response:

Oh, so the bible doesn’t say or infer this? Wow George, you’re just full of it, aren’t you?

Dude, speakers imply; readers infer.  Your grammar is about on the same level as your rejoinders ..

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<snip to Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t. You aren’t going to reach anyone by attacking the gospel.

Ah, but I’m not. I’m critiquing your method of spreading it, and believe it or not, there is a difference. God doesn’t exist because we believe.

True. So?  We believe because God exists.

Facile, but clever couplet.. Everyone knows it in their hearts.  It is not subjective but objective.

Those are two diametrically opposed statements. You realize that, right? Your faith is in a fairy tale that you won’t share with others.

I don’t share? My dear K.C., I’ll bet I’ve knocked on more doors and taught more people personally than you have posted usenet posts. (looking) Well, perhaps not, but I’ve done my share. My faith is in the God that died for sinners.  Those sinners I will continue to try to reach, no matter what wet blankets you try to throw on the Holy Spirit’s flame.

Actually, I’m simply trying to teach you how to do a better job. You may not LIKE this, but just because I don’t agree with you about your methods does not automatically mean that I am A: inexperienced, B. atheist, (or even ‘not Christian’) C stupid or D; headed for hell. Indeed, all it means is that I have been trained in missionary work. I belong to a church that, whether you agree with it or not, or even whether you think it is CHRISTIAN or not, you would have to agree is VERY good at missionary work. We know what works. Indeed, no matter what else is thought of us, nobody has ever accused us of not being good missionaries for our beliefs. It’s not the gospel I am criticizing here. It’s your method of spreading it. I’m trying to do you a favor. On the other hand, considering that your version is probably something I don’t agree with completely, perhaps I should let you stumble along with your own methods. After all, I can always do it my way and teach all the people you have annoyed. When, that is, the bad taste has worn off and they are actually ready to listen. Diana

Response:

To say that you know there is a "creator" is hogwash. You get your reasoning from a 2,000 year old book written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Your cosmology is hellenist not hebraist ..

Oh, so the bible doesn’t say or infer this? Wow George, you’re just full of it, aren’t you?

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods. Dear God, please let me be there when he gets the word ..

LOL! Wow Georgie, you really don’t understand the man when he says there is no hell or gods. When you die George, you’ll just be another road kill for the vultures of life to enjoy.

Response:

Relax, there is no hell or gods.

Dear God, please let me be there when he gets the word ..

Response:

To say that you know there is a "creator" is hogwash. You get your reasoning from a 2,000 year old book written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Your cosmology is hellenist not hebraist ..

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation. Well, yeah. Your existence is proof of a designer. No, it’s proof of existance. Besides, are you sure you won’t die? I believe that what he said is ‘everyone dies eventually’. Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such? Do you? Do you believe in air that you cannot see? Try being in someplace without air and see if you believe in it’s existance. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen? Er, we can see them; we see their effects.. Do you believe in pluto’s existence? What, the dog? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.  You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure. This is the only thing you’ve said so far I agree with. Faith is something everybody uses. Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t. You aren’t going to reach anyone by attacking the gospel.  God doesn’t exist because we believe.  We believe because God exists.  Everyone knows it in their hearts.  It is not subjective but objective.  Your faith is in a fairy tale that you won’t share with others.  My faith is in the God that died for sinners.  Those sinners I will continue to try to reach, no matter what wet blankets you try to throw on the Holy Spirit’s flame. You need psychological help.

Don’t we all?  ;-) Jonathan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation. Well, yeah. Your existence is proof of a designer. No, it’s proof of existance. Besides, are you sure you won’t die? I believe that what he said is ‘everyone dies eventually’. Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such? Do you? Do you believe in air that you cannot see? Try being in someplace without air and see if you believe in it’s existance. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen? Er, we can see them; we see their effects.. Do you believe in pluto’s existence? What, the dog? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.  You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure. This is the only thing you’ve said so far I agree with. Faith is something everybody uses. Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t. You aren’t going to reach anyone by attacking the gospel.  God doesn’t exist because we believe.  We believe because God exists.  Everyone knows it in their hearts.  It is not subjective but objective.  Your faith is in a fairy tale that you won’t share with others.  My faith is in the God that died for sinners.  Those sinners I will continue to try to reach, no matter what wet blankets you try to throw on the Holy Spirit’s flame.

You need psychological help.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation. Well, yeah. Your existence is proof of a designer. No, it’s proof of existance. Besides, are you sure you won’t die? I believe that what he said is ‘everyone dies eventually’. Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such? Do you? Do you believe in air that you cannot see? Try being in someplace without air and see if you believe in it’s existance. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen? Er, we can see them; we see their effects.. Do you believe in pluto’s existence? What, the dog? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.  You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure. This is the only thing you’ve said so far I agree with. Faith is something everybody uses. Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t.

You aren’t going to reach anyone by attacking the gospel.  God doesn’t exist because we believe.  We believe because God exists.  Everyone knows it in their hearts.  It is not subjective but objective.  Your faith is in a fairy tale that you won’t share with others.  My faith is in the God that died for sinners.  Those sinners I will continue to try to reach, no matter what wet blankets you try to throw on the Holy Spirit’s flame. K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html P.S.  Who have you witnessed to today?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. Do you believe in air that you cannot see?  Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?  Do you believe in pluto’s existence?  For all you know, Nasa is lying to you. You don’t have to believe Nasa or anyone else to see Pluto.  You can see it for yourself with a telescope.  Hey…in fact a little bit of looking for yourself can get you quite far! His mind only thinks 1-way. I would put his IQ at around 60.

So, don’t answer my post but respond to others?  Go back and answer my lost post to you. K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. Do you believe in air that you cannot see?  Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?  Do you believe in pluto’s existence?  For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.

You don’t have to believe Nasa or anyone else to see Pluto.  You can see it for yourself with a telescope.  Hey…in fact a little bit of looking for yourself can get you quite far! -Rhyme

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. Do you believe in air that you cannot see?  Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?  Do you believe in pluto’s existence?  For all you know, Nasa is lying to you. You don’t have to believe Nasa or anyone else to see Pluto.  You can see it for yourself with a telescope.  Hey…in fact a little bit of looking for yourself can get you quite far!

His mind only thinks 1-way. I would put his IQ at around 60.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation.

Well, yeah. Your existence is proof of a designer.

No, it’s proof of existance. Besides, are you sure you won’t die?

I believe that what he said is ‘everyone dies eventually’. Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such?

Do you? Do you believe in air that you cannot see?

Try being in someplace without air and see if you believe in it’s existance. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?

Er, we can see them; we see their effects.. Do you believe in pluto’s existence?

What, the dog? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.  You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure.

This is the only thing you’ve said so far I agree with. Faith is something everybody uses. Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die?

