I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It
basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a
Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows.

Barbara Schwarz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of God and state?
Posted: October 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By William J. Federer

America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God
and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in
their state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ...
invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and
establish the following Constitution ...

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and
to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ...

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona,
grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution ...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas,
grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of
government ...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging
with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy
....

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by
nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according
to the dictates of their consciences ...

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida,
grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish
this Constitution ...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon
protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this
Constitution ...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance ... establish this Constitution ...

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois,
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him
for a blessing on our endeavors ...

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana,
grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose
our form of government ...

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to
the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our
dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish
this Constitution ...

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty
God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this
Constitution ...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and
religious liberties ...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana,
grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberties we enjoy ...

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with
grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in
affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction
....

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland,
grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great
Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an
opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan,
grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish
this Constitution ...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to
perpetuate its blessings ...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in
convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His
blessing on our work ...

Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound
reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His
goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this
Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for
our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a
natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience ...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on
our endeavors …

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ...

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its
blessings ...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North
Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations,
for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and
acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do
ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote
our common ...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish
this ...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be
secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of their consciences ...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and
humbly invoking His guidance ...

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode
Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious
liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to
Him for a blessing ...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South
Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and
establish this Constitution ...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful
to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish
this Constitution ...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and
indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates
of their conscience ...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas,
acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ...

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we
.... establish this Constitution ...

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we
owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is
the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and
Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do
ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy
the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the
people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant
reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming,
grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ...
establish this Constitution ...

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state
constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe,
the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something
supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10,
1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture about the
nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or leaders who
are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this alleged being
(or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate from such
folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely though,
deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to vote as
anyone else, and in the US's case they do.

If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is
always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it?

Karl Johanson

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.

Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an
explicit passage.
should be seperate

Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".
If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will isalways done, regardless of what anyone else wants

That's the (false) doctrine of predestination.

Learn some metaphysics before you venture into waters like that.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:02:24 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.

Amendment One:

"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."

Commentary:

"Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning
religion read: 'The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of
religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretence, infringed.' The language was altered in the
House to read: 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to
prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of
conscience.' In the Senate, the section adopted read: 'Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .' It was in the
conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the
present language was written with its some what more indefinite
'respecting' phraseology."

<...>

"In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in
Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of
the First Amendment to build 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.' In Reynolds v. United States [98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879)], Chief
Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as 'almost an
authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.' In
its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs,
the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. But
a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began
to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on
governmental action. The concept of neutrality itself is 'a coat of many
colors,' and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion
emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two
standards were part of the same formulation. 'The test may be stated as
follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment?
If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the
enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the
Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the
Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a
primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.' The third
test is whether the governmental program results in 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of
degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive,
and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing
surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.' In
1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice
Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602, 612
-13 (1971)], and are frequently referred to by reference to that case
name."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:
There's a seperation of 'church' and state.
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.
Amendment One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary
meaning of "separation of church and state".

For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is
unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement
"under God" in it.

I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has
to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama
Supreme Court building.

I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must
remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to
keep their religious iconography in public view).

If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the
state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited
by the clause you cited above.





--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it.
Even if it doesn't the phrase should be removed since the original author
did not put it in there. It was a product of the Red Scare of the '50s.

tim gueguen 101867

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view).

If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you. If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.

You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed.
"Separation of church and state" is a term paraphrasing the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. Courts, as they were constituted to do,
interpret the amendments and issue orders accordingly. That's so that
people like you who may have infested some government agency are discouraged
and often prevented from interpreting the First Amendment and the other
amendments.

Guess who? wrote: I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows.

That would be 'know' in the 'pulled it out of my *** scientologist
unpleasant nutcase' sense of the word.

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.c om... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors . New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

Or, (more reality based than your delusion) , the states are breaking the
law ( The Constitution) - and the zealots - who STILL have no valid evidence
to support "god" may have a lot of political power - but THEY" are still
wrong!

Who says the federal courts are "out of control"? Only the zealous fanatics
who cannot get their religious agenda push into law whenever they want!

"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

Obviously the founders DID intend a separation - because that is the gist of
what they wrote in the Constitution.

Obviously, in SPITE of the Constitution, religious zealots have enough
political power to force the ILLEGAL issue on states!

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0d4a1.28656956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:There's a seperation of 'church' and state. Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.

Get your head out of your ***!
Those "specific" words are not necessary or need to describe the intent!

Only a brain dead moron uses the excuse that those "exact" words aren't
there!

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view). If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.


Perhaps if you had an I.Q. greater than ten - and got your head out of your
*** - you would KNOW that the exactly words are NOT necessary to convey the
concluded meaning!

BTW ......as an example you MAY be able to follow.

Murder is a crime.
They do NOT need to say .... murder by knife, murder by gun, murder by
starvation, murder by vehicle, murder by rope ...etc..

" jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SC5wc.9489$Iu6.8009@bignews5.bellsouth.net... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c0da7f.30159507@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.>Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an>explicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporary meaning of "separation of church and state". For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it is unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement "under God" in it. I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore has to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view). If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you. If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above. You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed. "Separation of church and state" is a term paraphrasing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Courts, as they were constituted to do, interpret the amendments and issue orders accordingly. That's so that people like you who may have infested some government agency are
discouraged and often prevented from interpreting the First Amendment and the other amendments.


It doesn't matter what reality, or education, you shove at bob - he has
elected to remain simpleminded and ignorant.

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:10:47 -0400, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians must remove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get to keep their religious iconography in public view).
If you are saying this has occurred, I don't believe you.

Then get a clue. Try Palm Beach, FL
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of the state infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibited by the clause you cited above.
You have a reading problem and are probably a little light-headed.

Troll.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:30:21 -0400, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what reality, or education, you shove at bob - he haselected to remain simpleminded and ignorant.

Troll

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote in message news:<7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.com>... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz

So...which God?

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0d4a1.28656956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:

A church is not god anymore than a fan is a rock band. Perhaps even that
analogy fails. We at least have evidence that there is such a thing as rock
bands.
There's a separation of 'church' and state.
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

Pretty explicit...

So, Congress shall make no law establishing a specific church, which may
worship the council of 42 gods, as the official state religion. Nor a church
which believes in Mooster the Invisible. Nor a church which believes in a
European rewrite of a Middle Easter religion. Nor a church which believes in
Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Batman, Casper, Thor, Zeus or the Tooth
Ferry. Nor a church which believes that Elvis was Yeshua's third coming.

There can be conflicts with the principle, of course. For example, if a US
citizen creates a religion which includes sacrificing people named Bob as
part of it's sacraments, then the exercise of that aspect of the religion
would contravene the law. I suggest that the law (against murdering people,
even if they happen to be named "Bob") is more important than a persons
'right' to exercise their religion. Similarly, your neighbour may read the
Jewish or Christian Bible and interpret them as clearly stating that you
must kill your neighbour if they profane the Sabbath by working. US law
doesn't allow your neighbours (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) to kill you,
even if they see you trimming your hedges or making a Usenet post on the
Sabbath. (Maybe you like that, maybe not, but that's how it is.)

Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They have
the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law.
should be seperate Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".

I appreciate the proof reading. I neglected to select that part when I ran
the spell checker. Fascinating use of a hyphen in your sentence - by the
way.
If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will isalways done, regardless of what anyone else wants That's the (false) doctrine of predestination.

As the existence of omnipotence and free will among separate entities is
paradoxical. One or the other (or both) can't exist.
Learn some metaphysics before you venture into waters like that.

There's an infinite number of possible metaphysical systems, all of which
would be about equally likely to be true. Pick one. You have about a one in
infinite chance of it being correct (assuming that any of them are).

Karl Johanson

Exodus 31:14 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to
you. [Ex 31:15; 35:2; Num 15:32, 35; John 7:23] Everyone who profanes it
shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person
shall be cut off from among his people. (NASB)

Mat 5: 17 "17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the (22) Law or the
Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (NASB)

On 4 Jun 2004 11:16:43 -0700,
theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote:<America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God<and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in<their state constitutions:<Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ...<invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God,

It is "separation of "Church and State" not God and state. God is
not the church or any religion.
But here are a few words from the founding fathers about religion:

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries,
the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind. -- Thomas Paine

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example
of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -
the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in
all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. --
James Madison

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin
Franklin

Of note, the vast scholarly work detailing the
questionable nature and possible mythical origins
of Jesus Christ occurred (and continues to occur)
after the day and age in which Freethinkers like
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams rejected most
of the Christian bible and the Christian religions
derived there from.

Here are a few pertinent quotes from them ...

Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html#jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been
hostile to liberty.

He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have
perverted the purest religion ever preached to man
into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind,
and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."

- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford,
March 17, 1814

- - -

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great
reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles
were departed from by those who professed to be
his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors
in Church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

- - -

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government.

This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail them-
selves for their own purpose."

- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

- - -

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion
of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.

Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which
it is buried, easily distinguished by its luster from the
dross of his biographers, and as separable from that
as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines
of a system of the most sublime morality which has
ever fallen from the lips of man.

The establishment of the innocent and genuine character
of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the
imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial
systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immac-
ulate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation
of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resur-
rection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence
in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement,
regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.)
is a most desirable object."

- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

- - -

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus
Christ) in all his doctrines.

I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness
of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem
it.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him
by his biographers, I find many passages of fine
imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely
benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance,
so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and
imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such
contradictions should have proceeded from the same
being.

I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore
him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity
of some, the roguery of others of his disciples.

Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the
great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the
doctrines of Jesus."

- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820

- - -

"The office of reformer of the superstitions of a
nation, is ever more dangerous.

Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason
and religion; and a step to the right or left might place
him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition,
a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the
being whom they represented as the family God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God
of Israel.

That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind
as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been
convinced by the writings of men more learned than
myself in that lore."

- Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

- - -

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to
the happiness of man. But compare with these the
demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.

2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor,
is nothing.

3. That faith is every thing, and the more incompre-
hensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.

4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain
individuals to be saved, and certain others to be
damned; and that no crimes of the former can
damn them; no virtues of the latter save."

- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822

- - -

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ...
made of Christendom a slaughter-house."

- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822

- - -

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine
of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors
of them, who have perverted them to the structure of
a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and
without any foundation in his genuine words.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation
of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the
womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams,
Apr. 11, 1823

- - -

John Adams:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html#adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and
is, a revelation.

But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales,
legends, have been blended with both Jewish and
Christian revelation that have made them the most
bloody religion that ever existed?"

- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp,
Dec. 27, 1816

- - -

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most
fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of
mankind has preserved--the Cross.

Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

- - -

"What havoc has been made of books through every
century of the Christian era?

Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by
the bull of Pope Gelasius?

Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manu-
scripts burned in France, by order of another pope,
because suspected of heresy?

Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition,
the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."

- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

- - -

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly
monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation,
when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting
sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY?

The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly
insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently
endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.

But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of
a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you
will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets
will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly
into your face and eyes."

- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

--- end quotes ---

..
In the mind of Christ,
Michael


**
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...

The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
leahcim at thelastchurch.org

alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:30:27 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:23:16 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:>There's a seperation of 'church' and state.Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us anexplicit passage.Amendment One:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."I do not see any separation clause there - not in the contemporarymeaning of "separation of church and state".

The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.
Separation of church and state is very real.
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.

Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.

Again, the courts disagree with you.

And have you read the 10 Commandments?

The first 4 are completely irrelevant to the law.

The fifth (Honor thy father and mother) is a nice idea, but again
completely irrelevant, even in family court.

The 6th, now here's a commandment which belongs in court. "Thou shalt
not murder"

The 7th (no adultery) is also a nice idea - well, I suppose it is to
some - but again pretty irrelevant, except perhaps in a divorce case
involving Jews or Christian litigants.

The 8th (no stealing) is the second and last commandment that is
actually codified into current US law.

9th and 10th are just more of the same, and besides my neighbor has a
great ***, and I'll covet it and anything else she may let me to with
it.
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians mustremove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get tokeep their religious iconography in public view).

That's quite a distortion of how things really are. You do realize that
you nazi?
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of thestate infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibitedby the clause you cited above.

nope, not at all. Tell it to spinmaster O'Reilly

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:30:27 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.

If one does not see that a loyalty/fealty pledge to a country (which is
what a Pledge of Allegiance is) is not a product of the State, then
explaining the separation of church and state is rather a moot argument
for you, I suppose. However, legally speaking, the connection of the
two as integral parts of the oath (a belief in God is affirmed as part
of the government fealty oath) IS in fact an 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion.'

Further, the "under God" phraseology was not part of the original fealty
oath/pledge, but was added on June 14, 1954 as a response to the
government-engendered "threat" of Communism. As such, it was not part
of a required affirmation of the Pledge since its beginning. This was
one of the points raised during the Supreme Court arguments on the
Pledge.
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.

If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious point
of view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by the
State, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather a
moot argument for you, I suppose. However, legally speaking, the
connection of the two as integral parts (display of the Ten Commandments
display in a government building while prohibiting other displays of
religious tenets in the same government building, which Moore
specifically prohibited, and actively denied when requested) IS in fact
an 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'
I do not see where the clause you cited states that Christians mustremove their Christmas decorations from public view (but Jews get tokeep their religious iconography in public view).

For one, Christians may display public decorations of their faith on
their own private property (i.e., church grounds) to their heart's
content, as may Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Sikhs, etc. What all cannot do
is _require their display of religious decorations be presented on
government-owned public land_, which again IS in fact an 'an excessive
government entanglement with religion.' If the State chooses to display
one religion's symbols, it must display all, or take a neutral position
in regards to all religions and their promulgation. Most government
authorities take the route of a neutral position.
If anything, the three things I just mentioned are examples of thestate infringing on the free exercise of religion, which IS prohibitedby the clause you cited above.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the Establishment Clause has held that
under the Constitution the State must "...affirmatively mandate
accommodation, not merely tolerance, of _all religions_, and forbids
hostility toward any...[that there be] accommodation of all faiths and
all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through
this accommodation, [465 U.S. 668, 678] as Justice Douglas observed,
governmental action has 'follow[ed] the best of our traditions" and
"respect[ed] the religious nature of our people.'"

Source: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/465/668.html , LYNCH v. DONNELLY,
465 U.S. 668 (1984)

If the State chooses to advance one form of religion to the detriment of
other belief systems, then it is in violation of the Establishment
Clause. In such instances, most legal decisions have emphasized that
the State must either take a "religiously neutral" position in its use
of religious symbolism, phraseology, etc., or actively accommodate ALL
religious viewpoints.


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:27:03 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
You've been exposed, you Nazi!

Troll.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Pretty explicit...

There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from
displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court
building. There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of
Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in
that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a
prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system.

If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China. If you don't
like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China. If you don't like
public displays of prayer, go live in China.

This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of
religion.
Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They havethe right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law.

That's ridiculous.

And so are you.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:07 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.

That will have to end sometime soon.
Separation of church and state is very real.

It is fabricated.
For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.
Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.

Omigod.

I'm outta here. This is just too much.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:35:38 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:
I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.
If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious pointof view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by theState, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather amoot argument for you, I suppose.

If Moore prohibited other expressions, I would agree with you.

But I do not believe he prohibited other religious expression. The
fact that there was no other religious expression present does not
argue to the prohibition of the one form of expression that was
present.

You are a statist - a person who believes that rights come from the
state.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases:
* If it moves, tax it.
* If it keeps moving, regulate it.
* If it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:27:56 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:44:07 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>wrote:The courts decide the contemporary meaning of the First Amendment.That will have to end sometime soon.Separation of church and state is very real.It is fabricated.For example, I do not see where the clause abovr says it isunconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegience to have a statement"under God" in it.Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.Omigod.I'm outta here. This is just too much.

wassa matta? Couldn't handle refuting my analysis of 8 of the 10
commandments?

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:21:15 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
Well, the 9th Circuit disagrees with you.
Omigod.I'm outta here. This is just too much.
wassa matta? Couldn't handle refuting my analysis of 8 of the 10commandments?

What analysis would that be? I did not realize that the objection to
Moore's displaying the monument had anything to do with the specific
content of the Ten Commandments. I thought it had everything to do
with the assertion that the Ten Commandments were an expression of
religious belief.

Your so-called "analysis" is moot.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Our country's a place of limitless hopes and
possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more
alive than in the great nation of Texas."
--GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas

"One thing that makes George Bush such a great
president is that he does not govern according
to public opinion polls."
--John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."Pretty explicit... There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?

One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the display
itself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)

Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listing
of working on Saturday as being a capital offence. The justice system is
supposed to work, independent of the religion of those being tried. The
perception of impartiality is impaired with such a plaque. There is little
to no consequence of not ladening a court system with religious icons &
imagery. There is a great benefit in not having them there, thus, the right
choice is to not have them.

If I were a judge at your trial & I had a big poster on the wall saying "All
who don't worship Mooster are destined to spend 42 years in the hell of
extreme itchiness" and you're not a Moosterian, would you expect to get a
moderately fair trial?

If you really are all pumped on the 'Ten Commandments' (have you ever
actually counted them?) then why not let your neighbours know & see if they
have any rocks to throw at you for the times you've profaned the Sabbath.
There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system. If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China.

If you like the Ten Commandments go live in a theocracy (and note how long
they let you keep your internet access).

I don't live in the US. This forum is world wide.
If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China.
If you don't like public displays of prayer, go live in China.

When did I ever say I don't like public prayer? I don't like government
supported or mandated prayer.
This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.

Telling people they must acknowledge god in your pledge of allegiance isn't
free expression, it's government mandated expression. How can you not know
this?
Another way of looking at it is; 'people have only one 'right'. They havethe right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law. That's ridiculous.

I thought the point might be a bit complex for you. A well...
And so are you.

Ah, insults... I guess you want one back. Bombastic pontificating
supercilious phronemophobe.

Karl Johanson
If god's omniscient, she knows you doubt. That puts you nostril deep in the
burning pitch with the rest of us.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?

I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused -
this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.
One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)

Get real.
Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence.

Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited
by the Constitution.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Our country's a place of limitless hopes and
possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more
alive than in the great nation of Texas."
--GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas

"One thing that makes George Bush such a great
president is that he does not govern according
to public opinion polls."
--John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:oOowc.679374$Ig.329489@pd7tw2no... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: [...] supercilious phronemophobe.

