Does any one believe in any God anymore?

[Red Devil]

Herne the Hunter

Chagur - even better than google is a little known but widely used (here anyway) program called web ferret from www.ferretsoft.com its a freebie and searches all the search engines for you, I use it for every project that I do. Supreme program and FREE!!

 

[Chagur]

Red Devil ...

Downloaded, installed, gave it a quick check ... awsome!

Thanks much! Hope to return the favor some day.

Chagur

 

[Red Devil]

Chagur

Glad you liked it - always glad to be of service!

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by thecurly1
I read a thread that stated there couldn't be a Christian God. I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THEM RIGHT OR WRONG! Most of the responses agreed with the athesist view, I was wondering if anyone does believe. I'm feelinga bit alone in my faith in a supreme being

Plenty believe.

You're not the only one this has happened to...

And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
(1 Kings 19:10, KJV).

God's answer...
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
(1 Kings 19:18, KJV).

You would do well to remember the parable of the sower...

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Luke 8:5-8, KJV).

As you will notice, the first thing that happens is the fowls of the air dive in...

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
(Luke 8:11,12, KJV).

The very first attack is a flurry of "fowls" to take away the word from your heart, if they can.

It is worth looking at some of the posts by tiassa. They are a great source for the various forms and devices used by those "fowls."
A huge flurry of crap.

Originally posted by tiassa
I recall that I harped on Tony1 on this point, but I'm not entirely sure; it's probably in one of those war-torn threads he and I left behind.

Fun, though, isn't it?

Sooner or later, I'm hoping that you realize that you may wish to live.

I remember finding it impossible to work past the limits of a God that was All, yet required such individual attention; when I realized that such schemes as redemptive religions put humanity at the center of the Universe's reason for being, I also realized that this is not necessarily true.

I find it rather sad that, in throwing out Catholicism, you also threw out the possibility of non-corporeal beings whose sole purpose is to waylay you, somewhat the same way there are people called thieves whose sole purpose is to waylay you.

Some of your thoughts are supplied by such.

Would y'all like some skirts and pompoms?

No.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Why is is that most people, when attempting to defend their god or religious beliefs immediately swing into the "quotes" from some version of the bible or other?

Saves time, plus the word of God has power on its own to perform what is needed.

Do these god fearing people not have a mind of their own?

You quote Carl Sagan. Do you not have a mind of your own?

Religious zealots spout the almighty, threats of eternal damnation and this goddamn bible thing - they have no originality of thought.

There is only one outcome for those who do not believe in God.

Besides, there is only one truth. For originality, you can seek the many lies that exist.

If you actually believe in the existence of god - in whatever form, then that's fine by me but please stop spouting all that religious claptrap and threatening me with hellfire.

No threat.
But if you feel threatened by hell fire, it might be worth finding out why.

There is no hell by the way - the only place we go to after this is utopia - THIS existence is hell!

Hell is the grave.
Everyone goes there.

I had better define that Utopian statement hadn't I? I think that there is a life after this, on purely personal grounds, but I do. However, I think it is in the form of "astral planes" - a further stage in evolution of the mind - not the soul - the mind.

That is an unusually fine distinction.
The Greek word for soul is "psyche," which, coincidentally, is used in the word "psychology," which, in turn, is referred to as the science of the mind.

Consider this, if when we die, there is nothing, just "black" - what was the point of us being here? Not to serve HIM who must be obeyed, but to earn our stripes so to speak. Like the god lovers - I can't prove a word, but it will be intersting to find out, but I'm in no rush!!

No rush?
You plan to live a long time.

Originally posted by Cupric
I am pagan, and worship a divine being loosely identified as Mother Earth in Her female aspect, and the GreenMan in His male aspect. I'm probably a bit more religious about it that Tiassa is, but overall I think he and I have similar thoughts on the subject.

You probably think Christianity sounds nuts.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Respect for the planet we live on, respect for her forests and waters, as with the native american - they were more in tune, so I have been told, with nature than anyone.....

You would have to have been told that.
There is little evidence for it

Buffalo jumps were an interesting idea for being "in tune" with nature. Run the entire herd off a cliff, and skin the top few for hides, and something to eat.

BTW, do you know what the feathers on the headdresses mean?
Each feather was received for killing another native american, while being "in tune" with nature, of course.