Oh, boy, does THAT beg a lot of questions….. I CANNOT believe that I’m doing this, since I AM a Christian, believe that God created the universe and us, but K.C., how about being logical? Just a little bit? You aren’t going to reach anyone this way. The proof of the existance of God is personal, entirely subjective; unmistakable when it is felt, but all you can do to spread the gospel is to say ‘come and look, go, ask God’. Arguing gets you nowhere at all. Certainly THESE arguments don’t.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation. To say that you know there is a "creator" is hogwash. You get your reasoning from a 2,000 year old book written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

That’s not actually what the bible says.  In fact, it was a corrupt church (at the time) that suggested that unbiblical theory.  However, the bible talks of the "circle of the earth" long before science confirmed the bible as true in regards to it. However, you didn’t acknowledge that things were, in fact, created. Your existence is proof of a designer. It’s called evolution. The earth is Billions of years old, the human species is less than 2 million years old. Wake up. What nationality is your adam & eve characters? Where did all the races come from? Does your imaginary sky pixy condone incest?

Even Darwin believed in God.  Thomas Paine that wrote a critique of Christianity also said that atheists were fools, since we were all created from something.  Something cannot come from nothing, unless it is made by a Higher Power.  Science, in fact, is built on the idea that energy doesn’t get created anymore, only changes from form to form. Therefore, evolution hasn’t created anything. Besides, are you sure you won’t die? I am sure that I will, along with everyone else. Maybe sooner if you facist fearmongers keep up your holy wars, slaughtering people by the

thousands. In fact, all the peace organizations that have ever existed, started with Christians, and it was a Christian USA that defeated Hitler (FDR praying nationally on the air on D-Day). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such? That is correct. No santa clause, easter bunny or tooth fairy either. Do you believe in air that you cannot see? Yes, I breathe it all the time. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen? Does your house have electricity or do you use candles for light? Do you believe in pluto’s existence? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you. Do you believe the moon exists? Have you ever taken an IQ test? You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure.  Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? Do all species go to your imaginary "heaven" or just the human

species? In fact, they will go to heaven.  The bible talks of Jesus riding a horse and talks of other animals there as well (such as a lion and a lamb). K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually. To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation.

To say that you know there is a "creator" is hogwash. You get your reasoning from a 2,000 year old book written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Your existence is proof of a designer.

It’s called evolution. The earth is Billions of years old, the human species is less than 2 million years old. Wake up. What nationality is your adam & eve characters? Where did all the races come from? Does your imaginary sky pixy condone incest? Besides, are you sure you won’t die?

I am sure that I will, along with everyone else. Maybe sooner if you facist fearmongers keep up your holy wars, slaughtering people by the thousands. Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such?

That is correct. No santa clause, easter bunny or tooth fairy either. Do you believe in air that you cannot see?

Yes, I breathe it all the time. Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?

Does your house have electricity or do you use candles for light? Do you believe in pluto’s existence? For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.

Do you believe the moon exists? Have you ever taken an IQ test? You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure.  Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die?

Do all species go to your imaginary "heaven" or just the human species? Wake up!

Response:

Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell?

Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Relax, there is no hell or gods. Enjoy life and stop spending your time fearing death. Everyone dies eventually.

To say there is no creator is to say there is no creation.  Your existence is proof of a designer.  Besides, are you sure you won’t die? Do you also not believe in ghosts or demons or such?  Do you believe in air that you cannot see?  Do you believe in electrons that no one has seen?  Do you believe in pluto’s existence?  For all you know, Nasa is lying to you.  You take many things on faith, yet you don’t know for sure.  Are you sure enough of eternity to believe that life that began from the eternal breath of God could die? K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html

Response:

Don’t you care about your friends?  If you are a Christian and haven’t made sure they are saved, you aren’t loving them as you do yourself. Your desire to not offend them may be the greatest hurt you could do to them.  You could be God’s tool intended to reach them, and He may not bring anyone else.  Are you willing to let your friends or family members go to hell? Mention Jesus to your friends.  The life you bring into eternity may be standing right next to you.  Kirk Cameron has a show called Way of the Master that comes on Monday nights on TBN (6 central).  One of the illustrations he uses is that of a fireman going into a burning building.  If you see your friend..or for that matter a stanger…in a building on fire, don’t you go in an try to save them.  Why, then, wouldn’t you save your friends from the fires of hell?  Another illustration he uses is a man in a plane that is going down.  Wouldn’t you, standing nearby, make sure he puts on a parachute?  Why, then, would you let your friends and family fall into eternity without the Eternal Security of Jesus Christ.  Don’t you love them?  Think about it. K.C. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html

Response:

THE BEST OF ROGER PRICK (posting under his nom du voyage, Pearse) "Quite why you abuse me in this manner, I do not know." "[abuse]" 205 returned hits from 1 Jan 2004 to 10 Nov 2004 "I suggest in that case you seem medical assistance." "He that lives by the assertion, dies by it." "Such crass ignorance of history is depressing". "I hadn’t realised atheists were still keen on poison gas!" "What a nasty person you are!" "Feel free to hold your breath as long as you like, Shirley." "

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. It’s not meaningless. It shows how meaningless the omni- attributes are. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] What "drivel"? The only drivel is the rationalisation instead of dropping the omni- attributes. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". It’s not a psudo-paradox. Merely an illustration of the problems introduced by the omni-whatever attributes believers insist on.

Actually, it illustrates a problem that seems to have escaped notice over 2000 years, where do the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe come from. The Greeks sort of punted on that long ago. They concieved of the raw material of the Universe as being some sort of chaotic, unformed material from which by laws of its own it emanated the beings we call gods,  The Titan were the original gods who begat the Olympians who displaced them. Where this chaos came from was something they gave up explaining, but they did derive the idea that the Universe thus had no beginning and no end. Later philosophers explained that chaos by positing a god, a prime mover, who many concieved of having started the Universe and then doing nothing further. When the xian theologians adopted the Greek philosopher’s prime mover god, which was said to be the source of this chaos, a later development beyond the classic emanation claims, they did not change that idea materially, but tried grafting that god to the biblical god. But never did explain where this god came from any more than the Greeks. The Greeks tried to make minimum claims for this god to avoid these issues and xianity followed. The problem has now shifted from theology or philsophy to cosmology, physics, we have discarded gods and chaos and prime movers, and emanations but the problem remains, why does the Universe exist and where do the rules that allow it exist come from? Christianity instead got involved with long christological puzzles such as battles over the nature of god, Jesus and the trinity, and similar puzzles. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie

Response:

1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc.

Why is it meaningless. Because what I asked was a deeper question. Does god make the rules.  Does the fact a triangle has certain properties a fact derived by god’s choosing those rules? Or is there some reason a triangle must have these properties that god cannot in principle change? If so, where do those rules come from. You have decided to ignore the real issue here, and you have failed to appreciate the issue. Your answerr has nothing to do with the real issue I pointed out here. Where do the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe come from? If outside of god these things may well be impossible, but arepossible if god does make the rule and can change them. That’s the whole point you have utterly missed. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]

You didn’t get it, did you? OK, one more time, where do the rules and the laws and the  logic of the Universe come from?   God or beyond and outside god. I have yet to see anybody honestly and competently  deal with my challenge. You have not. You don’t even seem to have read it and noted the real challenge. Where do the laws of the Universe, the laws and logic  of the Universe come from?  God or outside god and beyond his control? You have not adequately dealt with my disproof. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".