Well, damn, I'll have to look that one up but I suspect ol' Bob's got his
eyebrows raised showing the whites of his eyes in fright because he's
terrified of something. Karl Johanson If god's omniscient, she knows you doubt. That puts you nostril deep in
the burning pitch with the rest of us.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c221ae.70900749@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely? I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused - this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged
version?) Get real.Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a
listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence. Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

He's no longer relevant. He's dead meat. He couldn't even make a living
practicing law in Bammy. The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution. -- Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/ "Our country's a place of limitless hopes and possibilities, and nowhere is that spirit more alive than in the great nation of Texas." --GW Bush, U.S. President from Texas "One thing that makes George Bush such a great president is that he does not govern according to public opinion polls." --John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<nJ3wc.669026$oR5.274036@pd7tw3no>... "Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10, 1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture about the nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or leaders who are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this alleged being (or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate from such folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely though, deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to vote as anyone else, and in the US's case they do. If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl Johanson


This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this
tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and
truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.

Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all the
religions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the most
truth win. Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would
say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and
the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not
from the government, but from the people, which is more members.

The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxing
all religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out is
rather insane.

You spoke of God as a she.
I think that God's first choice for taking a human body would be a
male one. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was a
woman.

God could be omnipotent and being a forceful leader. For example,
whenever people do something bad, he could kick that globe like a
football through the universe. But that is not him. His mission is
making people understand that they have to get along, that they have
to build a better civilization. The bad people are the problem and to
be worried about, people that enslave and kill others and can't let
others live in peace.

Barbara Schwarz

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c221ae.70900749@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely? I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused - this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.

I have no problem with a discussion going off on tangents. I just note that
when you were shown to be wrong on one point, you quickly changed to
another.
One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged
version?) Get real.

So, I'll put you down as a 'no' then.
Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a
listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence. Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

So has Judge Roy Moore ever profaned the Sabbath by working on it? Would Roy
volunteer to be stoned to death for it?
The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

He wasn't making an expression as an individual, but as a representative of
the government. He'd be allowed to put such a thing on his own yard
(although, again, it would violate one of the 'ten commandments'.)

Karl Johanson

>> If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl JohansonThis would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.

Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no
reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point
of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion.
Any religion.
Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all thereligions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the mosttruth win.

The belief that there is One True Religion is itself a religion.
The government shouldn't be deciding which religion "wins" or even
that there needs to be a "winner". There should be room in the
world for minority religions, even minority religions with one
member. And since religions believe in things ON FAITH, there is
no remotely objective way to evaluate which one has "the most truth".
Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would

You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't
you?
say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen andthe religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, notfrom the government, but from the people, which is more members.

Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.
You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they
aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this
includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your
church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home,
fine, go ahead.
The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxingall religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out israther insane.

I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people
try to get the word out on their own property and with their own
money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on
government property, doing it with government money or government
employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they
have a captive audience (public schools).

God is a wonderful thing. Don't let the government ruin this by
screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up.

Gordon L. Burditt

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:31:01 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:35:38 +0100, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg<egylist@deadspamgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:I do not see where the clause you cited says that Judge Roy Moore hasto remove the Ten Commandments monument from the front of the AlabamaSupreme Court building.If one does not see that prominent display of a single religious pointof view in a government building as promulgation of a religion by theState, then explaining the separation of church and state is rather amoot argument for you, I suppose.If Moore prohibited other expressions, I would agree with you.But I do not believe he prohibited other religious expression. Thefact that there was no other religious expression present does notargue to the prohibition of the one form of expression that waspresent.

As noted in the 11th Circuit case of _Glassroth v. Moore_ [229 F.
Supp. 2d], Moore was obviously acting as a state representative in
maintaining the prominence of the display, mainly by denying others
their chance to express their views using a combination of legal and
quasi religious rationale:

"...The rotunda is open to the public, but it is not a public forum
where citizens can place their own displays. Glassroth, 229 F. Supp.
2d at 1303. Chief Justice Moore has denied the two requests that have
been made to place other displays in the rotunda. He did so because he
believed that those displays would have been inconsistent with the
rotunda's theme of the moral foundation of law. An Alabama State
Representative asked the Chief Justice if a monument containing the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous 'I Have a Dream' speech could
be placed in the rotunda. The Chief Justice denied the request in a
letter, stating that, 'The placement of a speech of any man alongside
the revealed law of God would tend in consequence to diminish the very
purpose of the Ten Commandments monument.' Id. at 1297. He also denied
an atheist group’s request to display a symbol of atheism in the
rotunda. Id.

The Chief Justice did add two smaller displays to the rotunda at some
point after the Ten Commandments monument was installed. The first, a
plaque entitled 'Moral Foundation of Law,' contains a quotation from the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from the Birmingham jail
speaking of just laws and 'the moral law or law of God,' and a quotation
from Frederick Douglass speaking of slavery as hiding man 'from the laws
of God.' Id. at 1324-25 (App. D - providing a full quotation of the
plaque)...The Chief Justice added both plaques because he thought that
they 'comported with the "moral foundation of law theme."' Id. The two
plaques are inconspicuous compared to the Ten Commandments monument.
Each is not only much smaller than the monument, but also is located
seventy-five feet from it. A person standing in front of the monument
cannot see either plaque. Nothing about their location or appearance
indicates that they are connected to the monument. Id."
You are a statist - a person who believes that rights come from thestate.

Actually, no, but I do believe in complying with the federal US
Constitution as the law of the land. That is, after all, the basis of
US law.

If you have a problem with the separation of church and state, then
perhaps you are just unhappy with US law. Take it up with the Court,
however, as it stated clearly the same arguments as I noted. Obviously,
the 11th Circuit took a dim view of Moore's alleged defense of the
display as commanding a respect for law, and so forth, saying:

"...The breadth of the Chief Justice's position is illustrated by his
counsel's concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position,
the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama
Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have
decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench. Every
government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah,or a
statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with
authority over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor
in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal
building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the
public address system in every government building at the whim of the
official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief
Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County
of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 612, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held
unconstitutional the placement of a crèche in the lobby of a
courthouse, stands foursquare against the notion that the
Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so long as
it does not command or prohibit conduct. Id., 109 S. Ct. at 3110 ('To
be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its
allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas,
but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire,
which would contradict ‘the logic of secular liberty' it is the
purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.') (citation omitted)."

Source: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

(Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801)

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

Correct. There was never intended to be a "Seperation of Church and
State". What the Constitution actually says is that "Congress shall
make no laws respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting
the free excercise thereof" (not sure if that is exact).

This means that in the eyes of Congress, religion does not exist, and
that would include God. That doesn't apply to schools or whatever,
only to Congress. Congress can not tell the schools to worship, pray,
or whatever, nor can they tell them not to. Religion is completely
invisible to Congress.

Now, "Seperation of Church and State", that means something completely
different. That is not in the Constitution at all.

Personally though, I prefer not having religion in schools or in
government things. I especially do not like the idea of a chaplin
leading Congress in prayer before they vote on laws. That is
unconstitutional!

Tony

theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com (Guess who?) wrote in message news:<7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.com>... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ? New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:42:28 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob)
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:03:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson"<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:So you're suddenly changing the argument to something else entirely?I am going with the flow from several posters. Try not get confused -this is not difficult to follow if you read all the posts.One of the commandments expressly prohibits such things as the displayitself. (Have you actually read the Bible, or just some abridged version?)Get real.Personally, I see little benefit in having a plaque which includes a listingof working on Saturday as being a capital offence.Your opinion is not relevant. Judge Roy Moore's is.

Actually, it isn't. Remember, he lost his case.
The govt has violated the expression of religion, which is prohibitedby the Constitution.

If Moore wants to put that monstrosity in his front yard, he's certainly
welcome to do so.

If he wants to have it hollowed out and turned into his tomb, he's
welcome to do that as well.

How many people actually question that?Think before you believe in
something!
"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.c om... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors . New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c1c7f1.47928487@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:41:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."Pretty explicit... There is nothing in that clause that prohibits Judge Roy Moore from displaying the Ten Commandments in front of the Alabama Supreme Court building. There is nothing in that clause that prohibits the Pledge of Allegiance from containing the phrase "under God". There is nothing in that clause that prohibits high school football players from saying a prayer in a huddle that is broadcast on the public address system.

Get a brain, moron!
Intelligent people, including decades of Supreme Court decision, have
decided that the Constitution is NOT to be taken ONLY literally!

It is insane and ridicuolus to do so!

If the Congress of the United States is not allowed to push religion on the
people - then NEITHER IS JUDGE MOORE!



If you don't like the Ten Commandments, go live in China. If you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, go live in China. If you don't like public displays of prayer, go live in China. This is America, where the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.

Dip**** - that "righht" is NOT absolute!
You have EVERY right to practice your religion.
That does NOT include using public property OR a public position to PUSH
your religion!

Sone your simple mind canot comprehend this, it must be stated - there is
ONE HELL of a difference between you or Judge Moore practicinig your
religion - and Judge Moore using his power and positin to place a marble
statue honoring his religon on public property!

If the freedom is a absolute as you insanely think - then my religion
demands I make a human sacrific of the most idiotic loser I can find ......
I expect you to report to me immediately!

gordonb.10zlz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in message news:<c9tfqj$r87@library2.airnews.net>... If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl JohansonThis would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion. Any religion.

Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes
many people develop a conscience, and people should think about what
was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to
figure that out.

Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that
religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a
government tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not
to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody of
them tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them to
live ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force his
religion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups to
help solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state could
work.
Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all thereligions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the mosttruth win. The belief that there is One True Religion is itself a religion. The government shouldn't be deciding which religion "wins" or even that there needs to be a "winner". There should be room in the world for minority religions, even minority religions with one member. And since religions believe in things ON FAITH, there is no remotely objective way to evaluate which one has "the most truth".

The government should not make the decision, but people should.
Imagine religion being asked by the people how they would handle for
example one problem. The religions (representives) could have a debate
and you, the individual decide. I think the religion with most sanity,
wisdom and humanity would be clearly favored at the end, but not by
the gov, but my each individual at a time.

Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't you?

No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people
hate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be the
devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on
anything, and also deny him. That is insanity.say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen andthe religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, notfrom the government, but from the people, which is more members. Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.

If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak,
why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain from
favoring one.
You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home, fine, go ahead.

You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the
school.The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxingall religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out israther insane. I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people try to get the word out on their own property and with their own money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on government property, doing it with government money or government employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they have a captive audience (public schools).

I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowing
down the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask any
other religion in town to put their monument on the place up too. God is a wonderful thing.
God is no thing. He is the perfect being. And he is very very good and
wise.

Don't let the government ruin this by screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up. Gordon L. Burditt

Don't favor one but let all the religions speak and help, that is my
solution.

Barbara Schwarz

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406061437.6651f267@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<dzrwc.677480$oR5.565636@pd7tw3no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message news:bf456302.0406051315.30a1ae48@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<nJ3wc.669026$oR5.274036@pd7tw3no>... > "Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message > > > America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of
God > > and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged
God in > > their state constitutions: > > There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is something > supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10, > 1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture
about the > nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or
leaders who > are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this
alleged being > (or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate
from such > folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely
though, > deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to
vote as > anyone else, and in the US's case they do. > > If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will
is > always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry
about it? > > Karl Johanson This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. 'Good' is good. Let's say, I would be the Governor in a State, I would allow all the religions to be active on state grounds, and may the one with the most truth win. Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not from the government, but from the people, which is more members. The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxing all religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out is rather insane. Keeping government representatives from expressing their religious
opinions while representing the government, is a good idea though. If your a
teacher and you want to pray, do so. If you want to pray in front of your
students, it's not such a good idea. If you want to force your students to pray,
its a bad idea. If you want to be a judge, expressing religious beliefs
doesn't show a sense of impartiality to those you're residing over. If the same judge wants to go home and sing carols to Mooster, that's fine. Of course, nobody in official authority should force his religion on others, but if a school for example would allow all religions who want to have after school activities on school grounds, I would not object. Religion is not the devil. Truly religious people likely have more a conscience than people that don't believe in anything.

Bull!!!!!

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes many people develop a conscience,

That may or may not be so. What evidence do you suggest supports it? Some
studies suggest that atheists are under represented in prison populations.
and people should think about what was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to figure that out.

Religion isn't about figuring that, or anything else, out. It's about
arbitrarily deciding to believe in something, despite a lack of evidence.
Conjecturing about what may or may not happen after death, is very different
than preaching your conjectures to folks and telling them that it's fact.
Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a government tremendously on certain subjects.

Yes, some good work is done by some churches (or members of some churches.
At the same time, some churches in North America helped teach native
children that their religions were evil, burned totem poles and abused them
for speaking their native languages.
No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people hate God and religions.

Few 'hate' god. Some think it's just superstition, on par with Santa Claus.
They speak about those as they would be the devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on anything, and also deny him. That is insanity.

There may be any number of gods in the universe, from zero to infinity.
You've denied all but one. I've denied one more than you have. Are we not
pretty close to 'insane', by your standards?
You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the school.

Very well said.
I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowing down the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask any other religion in town to put their monument on the place up too.

You would leave up a plaque which includes a suggestion that gods wants us
to kill our neighbors if they work on Saturday?
God is a wonderful thing.
God is no thing. He is the perfect being. And he is very very good and wise.

Then why does the Bible tell me that god wants me to stone women who are
raped within a city?

Karl Johansin

>> >This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in thistread. I would support all religions as long as they are good andtruly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion. Any religion.Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makesmany people develop a conscience, and people should think about whatwas before the birth and will come after death. It is important tofigure that out.

No, I'm NOT only talking about "bad apples" in religion. Most
religions have as part of their objectives preaching their message
to the masses, and reaching out to bring their message to the poor
misguided souls who do not believe. This is a major theme in the
Christian Bible, for example. This takes funding. This is not an
evil objective. It can be quite beneficial to the community (even
outside the religious aspects) and that's why churches can get
voluntary funding from members for charitable projects. Preaching
their message to the masses is one objective that government should
not be supporting with tax money, however.
Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget thatreligions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help agovernment tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not

I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public
property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax
money, etc.

If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning
up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation
programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it,
but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get
a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion,
the price is too high and the government should decline to accept
such help. It is also quite possible that the church can organize
the program independently of the government and with no funding
from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.
to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody ofthem tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them tolive ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force hisreligion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups tohelp solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state couldwork.

It seems to me that there's a lot of resources out there that the
government should get the hell out of the way of. Churches
can do some things fine on their own.
Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't you?No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that peoplehate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be thedevil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God onanything, and also deny him. That is insanity.

Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with
it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate
belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and
hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking
about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know,
Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism
*IS* a religion.
say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen andthe religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, notfrom the government, but from the people, which is more members. Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak,why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain fromfavoring one.

I find it very difficult to believe that it is possible to arrange
for, say, religious holiday displays in a public park without (a)
unending squabbles and court battles over who gets how much space,
(b) high police costs of protecting one group's displays from vandaliasm
by other groups, and (c) taking up space in the park that ought
to be used for playing baseball, picnicing, and just being a place
where you can observe nature.

Many religions exhibit a downright hate for other specific religions,
and they are likely not to tolerate their displays or their presence
in schools. For example, Christians don't like Satanists. I don't
know whether you consider "Nazi" a religion, but Jews and Nazis
have a past that justifies much ill will between them. Some religions
say it's OK to kill members of certain other religions. Some
religions (generally the ones that aren't millennia old) get called
"cults" that supposedly brainwash people, although the definition
of "cult" that actually seems to fit best is "a religion that's not
as old as mine". The religions I have heard accused most often of
being "cults" are the Moonies and the Scientologists. It isn't the
business of government to decide that these aren't legitimate
religions because of that. But you can expect that some (perhaps
the "bad apples") of one religion will try to suppress the message
that disagrees with their own by vandalizing displays.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put these displays in separate
places? Like, for example, at churches? That won't eliminate
all the hate problems (church-burnings still happen), but
it at least doesn't force all the disagreeing sides to all
come to one place to work on their displays.

Would you care to come up with a plan for dividing up space for
displays in the town park, given that some religions are much more
popular than others, and the amount of space available per resident
of the town is about 5 square inches? Remember that some residents
will, rightfully so, take offense at government even ASKING what
religion they are, especially given what governments have done with
that information in the past. Others are going to ask why the
government is holding on to all that free land when it could be
sold to someone who would pay taxes on it.
You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home, fine, go ahead.You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes theschool.

Well, I wouldn't object to religious after-school activities on the
same basis as other activities provided (a) the school doesn't
provide much more than a place to meet (no paying for speakers or
buying Bibles to hand out - the group pay for that with dues for
members or fund-raising activities or get sponsorship from a local
church), (b) attendance of ANY religious activity is voluntary (no
"choose one"), (c) any religion is welcome to start its own group
if it can get students to participate.

The trouble here is that when the Satanists and the "cult" religions
(regardless of whether they actually DESERVE that label) show up,
parents of the top several of the religions in the community scream
bloody murder. Now what do you do? You're likely to find that
parents will demand that ALL extracurricular activities be dropped
if that's what it takes to keep the "religious nutcakes" away from
their kids.
The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxingall religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out israther insane. I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people try to get the word out on their own property and with their own money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on government property, doing it with government money or government employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they have a captive audience (public schools).I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowingdown the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask anyother religion in town to put their monument on the place up too.

You want one religion to put up a monument on ANOTHER church's
property? Assuming the second church does not agree with that,
this approach is really insane.

Where, when, and why did a government entity "mow down the Ten
Commandments before a church building"? You're not referring to
the display in a COURT HOUSE, mentioned earlier in this thread, are
you? That's quite different from a church. Government does have
the right to put some restrictions on displays on private property,
say, limiting them to a certain height so they do not interfere
with air traffic, but I'd be against government insisting that a
display of the Ten Commandments on church property be removed. Are
you saying this happened? What excuse for the action was given?
God is a wonderful thing.God is no thing. He is the perfect being.

A being is a type of thing. However, I can see that differences
in terminology like this have started major wars before and probably
will again.
And he is very very good andwise. Don't let the government ruin this by screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up. Gordon L. BurdittDon't favor one but let all the religions speak and help, that is mysolution.

You can't understand anything if two people are talking at the same
time. There are only 24 hours in a day. How are you going to
decide who gets to speak for how long in front of City Hall? I
suggest that they do it at their own church, or if they don't have
a church building, their own home. Or they can buy television time
with their own money.