Of course, more in line with being "in tune" with nature, each feather was an eagle feather.

Originally posted by Chagur
Their 'being in tune with nature' was more a matter of lack of technology, relatively small numbers in a large land, and being nomadic. They'd just move on then things got too yucky and when they returned, Mother Nature had pretty well done her thing.

Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too.
Of course, some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff.
How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?
And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?

As to what they would have achieved 'IF they had wanted them' can't really be discussed. How do you 'want' something you have no knowledge of?

How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?

It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did.

It is a spurious argument to claim that one group was nomadic and the other wasn't, when both groups were at one time.
What were the native americans doing while the Europeans were progressing?

The claims of science are that both groups were nomadic hunter/gatherers 10-12,000 years ago.
Why the huge difference by the 1800's?

My church would consist of the whole world - anywhere wild and free is my temple.

I guess your church is getting smaller by the minute.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony1 ...

Just a couple of notes, since I think we may have hit some progress in the Montesquieu thread that; I'd rather see what comes of that, first, but I did want to comment on one part of the present topic:

Fun, though, isn't it?

Sooner or later, I'm hoping that you realize that you may wish to live.

* I agree that it's usually quite fun; the threats of violence against a cultural tradition and the endorsements of murder (Lawdog) were disturbing enough, but the mudslinging generally stays on the pleasantly-frustrating side of things.

* ... wish to live: I would refer you back to the Montesquieu thread; I choose not to comment until I have a better perspective on an issue I've addressed to you there.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Chagur]

Tony1

"Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too."

Like around four to five thousand BC, and even then, only in Northern Europe.

"...some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff."

For the most part, at the time they discovered the New World, they were still throwing their 'night soil' out the window.

"How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?"

Through warfare mostly.

"And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?"

See first reply.

"How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?"

Contact with North Africa and Asia, which the Native Americans did not have.

"It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did."

Just the opposite, see third reply.

"What were the native americans doing ... "

The obvious: Surviving.

Isn't it odd that the concept of 'taking coupe' was indiginous to Native Americans ... for all their supposed killing of each other? And that 'raiding parties' were the norm rather than warfare?

 

[Red Devil]

Native american love of nature

Yes, I was told that the Native American was very much in tune with nature - by a full blood cherokee! Who, incidently, is well versed in the "old ways" and is trying to keep it alive, by teaching young "natives" the way...........

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Chagur
"Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too."

Like around four to five thousand BC, and even then, only in Northern Europe.

So, this excuses the native american how?

"...some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff."

For the most part, at the time they discovered the New World, they were still throwing their 'night soil' out the window.

Is that what the original poster was talking about when referring to "yucky stuff?"

"How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?"

Through warfare mostly.

So, you're saying the native american didn't learn?

"And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?"

See first reply.

So, Europeans being nomadic allowed them to learn, but the same doesn't apply to the native american?
What was wrong with them, in your view?

"How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?"

Contact with North Africa and Asia, which the Native Americans did not have.

Your point appears to be that the Europeans didn't learn on their own.
So how did the Africans and the Asians learn things?
Who were they in contact with?

"It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did."

Just the opposite, see third reply.

The native americans were too busy NOT killing each other to learn things?
A unique sociological theory, too busy NOT doing something to learn.

"What were the native americans doing ... "

The obvious: Surviving.

So, while Europe was easy to survive in, America wasn't?
Why are the non-native americans doing so well, then?

Isn't it odd that the concept of 'taking coupe' was indiginous to Native Americans ... for all their supposed killing of each other? And that 'raiding parties' were the norm rather than warfare?

And I suppose you think the "raiding parties" were all about panty raids?
Your head is stuck deep in the sand.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Yes, I was told that the Native American was very much in tune with nature - by a full blood cherokee!

Of course, if someone told you that Jesus is Lord, you wouldn't believe that.

Being "in tune" with nature doesn't necessarily mean wrapping yourself in animal skins.
After all, wrapping yourself in animal skins means that animals had to die.
I wonder if those animals felt in tune with nature, as arrows, which aren't natural, were piercing their hide?
If the native americans were as "in tune" as they claim to be, why didn't they make clothes from cotton, linen and wool, all of which are natural?

 

[Chagur]

Thank you, Tony1 ...