I posed to you a problem, the source of the rule, the laws and logic of the Universe. You do not seem capable of understanding that simple problem and the fact that either answer has consequences. Or maybe you did and have decided to avoid those consequences by avoiding an honest answer on the important issue I raise. Where do the laws, the rule, the logic of the Universe come from, god, or outside god? Your attempt here is inadequate and wrong. I have yet to see a single theist even attempt to deal with this issue honestly. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist? First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here.

Reasonable adults don’t post a one line reply to a 200+ line post. I note you still brushed off dealing with my proof. Again. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie

Response:

1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse?

Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". Regards, Len.

Response:

| The 32 points describes below are a means to disprove intelligence, | consciousness and will. actually bob, they are 32 fairly well thought out points that actually *employ* intelligence in both assertion and validation. | I cannot create a square circle, therefore, I cannot be intelligent, | conscious or have will. that’s rhetorical…like "note to self: i am neither intelligent, conscious, nor have will". creation denotes a mark of intelligence but the inability to create does not logically nullify one’s capacity in the least! besides, if you can read for comprehension, the point of the argument was that if the thing called a square, or triangle, or octagon is immutable (change-able but not without becoming something wholy different that what it was) then god is powerless to create a true square having sides of differerent lengths, a triangle with more than three sides, or an octagon having something other than eight. the inference you should have gotten is that it is more reasonable to assume that natural law both exists and is at least equal to the the big g’s power…point being that he cannot be omnipotent. and if i predict your rebuttal, the act of abdication of power infact renders the all-powerful less than all-powerful…less than omnipotent even if that be temporary. either way, that just begs the question of clarification: "is god omnipotent *all* the time?"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In article First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own. Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll? I make it a policy not to concede to the demands of people when they are being abusive.

You found an excuse not to deal with my disproof. Again. — Kerry – two medals a silver and bronze star. Bush? Well they don’t give medals for going AWOL, missing your medical and getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool. Kerry – a hero, Bush – a zero Cheerful Charlie

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".

A casual caring person will risk his or her life to save a child from certain death. A person who stood by in no danger and knowing what would happen and did nothing would be condemned. The world spends billions of dollars every year to cure diseases. Even today over 1,000,000 children a year die a horrible death just from malaria. Claiming a God loves us a paradox.

Response:

|Live and corpse are by defintion different. tell that to the corspe!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? Or paradoxes are the result of competing definitions. Live and corpse are by defintion different. A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped] People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". A casual caring person will risk his or her life to save a child from certain death. A person who stood by in no danger and knowing what would happen and did nothing would be condemned.

So then, the desire to save children (x) is in service to avoid the consequence of condemnation (y) Who will condemn you? I wouldn’t. The world spends billions of dollars every year to cure diseases. Even today over 1,000,000 children a year die a horrible death just from malaria. Claiming a God loves us a paradox.

Applying human perceptions to a god concept seems illogical.

Response:

1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle?

What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]

People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence". Regards, Len.

Response:

1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? What you are describing is not impossible; it is meaningless. Most "paradoxes" concerning omnipotence are of this character. Can God create a live corpse? A rock bigger than the earth but smaller than your head? Etc., etc., etc.

It’s not meaningless. It shows how meaningless the omni- attributes are. [vast quantities of the same drivel snipped]

What "drivel"? The only drivel is the rationalisation instead of dropping the omni- attributes. People often create pseudo-paradoxes using the property that language can produce self-contradictory statements. It’s a handy way of creating deep-sounding nonsense. You are in effect introducing a spurious definition of "omnipotence".

It’s not a psudo-paradox. Merely an illustration of the problems introduced by the omni-whatever attributes believers insist on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Len.

Response:

First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here.

When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own.  Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism.

It’s all the fault of that nasty internet. I will leave it to someone with time on his hands to attempt refuration of your arguments point-by-point. I will add, however that atheism strong or weak, is neither one a new idea. — Chinese accordions suck.

Response:

atheism lite snip Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists.

You say "denial" as if someone would be denying a fact.  Do you DENY that Unicorns and Satyrs exist?  (hint: the bible speaks of both). You see, prior to 25 years ago, people would be ostracized from their community and risk being fired or having their career destroyed by stating they were an atheist. 200+ years ago, atheists would have risked their lives claiming their beliefs. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism.

Discussion and understanding are both Good things.  Thank God for the Internet.  (or Al Gore, depending on your take) Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak!

I lack the belief in a God or gods.  I lack the belief in YOUR god. The word ‘deny’ can be taken many ways…  If asked, I would deny the existence of all gods since I have chalked them up to mythologies created to explain man’s view of the universe. Do you DENY the existence of invisible pink unicorns?  How can you deny their existence? Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument.

Is your denial of invisible pink unicorns a cop-out?  Is your lack of belief in them somehow WEAK and an attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof? This isn’t rhetorical…   please do answer. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor.

I believe there is no proof of any gods.  My evidence of my claim is that no one has any proof of any gods. What "evidence" could their possibly be for the non-existence of something? Please show us your EVIDENCE that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.  (again… not rhetorical, please post your evidence here) The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith]

So you say you don’t believe there are invisible pink unicorns.  Good. So by your claim (at least your cut-and-paste claim) you must show us all PROOF that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.   Lacking such proof, you must, by ‘logical’ conclusion, begin BELIEVING in invisible pink unicorns! So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order.

Is it really so TALL?  What about your claim that no god other than your god exists?  Your views on all the other gods is that you don’t Believe in them.  Your "proof" that they don’t exist is that your religious texts says that you should put no gods before your god… it doesn’t say other gods don’t exist though!!!   Is it a tall order when you (presumably) claim that invisible pink unicorns don’t exist?  (answer please) If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend.

The Proposition is this:  Atheists have seen no proof of your god or any god (hence don’t believe in gods). The primary proposition is THERE IS NO PROOF.  The only argument you can bring forth to that proposition is proof. Defense of the atheistic view is simple.  Show us why your god is real and all the others are false.  It’s exactly the same as you not being able to show us proof that the invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Contemporary atheists claim that Christians are atheists about the gods of other religions because they deny their validity and refuse to worship them. That is perfectly true, but irrelevant, for is not the issue that really concerns modern atheists – "weak" ones who affirm that they are simply without belief in the supernatural, or "strong" ones who actively deny the existence of the supernatural.

This isn’t irrelevant in the least.  It’s trying to explain to Christians how atheists view the christian god.  The best way to do that is to find common ground… Atheists and Christians see eye-to-eye on 99% of the gods. The classical view does not automatically dismiss the realm of the spirit or of the supernatural while the contemporary one does just that. The ridiculous claim that because atheists reject all gods whereas Christians only reject 99%, therefore Christians are hypocrites, is nothing more than a polemical ploy – meaningless in a discussion about the validity and reality of the supernatural or the evidences for or against a proposition. It results in the frequent contradiction of atheists arguing vociferously in favour of other non-Christian gods in order to attack the Christian God!