Gordon L. Burditt

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3ySwc.653046$Pk3.204895@pd7tw1no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes many people develop a conscience,

My own experience in this world, my own observations. However, feel
free to make an official study. That may or may not be so. What evidence do you suggest supports it? Some studies suggest that atheists are under represented in prison populations.

Ahem...not really, as many of the convicts just say that they found
religion to get sooner paroled and out of the slammer. They certainly
were not truly religious when they committed the crime, otherwise they
would have not committed the crime.

and people should think about what was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to figure that out. Religion isn't about figuring that, or anything else, out.

My religion Scientology is all about that.
It's about arbitrarily deciding to believe in something, despite a lack of evidence.

Not mine.
Conjecturing about what may or may not happen after death, is very different than preaching your conjectures to folks and telling them that it's fact.

Scientologists wants to know the facts. Who says they can't be
scientific explored? You can re-live past lives, you can see the
spirit (thetan) leave the body while dying and going for a baby body
when you use special cameras. Only because universities are mislead
and haven't figured it quite out yet, doesn't mean that others did
not.
Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a government tremendously on certain subjects. Yes, some good work is done by some churches (or members of some churches. At the same time, some churches in North America helped teach native children that their religions were evil, burned totem poles and abused them for speaking their native languages.

Those are the unreligious people that infiltrate religion. A truly
religious person would never do that.
No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people hate God and religions. Few 'hate' god. Some think it's just superstition, on par with Santa Claus.
God is no superstition.They speak about those as they would be the devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on anything, and also deny him. That is insanity. There may be any number of gods in the universe, from zero to infinity. You've denied all but one.

Theoretically, we all are God, including you, but most lost their
godly ablities. But according to my spiritual perception, there is
still one out there that has his godly abilities. I am convinced that
he can take different identities, spiritual and physical, but that he
is basically the same individual.
I've denied one more than you have. Are we not pretty close to 'insane', by your standards?

No, I don't declare people with strong opinions insane. In my eyes
people are insane that can't handle different opinions and call for
psychiatrists and medication to control the opinions of other person,
as they can't deal with freedom of speech.
You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the school. Very well said. I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowing down the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask any other religion in town to put their monument on the place up too. You would leave up a plaque which includes a suggestion that gods wants us to kill our neighbors if they work on Saturday?

What religion says that? Sounds anti-semitic to me. Nobody should
promote any criminality. Of course I would allow nothing criminal on a
monument. But that is again not truly religious. Everybody knows that
killing others is unreligious. Unreligious people introduce that to
religions, unfortunately. Religious organizations have to check their
own rows of such infiltrations and learn to correct themselves. God is a wonderful thing. God is no thing. He is the perfect being. And he is very very good and wise. Then why does the Bible tell me that god wants me to stone women who are raped within a city? Karl Johansin

Because God did not write the bible, Karl! There are grains of truth
within the bible and other religious scriptures, but just about
anything is altered by the snake, so to speak, bad people who
succeeded to re-write history and events.

The best way to find God and understand how he is, is to find a
personal relationship with him.

Barbara Schwarz

On 7 Jun 2004 09:43:32 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
They certainlywere not truly religious when they committed the crime, otherwise theywould have not committed the crime.

Then how do you explain pedophilia among the clergy?

Do you mean to imply those pompous, overbearing, sanctimonious clergy,
who told you that dirty thoughts would land you in Hell, that they
were not "truly religious"?

Naw.
The best way to find God and understand how he is, is to find apersonal relationship with him.

Just don't let anyone know you talk to Him or you will end up in a
rubber room.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up from the
Democrats, well ladies and gentleman, I'd follow the example
of their nominee; don't inhale."
--Ronald Reagan

Gordon Burditt wrote:>This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this>tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and>truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see noreason why government money, which is taken from people at the pointof a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion.Any religion.Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makesmany people develop a conscience, and people should think about whatwas before the birth and will come after death. It is important tofigure that out. No, I'm NOT only talking about "bad apples" in religion. Most religions have as part of their objectives preaching their message to the masses, and reaching out to bring their message to the poor misguided souls who do not believe. This is a major theme in the Christian Bible, for example. This takes funding. This is not an evil objective. It can be quite beneficial to the community (even outside the religious aspects) and that's why churches can get voluntary funding from members for charitable projects. Preaching their message to the masses is one objective that government should not be supporting with tax money, however.Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget thatreligions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help agovernment tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc. If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it, but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion, the price is too high and the government should decline to accept such help. It is also quite possible that the church can organize the program independently of the government and with no funding from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody ofthem tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them tolive ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force hisreligion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups tohelp solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state couldwork. It seems to me that there's a lot of resources out there that the government should get the hell out of the way of. Churches can do some things fine on their own.>Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I wouldYou mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don'tyou?No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that peoplehate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be thedevil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God onanything, and also deny him. That is insanity. Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.

Um, it's a lack of belief. Not a legitimate belief.

gordonb.9z91v@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in message news:<ca0us0$5pb@library2.airnews.net>... >This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this >tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and >truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind. Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion. Any religion.Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makesmany people develop a conscience, and people should think about whatwas before the birth and will come after death. It is important tofigure that out. No, I'm NOT only talking about "bad apples" in religion. Most religions have as part of their objectives preaching their message to the masses, and reaching out to bring their message to the poor misguided souls who do not believe. This is a major theme in the Christian Bible, for example. This takes funding. This is not an evil objective. It can be quite beneficial to the community (even outside the religious aspects) and that's why churches can get voluntary funding from members for charitable projects. Preaching their message to the masses is one objective that government should not be supporting with tax money, however.

I am not a Christian. I don't defend the Christian churches. We know
about their perverted priests, and I as a Scientologist had to suffer
a lot under socalled Christian people persecuting me because of my
religion. I speak about truly religious people, it doesn't matter what
their religion is, and those people have a greater conscience,
according to my observations.

Perverted christian priests, Muslims terrorists are NOT religious.
They just lie when they say that.

No, you are right, the government should not fund preachings of
religions, but they should use them as resources. Sometimes a
community has problems, and instead of hiring permanent federal or
state employees, who would cost more, the gov could ask religious
groups to pitch in. Sometimes it will need some tax payers money, but
likely less as if the gov is enlarged. However, it must be made clear
that they are being asked to help remove a problem and not preach the
gospel instead.

Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget thatreligions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help agovernment tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc.

Nothing. However, if religions want to display reminders to the public
to become better people, why should they not? We all have to lift the
moral of people. If religions want to teach in schools, I would allow
them to do that, but I would allow all religions who wants to go in,
and I would allow all the students to chose if they want to
participate and in what group.
If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it, but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion, the price is too high and the government should decline to accept such help.

I am very secure in my religion. If somebody tells me something from
his, I am not afraid that I will give up my own understanding of the
universe. However, I agree that nobody should force religion on
anybody during community service. However, if somebody drops some
religious words, so what! Who is harmed by it?
It is also quite possible that the church can organize the program independently of the government and with no funding from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.

Yes, but once again, religious groups are a great pool of resources
for the government. They can work hand in hand and the people that
benefit are those in the communities and also the tax payers if it is
done right. You probably heard that the U.S. has now a program, faith
based help, but I heard the funding sofar was just issues to Christian
groups sofar, which is not correct either. As if Jewish groups,
scientological groups, muslim groups could not do good either.
to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody ofthem tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them tolive ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force hisreligion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups tohelp solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state couldwork. It seems to me that there's a lot of resources out there that the government should get the hell out of the way of. Churches can do some things fine on their own.

It is a lot cheaper to use resources in the community that are already
there, instead of wasting tax payers money to make government bigger.
>Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't you?No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that peoplehate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be thedevil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God onanything, and also deny him. That is insanity. Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief.

The government should not declare any religion to be one, but agents
of an non-religious satans cult, who hate real religions, should not
try to sell their non-religion as religion.

The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.

Yeah right! It is a psychiatric front group. Psychiatry always had a
problem with true spirituality and true religiosity. >say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and >the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not >from the government, but from the people, which is more members. Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak,why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain fromfavoring one. I find it very difficult to believe that it is possible to arrange for, say, religious holiday displays in a public park without (a) unending squabbles and court battles over who gets how much space, (b) high police costs of protecting one group's displays from vandaliasm by other groups, and (c) taking up space in the park that ought to be used for playing baseball, picnicing, and just being a place where you can observe nature.

Don't make a problem where there is none. Not all parks will be
occupied by religions. If they are active in one park on a rotary
basis, lets say, this weekend there is this group out there, next week
another, there are still plenty of parks for you where only teenagers
and kids scream in their cell phones and blast your ear drums in
pieces with their boom boxes. Many religions exhibit a downright hate for other specific religions, and they are likely not to tolerate their displays or their presence in schools.

That is true. They also have to learn to be tolerant to others.
For example, Christians don't like Satanists.

I am no Christian, but I don't like them others. Such groups give
religion as bad rap.
I don't know whether you consider "Nazi" a religion, but Jews and Nazis have a past that justifies much ill will between them.

Of course the Nazis are no religion. For heavens sake! They were a
psychiatric front group and they are anti-religious. The Nazis were
against religions, except those unreligious people in churches that
helped them, as a certain pope and others.
Some religions say it's OK to kill members of certain other religions.

Those are anti-religious people that infiltrated religious groups.
Some religions (generally the ones that aren't millennia old) get called "cults" that supposedly brainwash people, although the definition of "cult" that actually seems to fit best is "a religion that's not as old as mine". The religions I have heard accused most often of being "cults" are the Moonies and the Scientologists.

I am a Scientologist. Most claims against Scientology are fabricated.
There is no brainwashing within Scientology, but they are also
infiltrated (like any other religion) by non-religious agents who have
an anti-religious agenda.
It isn't the business of government to decide that these aren't legitimate religions because of that.

Right.
But you can expect that some (perhaps the "bad apples") of one religion will try to suppress the message that disagrees with their own by vandalizing displays.

Those that can't live in peace with each other are not religious.
Period. They need to be persecuted by the law. Wouldn't it make more sense to put these displays in separate places?

I just made that example because I read about the big controvery of
the 10 Commandments removed from a governmental site. They could have
solved that problem by allowing the Jews, the Moslems, the
Scientologists, the Russian Orthodox, or whomever, to put also a
monument up, next to the Ten Commandments, so that people can read all
the different views and basics of religion, and reflect on all of
them.
Like, for example, at churches? That won't eliminate all the hate problems (church-burnings still happen), but it at least doesn't force all the disagreeing sides to all come to one place to work on their displays.

Why should they constantly be forced back? It is like saying to them
they are just allowed to be in a Ghetto.
Would you care to come up with a plan for dividing up space for displays in the town park, given that some religions are much more popular than others, and the amount of space available per resident of the town is about 5 square inches?

Yes, I would. You have no idea what my mind is capable of solving,
Gordon. :) You could have rolling monuments, e.g. is space is too
small, your allow one week that religion to display something, next
week another one, and so on. The size of a religious group should not
matter.
Remember that some residents will, rightfully so, take offense at government even ASKING what religion they are, especially given what governments have done with that information in the past.

Who does not want to participate, doesn't have to.
Others are going to ask why the government is holding on to all that free land when it could be sold to someone who would pay taxes on it.

If the government wants and should to sell it to a private owner, they
should. But I was speaking about land that the government does not
sell, as city hall or court property, etc. You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home, fine, go ahead.You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes theschool. Well, I wouldn't object to religious after-school activities on the same basis as other activities provided (a) the school doesn't provide much more than a place to meet (no paying for speakers or buying Bibles to hand out - the group pay for that with dues for members or fund-raising activities or get sponsorship from a local church), (b) attendance of ANY religious activity is voluntary (no "choose one"), (c) any religion is welcome to start its own group if it can get students to participate.

Now we are getting somewhere. My problem is mainly with those people
that fear religion and their activities more than psychiatric
committment, as this is nuts. The trouble here is that when the Satanists and the "cult" religions (regardless of whether they actually DESERVE that label) show up, parents of the top several of the religions in the community scream bloody murder. Now what do you do?

There are always people complaining, but if a group is preaching hate
and destruction, as the satanists, law enforcement has to look into
that and either arrest or calm the people down, in case a group is
wrongfully accused.
You're likely to find that parents will demand that ALL extracurricular activities be dropped if that's what it takes to keep the "religious nutcakes" away from their kids.

I think we deal with secret anti-religious campaigns here and indeed
also anti-religious group that operate under the cover of religions to
bring true religions in miscredit. People have to figure that out on
their own. If parents would have done a good job bringing the kids up,
they would have to fear that they become suddenly satanists.
>The government should not force ONE religion on the people, but boxing >all religious people out and being afraid to speak the word God out is >rather insane. I don't know of any government regulation that does that when people try to get the word out on their own property and with their own money. The restrictions usually objected to are doing it on government property, doing it with government money or government employee time (when they are on the clock), or doing it where they have a captive audience (public schools).I think it is hysterical. I am no Christians, but instead of mowingdown the Ten Commendments before a church building, I would ask anyother religion in town to put their monument on the place up too. You want one religion to put up a monument on ANOTHER church's property? Assuming the second church does not agree with that, this approach is really insane.

That was a typo. Sorry.
Not on CHURCH property but on GOVERNMENT property. Remember the
removal of the 10 Commandments from a courthouse site not long ago?
That was a big battle, as some wanted it to stay, the others to go. I
would have solved it by having asked other religions to put their
religious monuments up on the same site. More religion instead of
less, but not just one.

Where, when, and why did a government entity "mow down the Ten Commandments before a church building"? You're not referring to the display in a COURT HOUSE, mentioned earlier in this thread, are you? That's quite different from a church.

It was a typo.

Government does have the right to put some restrictions on displays on private property, say, limiting them to a certain height so they do not interfere with air traffic, but I'd be against government insisting that a display of the Ten Commandments on church property be removed. Are you saying this happened? What excuse for the action was given?

Was a misunderstanding. God is a wonderful thing.God is no thing. He is the perfect being. A being is a type of thing.

Would you describe yourself as a thing? I sure would not.

However, I can see that differences in terminology like this have started major wars before and probably will again.And he is very very good andwise. Don't let the government ruin this by screwing it up as badly as it screws everything else up. Gordon L. BurdittDon't favor one but let all the religions speak and help, that is mysolution. You can't understand anything if two people are talking at the same time. There are only 24 hours in a day. How are you going to decide who gets to speak for how long in front of City Hall?

That's easy. This weekend there is this religion, next weekend the
other one, and so on.

I suggest that they do it at their own church, or if they don't have a church building, their own home. Or they can buy television time with their own money. Gordon L. Burditt

That is also possible of course, but I think that the fear of some
people of religions is rather odd and crazy.

The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, says that Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of a religion, and that is good so,
but the Constitution has no phrase requiring a seperation between
religions and state. (Check out the case Everson v. Board of Education
on legal websites.)

The fathers of the Constitution did not intend for religious views and
values to be seperated from constitutional/political values.

A total seperation of religion and state is impossible. (Check the
Lemon decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.)

And any effort to seperate totally religious values from
political/legal values is extremely dangerous, according to some legal
scholars, as people would lose morality.

Think about it.

Barbara Schwarz

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406070843.6aae6806@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<3ySwc.653046$Pk3.204895@pd7tw1no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makes many people develop a conscience, My own experience in this world, my own observations. However, feel free to make an official study. That may or may not be so. What evidence do you suggest supports it?
Some studies suggest that atheists are under represented in prison
populations. Ahem...not really, as many of the convicts just say that they found religion to get sooner paroled and out of the slammer. They certainly were not truly religious when they committed the crime, otherwise they would have not committed the crime.

Ahh.......the old "True Christian" (TM) excuse.
and people should think about what was before the birth and will come after death. It is important to figure that out. Religion isn't about figuring that, or anything else, out. My religion Scientology is all about that.

Other religions say YOUR religion isn't even a religion.
The whole basais for "religion" is a believe is a superior/supernatural
being.
Anything that comes after that (or, in place of that) is human philosophy.

It's about arbitrarily deciding to believe in something, despite a lack of
evidence. Not mine. Conjecturing about what may or may not happen after death, is very
different than preaching your conjectures to folks and telling them that it's
fact. Scientologists wants to know the facts. Who says they can't be scientific explored? You can re-live past lives, you can see the spirit (thetan) leave the body while dying and going for a baby body when you use special cameras.

???? I thought you wanted to know the facts - not junk science.


Only because universities are mislead and haven't figured it quite out yet, doesn't mean that others did not.

OK .. the old "conspiracy" claims!

Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a government tremendously on certain subjects. Yes, some good work is done by some churches (or members of some
churches. At the same time, some churches in North America helped teach native children that their religions were evil, burned totem poles and abused
them for speaking their native languages. Those are the unreligious people that infiltrate religion. A truly religious person would never do that.

Then there is, thorughout all of history, perhaps only one or two known
"truely religious" persons.
What makes you think you or any of your peers is even close to that?

No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people hate God and religions. Few 'hate' god. Some think it's just superstition, on par with Santa
Claus. God is no superstition.They speak about those as they would be the devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on anything, and also deny him. That is insanity. There may be any number of gods in the universe, from zero to infinity. You've denied all but one. Theoretically, we all are God, including you, but most lost their godly ablities.

Not even theoretically .
That's just another fantasy belief.

But according to my spiritual perception, there is still one out there that has his godly abilities.

IOW "according to the religious fantasies and fairy tales I follow".


I am convinced that he can take different identities, spiritual and physical, but that he is basically the same individual.

I thought you were interested in facts!?!?!?!?

Jason Coplen <jason@olendiak.com> wrote in message news:<N_6dnd3uFajfNFndRVn_iw@comcast.com>... Gordon Burditt wrote:>>This would be my solution, Karl, and all others that posted in this>>tread. I would support all religions as long as they are good and>>truly religious and have no other purpuse in mind.>>Religions ALWAYS have another purpose in mind. Funding. I see no>reason why government money, which is taken from people at the point>of a gun or the threat of one, should be used to support religion.>Any religion.Sure, there are bad apples in churches, but religion is good. It makesmany people develop a conscience, and people should think about whatwas before the birth and will come after death. It is important tofigure that out. No, I'm NOT only talking about "bad apples" in religion. Most religions have as part of their objectives preaching their message to the masses, and reaching out to bring their message to the poor misguided souls who do not believe. This is a major theme in the Christian Bible, for example. This takes funding. This is not an evil objective. It can be quite beneficial to the community (even outside the religious aspects) and that's why churches can get voluntary funding from members for charitable projects. Preaching their message to the masses is one objective that government should not be supporting with tax money, however.Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget thatreligions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help agovernment tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc. If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it, but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion, the price is too high and the government should decline to accept such help. It is also quite possible that the church can organize the program independently of the government and with no funding from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.to work with them because some people can't have it if somebody ofthem tells them that God loves them, (the Christians) or tells them tolive ethical lives (the Scientologists). Nobody should force hisreligion on others, but not to use offerings of religious groups tohelp solve problems is a waste of resources with which a state couldwork. It seems to me that there's a lot of resources out there that the government should get the hell out of the way of. Churches can do some things fine on their own.>>Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would>>You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't>you?No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that peoplehate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be thedevil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God onanything, and also deny him. That is insanity. Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion. Um, it's a lack of belief. Not a legitimate belief.