Your comment

If the native americans were as "in tune" as they claim to be, why didn't they make clothes from cotton, linen and wool, all of which are natural?

put the seal on what I was beginning to believe: You're totally ignorant of Native American life and culture.

They, the Native Americans, never 'claimed it'; they lived it. It was modern, Anglo, myth that went from the 'ignorant savages' (the level you appear to be at) to the 'noble savage' and then to the 'in tune with nature' bull.

Go back to arguing religion where 'real' is whatever you want it to be.

Chagur

 

[tony1]

Re: Thank you, Tony1 ...

Originally posted by Chagur
...the 'in tune with nature' bull.

looks like you've got a problem with Red Devil and the Cherokees.

They said it, I didn't.

 

[Chagur]

No Tony1 ...

The problem I have is with you and your apparent ignorance of not only Native American culture but also of a number of other things. Like that flax was not indiginous to North America. Native cotton and certain grasses which were, and later wool, were woven by the Navajo and Pueblo at least six to seven hundred years prior to the coming of the Spanish to this continent.

I think you have missed your calling. You have a talent that most movie ad writers would envy in that you can extract a few words and using them out of context, support you position. Or at least attempt to.

 

[Red Devil]

Anything I say.........

So Tony1 - anything I say and anything I believe is rubbish! What gives yout the right to be right - omnipotently? Instead of an intelligent discussion on whether the native american was in tune or not in tune with nature - you have decided that we are all wrong and only you is right. Manitou was real to the native american and their teachings/acts went accordingly. Love thy environment, replace what you remove etc etc. That is in tune with nature to a certain extent, your idea of being in tune with nature is obviously Bon Jovi singing a country and western song about fruitcakes in the springtime! Now, as a Brit, who lost the colony to the very same people who then very nearly wiped out these native americans, I can only go by what I read, research and what I am told. Therefore I do not form an opinion until I know what I am talking about, or at least I THINK I know what I am talking about. You appear to have neither researched your arguement nor "planned it out". The Native American was far more in tune with nature than you may think. The Europeans, on the other hand, did not give a toss about nature, uprooting entire forests cause some bandit was hiding there is not exactly environmentally friendly - just one example that I know of. Chernobyl was not e.f. either.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Chagur
The problem I have is with you ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chagur
...the 'in tune with nature' bull.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Red Devil
So Tony1 - anything I say and anything I believe is rubbish!

See above.
I believe it was Chagur who called it "bull."

What gives yout the right to be right - omnipotently?

It comes with the territory.

Instead of an intelligent discussion on whether the native american was in tune or not in tune with nature - you have decided that we are all wrong and only you is right.

Let the chips fall where they may.

Manitou was real to the native american and their teachings/acts went accordingly. Love thy environment, replace what you remove

What did you say, "replace what you remove"?
I guess they still owe several million buffalo.
Not the ones they ate, but the ones they ran off the cliffs to rot in the sun.
Look up "buffalo jump" some day, when you get a chance.

The Native American was far more in tune with nature than you may think.

Oh, they live pretty naturally, alright.

The Europeans, on the other hand, ...

How would you describe the difference in the level of, oh say, civilization, between the two groups in the year, let's say, 1775?

 

[Tiassa]

You should really learn history, Tony

What did you say, "replace what you remove"?
I guess they still owe several million buffalo.
Not the ones they ate, but the ones they ran off the cliffs to rot in the sun.
Look up "buffalo jump" some day, when you get a chance.

Yeah ... whatever. We know about the buffalo jump.

Nonetheless, the buffalo did not get nearly wiped out until it was the white man doing the hunting.

How would you describe the difference in the level of, oh say, civilization, between the two groups in the year, let's say, 1775?

Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0

The Europeans--the eventual Americans--destroyed everything in their path. They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first.

Sure, the locals were behind the times technologically; and, sure, some of them fought with their neighbors. But European-American civilization was anything but civilized. Americans would go on and wage biological warfare against the tribes. How repugnant can you get?

I consider Thanksgiving Day in the US to be a cultural slap in the face. It would be like Germany celebrating the Kristallnacht. And look at what we think of the Germans who do and get airtime on Frontline, or some such. Columbus Day? Given the technological advantage, why don't the Germans celebrate Hitler's birthday? Hint: They don't. And for a reason, too. They figured it out. Of course, I disagree with what I've been told about speech laws in Germany, but I'm not there so I figure that's something for the people to decide.