Who in the hell are you cutting-and-pasting here?  Why would you think that explaining the world view of Atheists is equivalent to attacking the Christian god? And I suspect quite strongly that most atheists come to Christian sites to prey because they (let’s be brutally honest) hate Christianity. It is a simple as that. They have no great worldview vision that will enrich the lives of humanity; they just hate the religion that their parents forced them to follow in their childhood and youth. And they are angry!

First off, I’m responding to this from ALT.ATHEISM.  In general, most atheists don’t HATE Christians, and, personally, I’ve never met one in real life that does.   Atheists seem to always be battling against Christians because Christians (at least the vociferous ones) would love to see secular society be ruled by religious laws. . . that is, THEIR interpretations of THEIR religious laws. This is a direct threat to all people (Christian, other-faithed, and atheist) who don’t agree with the current fundamentalist world view. Isn’t it the truth of the matter that weak atheists ("atheism lite") are cowardly, unwilling to accept real full strength atheism, but incapable of stating their true position, which is that they really don’t know – in other words agnosticism?

Are you a coward and unwilling to accept the fact that invisible pink unicorns exist? Of course you’re not, and atheists, weak or strong, are not cowardly either. James, Seattle

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. When you want to use usenet showing courtesy to others by not forcing them to re-download a 200 or 400 line post, we may think that you have something worthwhile to say. Mr Barwell rebuked you, harshly but justifiably, but then gave a lengthy response, which you re-posted *again* without any response of your own.  Why do I get the impression that you are either a clueless newbie or a worthless troll?

I make it a policy not to concede to the demands of people when they are being abusive.

Response:

So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist? First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it.

When you want to discuss the topic like a reasonable adult, I’ll be here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, when an Atheist such as myself, takes the god that everybody jabbers about in the broad sense and shows it cannot exist as dogmatically defined, don’t as you did in another thread, just brush it off dishonestly.  You and others have so far failed utterly and dishonestly to deal with my disproof in any honest and intellectually rational manner. Most assuredly because you cannot. It is up to the theist to define what is to be disproven or proven. You are the clowns that keep babbling about "god". I have taken the broadest definitions used throughout history and show that this sort of god is not acceptable. What a theist has to do first of all, is be honest about this. You have a god that is well defined in the broadest senses, dogmatically. Since these claimed definitions cause this a priori god to self destruct, you cannot present any evidence at all. You could however, abandon th etheological god, this omni-everything, greater than anything that can be concieved god. You could go with the old fashioned bible god. But there is a problem here too.  Archaeology has debunked the OT, there was no Egyptian capivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody, genocidal invasion of Canaan by Moses or Joshua. Archaeology has debunked all of that. The Bible god is a being who is said to have at certain times, done certain things, at certain places, involving certain people. These places, times and people and happenings are now shown to not have happened.  God is like them, a character in a novel paraded as history, which it is not. So the bible god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is likewise as the theological omni-everything god, non-existant. We can likewise apply the same debunking to the Hindu religion likewise. So you can’t wave that ugly bible at us as proof either, not anymore. What do we require of the thesit? First of all in YOUR case, honesty, which in case of disproving god, you have not shown. Intellectual honesty and abandoning irrationality, sophistry, word games and other failed and dishonest and sleazy attempts to slide around this problem. Next, define what it is you want to prove, honestly. No slippery sliding aorund, no changing definitions on the fly, no word games, no equivacations. Next, hard evidence for any claimed attributes for god or any other claimed facts. If you say god is omnipotent, whats the hard evidenc for that claim? One empty assertion is the equal of  any other. Which is no worth at all. If a theist says God is omnipotent and tells me he has no need to offer evidence, I say, god does not exist,  I have no more need to offer evidence than you do. My claim is just as good as yours. If I offer a good argument and you brush it off with specious and dishonest excuses, you lose right there. You have no chance if you cannot be honest, and you cannot change my mind without dealing honestly with my counter arguments, which you have not. Neither does your buddy Virgil who refuses to even acknowledge my argument, while lying that no Atheist can disprove god. You cannot prove anything to any atheist as long as you are dishonest and irrational. Mind you, my little argument here is just PART of it al, there is more, but when you guys can’t even bring yourself to argue honestly this far, we don’t even get to the debunking your bible god as I did above. So to begin with, you can start by being honest, and rational. Which so far over the two years I have been arguing, not one theist has been either rational or honest. Which is heartening.  I must be on the right track if all I can get out of the theist clown pack here in AA is lame attempts to brush this off and pretend it doesn’t exist. Virgil doesn’t even have the guts to even mention my repeated posts, slapping his face with this disproof. God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.  The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? 2.  That really asks the question, does god create the rules,     the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus     can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3.  Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try     answering yes. 4.  If yes, god could easily create a world where man has     free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5.  But in this world we see that man often does moral     evil. 6.  If god could create such a word since he creates the     Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively     the creator of all evil, past, present and future.     Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could     easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed     man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do     moral good. 7.  Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all     evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent,     rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8.  Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent     rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not     acceptable. 9.  God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or     the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god     himself may not do evil, but that this does not     mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s     nature to be good. Thus they do not account this     inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will     either.  Thus the idea of man being unable to do     evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument,     if they refuse to apply the same standards and     reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by     theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing     evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will,     but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where     man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing     moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can     be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.     But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic     of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,     then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic     are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim     is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims     such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all     thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent.  But if he is limited     by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,     obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic     claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that     is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator     of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not     make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,     they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either     preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot     have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created     all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the     Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,     being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent     would have known that by creating such a Universe, he     was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because     he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back     to claiming god is omni-malevolent.  Thus such a dodge     fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds     Christianity,  Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil     in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,     yet evil exists.  he either camnnot or will not end     evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or     omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy     used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand     Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous     traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,     cannot exist as claimed.   19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible     and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology     used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed     methodology and its basic method, making overarching     assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems     pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue     using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,     special pleading, double standards and failing to     adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting

… read more »

Response:

So then, that men in history have written about X is not suficeint to be believe X is true. I’m curiuos. What evidence do you require of the theist?