I agree.

Barbara Schwarz

>> Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.Um, it's a lack of belief. Not a legitimate belief.

Atheism is not a lack of belief.

Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.
Monotheism is a belief that there is exactly 1 god.
Polytheism is a belief that there is more than one god.

It seems to me that there is not a lot of difference in the amount
of faith required to believe any of these.

Agnosticism is the belief that you can't accurately count the number
of gods. This isn't a belief ABOUT god(s), per se.

Klingons have a belief that there are exactly 0 gods because
they killed them all.

What isn't a belief is that you don't CARE about whether or not
there is/are god(s).

According to a Muslim who admitted he didn't understand, Christianity
is a belief that there are exactly 1 or 3 gods depending on how you
feel at the time.

In any case, it is not the business of government to decide if these
are legitimate beliefs or not. If they are related to the nature
of or existence of God, that pretty much means government has to
accept it as religious. There are a few beliefs that are clearly
self-serving and are concocted for non-religious purposes, such as
the belief that tax deductions are God and should be worshipped.

It is also not the business of government to decide if someone is
"truly relgious". If someone claims to believe in a particular
religion, the government will have a hard time disproving it (and
probably shouldn't even be attempting it), especially if there is
other evidence like attending that church or being acknowledged as
a member by others in that church. Even the serial killer who
claims to believe in "thou shalt not kill" may be really trying but
he slips sometimes.

If you extend the "not truly religious" argument to its logical
conclusion, you will realize that there are no Christians, Jews,
Scientologists, Muslims, or Satanists: only "bad apples" pretending
to believe.

Gordon L. Burditt

>I am not a Christian. I don't defend the Christian churches. We knowabout their perverted priests, and I as a Scientologist had to suffera lot under socalled Christian people persecuting me because of myreligion. I speak about truly religious people, it doesn't matter whattheir religion is, and those people have a greater conscience,according to my observations.Perverted christian priests, Muslims terrorists are NOT religious.They just lie when they say that.

Regardless of whether or not they are truly religious, religion
shouldn't be funded with tax money. It also isn't the business of
government to decide whether or not someone is truly religious. As
far as government is concerned, Muslim terrorists ARE a religion
(possibly completely unrelated to regular Muslims, and that name
is misleading) and they are entitled to their opinion (which is not
the same as entitled to carry out bombings).
No, you are right, the government should not fund preachings ofreligions, but they should use them as resources. Sometimes acommunity has problems, and instead of hiring permanent federal orstate employees, who would cost more, the gov could ask religiousgroups to pitch in. Sometimes it will need some tax payers money, butlikely less as if the gov is enlarged. However, it must be made clearthat they are being asked to help remove a problem and not preach thegospel instead.Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget thatreligions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help agovernment tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc.Nothing. However, if religions want to display reminders to the publicto become better people, why should they not?

Sure. Do it on their OWN property and with their OWN money.
We all have to lift themoral of people. If religions want to teach in schools, I would allowthem to do that, but I would allow all religions who wants to go in,and I would allow all the students to chose if they want toparticipate and in what group.

If you are going to allow after-school religious extracurricular
activities, you have to allow ALL of them or NONE of them. You
don't get to pick and choose which ones are "truly religious" or
"anti-religious" and which ones aren't. That means you have to let
in the Satanists (they have a god called "Satan" and also believe
in a devil called "God"). and the Moonies. There will be a lot
of controversy over that, as many people do not want their children
exposed to these.
If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it, but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion, the price is too high and the government should decline to accept such help.I am very secure in my religion. If somebody tells me something fromhis, I am not afraid that I will give up my own understanding of theuniverse. However, I agree that nobody should force religion onanybody during community service. However, if somebody drops somereligious words, so what! Who is harmed by it?

Some people don't like being nagged. And you may be very secure in
your religion. How about elementary-school kids?
It is also quite possible that the church can organize the program independently of the government and with no funding from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.Yes, but once again, religious groups are a great pool of resourcesfor the government. They can work hand in hand and the people thatbenefit are those in the communities and also the tax payers if it isdone right. You probably heard that the U.S. has now a program, faithbased help, but I heard the funding sofar was just issues to Christiangroups sofar, which is not correct either. As if Jewish groups,scientological groups, muslim groups could not do good either.

It is for exactly this reason I think the "faith based help" program
is a BAD idea. Also, I think the religious groups are being corrupted
by the lure of money. IT'S A TRAP, set by government. If the separation
of church and state gets torn down, do you want to pay taxes on prayer?
I expect that to happen.
> >Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would>> You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't> you?No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that peoplehate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be thedevil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God onanything, and also deny him. That is insanity. Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief.The government should not declare any religion to be one, but agentsof an non-religious satans cult, who hate real religions, should nottry to sell their non-religion as religion.
hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.Yeah right! It is a psychiatric front group. Psychiatry always had aproblem with true spirituality and true religiosity.

Psychiatrists often call the Satanists nutcakes, so I find it difficult
to believe that they are on the same side. You keep calling people
"insane" or "nuts". Are you a psychiatrist?

Government shouldn't be trying to judge whether something is true
religion or false religion or anti-religion. It's still religion.
> >say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and> >the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not> >from the government, but from the people, which is more members.>> Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money.If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak,why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain fromfavoring one. I find it very difficult to believe that it is possible to arrange for, say, religious holiday displays in a public park without (a) unending squabbles and court battles over who gets how much space, (b) high police costs of protecting one group's displays from vandaliasm by other groups, and (c) taking up space in the park that ought to be used for playing baseball, picnicing, and just being a place where you can observe nature.Don't make a problem where there is none. Not all parks will beoccupied by religions. If they are active in one park on a rotarybasis, lets say, this weekend there is this group out there, next weekanother, there are still plenty of parks for you where only teenagersand kids scream in their cell phones and blast your ear drums inpieces with their boom boxes. Many religions exhibit a downright hate for other specific religions, and they are likely not to tolerate their displays or their presence in schools.That is true. They also have to learn to be tolerant to others.

It is not up to government to dictate to religions what to believe.
Religious tolerance is something that NOT all religions have.
(But even those that preach tolerance don't always seem to do a good
job of it). They need to learn to act in accordance with the law,
which governs how they ACT, not what they believe.
For example, Christians don't like Satanists.I am no Christian, but I don't like them others. Such groups givereligion as bad rap.

Yes, but it's still a religion, and they should get to put up
their own displays if anyone does, like it or not.
Some religions say it's OK to kill members of certain other religions.Those are anti-religious people that infiltrated religious groups.

When the statement that it's OK to kill members of certain other
religions appears in the book that's the basis of that religion,
it's more than "some bad apples". The passages that say this may
be interpreted in different ways, but to some non-members of that
religion, it sounds like a straightforward OK to kill people.
Some religions (generally the ones that aren't millennia old) get called "cults" that supposedly brainwash people, although the definition of "cult" that actually seems to fit best is "a religion that's not as old as mine". The religions I have heard accused most often of being "cults" are the Moonies and the Scientologists.I am a Scientologist. Most claims against Scientology are fabricated.There is no brainwashing within Scientology, but they are alsoinfiltrated (like any other religion) by non-religious agents who havean anti-religious agenda.

It's not up to the government to judge this. If individuals commit
crimes, then individuals should pay for them.
It isn't the business of government to decide that these aren't legitimate religions because of that.Right. But you can expect that some (perhaps the "bad apples") of one religion will try to suppress the message that disagrees with their own by vandalizing displays.Those that can't live in peace with each other are not religious.Period. They need to be persecuted by the law.

No, some religions preach religious INtolerance as part of the
religion. It is not up to government to tell them what to believe.
However, the government can take limited action based on how
they act. Shunning members of other religions is not illegal.
Burning down their churches and beating them up is.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put these displays in separate places?I just made that example because I read about the big controvery ofthe 10 Commandments removed from a governmental site. They could havesolved that problem by allowing the Jews, the Moslems, theScientologists, the Russian Orthodox, or whomever, to put also amonument up, next to the Ten Commandments, so that people can read allthe different views and basics of religion, and reflect on all ofthem.

If they've got enough space for all those displays, someone spent
way WAY too much tax money on the courthouse.

Also, this is a particularly BAD example. A courthouse is supposed
to be a secure area. In my area, you have to go through a metal
detector to get into the courthouse (for example, for jury duty).
There can be and have been problems with defendants in a trial
trying to sneak in guns or bombs. As I understand it, this is an
even worse problem in family court (divorces and custody fights)
than criminal court. You don't want to bring a whole bunch of
people who don't really like each other together to maintain displays
right next to each other and spend a bunch of security guard time
searching the displays for contraband. No, this doesn't have to
be "bad apples" sneaking in guns, it could be the "good apples"
being unwitting mules for terrorists who tampered with the display
before it was brought to the courthouse. Or it could be a terrorist
impersonating a member of one of the religious groups.
Like, for example, at churches? That won't eliminate all the hate problems (church-burnings still happen), but it at least doesn't force all the disagreeing sides to all come to one place to work on their displays.Why should they constantly be forced back? It is like saying to themthey are just allowed to be in a Ghetto.

Why is putting up a display on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY being
"forced back"?
Would you care to come up with a plan for dividing up space for displays in the town park, given that some religions are much more popular than others, and the amount of space available per resident of the town is about 5 square inches?Yes, I would. You have no idea what my mind is capable of solving,Gordon. :) You could have rolling monuments, e.g. is space is toosmall, your allow one week that religion to display something, nextweek another one, and so on. The size of a religious group should notmatter.

Rolling monuments make the problem of sneaking contraband into a
courthouse even worse. That might work in parks, though. You're
still going to get arguments that if one-third of the community is
Jewish, the Jewish display should be up one-third of the time. And
there will be disputes over timing: the Christians really wouldn't
like it if their manger scene can't be up on Christmas, but that
sometimes overlaps with other religious holidays of other religions.

If the size of a religious group does not matter, you should expect
that what was formerly the First Baptist Church of South Hooterville
to become:

First Baptist Church of the 1800 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 1900 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2000 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2100 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2200 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2300 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2400 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2500 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2600 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2700 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2800 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 2900 Block of Main Street
First Baptist Church of the 3000 Block of Main Street
...

and they're all demanding their own display, of the same size as
everyone else.

Remember that some residents will, rightfully so, take offense at government even ASKING what religion they are, especially given what governments have done with that information in the past.Who does not want to participate, doesn't have to.

Well, this really applies only if you try to match the share of
display space/time to the composition of the community.
Others are going to ask why the government is holding on to all that free land when it could be sold to someone who would pay taxes on it.If the government wants and should to sell it to a private owner, theyshould. But I was speaking about land that the government does notsell, as city hall or court property, etc.

City hall and court property are *IN USE*.
> You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they> aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this> includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your> church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home,> fine, go ahead.You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes theschool. Well, I wouldn't object to religious after-school activities on the same basis as other activities provided (a) the school doesn't provide much more than a place to meet (no paying for speakers or buying Bibles to hand out - the group pay for that with dues for members or fund-raising activities or get sponsorship from a local church), (b) attendance of ANY religious activity is voluntary (no "choose one"), (c) any religion is welcome to start its own group if it can get students to participate.Now we are getting somewhere. My problem is mainly with those peoplethat fear religion and their activities more than psychiatriccommittment, as this is nuts.

You sound like the psychiatrist. You keep calling people "insane"
and "nuts".

The problem is that you and governemnt don't get to decide what is
a religious group and what is an anti-religious group. You have
to let them ALL in or let NONE of them in.
The trouble here is that when the Satanists and the "cult" religions (regardless of whether they actually DESERVE that label) show up, parents of the top several of the religions in the community scream bloody murder. Now what do you do?There are always people complaining, but if a group is preaching hateand destruction, as the satanists, law enforcement has to look intothat and either arrest or calm the people down, in case a group iswrongfully accused.

If a group is wrongfully accused of something that is NOT A CRIME,
there is little that law enforcement can do about it. I suspect
the main accusation really behind this hate is that the religion
is not close enough to theirs.
You're likely to find that parents will demand that ALL extracurricular activities be dropped if that's what it takes to keep the "religious nutcakes" away from their kids.I think we deal with secret anti-religious campaigns here and indeed

No, I don't think it's anti-ALL-religions. Many parents simply
don't want their kids exposed to a religion other than THEIRS.
They'll (barely) tolerate a religion that is sort of close, like
Presbyterians and Baptists, but they really don't want their kid
turning Jewish, and even more different religions are considered
really dangerous.
also anti-religious group that operate under the cover of religions tobring true religions in miscredit. People have to figure that out ontheir own. If parents would have done a good job bringing the kids up,they would have to fear that they become suddenly satanists.

I'm not so sure of that. And at the age they encounter the other
groups at the proposed after-school activities, they haven't been
fully "brought up" yet.
I suggest that they do it at their own church, or if they don't have a church building, their own home. Or they can buy television time with their own money. Gordon L. BurdittThat is also possible of course, but I think that the fear of somepeople of religions is rather odd and crazy.

There you go again, playing psychiatrist. Or are you a real
psychiatrist? I think the fear you are seeing is fear of *OTHER*
religions. The atheists just don't have enough people to carry out
all these anti-religion campaigns you suggest they are doing.
The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, says that Congress shall make nolaw respecting an establishment of a religion, and that is good so,but the Constitution has no phrase requiring a seperation betweenreligions and state. (Check out the case Everson v. Board of Educationon legal websites.)

It doesn't use those words, but it doesn't have to use the exact
words you want it to. And funding a religion is establishing it.

Gordon L. Burditt

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net... Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I
know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.Um, it's a lack of belief. Not a legitimate belief.

Umm . it may not ber a belief .. as such .. but it is certainly legitimate!
Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods. Monotheism is a belief that there is exactly 1 god. Polytheism is a belief that there is more than one god.

Sorry.
Atheism is the rational conclusion that since there is no valid evidence of
ANY gods - there is no reason to have any "belief" in any gods.

It seems to me that there is not a lot of difference in the amount of faith required to believe any of these.

Of course. first one has to accept your distorted definition of atheism.

"Gordon Burditt" <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote in message
news:ca75v6$tjr@library1.airnews.net...I am not a Christian. I don't defend the Christian churches. We knowabout their perverted priests, and I as a Scientologist had to suffera lot under socalled Christian people persecuting me because of myreligion. I speak about truly religious people, it doesn't matter whattheir religion is, and those people have a greater conscience,according to my observations.Perverted christian priests, Muslims terrorists are NOT religious.They just lie when they say that. Regardless of whether or not they are truly religious, religion shouldn't be funded with tax money. It also isn't the business of government to decide whether or not someone is truly religious. As far as government is concerned, Muslim terrorists ARE a religion (possibly completely unrelated to regular Muslims, and that name is misleading) and they are entitled to their opinion (which is not the same as entitled to carry out bombings).No, you are right, the government should not fund preachings ofreligions, but they should use them as resources. Sometimes acommunity has problems, and instead of hiring permanent federal orstate employees, who would cost more, the gov could ask religiousgroups to pitch in. Sometimes it will need some tax payers money, butlikely less as if the gov is enlarged. However, it must be made clearthat they are being asked to help remove a problem and not preach thegospel instead. >Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that >religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a >government tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc.Nothing. However, if religions want to display reminders to the publicto become better people, why should they not? Sure. Do it on their OWN property and with their OWN money.We all have to lift themoral of people. If religions want to teach in schools, I would allowthem to do that, but I would allow all religions who wants to go in,and I would allow all the students to chose if they want toparticipate and in what group. If you are going to allow after-school religious extracurricular activities, you have to allow ALL of them or NONE of them. You don't get to pick and choose which ones are "truly religious" or "anti-religious" and which ones aren't. That means you have to let in the Satanists (they have a god called "Satan" and also believe in a devil called "God"). and the Moonies. There will be a lot of controversy over that, as many people do not want their children exposed to these.


Unless you're George Bush and have federal tax money to uncontrollably throw
away at "your favorite" religons.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:05:52 -0400, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
Atheism is the rational conclusion that since there is no valid evidence ofANY gods - there is no reason to have any "belief" in any gods.

Atheism is the stupid notion that there is no evidence. It's stupid
because there is abundant evidence of the existence of the Supreme
Being - the entire Universe is evidence.

Finite objects cannot be the cause of their own existence, because if
they were they would be immutable. But finite objects are mutable,
therefore they cannot be the cause of their own existence. There must
be an entity whose essence is existence to cause finite objects to
exist. That entity is called the Supreme Being.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as
possible, the need for its own existence."
--Ronald Reagan

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net... Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief. The same goes for the Satanists, who worship the devil and hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I
know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.Um, it's a lack of belief. Not a legitimate belief. Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.

Rather, there are two forms of atheists. Those who don't believe in any
gods, and those who believe there are no gods. The former is a lack of
belief, the latter a form of belief. In my experience, most atheists just
lack belief. I've only ever met one atheist who, by there own admission,
believed there was no god..
Monotheism is a belief that there is exactly 1 god. Polytheism is a belief that there is more than one god. It seems to me that there is not a lot of difference in the amount of faith required to believe any of these. Agnosticism is the belief that you can't accurately count the number of gods. This isn't a belief ABOUT god(s), per se. Klingons have a belief that there are exactly 0 gods because they killed them all. What isn't a belief is that you don't CARE about whether or not there is/are god(s). According to a Muslim who admitted he didn't understand, Christianity is a belief that there are exactly 1 or 3 gods depending on how you feel at the time. In any case, it is not the business of government to decide if these are legitimate beliefs or not. If they are related to the nature of or existence of God, that pretty much means government has to accept it as religious. There are a few beliefs that are clearly self-serving and are concocted for non-religious purposes, such as the belief that tax deductions are God and should be worshipped. It is also not the business of government to decide if someone is "truly relgious". If someone claims to believe in a particular religion, the government will have a hard time disproving it (and probably shouldn't even be attempting it), especially if there is other evidence like attending that church or being acknowledged as a member by others in that church. Even the serial killer who claims to believe in "thou shalt not kill" may be really trying but he slips sometimes. If you extend the "not truly religious" argument to its logical conclusion, you will realize that there are no Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Muslims, or Satanists: only "bad apples" pretending to believe.

