Then perhaps you could do us a favor and clear up a difficult issue:
If you would, please, describe to us the knowledge you had of God at the moment of your birth. Really: you are not born knowing inherently of God; you are not born knowing the Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad-Gita. I'm not sure the artifice of the god-concept is a matter of opinion in its present facet. I flatly declare that someone had to teach you about God. Religious faith is an acquired behavior; knowledge of the object of faith is an acquired knowledge.
It is only in this age of ‘kali yuga,’ that the assumptions of Godlessness are aparant
Assumption of godlessness? What assumption of godlessness? The "assumption" of godlessness is not necessarily an assumption. It is a lack of evidence suggesting there is an issue. One cannot declare nonexistant something which they have
never heard of. That is, one might say something about an idea, "I've never heard that before," but we can note that what he has not heard is what has been related to him. That is, he
has heard it, but not prior to the immediate conversation. For instance, if I tell you about a new idea of government called
Hag'fr'nalt, you might say in response that you've never heard of it before. But I'm pretty sure that last Tuesday, you did not get up and randomly declare your opinion on Hag'fr'nalt. That is, having never been asserted to you, you have no ideas related to Hag'fr'nalt.
Tell me,
Jan, how can one have
any opinion of data they do not have? How can one have
any perspective on a concept they are unaware of?
I am quite sure that I never had to accept or reject the idea of God until it was asserted to me that God existed. Consider a little piece of history that's real; as a side note, we can laugh at the assertion that religion is persecuted by the state. The relevant point, I hope, will be obvious.
* Did you know that as a condition of my parents being allowed to raise me there exists a piece of paper bearing government endorsement that required me to have a religious education? (Specifically, a Christian education.) On the one hand, let me point out to my biological progenitor, wherever she may be, that since you were fifteen and a hooker when you gave birth, it would seem that Christianity did you a
whole lot of good! I always wonder about that: on the one hand the state accepted the contractual demand and endorsed the indoctrination of a child into a religion; to the other, why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?
* Now, that education started immediately. I had at least twenty books and records before my fifth birthday, from my grandmother, which aimed to help children build a relationship with the father, son, and holy spirit. Think about that--by the time I was thirteen and furiously lashing back at foul-tongued, table-smashing, bible-throwing prechers, I had a lifetime's data set of Christians reminding me, for my own good, that I am a pathetic piece of shite. (By the time I got to Catholic school ... let's just say that while the Jesuits can teach well, there was nothing of the faith in that school that seemed foreign to me. Such selfishness and hostility were part and parcel of biblical faith.)
* Now ... I know
damn well that my introduction to the god-concept came from outside. I have vague memories of being 3 and someone explaining to me how big God was. Bottom line is that I can guarantee the willful, external introduction of God. For you--perhaps you were born reciting Isaiah and Second Timothy; perhaps you were born
knowing God, but I doubt it. As a matter of fact, few doubts of mine are so convincing as this.
So, what I need before I stop laughing at your self-centered response is an explanation of how you came to know of God. Of course, it would have been helpful if you included that with your rejection of the artifice of God, but I well understand how something so important as the reasons you believe what you believe might fail to occur to you.
That is a foolish statement. I think you’re beginning to crack up.
Without lawbreakers, what do cops have to do? Ah, harass and assault innocent people. There are some who think they do this already; they do, but is it really their purpose in life? So have you any evidence of my foolish crack-up? Or is it so just because you say?
Here goes!
Anybody who is religious are terrorists.
Here comes the mark of the beast show.
Did you mention that in the
Inevitable Evil of Religious Belief topic? But it seems you get the point: religion is exceptionally relevant even to the atheists. If evangelical, redemptive religions hadn't f--ked up the lot for the rest of theism, religion might actually be useful on a larger scale than inflating egos.
How do you make that out?
I thought ‘bin Laden’ hated America for supporting Israel and the fact that he wants her out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop the killing in Iraq. Well if his video evidence is anything to go by anyway.
Whoops, I missed this one as I went through. I can't imagine why I missed it, though
It's certainly, uh ... oh, whatever.
As I do not reside in the US, I am not fully aware of the amendments, if you post the first amendmant, I will look at it and then foreward a reply.