First of all, asshole, don’t post a 200+ line post to add one line to it. Second, when an Atheist such as myself, takes the god that everybody jabbers about in the broad sense and shows it cannot exist as dogmatically defined, don’t as you did in another thread, just brush it off dishonestly.  You and others have so far failed utterly and dishonestly to deal with my disproof in any honest and intellectually rational manner. Most assuredly because you cannot. It is up to the theist to define what is to be disproven or proven. You are the clowns that keep babbling about "god". I have taken the broadest definitions used throughout history and show that this sort of god is not acceptable. What a theist has to do first of all, is be honest about this. You have a god that is well defined in the broadest senses, dogmatically. Since these claimed definitions cause this a priori god to self destruct, you cannot present any evidence at all. You could however, abandon th etheological god, this omni-everything, greater than anything that can be concieved god. You could go with the old fashioned bible god. But there is a problem here too.  Archaeology has debunked the OT, there was no Egyptian capivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody, genocidal invasion of Canaan by Moses or Joshua. Archaeology has debunked all of that. The Bible god is a being who is said to have at certain times, done certain things, at certain places, involving certain people. These places, times and people and happenings are now shown to not have happened.  God is like them, a character in a novel paraded as history, which it is not. So the bible god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is likewise as the theological omni-everything god, non-existant. We can likewise apply the same debunking to the Hindu religion likewise. So you can’t wave that ugly bible at us as proof either, not anymore. What do we require of the thesit? First of all in YOUR case, honesty, which in case of disproving god, you have not shown. Intellectual honesty and abandoning irrationality, sophistry, word games and other failed and dishonest and sleazy attempts to slide around this problem. Next, define what it is you want to prove, honestly. No slippery sliding aorund, no changing definitions on the fly, no word games, no equivacations. Next, hard evidence for any claimed attributes for god or any other claimed facts. If you say god is omnipotent, whats the hard evidenc for that claim? One empty assertion is the equal of  any other. Which is no worth at all. If a theist says God is omnipotent and tells me he has no need to offer evidence, I say, god does not exist,  I have no more need to offer evidence than you do. My claim is just as good as yours. If I offer a good argument and you brush it off with specious and dishonest excuses, you lose right there. You have no chance if you cannot be honest, and you cannot change my mind without dealing honestly with my counter arguments, which you have not. Neither does your buddy Virgil who refuses to even acknowledge my argument, while lying that no Atheist can disprove god. You cannot prove anything to any atheist as long as you are dishonest and irrational. Mind you, my little argument here is just PART of it al, there is more, but when you guys can’t even bring yourself to argue honestly this far, we don’t even get to the debunking your bible god as I did above. So to begin with, you can start by being honest, and rational. Which so far over the two years I have been arguing, not one theist has been either rational or honest. Which is heartening.  I must be on the right track if all I can get out of the theist clown pack here in AA is lame attempts to brush this off and pretend it doesn’t exist. Virgil doesn’t even have the guts to even mention my repeated posts, slapping his face with this disproof. God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.  The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? 2.  That really asks the question, does god create the rules,     the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus     can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3.  Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try     answering yes. 4.  If yes, god could easily create a world where man has     free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5.  But in this world we see that man often does moral     evil. 6.  If god could create such a word since he creates the     Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively     the creator of all evil, past, present and future.     Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could     easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed     man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do     moral good. 7.  Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all     evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent,     rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8.  Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent     rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not     acceptable. 9.  God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or     the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god     himself may not do evil, but that this does not     mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s     nature to be good. Thus they do not account this     inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will     either.  Thus the idea of man being unable to do     evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument,     if they refuse to apply the same standards and     reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by     theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing     evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will,     but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where     man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing     moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can     be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.     But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic     of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,     then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic     are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim     is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims     such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all     thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent.  But if he is limited     by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,     obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic     claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that     is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator     of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not     make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,     they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either     preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot     have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created     all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the     Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,     being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent     would have known that by creating such a Universe, he     was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because     he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back     to claiming god is omni-malevolent.  Thus such a dodge     fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds     Christianity,  Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil     in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,     yet evil exists.  he either camnnot or will not end     evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or     omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy     used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand     Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous     traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,     cannot exist as claimed.   19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible     and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology     used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed     methodology and its basic method, making overarching     assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems     pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue     using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,     special pleading, double standards and failing to     adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting     assertions not proven one way or another and in     the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all     together with rhetorical questions "How can limited     man hope to understand an infinte god?".  These     sorts of statments are simply indications that the     person in question is not going to be rational or     reasonable or change his or her mind faced with     facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all     expectations of respect for one’s claims, that     person has abandoned reason and intellectual     honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of     the Universe?  And what

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.  The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The 32 points describes below are a means to disprove intelligence, consciousness and will. I cannot create a square circle, therefore, I cannot be intelligent, conscious or have will. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? 2.  That really asks the question, does god create the rules,     the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus     can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3.  Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try     answering yes. 4.  If yes, god could easily create a world where man has     free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5.  But in this world we see that man often does moral     evil. 6.  If god could create such a word since he creates the     Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively     the creator of all evil, past, present and future.     Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could     easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed     man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do     moral good. 7.  Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all     evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent,     rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8.  Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent     rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not     acceptable. 9.  God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or     the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god     himself may not do evil, but that this does not     mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s     nature to be good. Thus they do not account this     inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will     either.  Thus the idea of man being unable to do     evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument,     if they refuse to apply the same standards and     reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by     theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing     evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will,     but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where     man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing     moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can     be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.     But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic     of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,     then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic     are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim     is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims     such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all     thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent.  But if he is limited     by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,     obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic     claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that     is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator     of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not     make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,     they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either     preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot     have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created     all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the     Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,     being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent     would have known that by creating such a Universe, he     was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because     he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back     to claiming god is omni-malevolent.  Thus such a dodge     fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds     Christianity,  Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil     in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,     yet evil exists.  he either camnnot or will not end     evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or     omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy     used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand     Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous     traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,     cannot exist as claimed.   19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible     and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology     used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed     methodology and its basic method, making overarching     assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems     pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue     using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,     special pleading, double standards and failing to     adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting     assertions not proven one way or another and in     the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all     together with rhetorical questions "How can limited     man hope to understand an infinte god?".  These     sorts of statments are simply indications that the     person in question is not going to be rational or     reasonable or change his or her mind faced with     facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all     expectations of respect for one’s claims, that     person has abandoned reason and intellectual     honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of     the Universe?  And what can we say about them? 23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic     understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things     are made up of matter and energy, operating in a     framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known     by science, physics, chemisty, astronomy and other     sciences. 24. There is no room in these laws and rules of     the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities     that have will and who act. Thinking beings     are made of matter and energy and subject to rules     of chemistry and physics. 25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology     bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence     that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.     Much less the Grand God of theological tradition. 26. The failed theological methodology of making     unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims     is not an acceptable method for doing so, since     as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a     methodology. 27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural     versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural     world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world     has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world     of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural     worlds or entities can be found. 28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural     world or entities might exist are unproven, and     it is the burden of anyone making such a claim     to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before     attempting to use claims of the existance of a     supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for     existance of god.  And by prove, I mean to produce     good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,     not assertions that may or may not be true.     This is the failed theological methodology and is     no longer acceptable. 24. There is a difference between making theoretical     claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard     evidence a god exists.  Claiming god exists based     on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a     supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.       One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it     is hard evidence.  Arranging assertions in a manner     that proof or disproof is impossible because it     involves a general disproof of a negative is not     acceptable as a methodology for providing hard     evidence of a god. 25. Since to save god’s omni-benevolence, one must     admit that god did not create the rules and laws     and logic of the Universe, we know that these things     are beyond and outside god.  But theology cannot     tell us we what  these things are,and where they come     from. Since these things must limit god, failure to     be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules     in the setting of theological claims about god, this     means until theology handles this honestly and     adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about     god, even theoretically. 26. Theology must do this if it is to make further     claims about god in an attempt to save the concept     of god by making further assertions or claims.     One cannot describe god apart from a world in which     god must operate and exist with existing features     preceeding and

… read more »

Response:

<snip 229 lines of mind-numbingly boring pedantic drivel I’m sorry…. you had a point?