Well said.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7470f.17147256@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:05:52 -0400, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:Atheism is the rational conclusion that since there is no valid evidence
ofANY gods - there is no reason to have any "belief" in any gods. Atheism is the stupid notion that there is no evidence. It's stupid because there is abundant evidence of the existence of the Supreme Being - the entire Universe is evidence.

Silly, silly. The universe is clear evidence that there are 42 Supreme
Beings.

Karl Johanson

In article <5rIxc.681003$Pk3.358766@pd7tw1no>,
Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in messagenews:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net... Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.Rather, there are two forms of atheists. Those who don't believe in anygods, and those who believe there are no gods. The former is a lack ofbelief, the latter a form of belief. In my experience, most atheists justlack belief. I've only ever met one atheist who, by there own admission,believed there was no god..

Actually, there are quite a few of us. I certainly don't believe that I
have proof that there is no God and I don't consider it impossible that I'm
wrong (I've been wrong about things before) but it is definitely the case
that I believe there is no God.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c0d4a1.28656956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:04:51 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:There's a seperation of 'church' and state. Point out where that is stated in the Constitution - give us an explicit passage.should be seperate Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".

Spelling flames are a sure sign you can't actually refute the argument. :-)

If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will isalways done, regardless of what anyone else wants That's the (false) doctrine of predestination.

Show me a religious doctrine that isn't false.
Learn some metaphysics before you venture into waters like that. -- Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/ Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: * If it moves, tax it. * If it keeps moving, regulate it. * If it stops moving, subsidize it. --Ronald Reagan

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message news:<ca7l8o$2nq$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>... In article <5rIxc.681003$Pk3.358766@pd7tw1no>, Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in messagenews:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net... Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.Rather, there are two forms of atheists. Those who don't believe in anygods, and those who believe there are no gods. The former is a lack ofbelief, the latter a form of belief. In my experience, most atheists justlack belief. I've only ever met one atheist who, by there own admission,believed there was no god.. Actually, there are quite a few of us. I certainly don't believe that I have proof that there is no God and I don't consider it impossible that I'm wrong (I've been wrong about things before) but it is definitely the case that I believe there is no God. Alan


I just talked to him. I should tell you all to open your eyes and you
might see him one day. :)

Isn't it weird that in a psychiatric hospital they have chapels where
people can pray, but when somebody says God answered, he or she gets
committed and diagnosed with a mental illness?

Barbara Schwarz

gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in message news:<ca75v6$tjr@library1.airnews.net>...I am not a Christian. I don't defend the Christian churches. We knowabout their perverted priests, and I as a Scientologist had to suffera lot under socalled Christian people persecuting me because of myreligion. I speak about truly religious people, it doesn't matter whattheir religion is, and those people have a greater conscience,according to my observations.Perverted christian priests, Muslims terrorists are NOT religious.They just lie when they say that. Regardless of whether or not they are truly religious, religion shouldn't be funded with tax money. It also isn't the business of government to decide whether or not someone is truly religious. As far as government is concerned, Muslim terrorists ARE a religion (possibly completely unrelated to regular Muslims, and that name is misleading) and they are entitled to their opinion (which is not the same as entitled to carry out bombings).

Criminal people are not religious. Period. As I posted religions can
help the government. If they are truly religious, they will give a lot
from themselves, otherwise they can work with the government together
to the benefit of the people, without preaching the gospel, but
through good deads.No, you are right, the government should not fund preachings ofreligions, but they should use them as resources. Sometimes acommunity has problems, and instead of hiring permanent federal orstate employees, who would cost more, the gov could ask religiousgroups to pitch in. Sometimes it will need some tax payers money, butlikely less as if the gov is enlarged. However, it must be made clearthat they are being asked to help remove a problem and not preach thegospel instead. >Yes, religions want fundings, that is true, but don't forget that >religions have many resources, people that could pitch in and help a >government tremendously on certain subjects. It is kind of foolish not I don't see what this has to do with religious displays on public property, prayer in schools, funding religious education with tax money, etc.Nothing. However, if religions want to display reminders to the publicto become better people, why should they not? Sure. Do it on their OWN property and with their OWN money.We all have to lift themoral of people. If religions want to teach in schools, I would allowthem to do that, but I would allow all religions who wants to go in,and I would allow all the students to chose if they want toparticipate and in what group. If you are going to allow after-school religious extracurricular activities, you have to allow ALL of them or NONE of them.

That is what I am saying.
You don't get to pick and choose which ones are "truly religious" or "anti-religious" and which ones aren't. That means you have to let in the Satanists (they have a god called "Satan" and also believe in a devil called "God"). and the Moonies. There will be a lot of controversy over that, as many people do not want their children exposed to these.

Some groups are truly not religious, but the people will find that
out.
If a church wants to help out a government program, say, for cleaning up neighborhoods, after-school basketball programs, drug rehabilitation programs, legal aid, etc., church members can volunteer to do it, but if their price for the services is that the recipients must get a liberal dose of preaching in the volunteers' particular religion, the price is too high and the government should decline to accept such help.I am very secure in my religion. If somebody tells me something fromhis, I am not afraid that I will give up my own understanding of theuniverse. However, I agree that nobody should force religion onanybody during community service. However, if somebody drops somereligious words, so what! Who is harmed by it? Some people don't like being nagged. And you may be very secure in your religion. How about elementary-school kids?

Parents give their child a religion and raise them in a certain
belief, right? That is good so, however, when they are adults they can
make a new religious choice if they want. It is also quite possible that the church can organize the program independently of the government and with no funding from it. Then it can do all the preaching it wants to.Yes, but once again, religious groups are a great pool of resourcesfor the government. They can work hand in hand and the people thatbenefit are those in the communities and also the tax payers if it isdone right. You probably heard that the U.S. has now a program, faithbased help, but I heard the funding sofar was just issues to Christiangroups sofar, which is not correct either. As if Jewish groups,scientological groups, muslim groups could not do good either. It is for exactly this reason I think the "faith based help" program is a BAD idea. Also, I think the religious groups are being corrupted by the lure of money. IT'S A TRAP, set by government. If the separation of church and state gets torn down, do you want to pay taxes on prayer? I expect that to happen.

No, that should of course not happen. All I said is that being afraid
of every religious word, not using the resources that religious
communities are providing is stupid and hysterical (in a bad way.)
There is always a way to work with each other without that people have
to agree to a religious belief which they don't want. >> >Instead of making God and religion to the devil, I would >> >> You mean "instead of making the devil and religion to God", don't >> you? > >No, I mean that there are movements all over the world that people >hate God and religions. They speak about those as they would be the >devil and nothing can be worse than religion, and they blame God on >anything, and also deny him. That is insanity. Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief. You may not agree with it, but government has no business declaring it a non-legitimate belief.The government should not declare any religion to be one, but agentsof an non-religious satans cult, who hate real religions, should nottry to sell their non-religion as religion. hate God (at least according to a self-described Satanist talking about his beliefs). That also is a legitimate belief. As far as I know, Satanists do not hate religion as they know perfectly well Satanism *IS* a religion.Yeah right! It is a psychiatric front group. Psychiatry always had aproblem with true spirituality and true religiosity. Psychiatrists often call the Satanists nutcakes, so I find it difficult to believe that they are on the same side. You keep calling people "insane" or "nuts". Are you a psychiatrist?

Heaven's sake no! Psychs are behind ruining true religion and
introducing non-religion as satan's cults. If I would be a psych, I
would call people "delusional", "paranoid" and "schizo's". Government shouldn't be trying to judge whether something is true religion or false religion or anti-religion. It's still religion.

Alright, they should not, but if there is a criminality, as in the
satans cult, as a psychiatric criminal movement to defame real
religion, law enforcement has to go in. >> >say, hey, come you all, lets argue and discuss, let people listen and >> >the religion with that makes most sense, will get their reward, not >> >from the government, but from the people, which is more members. >> >> Fine, but let them do it on their OWN property with their OWN money. > >If governmental property is not used at the time them want to speak, >why not on governmental property. Government just has to restrain from >favoring one. I find it very difficult to believe that it is possible to arrange for, say, religious holiday displays in a public park without (a) unending squabbles and court battles over who gets how much space, (b) high police costs of protecting one group's displays from vandaliasm by other groups, and (c) taking up space in the park that ought to be used for playing baseball, picnicing, and just being a place where you can observe nature.Don't make a problem where there is none. Not all parks will beoccupied by religions. If they are active in one park on a rotarybasis, lets say, this weekend there is this group out there, next weekanother, there are still plenty of parks for you where only teenagersand kids scream in their cell phones and blast your ear drums inpieces with their boom boxes. Many religions exhibit a downright hate for other specific religions, and they are likely not to tolerate their displays or their presence in schools.That is true. They also have to learn to be tolerant to others. It is not up to government to dictate to religions what to believe.

And I never said so.
Religious tolerance is something that NOT all religions have.

True. (But even those that preach tolerance don't always seem to do a good job of it).

Also true.

They need to learn to act in accordance with the law, which governs how they ACT, not what they believe.

Correct, but who says that true religious people are criminal? If they
put up signs on governmental property, on which is written that people
should be good, what is the big harm? For example, Christians don't like Satanists.I am no Christian, but I don't like them others. Such groups givereligion as bad rap. Yes, but it's still a religion, and they should get to put up their own displays if anyone does, like it or not.

Are you a Satanist, Gordon? Some religions say it's OK to kill members of certain other religions.Those are anti-religious people that infiltrated religious groups. When the statement that it's OK to kill members of certain other religions appears in the book that's the basis of that religion, it's more than "some bad apples".

True. This is no religion.
The passages that say this may be interpreted in different ways, but to some non-members of that religion, it sounds like a straightforward OK to kill people.

And no true religion would preach that. Some religions (generally the ones that aren't millennia old) get called "cults" that supposedly brainwash people, although the definition of "cult" that actually seems to fit best is "a religion that's not as old as mine". The religions I have heard accused most often of being "cults" are the Moonies and the Scientologists.I am a Scientologist. Most claims against Scientology are fabricated.There is no brainwashing within Scientology, but they are alsoinfiltrated (like any other religion) by non-religious agents who havean anti-religious agenda. It's not up to the government to judge this. If individuals commit crimes, then individuals should pay for them.

I agree. Law enforcement must prosecute criminal individuals. It isn't the business of government to decide that these aren't legitimate religions because of that.Right. But you can expect that some (perhaps the "bad apples") of one religion will try to suppress the message that disagrees with their own by vandalizing displays.Those that can't live in peace with each other are not religious.Period. They need to be persecuted by the law. No, some religions preach religious INtolerance as part of the religion. It is not up to government to tell them what to believe.

Right. However, the government can take limited action based on how they act. Shunning members of other religions is not illegal.

It depends how that shunning is be done.
Burning down their churches and beating them up is.
It sure is. Wouldn't it make more sense to put these displays in separate places?I just made that example because I read about the big controvery ofthe 10 Commandments removed from a governmental site. They could havesolved that problem by allowing the Jews, the Moslems, theScientologists, the Russian Orthodox, or whomever, to put also amonument up, next to the Ten Commandments, so that people can read allthe different views and basics of religion, and reflect on all ofthem. If they've got enough space for all those displays, someone spent way WAY too much tax money on the courthouse.

The religions should pay for their own display. Don't get me wrong.
But removing everything religious is crazy.
Also, this is a particularly BAD example.

But this is why I started the thread, not because I am a Christian,
but I don't like the secret campaign that religion is the big enemy
and that people are being harmed when they read something that is
telling them to be good.

A courthouse is supposed to be a secure area. In my area, you have to go through a metal detector to get into the courthouse (for example, for jury duty). There can be and have been problems with defendants in a trial trying to sneak in guns or bombs. As I understand it, this is an even worse problem in family court (divorces and custody fights) than criminal court. You don't want to bring a whole bunch of people who don't really like each other together to maintain displays right next to each other and spend a bunch of security guard time searching the displays for contraband. No, this doesn't have to be "bad apples" sneaking in guns, it could be the "good apples" being unwitting mules for terrorists who tampered with the display before it was brought to the courthouse. Or it could be a terrorist impersonating a member of one of the religious groups.

My goodness, we can discuss that forever. You have some points but you
are making a mouse to an elephant. Like, for example, at churches? That won't eliminate all the hate problems (church-burnings still happen), but it at least doesn't force all the disagreeing sides to all come to one place to work on their displays.Why should they constantly be forced back? It is like saying to themthey are just allowed to be in a Ghetto. Why is putting up a display on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY being "forced back"?

They are also citizens of this country. It is also their property.
Would you care to come up with a plan for dividing up space for displays in the town park, given that some religions are much more popular than others, and the amount of space available per resident of the town is about 5 square inches?Yes, I would. You have no idea what my mind is capable of solving,Gordon. :) You could have rolling monuments, e.g. is space is toosmall, your allow one week that religion to display something, nextweek another one, and so on. The size of a religious group should notmatter. Rolling monuments make the problem of sneaking contraband into a courthouse even worse. That might work in parks, though. You're still going to get arguments that if one-third of the community is Jewish, the Jewish display should be up one-third of the time. And there will be disputes over timing: the Christians really wouldn't like it if their manger scene can't be up on Christmas, but that sometimes overlaps with other religious holidays of other religions.

Through such a project they probably learn to work better with each
other and being more tolerant to each other. There is ALWAYS a way to
get along with people that are truly religious. Those that cause the
problems are not, and then they should lose their certain rights to
the project. If the size of a religious group does not matter, you should expect that what was formerly the First Baptist Church of South Hooterville to become: First Baptist Church of the 1800 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 1900 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2000 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2100 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2200 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2300 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2400 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2500 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2600 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2700 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2800 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 2900 Block of Main Street First Baptist Church of the 3000 Block of Main Street ... and they're all demanding their own display, of the same size as everyone else.

You make me laugh now. Truly religious means not to make troubles for
others, but exist in cooperation with others that mean also good. Remember that some residents will, rightfully so, take offense at government even ASKING what religion they are, especially given what governments have done with that information in the past.Who does not want to participate, doesn't have to. Well, this really applies only if you try to match the share of display space/time to the composition of the community. Others are going to ask why the government is holding on to all that free land when it could be sold to someone who would pay taxes on it.If the government wants and should to sell it to a private owner, theyshould. But I was speaking about land that the government does notsell, as city hall or court property, etc. City hall and court property are *IN USE*.

They have empty space everywhere, Gordon. :) So many empty halls,
gardens, yards, etc. >> You shouldn't be preaching religion to people at a place where they >> aren't there voluntarily and are not free to leave (hint: this >> includes public schools). If you can get them to come to your >> church, or they are willing to listen to you at your their own home, >> fine, go ahead. > >You always have to make religious service voluntary, that includes the >school. Well, I wouldn't object to religious after-school activities on the same basis as other activities provided (a) the school doesn't provide much more than a place to meet (no paying for speakers or buying Bibles to hand out - the group pay for that with dues for members or fund-raising activities or get sponsorship from a local church), (b) attendance of ANY religious activity is voluntary (no "choose one"), (c) any religion is welcome to start its own group if it can get students to participate.Now we are getting somewhere. My problem is mainly with those peoplethat fear religion and their activities more than psychiatriccommittment, as this is nuts. You sound like the psychiatrist. You keep calling people "insane" and "nuts".

Don't insult me. I am as anti-psychiatric as it gets, but your
Satanists are a psychiatric front group. The problem is that you and governemnt don't get to decide what is a religious group and what is an anti-religious group. You have to let them ALL in or let NONE of them in.
That is what I said from the start. The trouble here is that when the Satanists and the "cult" religions (regardless of whether they actually DESERVE that label) show up, parents of the top several of the religions in the community scream bloody murder. Now what do you do?There are always people complaining, but if a group is preaching hateand destruction, as the satanists, law enforcement has to look intothat and either arrest or calm the people down, in case a group iswrongfully accused. If a group is wrongfully accused of something that is NOT A CRIME, there is little that law enforcement can do about it.

And that is good so, they should leave that group alone.

I suspect the main accusation really behind this hate is that the religion is not close enough to theirs.

That is when people are intolerant and not truly religious. You're likely to find that parents will demand that ALL extracurricular activities be dropped if that's what it takes to keep the "religious nutcakes" away from their kids.I think we deal with secret anti-religious campaigns here and indeed No, I don't think it's anti-ALL-religions. Many parents simply don't want their kids exposed to a religion other than THEIRS.

I know such people too. They'll (barely) tolerate a religion that is sort of close, like Presbyterians and Baptists, but they really don't want their kid turning Jewish, and even more different religions are considered really dangerous.

I know a lot about anti-tolerance, and I hate it.also anti-religious group that operate under the cover of religions tobring true religions in miscredit. People have to figure that out ontheir own. If parents would have done a good job bringing the kids up,they would have to fear that they become suddenly satanists. I'm not so sure of that. And at the age they encounter the other groups at the proposed after-school activities, they haven't been fully "brought up" yet.

So what is the big problem? As long it is no Satan's cult it will not
harm them. I suggest that they do it at their own church, or if they don't have a church building, their own home. Or they can buy television time with their own money. Gordon L. BurdittThat is also possible of course, but I think that the fear of somepeople of religions is rather odd and crazy. There you go again, playing psychiatrist. Or are you a real psychiatrist?

I think that you are psychiatric agents accusing me of being one. Did
you ever read any of my anti-psychiatric postings?

I think the fear you are seeing is fear of *OTHER* religions. The atheists just don't have enough people to carry out all these anti-religion campaigns you suggest they are doing.

Yeah, try to pull my leg!The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, says that Congress shall make nolaw respecting an establishment of a religion, and that is good so,but the Constitution has no phrase requiring a seperation betweenreligions and state. (Check out the case Everson v. Board of Educationon legal websites.) It doesn't use those words, but it doesn't have to use the exact words you want it to. And funding a religion is establishing it. Gordon L. Burditt


I did not say that government should fund religion, but they should
not get cramps whenever they hear the word religion and they should
not see the big satan in religion, as the big satan is psychiatry and
anti-religion.

Barbara Schwarz

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:14:58 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Atheism is the stupid notion that there is no evidence. It's stupid because there is abundant evidence of the existence of the Supreme Being - the entire Universe is evidence.
Silly, silly. The universe is clear evidence that there are 42 SupremeBeings.