Okay, the first "Bill of Rights" link at Google:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html
The
First Amendment to the Constituton of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In and of itself, this statement is part of the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States. No "law" can contradict the Constitution. No public agency can contradict the Constitution in practice. Such as the OCA in Oregon, who attempted to put legislation before the people to force the state of Oregon to adopt a certain view of homosexuality that was in accord with fundamentalist-Christian views. One of the results of this was that any book which A) mentioned homosexuality, and B) did not outright condemn it as "evil" or "perverse" or "dangerous" would be removed from the public libraries. While the Oregon law did not pass the ballot, a similar law did in Colorado. The courts took it to pieces: it was largely at odds with the Constitution.
Imagine not being allowed to publish a book because someone says God doesn't like it. Maybe that happens where you are, but our government is obliged to protect all people within its borders against such encroachment. The problem is, though, that the Amendment covers a few vital things, and the Christian protesters generally aren't smart enough to figure out how they relate. Thus, when a Christian petitions for the removal of a book from libraries, or the prohibition of its sale, what they are saying is that their right to free religion is not granted until others forfeit their right to free speech. It really is quite stupid on their part.
So it's obvious you weren't paying attention. What purpose do you have here, then,
Jan? Are you just out for the thrill of being hostile? Are you out to make sure nobody ever discusses God? What's the point if you're not paying attention? Ask
Cris or our other long-standing atheist posters about that very issue. The
Tiassa an atheist?
Well, how have you learned anything in this life. Have you never basically understood something from reading a book. That is what books are for, my friend.
The reason why I refer you to BG is because you and your atheist chums, have no concept or idea of God, so at least learn something of what you wish to destroy.
A) Yes, but the way you're presenting it equals an admission that you are either too lazy to present your case or not prepared.
B) Ask
Cris about his association to faith. When you go to make an unfounded statement,
Jan, you'd better be right. You're an excellent example of how embarrasing it appears when you're wrong.
C) In other words, get a clue and then actually stand up for what you claim to believe. Don't admit you're lazy and expect everyone else to just agree with what you're unwilling to say.
Out of an explosion, comes life?
Your telling me that doesn’t sound ridiculous.
Well, you don't seem to be pushing biblical creationism ... I've noticed your inclusion of the Vedic take on creation. I figure I can either accept blindly any number of books which tell me what the authors think God says happened, or I can simply watch the guys working to find a demonstrable explanation and see where that leads. I'm quite confident in the Bang; I just wonder why everyone focuses on the political aspect of it. We do, in fact, need to answer the "before the bang" questions until we get down to that moment of cause. On the other hand, it's better than being comfortable in a fantasy that is designed so that it can never be demonstrated. What sounds ridiculous to me is choosing ignorance because a holy book makes you think you should.
Of course God heals. But miracles, like healing, weightlessness, disapearing and reapearing somewhere else, and other types, are not nescasserily divine, they can be manipulations of nature as well. One who has undergone certain practices can become qualified and can manipulate nature.
Quit dodging. Here, we'll try it again:
What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?
I take it your not being serious, yeah?
Phew!
I’m glad to see you would not sink so low.
I'll not snap back here, but point you back to the First Amendment. I think the point might make a little more sense to you then.
Again, I point back to the First Amendment. Suffice it to say that both of these phrases you've wondered about refer to the attitudes of American Christians who believe they are not free to be Christians until people can't be anything else. This wild-sounding assertion is evident through observation. Have you ever heard a Christian lament that Christianity is persecuted in the schools? This comes from several points: the state cannot force children to pray Christian prayers; the state cannot provide favor to one religion over another; the state will not (and cannot) make a religiously-derived assertion that cannot be tested into a science; the state cannot ban a book for the mere crime of contradicting Christian assertions. You know, they can't do those things on behalf of Wiccans, either, but you don't hear the witches complaining. Think about it: write a book about how the Bhagavad-Gita has affected you. Now imagine that you are not allowed to publish it because a Christian is angry because it seems to contradict his own faith. What? You're not allowed to publish or sell your book? Why? Because to the Christian, people are only equal when Christians are superior. Listen to any Christian protesting art; what it will come down to, in the end, when you strip away the accreted subjectivities of human egos, is that allowing a non-Christian to have equal rights in society is an intentional and calculated violation of equality. Seriously: Christians often in these censoring moments offer the justification that they are entitled by their rights to live without dissent, contradiction, or opposition. Give our First Amendment some thought and try running a few illustrations of how you think it works through your head; I suspect you'll figure it out.
Not everybody is as brainy as you my dear tiassa.
In other words, nobody wants to even try to explain the processes of divine healing. Oh, well, it was worth asking.
Are you lazy or is it just that those parts don't exist?
This is just hate talk right?