Response:

atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less."

God disproved. By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology, the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.  The god that is defined as the most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1.  Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or     a 4 sided triangle? 2.  That really asks the question, does god create the rules,     the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus     can change them at a whim, or for a reason? 3.  Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try     answering yes. 4.  If yes, god could easily create a world where man has     free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good. 5.  But in this world we see that man often does moral     evil. 6.  If god could create such a word since he creates the     Universe’s rules, and does not do so,god is effectively     the creator of all evil, past, present and future.     Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could     easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed     man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do     moral good. 7.  Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all     evil and is himself evil, that is omnimalevolent,     rather than as claimed, omnibenevolent. 8.  Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent     rather than omnimalevolent, this is obviously not     acceptable. 9.  God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or     the logic of the Universe. 10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god     himself may not do evil, but that this does not     mean god is not omnipotent, because it is god’s     nature to be good. Thus they do not account this     inability to do evil as limiting god’s free will     either.  Thus the idea of man being unable to do     evil should likewise not be allowed as an argument,     if they refuse to apply the same standards and     reasoning to god, that would be special pleading. 11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by     theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing     evil, evil is necessary to allow for free will,     but that dodge is not acceptable in a world where     man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing     moral evil is impossible. It can’t be used here. 12. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can     be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.     But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic     of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,     then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic     are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim     is obviously not true. 13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims     such as Anselm’s ontological proof and these are all     thus falsified. 14. God is supposedly omnipotent.  But if he is limited     by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,     obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic     claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that     is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma. 15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator     of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not     make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,     they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either     preceed him or parallel god’s existance, he cannot     have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created     all is false also. 16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the     Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,     being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent     would have known that by creating such a Universe, he     was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because     he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back     to claiming god is omni-malevolent.  Thus such a dodge     fails. 17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds     Christianity,  Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil     in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,     yet evil exists.  he either camnnot or will not end     evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or     omnipotent. 18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy     used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand     Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous     traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,     cannot exist as claimed.   19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible     and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology     used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed     methodology and its basic method, making overarching     assertions without evidence is a failed methodology. 20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems     pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue     using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,     special pleading, double standards and failing to     adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting     assertions not proven one way or another and in     the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all     together with rhetorical questions "How can limited     man hope to understand an infinte god?".  These     sorts of statments are simply indications that the     person in question is not going to be rational or     reasonable or change his or her mind faced with     facts. 21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all     expectations of respect for one’s claims, that     person has abandoned reason and intellectual     honesty for obscurantism and superstition. 22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of     the Universe?  And what can we say about them? 23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic     understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things     are made up of matter and energy, operating in a     framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known     by science, physics, chemisty, astronomy and other     sciences. 24. There is no room in these laws and rules of     the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities     that have will and who act. Thinking beings     are made of matter and energy and subject to rules     of chemistry and physics. 25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology     bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence     that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.     Much less the Grand God of theological tradition. 26. The failed theological methodology of making     unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims     is not an acceptable method for doing so, since     as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a     methodology. 27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural     versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural     world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world     has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world     of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural     worlds or entities can be found. 28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural     world or entities might exist are unproven, and     it is the burden of anyone making such a claim     to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before     attempting to use claims of the existance of a     supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for     existance of god.  And by prove, I mean to produce     good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,     not assertions that may or may not be true.     This is the failed theological methodology and is     no longer acceptable. 24. There is a difference between making theoretical     claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard     evidence a god exists.  Claiming god exists based     on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a     supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.       One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it     is hard evidence.  Arranging assertions in a manner     that proof or disproof is impossible because it     involves a general disproof of a negative is not     acceptable as a methodology for providing hard     evidence of a god. 25. Since to save god’s omni-benevolence, one must     admit that god did not create the rules and laws     and logic of the Universe, we know that these things     are beyond and outside god.  But theology cannot     tell us we what  these things are,and where they come     from. Since these things must limit god, failure to     be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules     in the setting of theological claims about god, this     means until theology handles this honestly and     adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about     god, even theoretically. 26. Theology must do this if it is to make further     claims about god in an attempt to save the concept     of god by making further assertions or claims.     One cannot describe god apart from a world in which     god must operate and exist with existing features     preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining     any possible god. 27. Possible alternative gods.     A believer might criticize this as it does not     disprove all types of gods, but, as this does     disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,     that claim does not saves this god.  And indeed it     is possible to disprove other god concepts. 28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and     numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions     were basically built on the idea of nature gods,     that these gods are responsible for features     of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,     cattle and fields, for important activities like     growing wheat.  But today, science explains these     things

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This just lengthy obfuscation. A silly attempt to discredit atheism by claiming they have no proof god does not exist. This is turning logic upside down. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something does not exist. You can only say you do not believe it exists because there is no evidence of it’s existence. The atheist belief is that their is no proof or objective evidence that gods exist. The burden is on the theists to submit objective evidence and proof that gods do exist. Ancient documents, like the Bible, are nothing but documents prepared by errant men and are not PROOF of anything other than the existence of these documents. They are not proof or objective evidence of any gods. — Bill atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him&#8230;Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God." This is thoroughly disingenuous and self-serving. I am staggered (or perhaps I am not) at the frequency and boldness with which this asinine assertion is put forward by self-proclaimed freethinkers and rational thinkers who should no better, but continue on their merry way butchering the laws of logic and the rules of evidence. Atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism" in a book highly praised on the Secular Web site by the aforementioned Jeff Lowder: "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims. As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals. It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group". "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" [Ernest Nagel in "Critiques of God" Prometheus Books, 1976. ] So in 1976 a well-known atheist clearly outlined the dominant understanding among atheists of atheism at that time. One can see that in the 25 years since the first appearance of "Critiques of God", many atheists have deserted the traditional atheist position and have embraced what was formerly a minority position. Why? Short-term memory loss or something more sinister? Donn Day has done some detailed research into the etymology and history of the term atheism and he reports that as far as he can ascertain the revised usage of the word "atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of the new "redefinition" seems to have appeared in, "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web’s top ten atheist books. This is how Smith defined atheism: "Atheism therefore, is the absence of theistic belief…in its main form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief." A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following definition: "…an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important…To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘God’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely, this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is a lack of belief." In 1984 philosopher Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism concurred, but he, at least, to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition: "&#8230;we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist." Now I think we all understand that words and their meanings evolve and change over time in any language, but the current "hopeful monster" definition of atheism is definitely a case of punctuated equilibrium – it has happened so incredibly fast!

… read more »

Response:

On 05 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists.""

Wrong. — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department Vote for John Kerry God belongs in church, not the White House.

Response:

Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms

Then why the fuck are you bothering to post 229 lines of blathering to the contrary about it?