Only one can have the property I described.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:35:04 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
I believe there is no God.

Then how do you explain the existence of the Universe?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On 9 Jun 2004 15:50:48 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
Isn't it weird that in a psychiatric hospital they have chapels wherepeople can pray, but when somebody says God answered, he or she getscommitted and diagnosed with a mental illness?

Even more psychotic is the notion that there is no God.

+++
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.

"Who made this?", asked the atheist.

"No one", replied Newton.

"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.

"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
+++

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:21:25 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
should be seperate
Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".
Spelling flames are a sure sign you can't actually refute the argument. :-)

That was not a flame. I did not say anything derogatory.

I merely asked that you do something about your spelling disorder.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406091450.3a5a7491@posting.google.c om... amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message
news:<ca7l8o$2nq$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>... In article <5rIxc.681003$Pk3.358766@pd7tw1no>, Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in messagenews:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net...>> Atheism is not a lack of belief.>> Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.Rather, there are two forms of atheists. Those who don't believe in anygods, and those who believe there are no gods. The former is a lack ofbelief, the latter a form of belief. In my experience, most atheists
justlack belief. I've only ever met one atheist who, by there own
admission,believed there was no god.. Actually, there are quite a few of us. I certainly don't believe that I have proof that there is no God and I don't consider it impossible that
I'm wrong (I've been wrong about things before) but it is definitely the
case that I believe there is no God. Alan I just talked to him. I should tell you all to open your eyes and you might see him one day. :) Isn't it weird that in a psychiatric hospital they have chapels where people can pray, but when somebody says God answered, he or she gets committed and diagnosed with a mental illness?

What's weird is that if you claim to be talking to any other invisible
entity - you get locked up ... but if you say "it's god" (no matter HOW
outrageous and insane your other actions are) - it's acceptaable.

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:CsIxc.716700$oR5.259890@pd7tw3no... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c7470f.17147256@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:05:52 -0400, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:Atheism is the rational conclusion that since there is no valid
evidence ofANY gods - there is no reason to have any "belief" in any gods. Atheism is the stupid notion that there is no evidence. It's stupid because there is abundant evidence of the existence of the Supreme Being - the entire Universe is evidence. Silly, silly. The universe is clear evidence that there are 42 Supreme Beings.


I thought it was 57 ..................................or was that
"communists in the state department" ???????

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7a3b6.12040683@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:21:25 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >should be seperate Please learn how to spell - the word is "separate".Spelling flames are a sure sign you can't actually refute the argument.
:-) That was not a flame. I did not say anything derogatory. I merely asked that you do something about your spelling disorder.

Perhaps, between your spelling suggestions, you can do something about your
reading disorder. I'm the one who misspelled "separate", not Bob.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7a305.11864269@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:14:58 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Atheism is the stupid notion that there is no evidence. It's stupid because there is abundant evidence of the existence of the Supreme Being - the entire Universe is evidence.Silly, silly. The universe is clear evidence that there are 42 SupremeBeings. Only one can have the property I described.

No, only 42 can. you have 41 gods all mad at you now for denying their
existance. You might go to the hell of 'My Mother the Car' re-runs.

Karl Johanson

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
I just talked to him. I should tell you all to open your eyes and you might see him one day. :)

A friend of mine's mothers started hearing god one day. They removed a
tumour the size of an orange from her brain soon after, and it stopped
happening.
Isn't it weird that in a psychiatric hospital they have chapels where people can pray, but when somebody says God answered, he or she gets committed and diagnosed with a mental illness?

Isn't it funny that people who think there's one god often commit horrible
acts on people who believe in more than one god (or even those who just
believe in one different god).

Karl Johanson

In article <bf456302.0406091450.3a5a7491@posting.google.com>,
Barbara Schwarz <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote:amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote in message news:<ca7l8o$2nq$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>... In article <5rIxc.681003$Pk3.358766@pd7tw1no>, Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in messagenews:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net...>> Atheism is not a lack of belief.>> Atheism is a belief than there are exactly 0 gods.Rather, there are two forms of atheists. Those who don't believe in anygods, and those who believe there are no gods. The former is a lack ofbelief, the latter a form of belief. In my experience, most atheists justlack belief. I've only ever met one atheist who, by there own admission,believed there was no god.. Actually, there are quite a few of us. I certainly don't believe that I have proof that there is no God and I don't consider it impossible that I'm wrong (I've been wrong about things before) but it is definitely the case that I believe there is no God.I just talked to him. I should tell you all to open your eyes and youmight see him one day. :)

He knows where I am. If he can't convince me that he exists I have to
assume that it's his fault.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7a33f.11921842@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:35:04 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:I believe there is no God. Then how do you explain the existence of the Universe?

There was two possibilities; there was something, or there was nothing.
Clearly we got lucky, and there is something. What there was first, was
either a bunch of stuff & some laws of physics, or there was an infinitely
complex, infinitely powerful being which just happened to be capable of
producing everything else. Extreme complexity, is extremely less likely.
Infinite complexity is infinitely less likely.

Karl Johanson

In article <40c7a33f.11921842@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
I believe there is no God. Then how do you explain the existence of the Universe?

Some questions have no answer yet. It doesn't mean you make up a story
about it. You just don't have enough information. That's a perfectly
satisfying answer.

How do you explain the universe? Some guy waved his hand and made it?
OK, how do you explain the existence of that guy? See, it doesn't answer
anything. It's still the same question. At some point you have to say
either "I don't know" or make up some answer that you believe on faith
"just because".

I think people believe in God because they just can't take "I don't
know" for an answer to such vexing questions.

I think people believe in an afterlife because the idea that death is
the end, is too terrifying to believe.

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
Criminal people are not religious. Period.

No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (or
because of) a lack of evidence. Criminals are people who commit crimes. Some
people who believe in any number of gods (or other metaphysical things)
commit all sorts of crimes, as do some people without beliefs.

Being non-religious doesn't make you bad, neither does it put you in the
same catagory as those who chose to believe and do bad things. Again, those
who choose not to believe are underrepresented in prisons.
Correct, but who says that true religious people are criminal? If they put up signs on governmental property, on which is written that people should be good, what is the big harm?

The 10 commandments doesn't tell people to be good. It tells people to kill
their neighbors if they work on Saturdays. One of the commandments is to not
make the vary thing the Judge put up on public property.
But this is why I started the thread, not because I am a Christian, but I don't like the secret campaign that religion is the big enemy and that people are being harmed when they read something that is telling them to be good.

The Bible tells people to stone women who are raped in a city. In case you
aren't aware... that isn't 'good'.

Karl Johanson

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:37:06 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Then how do you explain the existence of the Universe?
There was two possibilities; there was something, or there was nothing.Clearly we got lucky, and there is something. What there was first, waseither a bunch of stuff & some laws of physics, or there was an infinitelycomplex, infinitely powerful being which just happened to be capable ofproducing everything else. Extreme complexity, is extremely less likely.Infinite complexity is infinitely less likely.

How about infinite simplicity, like in the being whose essence is
existence. That's as simple as you can make it.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:25:10 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Perhaps, between your spelling suggestions, you can do something about yourreading disorder. I'm the one who misspelled "separate", not Bob.

That's not a reading disorder, that's an attribution disorder.

Very common affliction on Usenet.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:32:27 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Isn't it funny that people who think there's one god often commit horribleacts on people who believe in more than one god (or even those who justbelieve in one different god).

There is no evidence to support that claim, not on the scale you
suggest. If anything, it is atheists who commit horrible acts.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:33:43 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
He knows where I am. If he can't convince me that he exists I have toassume that it's his fault.

He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists -
the entire Universe. Of course you would have to study science to
understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are
too dull to accomplish. For them there is either faith or agnosticism.

"Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too
dull to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its
teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is
fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common
men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But
theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should
teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate,
because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get
belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer
prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make
people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is
well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever
happened."
--Etienne Gilson, "Being and Some Philosophers", p. 52


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7f2c8.32283601@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:32:27 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Isn't it funny that people who think there's one god often commit
horribleacts on people who believe in more than one god (or even those who justbelieve in one different god). There is no evidence to support that claim, not on the scale you suggest. If anything, it is atheists who commit horrible acts.

What 'scale' did I suggest? Some atheists do commit bad acts. My point isn't
that atheism is the path to good behaviour. My point is to counter the
erroneous notion that religion is.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7f2ff.32338600@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:33:43 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:He knows where I am. If he can't convince me that he exists I have toassume that it's his fault. He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists - the entire Universe.

All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the gods
by not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven!
Of course you would have to study science to understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are too dull to accomplish.

I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is?

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c7f1b3.32006062@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:37:06 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: Then how do you explain the existence of the Universe?There was two possibilities; there was something, or there was nothing.Clearly we got lucky, and there is something. What there was first, waseither a bunch of stuff & some laws of physics, or there was an
infinitelycomplex, infinitely powerful being which just happened to be capable ofproducing everything else. Extreme complexity, is extremely less likely.Infinite complexity is infinitely less likely. How about infinite simplicity, like in the being whose essence is existence. That's as simple as you can make it.

Okay, the universe's essence is 'just existance' then. It doesn't require an
infinitly complex god to happen to exist first.

Karl Johanson

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:24:12 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
What 'scale' did I suggest? Some atheists do commit bad acts. My point isn'tthat atheism is the path to good behaviour. My point is to counter theerroneous notion that religion is.

I would argue that despite its faults, that religion is a force for
good in society.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:27:43 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists - the entire Universe.
All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the godsby not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven!

There can't be 42 gods. Only one entity exists whose essence is
existence. For there to be more than one there would be a
contradiction.
Of course you would have to study science to understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are too dull to accomplish.
I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is?

I am not talking about the scientific method, I am talking about
Science in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy and
Metaphysics.

But since you did bring up the scientific method, I remind you that
Physics tells us how the Universe operates and one of the principles
is causality. Without causality the Universe would not be ordered
because there would be no cause-effect relationships. In a chaotic or
random Universe prediction would not be possible. We accept the laws
of Physics because they predict accurately. Without accurate
prediction there would be no Physics.

Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics.
When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be an
entity that causes things to exist, because things that are finite
cannot be the cause of their own existence. That entity is called the
Supreme Being, whose essence is existence.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:29:20 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Okay, the universe's essence is 'just existance' then. It doesn't require aninfinitly complex god to happen to exist first.

The essence of the Universe cannot be existence. That's because the
Universe is made up of finite objects that are mutable. A mutable
entity cannot have existence as its essence. Do you know why?

Think about it. If the essence of an object is existence then it will
do only one thing for all eternity - exist. That's what its essence is
- existence. Therefore it will only just exist because that's its
essence.

But the objects of the Universe are constantly changing from one form
to the other, from one place to the other, from one time frame to the
other, etc. The fact that they are mutable precludes their essence
being existence, because if their essence were existence they could
not be mutable - they would just exist the same for all eternity.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

>>That is true. They also have to learn to be tolerant to others.

Like that's going to happen.

<>Those that can't live in peace with each other are not religious.Period. They need to be persecuted by the law.
^^^^^^^^^^
Was this just bad spelling or -- forgive me -- a Freudian slip?
Wouldn't it make more sense to put these displays in separateplaces?
I just made that example because I read about the big controvery ofthe 10 Commandments removed from a governmental site. They could havesolved that problem by allowing the Jews, the Moslems, theScientologists, the Russian Orthodox, or whomever, to put also amonument up, next to the Ten Commandments, so that people can read allthe different views and basics of religion, and reflect on all ofthem.

More likely it would create a handy marble-floored battleground.
There would be fights, defacements, maybe even bomb plantings.
Better to avoid the whole issue and have no religion
represented. Since the infants can't play nice, nobody gets the
ball.
If they've got enough space for all those displays, someone spent way WAY too much tax money on the courthouse.

And a rotunda is supposed to be free-space.
Would you care to come up with a plan for dividing up space fordisplays in the town park, given that some religions are much morepopular than others, and the amount of space available per residentof the town is about 5 square inches?Yes, I would. You have no idea what my mind is capable of solving,Gordon. :) You could have rolling monuments, e.g. is space is toosmall, your allow one week that religion to display something, nextweek another one, and so on. The size of a religious group should notmatter.

The Christians will demand all of Lent, the Muslims will demand
all of Ramadan, etc. Why should all of the religious of the
word suddenly start agreeing on _anything_? It's rarely
happened in human history.
Rolling monuments make the problem of sneaking contraband into a courthouse even worse. That might work in parks, though.

Sects in parks is usually illegal
You're still going to get arguments that if one-third of the community is Jewish, the Jewish display should be up one-third of the time. And there will be disputes over timing: the Christians really wouldn't like it if their manger scene can't be up on Christmas, but that sometimes overlaps with other religious holidays of other religions.
Who does not want to participate, doesn't have to.

And will be effectively (though not legally) denied the use of
the park during the religious festivals taking place during the
sect's respective time of the year.
The trouble here is that when the Satanists and the "cult" religions(regardless of whether they actually DESERVE that label) show up,parents of the top several of the religions in the community screambloody murder. Now what do you do?
You're likely to find thatparents will demand that ALL extracurricular activities be droppedif that's what it takes to keep the "religious nutcakes" away fromtheir kids.

This will indeed be what happens. So the result known, we
shouldn't even go down that road; we should have no religious
representation on any public or publically-funded property.
Ouch, what do we do about museums? Bye-bye David.
No, I don't think it's anti-ALL-religions. Many parents simply don't want their kids exposed to a religion other than THEIRS. They'll (barely) tolerate a religion that is sort of close, like Presbyterians and Baptists, but they really don't want their kid turning Jewish, and even more different religions are considered really dangerous.
also anti-religious group that operate under the cover of religions tobring true religions in miscredit. People have to figure that out ontheir own. If parents would have done a good job bringing the kids up,they would have to fear that they become suddenly satanists. I'm not so sure of that. And at the age they encounter the other groups at the proposed after-school activities, they haven't been fully "brought up" yet.

Well, the fear is that they will join some deviant sect for its
camraderie, its social life, and for the sake of rebellion, But
don't adults do a lot of that too?

I have the notion that there is no such a thing as a bad idea,
to a well-developed mind. How about teaching critical thinking,
how to recognize deceit and propaganda, and the use of effective
rhetoric before allowing children to participate in _any_ religion?

Like any religious leader would allow _that_ to happen.
The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, says that Congress shall make nolaw respecting an establishment of a religion, and that is good so,but the Constitution has no phrase requiring a seperation betweenreligions and state. (Check out the case Everson v. Board of Educationon legal websites.) It doesn't use those words, but it doesn't have to use the exact words you want it to. And funding a religion is establishing it.

As is favoring one with display space, yes.

Vince B.

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.jcqrv@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:ca71rk$as@library2.airnews.net... Atheism is not a lack of belief.

Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and anything
else you can't kill!

Come a little closer and we will see if you are believable...

--
ArWeHomicidal

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Atheism is not a lack of belief.
Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and anythingelse you can't kill!

Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist. In
order for SR to become accepted, evidence had to be presented that the
Ether does not exist. That evidence was presented.

Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to
become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist.
That evidence has not been presented.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c875e7.65851689@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Atheism is not a lack of belief.Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and
anythingelse you can't kill! Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.

No, it doesn't. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exists,
either.
Do you believe Santa Claus exists?
If not, prove why it is so.

--
ArWeGod

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40c875e7.65851689@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Atheism is not a lack of belief.Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and anythingelse you can't kill! Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist. In order for SR to become accepted, evidence had to be presented that the Ether does not exist. That evidence was presented. Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.

Why is the default state that an invisible spirit controls everything?

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40c875e7.65851689@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Atheism is not a lack of belief.Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and anythingelse you can't kill! Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist. In order for SR to become accepted, evidence had to be presented that the Ether does not exist. That evidence was presented. Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.
No, SR merely describes the behavior of space, time and matter (under
specific circumstances) without invoking an ether (which had
previously been thought to exist). You're free to believe in the
Ether if you want, SR just says it's not needed to explain physics.

In the same way, the endeavors of modern science explain what we see
in nature without invoking a god (which had also been previously
thought to exist). You're free to believe in God, it just isn't
needed to explain anything.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c8182b.41854403@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:27:43 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists - the entire Universe.All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the
godsby not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven! There can't be 42 gods.

I can't argue with that:)
Of course you would have to study science to understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are too dull to accomplish.

Even if you're right that there must be one god, there's an infinite number
of ways this god might be. Believe in it the wrong way & you once again risk
not getting tickets to pie heaven.
I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is? I am not talking about the scientific method,

So you don't know?
I am talking about Science in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy and Metaphysics.

Ah... you really really don't know...
But since you did bring up the scientific method, I remind you that Physics tells us how the Universe operates

Physics is a study and a collection of knowledge of how the universe
opperates.
and one of the principles is causality. Without causality the Universe would not be ordered because there would be no cause-effect relationships. In a chaotic or random Universe prediction would not be possible. We accept the laws of Physics because they predict accurately.

Ahem... physics predicts probabalistically.
Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.

Try to accurately predict both the position and velocity of an electron at
the same time.
Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics. When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be an entity that causes things to exist, because things that are finite cannot be the cause of their own existence.

If that's true, then that entity must be caused, and it's cause must be
caused, ad infinitem.
That entity is called the Supreme Being, whose essence is existence.

When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you want.
One god, 3,000 gods, invisible flying elephants to keep the neutrinos
moving, Santa Claus, and Mooster the Cybernetic toaster who reversed the
last heat death of the universe and made your & my life possible. No one
metaphysical conjecture is any more likely than any other. There's an
infinite number of metaphysical conjectures and no way to test them. The
chances of the metaphysical conjectures you choose to believe in, thus have
about a one in infinity chance of being correct.

Karl Johanson
Our convictions divide us, our doubts unite us.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c819e4.42294846@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:29:20 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Okay, the universe's essence is 'just existance' then. It doesn't require
aninfinitly complex god to happen to exist first. The essence of the Universe cannot be existence. That's because the Universe is made up of finite objects that are mutable. A mutable entity cannot have existence as its essence. Do you know why?

Because you really really really want to belive it's so?
Think about it. If the essence of an object is existence then it will do only one thing for all eternity - exist.