It comes with the territory.

I think you've just confessed to living a delusion. At last, we can move forward.

Otherwise, explain yourself. We'd all like to see that one.

,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: You should really learn history, Tony

Originally posted by tiassa
We know about the buffalo jump.

You mean you've heard of it.

Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0

The indigenous were 4 times as civilized as the Europeans?
Are you sure it wasn't 3.987 times?

The Europeans--the eventual Americans--destroyed everything in their path. They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first.

Of course, the native Americans destroyed every trace of the people before them.
Or, do you have some evidence proving otherwise?

Sure, the locals were behind the times technologically; and, sure, some of them fought with their neighbors.

Some of them?

But European-American civilization was anything but civilized.

Why is it called civilization, then?

I consider Thanksgiving Day in the US to be a cultural slap in the face.

What's stopping you from moving to a better country?

 

[Tiassa]

Four divided by zero is one? Four times zero is four?

Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The indigenous were 4 times as civilized as the Europeans?
Are you sure it wasn't 3.987 times?

You've missed, Tony. But we're not surprised.

Four times as civilized would put the score at 4-1.

Whether the score is 1-0 or 1 googleplex to 0 makes no difference. Despite the faults of the indigenous cultures--and all human cultures have faults--the tribes were infinitely more civilized than Europeans.

Of course, the native Americans destroyed every trace of the people before them.
Or, do you have some evidence proving otherwise?

Can you provide evidence of those peoples? The Anasazi, perhaps? Mitochondrial DNA studies show links between peoples of Asia and the indigenous American tribes. In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling. But I wouldn't demand that; the literary record only goes so far back in history, so it's not likely anyone remembers.

Why is it called civilization, then?

Because the Europeans liked to pretend they were civilized. The word stuck for lack of allowable diversity.

What's stopping you from moving to a better country?

Ahh ... the old slogan: America, love it or leave it. See, Tony, that's the point of having a revolution against the British crown in the first place. The intent was to build a society where people were not compelled to leave for such stupid reasons as a bunch of Christians trying to homogonize the population through ostracism and destruction. Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Oh, wait, I forgot you had no use for history. Too bad; maybe then you'd realize how ridiculous you're being.

Try some remedial math while you're at it ... in fact--reading, math, history ... sounds like you need to start at about the fourth grade and try the whole thing over.


Tiassa

 

[Red Devil]

"Can you provide evidence of those peoples? The Anasazi, perhaps? Mitochondrial DNA studies show links between peoples of Asia and the indigenous American tribes. In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling. But I wouldn't demand that; the literary record only goes so far back in history, so it's not likely anyone remembers."

According to archaeologists etc - the Anastsi suddenly uprooted and left due to some climatic upheaval which dried up their water source and devasted their agriculture.

 

[Tiassa]

Thanx, Red Devil

I believe you have the point exactly. It does not appear to be the Anasazi destroyed by the tribes encountered by the Europeans.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Four divided by zero is one? Four times zero is four?

Originally posted by tiassa
Despite the faults of the indigenous cultures--and all human cultures have faults--the tribes were infinitely more civilized than Europeans.

I guess I didn't miss by as much as you suggested.
Infinitely more civilized would put the score close to 4-0.

In any case, why would I, or anyone, take your word for the level of civilization?
Do you actually believe the noble savage theory?

Can you provide evidence of those peoples?

That would be your job, since you made the claim that the native Americans were first.
(*They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first. *)

In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling.

Again, that would be your burden, since you made the claim that the native Americans were here first.
The onus is on you to prove that they were here first.

Because the Europeans liked to pretend they were civilized.

The native Americans didn't even bother to pretend?

Ahh ... the old slogan: America, love it or leave it.

Well, your slogan, anyway.
I simply asked why you wouldn't move to a better country.

Try some remedial math while you're at it ... in fact--reading, math, history ... sounds like you need to start at about the fourth grade and try the whole thing over.

Perhaps the infinity thing stumped you.

 

[machaon]

Supreme being. Nacho supreme.

Life is the dynamic flame that flickers behind perception to cast a shadow on reality. The supreme being is the fuel the flame consumes. Be free. Free is not free. Truth is a bed of hot coals and pain is the price. Eat nachos and be happy. Eat nachos and shout from your bedroom window<cheese dripping from your chin>"I AM A REBEL!!"