Response:

This just lengthy obfuscation. A silly attempt to discredit atheism by claiming they have no proof god does not exist. This is turning logic upside down. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something does not exist. You can only say you do not believe it exists because there is no evidence of it’s existence. The atheist belief is that their is no proof or objective evidence that gods exist. The burden is on the theists to submit objective evidence and proof that gods do exist. Ancient documents, like the Bible, are nothing but documents prepared by errant men and are not PROOF of anything other than the existence of these documents. They are not proof or objective evidence of any gods. — Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him&#8230;Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God." This is thoroughly disingenuous and self-serving. I am staggered (or perhaps I am not) at the frequency and boldness with which this asinine assertion is put forward by self-proclaimed freethinkers and rational thinkers who should no better, but continue on their merry way butchering the laws of logic and the rules of evidence. Atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism" in a book highly praised on the Secular Web site by the aforementioned Jeff Lowder: "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims. As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals. It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group". "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" [Ernest Nagel in "Critiques of God" Prometheus Books, 1976. ] So in 1976 a well-known atheist clearly outlined the dominant understanding among atheists of atheism at that time. One can see that in the 25 years since the first appearance of "Critiques of God", many atheists have deserted the traditional atheist position and have embraced what was formerly a minority position. Why? Short-term memory loss or something more sinister? Donn Day has done some detailed research into the etymology and history of the term atheism and he reports that as far as he can ascertain the revised usage of the word "atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of the new "redefinition" seems to have appeared in, "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web’s top ten atheist books. This is how Smith defined atheism: "Atheism therefore, is the absence of theistic belief…in its main form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief." A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following definition: "…an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important…To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘God’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely, this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is a lack of belief." In 1984 philosopher Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism concurred, but he, at least, to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition: "&#8230;we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist." Now I think we all understand that words and their meanings evolve and change over time in any language, but the current "hopeful monster" definition of atheism is definitely a case of punctuated equilibrium – it has happened so incredibly fast! The origin of the terms "atheist" and "atheism" can be traced to ancient Greece where they were applied to any who refused to acknowledge the official gods of the state. The Greeks designated as atheists those who, usually in the name of another faith, separated themselves from the established religion. The word "atheism" is a direct cognate (to use the technical term), a transliteration of the Classical Greek word "atheos" .Its meaning, is best expressed

… read more »

Response:

atheism lite "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — no more, no less." "The question is," said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master — that is all." (Lewis Carroll "Alice Through the Looking Glass") Atheism as traditionally and historically understood has always involved the denial of the existence of God or gods. [see below for evidence of this assertion]. In fact until approximately 25 years ago virtually no one would dispute this, certainly not committed atheists. With the advent of the Internet however and the increasing number of debates and exchanges between theists and atheists, many atheists have been forced by the speciousness of their arguments to adopt a new understanding of atheism. Traditional/historical atheism is now referred to as "strong" atheism while an increasingly popular form of atheism rearing its head on the Net and elsewhere is known as "weak" atheism – the notion that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. And it truly is weak! Atheists certainly have every right to define their worldview on their own terms but I suspect that the majority of atheists one meets on Internet forums are actually too young to realize that they have deserted the classical position of atheism of their "spiritual [sic] forefathers. "Strong" atheism is the only respectable form of atheism, the weak version is nothing but a cop out; a flagrant attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof that always falls to the person who makes any assertion or argument. "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed." [Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith] No less a luminary than Interent Infidel Jeffrey Jay Lowder admits "anyone who claims, ‘God does not exist,’ must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."" So, presto, why not shift the burden of proof!? And this is exactly what a new generation of atheists are doing; they do not have a solid case to build for their position so they hide behind the cop out of pretending that they merely are "without" or "lacking" belief in God. Everyone knows the dictum "you cannot prove a negative", so to claim absolutely that gods do not exist is a pretty tall order. Isn’t that why fewer atheists these days are willing to make such a claim? A claim by the way that atheists of the 20th century made without flinching. Consider Jean Paul Sartre near the end of his life: "I have caught the Holy Ghost in the cellars and flung him out of them. Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe I have gone through it to the end." If belief is defined, as it is, as a positive attribute of trust, commitment and assent, then it is saying absolutely nothing of significance to proclaim that one simply "lacks" it. One does not produce dozens of web pages and appear on hundreds of forums merely to defend the proposition that you don’t have a proposition to defend. It is lunacy on the part of "born again weak atheists" to even bother to come to Christian boards and chatgroups – unless one is a "Christ-hater", an anti-Christian, or an anti-theist (i.e. a God denier) – because one cannot logically and sanely get worked up over a God whom one claims is meaningless and non-existent. If one has no positive proposition to put forward, one is nothing more than a naysayer or a sick individual who gets his jollies by mocking the positive beliefs of others – positive beliefs being something he apparently lacks. Are you guys nuts? Get a life. As is asserted in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism: "If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of something (God), so the burden of proof is on him

***You’re a freakin’ nut case.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Every American elgible to vote should know that: Bush and his extremist fundamentalist supporters  want all hell to break loose. They believe that Armageddon is inevitable and coming very soon! They think that some nutty extremist Christian God (who cares only for extremist Christian Fundamentalists)  will pick up those of them who are nutty enough and take em up to heaven where they’ll sit around grinning at Jesus forever-n-ever,  while the those of us who survive the nuclear devastation will stay here in the hell that they created. A vote for Bush (or Nader) is a vote for Armageddon. Support Bush (or Nader) and you’ll be asking for global nuclear devastation. This is truly a global crisis. The Bush regime is the worlds greatest threat to world peace. Besides the 20,000+ Iraqi civilians killed in the illegal and immoral invasion/occupation, all the bombs dropped in their neighborhoods, despite the US installed puppet regime there, and all of the overweight American recent high school grads who are running around their homeland armed to the teeth (and thinking that they’re great heros), here’s another thing that the Iraqi people are repulsed by: Bush is setting up 14 permanent military bases in Iraq Rarely reported, the U.S. desires permanent military bases in Iraq David Francis, Christian Science Monitor [A] dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn’t located two of them. Permanent bases in Iraq are a "disastrously bad idea," says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. It reinforces Iraqi suspicions that the US launched the war to get a hand on Iraqi oil, control the region, and wants to maintain a puppet government in Baghdad. continues here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html An Eye for an Eye We have extracted some tons of flesh From poor Iraqi people whom we were falsely led to believe posed a threat to us But the bombings will not abate Because the humvees, jets and bombs have such  high profit rates With Bush we have a permanent war strategy Which means a permanent pork barrell for  billionaires So they keep us ignorant of the truth Blind to what they don’t want to let us see The 20,000+ Iraqi Civilians murdered by our troops All those mothers, children and little babies with their guts hanging out Will never be seen on American T.V. Because America’s present leadership has an obsence love for power and profits What does it profit a nation to gain a fortune and lose it’s soul? The USA is the world’s greatest obstacle to world peace. The billionaire controlled news media have led millions of American people to believe the opposite of the truth. WAR photos every American who’s elgible to vote should see: http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org http://www.empirenotes.org/ http://www.democracynow.org A vote for Bush (or Nader) is a vote for global misery. Support Bush (or Nader) and you’ll be asking for global nuclear devastation. http://www.johnkerry.com Most people outside of the USA news media propaganda umbrella are extremely worried about the effect of another 4 years of Bush’s extremist insanity. "Man must change or die. There is no other course." The World Teacher http://www.share-international.org .