What if only one essence of an object is to exist, and it has other essences
as well? It's the essence of a given quanta may be part of a proton (which
is turn is part of a chocolate cake... mmmmm cake....) at one time, then
later to be part of a meason, etc. It has more than one essence. The essence
to exist, and the essence to be part of more than one sub atomic particle.
That's what its essence is - existence. Therefore it will only just exist because that's its essence. But the objects of the Universe are constantly changing from one form to the other, from one place to the other, from one time frame to the other, etc. The fact that they are mutable precludes their essence being existence, because if their essence were existence they could not be mutable - they would just exist the same for all eternity.

You're describing a conjectured something which has two essences not one;
existence and immutability. Everything we've seen in the universe also has
two essences, existence and mutability. No need for Hoohoo the Immutable to
have existed & to have created it.

Karl Johanson

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:11 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.
No, it doesn't. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exists,either.

Sure you can. All you have to do is define what you mean by Santa
Clause and show that such an entity cannot exist.
Do you believe Santa Claus exists?If not, prove why it is so.

It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a
sleigh and fly thru the air. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.

Neither does a white-bearded patriarch many associate with God. That
entity does not exist.

However the being whose essence is existence, who causes things to
exist, is very real. Without such a being, nothing would exist because
finite entities do not have existence as part of their essence and
therefore must rely on their existence being caused by a separate
entity. We call that entity the Supreme Being.



--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On 10 Jun 2004 12:42:00 -0700, victor1008@attbi.com (Victor Purinton)
wrote:
Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist. In order for SR to become accepted, evidence had to be presented that the Ether does not exist. That evidence was presented.
Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.
No, SR merely describes the behavior of space, time and matter (underspecific circumstances) without invoking an ether (which hadpreviously been thought to exist). You're free to believe in theEther if you want, SR just says it's not needed to explain physics.

You misread what I said. I did not say that SR proves the
non-existence of the Ether. I said that the non-existence of the Ether
is required to accept SR. The non-existence of the Ether is proven by
other experiments.
In the same way, the endeavors of modern science explain what we seein nature without invoking a god (which had also been previouslythought to exist). You're free to believe in God, it just isn'tneeded to explain anything.

Yes it does. The Universe is composed of finite mutable objects which
cannot be the cause of their own existence.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
The essence of the Universe cannot be existence. That's because the Universe is made up of finite objects that are mutable. A mutable entity cannot have existence as its essence. Do you know why?
Because you really really really want to belive it's so?

No, because reason dictates it. Of course I can reject reason and all
that implies. But I chose to accept the tenets of reason and therefore
I am forced to accept the existence of the Supreme Being.
What if only one essence of an object is to exist,

Then it has only that essence and it is immutable because its essence
is to exist in one and only one way. It cannot have other essences if
its essence is to exist.
You're describing a conjectured something which has two essences not one;existence and immutability. Everything we've seen in the universe also hastwo essences, existence and mutability. No need for Hoohoo the Immutable tohave existed & to have created it.

You are not a Realist.

It is possible to adopt a Worldview different from Realism, like
Idealism for example. But as Russell discovered, you will not be able
to prove your own existence, because nothing exists.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Even if you're right that there must be one god, there's an infinite numberof ways this god might be.

That is not true. There is only one way the Supreme Being can exist.
I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is?
I am not talking about the scientific method,
So you don't know?

Don't infer that because you would be very wrong.
I am talking about Science in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy and Metaphysics.
Ah... you really really don't know...

That is your erroneous claim.
Ahem... physics predicts probabalistically.

Physics also predicts deterministically. The Schrodinger Equation is
deterministic because it is unitary.

Physics predicts probabilistically only those processes which are
intrinsically unknowable. like the precise time a radioactive nucleus
will decay.
Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.
Try to accurately predict both the position and velocity of an electron atthe same time.

I did not say all physical processes are known accurately. But there
are enough to make my statement true. Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics. When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be an entity that causes things to exist, because things that are finite cannot be the cause of their own existence.
If that's true, then that entity must be caused, and it's cause must becaused, ad infinitem.

There is no infinite regression because the Supreme Being is that
entity whose essence is existence. The terminus is the Supreme Being.
The Supreme Being is its own cause because its essence is existence.

But given that the Supreme Being is its own cause then there are
properties that follow, like immutability. The Universe is not
immutable so it cannot be its own cause.
When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you want.

Not true. Before you can engage in metaphysics you must accept a
specific Worldview. If you accept the Worldview of Existential
Realism, as practicing Physicists do, then the metaphysics you
construct will be very specific.
One god, 3,000 gods, invisible flying elephants to keep the neutrinosmoving, Santa Claus, and Mooster the Cybernetic toaster who reversed thelast heat death of the universe and made your & my life possible. No onemetaphysical conjecture is any more likely than any other.

That is indeed the case if you adopt the Worldview of Idealism. You
are making my case for me.
There's aninfinite number of metaphysical conjectures and no way to test them.

In the case of Idealism you are absolutely correct. But if you accept
Realism, then you can fall back on Science to test them.
Our convictions divide us, our doubts unite us.

That's a statement of Idealism.

Idealism has the principle characteristic that "reality" exists in our
mind and the objective world is "shaped" by concepts. I reject that
Worldview because there are fundamental flaws.

For one thing if reality is so arbitrary that you cannot decide which
flavor is "really real", then Physics is impossible because you cannot
create a rational ordering of cause and effect.

It all comes down to whether you accept the tenets of Realism,
Idealism, Mysticism or some other version of a Worldview.

A Worldview is your fundamental epistemological framework plus its
supporting ontology. How do you know anything? If you claim you know
things because they exist objectively then you are a Realist. If,
however, you claim you know things because you can form concepts in
your subjective mind, then you are an Idealist.

When Einstein and Bohr were walking one night under a full Moon,
Einstein asked Bohr, "You don't really believe the Moon goes away when
you stop looking at it?" That encounter changed the way Bohr thought
about Quantum Mechanics. Read

The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory
by Arthur Fine
Paperback Reprint edition (October 1988)
University of Chicago Press;
ISBN: 0226249476




--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:311yc.173$G8.165@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com.. . "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c875e7.65851689@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Atheism is not a lack of belief.Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and anythingelse you can't kill! Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented. No, it doesn't. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exists, either. Do you believe Santa Claus exists? If not, prove why it is so.

Agreed.

There are trillions and trillions of claims that can be made by mankind.
NOT accepting those claims is a natural base of sane, rational and logical
operations (aka, in this case, "atheism")

Just because one claim - that of god - is made, does NOT change that
logical, rational, base of operations into an opposing "theory" or "belief".

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2b3yc.728043$Ig.254584@pd7tw2no... "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40c8182b.41854403@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:27:43 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:> He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He
exists -> the entire Universe.All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the godsby not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven! There can't be 42 gods. I can't argue with that:)>Of course you would have to study science to> understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are> too dull to accomplish. Even if you're right that there must be one god, there's an infinite
number of ways this god might be. Believe in it the wrong way & you once again
risk not getting tickets to pie heaven.I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is? I am not talking about the scientific method, So you don't know?I am talking about Science in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy and Metaphysics. Ah... you really really don't know... But since you did bring up the scientific method, I remind you that Physics tells us how the Universe operates Physics is a study and a collection of knowledge of how the universe opperates.and one of the principles is causality. Without causality the Universe would not be ordered because there would be no cause-effect relationships. In a chaotic or random Universe prediction would not be possible. We accept the laws of Physics because they predict accurately. Ahem... physics predicts probabalistically.Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics. Try to accurately predict both the position and velocity of an electron at the same time. Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics. When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be an entity that causes things to exist, because things that are finite cannot be the cause of their own existence. If that's true, then that entity must be caused, and it's cause must be caused, ad infinitem.That entity is called the Supreme Being, whose essence is existence. When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you
want. One god, 3,000 gods, invisible flying elephants

DAMN!!!!
I thought it was a Unicorn!

I guess I'm going to hell for that one!


to keep the neutrinos moving, Santa Claus, and Mooster the Cybernetic toaster who reversed the last heat death of the universe and made your & my life possible. No one metaphysical conjecture is any more likely than any other. There's an infinite number of metaphysical conjectures and no way to test them. The chances of the metaphysical conjectures you choose to believe in, thus
have about a one in infinity chance of being correct. Karl Johanson Our convictions divide us, our doubts unite us.


or .. only sane people are wise enough to know they (we) are not sane.

"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10chk15ta38qcd6@corp.supernews.com... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:2b3yc.728043$Ig.254584@pd7tw2no... When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you want. One god, 3,000 gods, invisible flying elephants DAMN!!!! I thought it was a Unicorn! I guess I'm going to hell for that one!

Elephants are never invisible when flying. Besides, they eat all the peanut
packets; a dead give-away.

Invisible Pink Unicorns (Blessed be Her Horn of Retribution {Horn! not Toes!
not Feet!} And long may Her Magical Mane ripple with delight) don't fly!
They just appear! But only to the True Believers (tm) God Damn It!

--
ArWePrettyInPinkOrBarelyVisible

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<%KPxc.722228$Ig.369226@pd7tw2no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message I just talked to him. I should tell you all to open your eyes and you might see him one day. :) A friend of mine's mothers started hearing god one day. They removed a tumour the size of an orange from her brain soon after, and it stopped happening. Isn't it weird that in a psychiatric hospital they have chapels where people can pray, but when somebody says God answered, he or she gets committed and diagnosed with a mental illness? Isn't it funny that people who think there's one god often commit horrible acts on people who believe in more than one god (or even those who just believe in one different god). Karl Johanson

No, it is not funny.

They don't hear God they know it. They hear their case officer, who
tells them to commit the crime. They lie that it was God. They know
very well that it was not.

Barbara Schwarz

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<MZPxc.722278$Ig.448093@pd7tw2no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message Criminal people are not religious. Period. No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (or because of) a lack of evidence.

Not Scientologists. They believe in religious evidence.

Criminals are people who commit crimes. Some people who believe in any number of gods (or other metaphysical things) commit all sorts of crimes, as do some people without beliefs. Being non-religious doesn't make you bad,

Not necessarily, but truly religious people have more conscience.

neither does it put you in the same catagory as those who chose to believe and do bad things. Again, those who choose not to believe are underrepresented in prisons.

In your dreams are non-religious people unterrepresented in prisons.
How do you know, where or are you in one?


Their lack of religiosity brought them in the slammer. They just use
religion as a key to get out. As more as they speak that they found
religion, as sooner the parole board let them go.

Correct, but who says that true religious people are criminal? If they put up signs on governmental property, on which is written that people should be good, what is the big harm? The 10 commandments doesn't tell people to be good.

I am not a Christian, in my view, it is a mixed bag, but they sort of
telling people to be more ethical.
It tells people to kill their neighbors if they work on Saturdays.

Huh? Are you trying to be anti-semitic? What version of bible to you
have? A kind of extreme version? The satan version?
One of the commandments is to not make the vary thing the Judge put up on public property. But this is why I started the thread, not because I am a Christian, but I don't like the secret campaign that religion is the big enemy and that people are being harmed when they read something that is telling them to be good. The Bible tells people to stone women who are raped in a city. In case you aren't aware... that isn't 'good'. Karl Johanson

You are right, Karl, it is no good. But I also posted that the bible
is not written by God. People wrote it, and many of the people are not
truly religious.

Barbara Schwarz

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40c81800.41811621@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:24:12 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:What 'scale' did I suggest? Some atheists do commit bad acts. My point isn'tthat atheism is the path to good behaviour. My point is to counter theerroneous notion that religion is. I would argue that despite its faults, that religion is a force for good in society.


I agree, Bob.

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz wrote: "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<MZPxc.722278$Ig.448093@pd7tw2no>..."Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in messageCriminal people are not religious. Period.No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (orbecause of) a lack of evidence. Not Scientologists. They believe in religious evidence.

Of which there is exactly zero supply.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c8c91b.1739851@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:11 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.No, it doesn't. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exists,either. Sure you can. All you have to do is define what you mean by Santa Clause and show that such an entity cannot exist.

Santa Claus is a metaphysical. Please show he can't exist.
Do you believe Santa Claus exists?If not, prove why it is so. It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air.

Please prove that.

The claims of the reindeer flying are allegorical symbolism, which you're
interpreting with the jaded skeptisism of the unbeliever. No pie for you!
therefore Santa Claus does not exist.

Santa Claus isn't a flying reindeer. You'd do as well to prove that cheese
doesn't exist by proving (rather, 'claiming') that cows can't fly.
Neither does a white-bearded patriarch many associate with God. That entity does not exist.

One more black mark on your pie heavan card. He hates it when people deny
the existance of his holy beard.
However the being whose essence is existence, who causes things to exist, is very real. Without such a being, nothing would exist because finite entities do not have existence as part of their essence

Do so... Nyaaa.
and therefore must rely on their existence being caused by a separate entity. We call that entity the Supreme Being.

Mooster the Cybernetic Toaster doesn't like it when people call your
non-existant idea the supreme being. Mooster will cause random itches on
your back throughout the rest of your life. Every itch will be a reminder of
your blasphemy (especially the ones just out of reach). You will be forced
to
use an impliment to scratch them, or solicity the help of another (just try
to deny the essence of existance of the back scratcher (impliment or human)
as you temporarily scratch away the infinitly wise and just sentence of the
one they call Mooster). So sayeth chapter something in a book I might have
read a while ago by some guy I forget the name of. Anyone who denys it is a
mean old poopoo head.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c8cb65.2326054@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Even if you're right that there must be one god, there's an infinite
numberof ways this god might be. That is not true. There is only one way the Supreme Being can exist.

Of course; your way (and everyone else is a heretic).
>I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is? I am not talking about the scientific method,So you don't know? Don't infer that because you would be very wrong.

Then please tell us what you think the scientific method is.
I am talking about Science in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy and Metaphysics.Ah... you really really don't know... That is your erroneous claim.

Lets see you write a paper on your metaphysical conjectures & get a science
journal to publish it. I mean, you have the one true slant on how the
universe was created. Clearly a science journal will leap at the chance to
publish it, despite the philosophy and metaphysics.
Ahem... physics predicts probabalistically. Physics also predicts deterministically. The Schrodinger Equation is deterministic because it is unitary. Physics predicts probabilistically only those processes which are intrinsically unknowable. like the precise time a radioactive nucleus will decay.

Uncertainty, while trivial in some things, is there in everything.
Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.Try to accurately predict both the position and velocity of an electron
atthe same time. I did not say all physical processes are known accurately.

I didn't say you said that. I asked you to try to accurately predict both
the position and velocity of an electron at the same time. You can't; your
point is wrong.
But there are enough to make my statement true.

Except for where it's wrong:)
Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics. When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be an entity that causes things to exist, because things that are finite cannot be the cause of their own existence.If that's true, then that entity must be caused, and it's cause must becaused, ad infinitem. There is no infinite regression because the Supreme Being is that entity whose essence is existence.

Everything which exists has 'existance' as an essence. Some may also have
'mutability' as another essence, but they still exist.
The terminus is the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is its own cause because its essence is existence.

Conjecture. As likely as the idea that it takes 42 gods to exist
intrinsically (one for each type of love). How would a single god, alone in
the universe, know by experience, types of love, other than love for
oneself. Clearly, more than one god would be needed to create other forms of
love. Or maybe love just happened in some creatures in a creatorless
universe.
But given that the Supreme Being is its own cause then there are properties that follow, like immutability.

If it was immutable, it would never change. That would include not changing
from being originally alone, to existing along with a universe it created.
Not immutable, so not (by your conjectures) not capable of causing itself.
Start again.
The Universe is not immutable so it cannot be its own cause.

Who says it has to be caused? Maybe it just is.
When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you
want. Not true. Before you can engage in metaphysics you must accept a specific Worldview.

And when indulging in metaphysics you can accept any worldview you can
imagine. Even the idea that Batman created the universe. The stories of
Batman being mutable, are allegorical symbolism, intended to test the
faithful.

Karl Johanson

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:51:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air.
Please prove that.

Get real.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather
to make it work - work with us, not over us; stand by our side,
not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity,
not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c93012.28099374@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:51:48 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air.Please prove that. Get real.

You loose. Thanks for trying.

Karl Johanson

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406101549.69db5cbd@posting.google.c om... "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<MZPxc.722278$Ig.448093@pd7tw2no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message Criminal people are not religious. Period. No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (or because of) a lack of evidence. Not Scientologists. They believe in religious evidence.

Belief isn't about evidence.
Criminals are people who commit crimes. Some people who believe in any number of gods (or other metaphysical things) commit all sorts of crimes, as do some people without beliefs. Being non-religious doesn't make you bad, Not necessarily, but truly religious people have more conscience.

How many of them do you think there are?
neither does it put you in the same catagory as those who chose to believe and do bad things. Again,
those who choose not to believe are underrepresented in prisons. In your dreams are non-religious people unterrepresented in prisons.

What data do you have to suggest otherwise?
How do you know, where or are you in one?

Never been incarserated myself.
Their lack of religiosity brought them in the slammer.

No, the crimes they committed did.
They just use religion as a key to get out. As more as they speak that they found religion, as sooner the parole board let them go.

And folks like you who mistakenly claim that believing makes you a better
person. Stop helping to spread the misconception that believing makes you
better and maybe less parole officers will release people who (according to
you) are only claiming they believe to get out early.
Correct, but who says that true religious people are criminal? If they put up signs on governmental property, on which is written that people should be good, what is the big harm? The 10 commandments doesn't tell people to be good. I am not a Christian, in my view, it is a mixed bag, but they sort of telling people to be more ethical.

It tells people to kill their neighbors if they work on Saturdays. Huh? Are you trying to be anti-semitic?

No, not remotely. (The Commandments are for Christians as well, by the way.)
I'm pointing out that the Ten Commandments includes an edict to kill people
who work on Saturdays.
What version of bible to you have? A kind of extreme version? The satan version?

Never read the Satanic version.

Just read any version. The penalty for violating the Sabbath is death. New
International Version, for example. "Exodus 31:15 For six days, work is to
be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD .
Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. "

Killing your neighbors for working on the Sabbath isn't ethical. Following
religion doesn't make you good. Acting good makes you good.
One of the commandments is to not make the vary thing the Judge put up on public property. But this is why I started the thread, not because I am a Christian, but I don't like the secret campaign that religion is the big enemy and that people are being harmed when they read something that is telling them to be good. The Bible tells people to stone women who are raped in a city. In case
you aren't aware... that isn't 'good'. Karl Johanson You are right, Karl, it is no good. But I also posted that the bible is not written by God. People wrote it, and many of the people are not truly religious.

Good... Now ask the next question.

Karl Johanson

In article <40c7f2ff.32338600@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:33:43 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU(Alan Morgan) wrote:He knows where I am. If he can't convince me that he exists I have toassume that it's his fault.He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists -the entire Universe. Of course you would have to study science tounderstand why God must exist, and that is something most people aretoo dull to accomplish.