I’m not really into hate and corruption and to tell you the truth I don’t know any bona-fide religions that are. The people who do these things, are a religion unto themselves, they do not follow scriptures or take any notice of spiritual masters, actually they are atheistic. If you are told that you shouldn’t sleep with your brothers wife, and you do, then you are not acting in accordance with the law, you become an outlaw, and are therefore not religious. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you perform it in the name of God, you are irreligous, atheistic and demoniac.
Like I noted, the
First Amendment. And, you'll note, unlike you I provided the
text and even some
commentary on the idea.
As to the religion unto itself: Disqualifying people from a religion is well and fine, but these disqualifications are apparently the best the religion can do? Sounds like it needs to fade away with quiet dignity.
If you want to know what real Christianity is, then start of by surrendering to Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are talking non-sense.
Ah, yes ... the idiocy of the Christian appeal. Think of it this way? How do I know which version of God is right? By your recommendation, I have to be
every religion in the world. Good luck to the Christians on that one; how long will
Tony1 spend genuinely, faithfully worshipping Allah? How about the Triune Goddess? Shiva? How long will you spend genuinely worshipping the Hopi Spider Woman?
Jan ... why did Christ want the people to preach if that preaching speaks nothing of real faith? Why do they still bother?
You, my dear sir, are most kind
Hardly; it's the same I offer all people. Whether you're bright or not, kind or not, and so forth, I can only judge by your expressions, actions, and manifestations. I suppose I could use my imagination:
Hey, Jan, great work on the microbiology; you really deserved that Nobel Prize!
I have no real interest of people who do nastiness in the name of God, that is another topic, I am interested in God. Do not recognise people by what they call themselves, but how they act.
You mean like when they assert that they are only free if others are not? Like that bit about hate and corruption? No, they don't wake up thinking they need to destroy America, but the effect of what they ask is that we the people make them free by forfeiting the same rights ourselves. And I do have a real interest in people who do nastiness in the name of God: they hurt people. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's my neighbors. They must be prevented from causing harm. They must be prevented from destroying the very things that let them be what they are.
If it is moronic then it is not God conscious. You need to understand more about God. I’m genuinely sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is alarmingly clear that you have no understanding whatsoever.
Yes, I understand that you're genuinely sorry. But
Jan ... tell me what any religious faith gets people if its living and tangible result is bad? What? Should I tie you up to a stake and set you on fire and have
faith that I'm doing what's right? It's happened in history,
Jan, that people have done that to each other. Get as close to God as you want, and leave the people to carve each other up. You're looking out for yourself, right? And that's all that's really necessary, right? Keep looking to God for your comfort; keep ignoring what God creates in the world. What, the people "don't understand their faith"? Well, that's God's fault, and there's no two ways. The creator of the data, the creator of the source, the creator of the client, the creator of the means of transmission. Something breaks down along the way: it's God's problem if he can't state himself clearly. Regardless of what you think of God, faith in God brings human damage.
And when you stop to think that such damage comes from a delusion, one realizes that the best hope for humanity is to get rid of the damaging delusions.
The same can be said of any system, if not utilised correctly.
You're absolutely correct. However, something you may not be considering is the value of religion to the believers. Where people's morals might compel them to specific conduct under specific circumstances, religion is the basis of those morals. Take a simple comparison:
*
Do people change their religions in response to elections, or do people vote in response to their religion?
And before we even waste time with considerations of those who use their religion as a means to justify their own greeds, we should consider that such an assertion is already on the table against religion, and also the idea of what the religion is worth if faith in it compels people to betray it.
If we limit "any system" to "any religious system", then we get to consider how broadly to define the system. It's not that I refuse Christians the idea of being individuals, or that they shouldn't be identified with others of their faith, except that they ask me to by proxy of declaring themselves unified as a body in the Spirit of Christ. If what we see is what faith in that Spirit achieves, well?
There is no difference. ‘Vedas’ means knowledge, all knowledge is born out of Vedas.
So the faith points that make Vedic practice stand out as distinct from Christianity, Sufism, &c., really are the same exact points? The behavioral manifestations are the same? The effects and motivations of caste society are the same as the effects and motivations in the west? What point, then, does differentiation have?
I'm unsure what the point of the fact that vedas means knowledge is. It speaks nothing of its adherents.
So aside from admitting the internalized nature of your god-concept ("To you, but not me"), admitting that you don't understand atheists ("...have no concept or idea of God ..."), and admitted that your characterizations of people have no foundation ("Yeah right!!!"), what have you to say about the fact that you're merely reinforcing the notion that belief in god is a delusion?
--Tiassa