Response:

Every American elgible to vote should know that: Bush and his extremist fundamentalist supporters  want all hell to break loose. They believe that Armageddon is inevitable and coming very soon! They think that some nutty extremist Christian God (who cares only for extremist Christian Fundamentalists)  will pick up those of them who are nutty enough and take em up to heaven where they’ll sit around grinning at Jesus forever-n-ever,  while the those of us who survive the nuclear devastation will stay here in the hell that they created. A vote for Bush (or Nader) is a vote for Armageddon. Support Bush (or Nader) and you’ll be asking for global nuclear devastation. This is truly a global crisis. The Bush regime is the worlds greatest threat to world peace. Besides the 20,000+ Iraqi civilians killed in the illegal and immoral invasion/occupation, all the bombs dropped in their neighborhoods, despite the US installed puppet regime there, and all of the overweight American recent high school grads who are running around their homeland armed to the teeth (and thinking that they’re great heros), here’s another thing that the Iraqi people are repulsed by: Bush is setting up 14 permanent military bases in Iraq Rarely reported, the U.S. desires permanent military bases in Iraq   David Francis, Christian Science Monitor [A] dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn’t located two of them. Permanent bases in Iraq are a "disastrously bad idea," says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. It reinforces Iraqi suspicions that the US launched the war to get a hand on Iraqi oil, control the region, and wants to maintain a puppet government in Baghdad. continues here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html An Eye for an Eye We have extracted some tons of flesh From poor Iraqi people whom we were falsely led to believe posed a threat to us But the bombings will not abate Because the humvees, jets and bombs have such  high profit rates With Bush we have a permanent war strategy Which means a permanent pork barrell for  billionaires So they keep us ignorant of the truth Blind to what they don’t want to let us see The 20,000+ Iraqi Civilians murdered by our troops All those mothers, children and little babies with their guts hanging out Will never be seen on American T.V. Because America’s present leadership has an obsence love for power and profits What does it profit a nation to gain a fortune and lose it’s soul? The USA is the world’s greatest obstacle to world peace. The billionaire controlled news media have led millions of American people to believe the opposite of the truth. WAR photos every American who’s elgible to vote should see: http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org http://www.empirenotes.org/ http://www.democracynow.org A vote for Bush (or Nader) is a vote for global misery. Support Bush (or Nader) and you’ll be asking for   global nuclear devastation. http://www.johnkerry.com Most people outside of the USA news media propaganda umbrella are extremely worried about the effect of another 4 years of Bush’s extremist insanity. "Man must change or die. There is no other course." The World Teacher http://www.share-international.org .

Response:

<snip for space, but gotta say: LOVE your response!! That’s a quote for H.L. Menken who couldn’t stand the church.  Funny you are trying to twist it into something that supports it.  Doesn’t God have his own sense of humor or does he have to borrow from his enemies too?

To answer your question, Nevermore, of "doesn’t God have his own sense of humor…?" I believe the answer is "look at the platypus".  Remember the movie Dogma?  They stated that in the opening sequence. It MUST be so! [great post, Nevermore]

Response:

What a sad, pathetic and small God you have… He’s very comforting, Kelly. He gives peace and he made the universe.

Did not.

Response:

What a sad, pathetic and small God you have…

He’s bigger than yours. — Terrell At least when right-wingers rant, it’s because their tiny little heads are pointed.

Response:

What a sad, pathetic and small God you have… He’s very comforting, Kelly. He gives peace and he made the universe. Did not.

===They never tell you who made "him"! — L.

Response:

What a sad, pathetic and small God you have… He’s bigger than yours.

===That’s so funny! Back to the ole’ "My God’s better than your God" — L.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –         [SNIPALOT] 4. "The Bible was written by men." As an objection, this is by far the silliest. When you write a letter, are you writing it, or is the pen? As I type this column, am I writing it, or is my computer? Clearly, the pen, or the computer, is the instrument, not the writer. The same principle applies to the writers of Scripture. They were instruments, but God’s Spirit is the author. ===None of the writers compiled in the Bible considered themselves a mere "instrument" of any "spirit". You apparently also believe that "channelers" are actually having their hands moved by some spirits or alien beings. The Bible declares of itself ===This is totally false, in fact a BIG LIE, used to entice people into believing things your pick out for them from the Bible, together with your particular sect’s spin and interpretation. The Bible declares NOTHING. It is like a BASKET, a LIBRARY, a COLLECTION of books written, indeed, BY MEN! That includes the man who, under the false name of "Paul", stated his OPINION about certain "writings" (translated as "scripture"). that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) He could not have meant the "Bible", because it had not yet been compiled at that time! and the proof is in the pudding. The writers of Scripture ranged from shepherds to kings to fishermen, but the 66 books that make up the Bible read as a single, harmonious narrative emanating from a Single Author. ===And THAT is an even bigger LIE! The authors could not even agree what to call their "God", what "God" did or did not order them to do, how seriously those orders ("laws") must be taken, or simple details such as where Jesus family lived before he was born, who was the father of Joseph, how many donkeys he rode into Jerusalem, etc., etc. Every prophecy made in the Bible about specific events, places and times have come true to the letter. ===More lies. Not a simile "prophecy" was ever fulfilled, though some have been written after the fact, others have been twisted and reinterpreted (e.g. Hosea 11:1-2 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I  called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images." This is interpreted as a "prophecy" about Jesus having lived in Egypt, fulfilled, according to the story in "Matthew", which, BTW, is contradicted by "LUKE". Some are not yet fulfilled because it is not yet the time. ===VERY FUNNY! It is like a fortune teller telling you she was right, only the predicted time has not yet come. But the record in history is 100 percent accuracy. This is why we have only the books in the Bible that have been authenticated by fulfilled prophecy. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. ===Lies, lies, more lies! Just like the one about Egypt. — L.

excuse me "Libertardius the Ludicrous" but "L.Roberts." wrote no such shit, it was your anal buddy "Gactimus the Prophylactimus", who wrote that stupidity to which you added your stupidity, so scroff you anus spinctercus.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. "Seeing is believing. I’ve never seen God, so how do I know He exists?" Nobody has ever seen the wind, but there is no doubt of its power. Nobody has seen history, but there is no doubt of its legacy. Nobody has seen a person’s mind, but that doesn’t make us mindless. TV and radio waves are invisible, but with the proper receiver, we can see their results. Having never seen God is not much of a reason for rejecting Him, if you get right down to it. Let’s see if we can do better. 2. "I may have broken the Ten Commandments, but I do good things for people. If God is fair, the scales will balance." One look at "Hollywood morality" should dispel this one. They commit adultery in their youth, and then become involved in giving to AIDS research, etc., as they grow older. In their minds, they think that they are balancing the scales. They have done bad, and now they are doing good. It doesn’t work that way, even before an imperfect judge in a secular courtroom