I have studied science and it totally failed to convince me that God must
exist. I don't consider the universe to be particularly compelling evidence
for God. Why does the universe imply one God rather than, say, three Gods?
Why does the universe imply a benevolent God? Why does the universe imply
God rather than an incredibly advanced society capable of incredible feats of
galactic engineering? Or why do you need God at all? Why doesn't current
theory suffice?

OTOH, if you want to extend the definition of God to include three incredibly
powerful alien races that don't like humans much then I guess I would have
to conceed that God might exist. Does that make you happy?

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:02:15 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
(Alan Morgan) wrote:
I have studied science and it totally failed to convince me that God mustexist.

The physical sciences are just part of Science. You have to study
Metaphysics too.
I don't consider the universe to be particularly compelling evidence for God.

That does not surprise me considering the fact that you have not
studied Metaphysics.

But you did learn some very important things from your study of the
physical sciences. For one you discovered the importance of accepting
the tenets of the Worldview called Existential Realism. Those include
the principles used by practicing scientists such as the Principle of
Causality. Without Causality, the physical sciences could not exist.
Why does the universe imply one God rather than, say, three Gods?

The Universe implies a being that is the cause of the existence of the
Universe. There can only be one such being. For there to be more than
one it would result in a contradiction. And as you know from your
study of the physical sciences, the Principle of Consistency states
that there can be no contradictions in reality.
Why does the universe imply a benevolent God?

Metaphysics does not attempt to anthromorphisize God by attributing
human characterists. Theology does but then we are not discussing
theology, are we.

God is Good. Benevolent is something your rich uncle is (or is not).
Why does the universe implyGod rather than an incredibly advanced society capable of incredible feats ofgalactic engineering?

It doesn't. There can be and for my money there is such a society. The
species could not have arisen solely from random mutations. Therefore
the species were designed by highly intelligent beings.

But this is not metaphysics. Let's try to stick to the topic. Such
highly intelligent beings are finite just like the rest of the
Universe, so they cannot be the source of their own existence.
Postulating their existence does not get us out of the infinite
regression of causality.
Or why do you need God at all?

We need to find the cause of existence. Things that are finite cannot
come into being solely on their own. If they could then existence
would be their essence and they would not be finite.
Why doesn't current theory suffice?

"Current theory"? You mean the various junk science speculations? They
are not worthy of your consideration if you are a serious student of
Science. Every one of them has some kind of fallacy at the root of
their system of thought. Almost every one is based on the Worldview of
Idealism - and as we know all too well, Idealism does not provide the
necessary epistemological and ontological foundation for Science.

If you accept the tenets of Idealism, you cannot be a true scientist
in the sense of Western science. The most that you can do is engage in
various forms of sophistry trying to fool those people who are too
dull to know any better.
OTOH, if you want to extend the definition of God to include three incrediblypowerful alien races that don't like humans much then I guess I would haveto conceed that God might exist.

As I explained above, those alien races are part of the Universe and
therefore they are finite entities. That prevents them from having
existence as their essence. They do not qualify as the Supreme Being.

Whether the Supreme Being "likes humans" or not is irrelevant. It is a
feeble attempt to project human characteristics on an entity that is
not like human beings in any way.

For all eternity before you came into existence, you did not exist.
Then at a moment in time, you existed. You exist now. There is a
moment in time in the future when you will cease to exist, and then
you will return to the state of nonexistence for all eternity.

During the brief period in time when you do exist, you are endowed
with free will. God not only won't interfere with your existence, He
can't. That does not mean God is less omnipotent. It just means that
there are certain things that even God cannot do because otherwise
they would result in a contradiction - and we can't have
contradictions.

Because of the random element underlying physical reality, there are
some physical processes that are intrinsically unknowable - process
that even God cannot know. For example whether a particular Turing
Machine will halt is intrinsically unknowable. The precise time when a
radioactive nucleus will decay is also intrinsically unknowable. This
unknowability is built into physical reality. It is there for a very
important purpose:

"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong,
then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of
grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are
utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete
randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation
imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels

Since even God cannot know what you will do next, you cannot expect
God to "look ahead" and prevent you from doing something wrong. It
just does not happen that way. You possess free will - you and you
alone are fully responsible for your life. I would not have it any
other way.

During this brief period when you exist, you can do with it whatever
you want. Don't expect God to live your life for you. There is,
however, one thing you can do. You can contemplate God (some would
call this "prayer") and when you do this you excite certain mental
processes that are built into your mind - processes that help you
discover what is best for you. But it is still up to you to make the
final decision. And just because you have used the power of your mind
to learn the best way to live life and you did it by contemplating
God, that does not mean that God actually intervened in your life.
Does that make you happy?

What does my happiness have to do with Metaphysics?

Happiness is living the Good. You need more than Metaphysics to
discover what is Good.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40c9f154.6758938@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:02:15 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:I have studied science and it totally failed to convince me that God mustexist. The physical sciences are just part of Science. You have to study Metaphysics too.I don't consider the universe to be particularly compelling evidence for God. That does not surprise me considering the fact that you have not studied Metaphysics. But you did learn some very important things from your study of the physical sciences. For one you discovered the importance of accepting the tenets of the Worldview called Existential Realism. Those include the principles used by practicing scientists such as the Principle of Causality. Without Causality, the physical sciences could not exist.Why does the universe imply one God rather than, say, three Gods? The Universe implies a being that is the cause of the existence of the Universe. There can only be one such being. For there to be more than one it would result in a contradiction. And as you know from your study of the physical sciences, the Principle of Consistency states that there can be no contradictions in reality.Why does the universe imply a benevolent God? Metaphysics does not attempt to anthromorphisize God by attributing human characterists. Theology does but then we are not discussing theology, are we. God is Good. Benevolent is something your rich uncle is (or is not).Why does the universe implyGod rather than an incredibly advanced society capable of incredible feats ofgalactic engineering? It doesn't. There can be and for my money there is such a society. The species could not have arisen solely from random mutations. Therefore the species were designed by highly intelligent beings. But this is not metaphysics. Let's try to stick to the topic. Such highly intelligent beings are finite just like the rest of the Universe, so they cannot be the source of their own existence. Postulating their existence does not get us out of the infinite regression of causality.Or why do you need God at all? We need to find the cause of existence. Things that are finite cannot come into being solely on their own. If they could then existence would be their essence and they would not be finite.Why doesn't current theory suffice? "Current theory"? You mean the various junk science speculations? They are not worthy of your consideration if you are a serious student of Science. Every one of them has some kind of fallacy at the root of their system of thought. Almost every one is based on the Worldview of Idealism - and as we know all too well, Idealism does not provide the necessary epistemological and ontological foundation for Science. If you accept the tenets of Idealism, you cannot be a true scientist in the sense of Western science. The most that you can do is engage in various forms of sophistry trying to fool those people who are too dull to know any better.OTOH, if you want to extend the definition of God to include three incrediblypowerful alien races that don't like humans much then I guess I would haveto conceed that God might exist. As I explained above, those alien races are part of the Universe and therefore they are finite entities. That prevents them from having existence as their essence. They do not qualify as the Supreme Being. Whether the Supreme Being "likes humans" or not is irrelevant. It is a feeble attempt to project human characteristics on an entity that is not like human beings in any way. For all eternity before you came into existence, you did not exist. Then at a moment in time, you existed. You exist now. There is a moment in time in the future when you will cease to exist, and then you will return to the state of nonexistence for all eternity. During the brief period in time when you do exist, you are endowed with free will. God not only won't interfere with your existence, He can't. That does not mean God is less omnipotent. It just means that there are certain things that even God cannot do because otherwise they would result in a contradiction - and we can't have contradictions. Because of the random element underlying physical reality, there are some physical processes that are intrinsically unknowable - process that even God cannot know. For example whether a particular Turing Machine will halt is intrinsically unknowable. The precise time when a radioactive nucleus will decay is also intrinsically unknowable. This unknowability is built into physical reality. It is there for a very important purpose: "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe." -- Heinz Pagels Since even God cannot know what you will do next, you cannot expect God to "look ahead" and prevent you from doing something wrong. It just does not happen that way. You possess free will - you and you alone are fully responsible for your life. I would not have it any other way. During this brief period when you exist, you can do with it whatever you want. Don't expect God to live your life for you. There is, however, one thing you can do. You can contemplate God (some would call this "prayer") and when you do this you excite certain mental processes that are built into your mind - processes that help you discover what is best for you. But it is still up to you to make the final decision. And just because you have used the power of your mind to learn the best way to live life and you did it by contemplating God, that does not mean that God actually intervened in your life.Does that make you happy? What does my happiness have to do with Metaphysics? Happiness is living the Good. You need more than Metaphysics to discover what is Good.


I enjoyed reading this posting, Bob. You raise interesting issues and
the others rather heckle you than going in the details. Seems they
can't really prove you wrong. :)

Barbara Schwarz

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c9f154.6758938@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:02:15 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:I have studied science and it totally failed to convince me that God mustexist. The physical sciences are just part of Science. You have to study Metaphysics too.I don't consider the universe to be particularly compelling evidence for
God. That does not surprise me considering the fact that you have not studied Metaphysics. But you did learn some very important things from your study of the physical sciences. For one you discovered the importance of accepting the tenets of the Worldview called Existential Realism. Those include the principles used by practicing scientists such as the Principle of Causality. Without Causality, the physical sciences could not exist.Why does the universe imply one God rather than, say, three Gods? The Universe implies a being that is the cause of the existence of the Universe.

The universe doesn't imply that. You've inferred that. (And regardless,
implication isn't proof.) Evolution has left humans with a tendency to infer
things, some of which turn out to be so and some of which turn out not to be
so. It's perfectly understandable that you'd confuse inference with
implication.
There can only be one such being. For there to be more than one it would result in a contradiction.

Would not. Less than 2 gods would result in a contradiction of a god knowing
of love other than love for oneself, at the time when there was only herself
to love. Thus, she couldn't have been omniscient, thus contradiction. You
see, you can play this all day. It's conjecture, as untestable, yet as
likely to be correct, as your conjectures.
And as you know from your study of the physical sciences, the Principle of Consistency states that there can be no contradictions in reality.

Does not. It says that definitions must apply to all relevant situations.
Why does the universe imply a benevolent God? Metaphysics does not attempt to anthromorphisize God by attributing human characterists. Theology does but then we are not discussing theology, are we. God is Good. Benevolent is something your rich uncle is (or is not).

Calling god 'good' is anthromorphizing.
Why does the universe implyGod rather than an incredibly advanced society capable of incredible
feats ofgalactic engineering? It doesn't. There can be and for my money there is such a society. The species could not have arisen solely from random mutations. Therefore the species were designed by highly intelligent beings.

It is unlikely that intelligence would come about via random mutations
alone; but no one says that it came about that way. It's recognized that it
came about by the combination of random mutations and selection pressure.
Life changes, and inheritable variation leads to differential reproductive
success. It's as obvious as gravity.
But this is not metaphysics. Let's try to stick to the topic.

Someone brings up some relevant and interesting points and you start
heckling them? Courtesy costs nothing Bob.
Such highly intelligent beings are finite just like the rest of the Universe, so they cannot be the source of their own existence. Postulating their existence does not get us out of the infinite regression of causality.Or why do you need God at all? We need to find the cause of existence.

It's only an assumption that there is a cause, or needs to be. It's a
further assumption that 'cause' implies intelligence. Maybe things just
always existed. Maybe the just happened to exist at some point. You can
conjecture, but declaring yourself correct, because of some verbal dancing,
still doesn't make your points any more than conjecture.

Another way to look at it is to consider the question, 'what is the cause of
11?'
Things that are finite cannot come into being solely on their own.

An assumption with no basis. And how do you know what's finite and what
isn't? Perhaps every quanta is a four dimensional projection of part of an
infinite, yet non-sentient whole, which exists in further dimensions as
well. Perhaps not. It's just conjecture. You can play it all day, but until
you make a testable claim, it's just conjecture. The trick is to realize
that that's all you're are doing and that, for this case, 'conclusion'
merely means 'where you stopped thinking'. Declaring your untestable
conjectures as superior to anyone else's untestable conjectures is rude Bob.
Even if you think yours sound right. Batman agrees with me on this.
If they could then existence would be their essence and they would not be finite.

Everything which exists has existence as one of its essences.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c875e7.65851689@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:28:25 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Atheism is not a lack of belief.Atheism is lack of belief in fairies, Santa Claus, God, Satan, and
anythingelse you can't kill! Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist.

No it isn't. It's a complex theory, which includes the notion that ether
isn't necessary to account for the wave aspect of light.
In order for SR to become accepted, evidence had to be presented that the Ether does not exist. That evidence was presented.

There never was any evidence that ether existed. It was a conjecture.
Special relativity showed that the conjecture wasn't needed to account for
the wave aspect of light; it didn't
disprove that ether existed.
Atheism is the theory that God does not exist.

It isn't a theory. It's a recognition of a lack of evidence.
In order for Atheism to become accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist. That evidence has not been presented.

You have no evidence that the Raven didn't create the universe, yet you
don't believe it.

There's no evidence that god exists. There's a universe here, to be sure,
but it's just evidence that there's a universe here. Your verbal wrangling
on 'essences' aren't evidence that the universe was
created by something infinitely more complex, they're just conjectures.

You don't believe that Batman is god, yet you've provided no evidence that
he
isn't god. Batman's holy word, distorted as it is through human's imperfect
attempts to describe him in media capable of being absorbed by our finite
brains, 'is that evil is just plain bad'. (Or was that The Tick?)
Karl Johanson

Robin: "Boy! That was our closest call ever! I have to admit that I was
pretty scared!"
Batman: "I wasn't scared in the least."
Robin: "Not at all?"
Batman: "Haven't you noticed how we always escape the vicious ensnarements
of our enemies?"
Robin: "Yeah, because we're smarter than they are!"
Batman: "I like to think it's because our hearts are pure."

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:27:43 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca>
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in messagenews:40c7f2ff.32338600@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:33:43 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:He knows where I am. If he can't convince me that he exists I have toassume that it's his fault. He has provided you with all the evidence you need to know He exists - the entire Universe.All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the godsby not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven!

hairpie heaven?
Of course you would have to study science to understand why God must exist, and that is something most people are too dull to accomplish.I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is?Karl Johanson

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bf456302.0406111553.370c5217@posting.google.c om... spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message
news:<40c9f154.6758938@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:02:15 +0000 (UTC), amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:I have studied science and it totally failed to convince me that God
mustexist. The physical sciences are just part of Science. You have to study Metaphysics too.I don't consider the universe to be particularly compelling evidence
for God. That does not surprise me considering the fact that you have not studied Metaphysics. But you did learn some very important things from your study of the physical sciences. For one you discovered the importance of accepting the tenets of the Worldview called Existential Realism. Those include the principles used by practicing scientists such as the Principle of Causality. Without Causality, the physical sciences could not exist.Why does the universe imply one God rather than, say, three Gods? The Universe implies a being that is the cause of the existence of the Universe. There can only be one such being. For there to be more than one it would result in a contradiction. And as you know from your study of the physical sciences, the Principle of Consistency states that there can be no contradictions in reality.Why does the universe imply a benevolent God? Metaphysics does not attempt to anthromorphisize God by attributing human characterists. Theology does but then we are not discussing theology, are we. God is Good. Benevolent is something your rich uncle is (or is not).Why does the universe implyGod rather than an incredibly advanced society capable of incredible
feats ofgalactic engineering? It doesn't. There can be and for my money there is such a society. The species could not have arisen solely from random mutations. Therefore the species were designed by highly intelligent beings. But this is not metaphysics. Let's try to stick to the topic. Such highly intelligent beings are finite just like the rest of the Universe, so they cannot be the source of their own existence. Postulating their existence does not get us out of the infinite regression of causality.Or why do you need God at all? We need to find the cause of existence. Things that are finite cannot come into being solely on their own. If they could then existence would be their essence and they would not be finite.Why doesn't current theory suffice? "Current theory"? You mean the various junk science speculations? They are not worthy of your consideration if you are a serious student of Science. Every one of them has some kind of fallacy at the root of their system of thought. Almost every one is based on the Worldview of Idealism - and as we know all too well, Idealism does not provide the necessary epistemological and ontological foundation for Science. If you accept the tenets of Idealism, you cannot be a true scientist in the sense of Western science. The most that you can do is engage in various forms of sophistry trying to fool those people who are too dull to know any better.OTOH, if you want to extend the definition of God to include three
incrediblypowerful alien races that don't like humans much then I guess I would
haveto conceed that God might exist. As I explained above, those alien races are part of the Universe and therefore they are finite entities. That prevents them from having existence as their essence. They do not qualify as the Supreme Being. Whether the Supreme Being "likes humans" or not is irrelevant. It is a feeble attempt to project human characteristics on an entity that is not like human beings in any way. For all eternity before you came into existence, you did not exist. Then at a moment in time, you existed. You exist now. There is a moment in time in the future when you will cease to exist, and then you will return to the state of nonexistence for all eternity. During the brief period in time when you do exist, you are endowed with free will. God not only won't interfere with your existence, He can't. That does not mean God is less omnipotent. It just means that there are certain things that even God cannot do because otherwise they would result in a contradiction - and we can't have contradictions. Because of the random element underlying physical reality, there are some physical processes that are intrinsically unknowable - process that even God cannot know. For example whether a particular Turing Machine will halt is intrinsically unknowable. The precise time when a radioactive nucleus will decay is also intrinsically unknowable. This unknowability is built into physical reality. It is there for a very important purpose: "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe." -- Heinz Pagels Since even God cannot know what you will do next, you cannot expect God to "look ahead" and prevent you from doing something wrong. It just does not happen that way. You possess free will - you and you alone are fully responsible for your life. I would not have it any other way. During this brief period when you exist, you can do with it whatever you want. Don't expect God to live your life for you. There is, however, one thing you can do. You can contemplate God (some would call this "prayer") and when you do this you excite certain mental processes that are built into your mind - processes that help you discover what is best for you. But it is still up to you to make the final decision. And just because you have used the power of your mind to learn the best way to live life and you did it by contemplating God, that does not mean that God actually intervened in your life.Does that make you happy? What does my happiness have to do with Metaphysics? Happiness is living the Good. You need more than Metaphysics to discover what is Good. I enjoyed reading this posting, Bob. You raise interesting issues and the others rather heckle you than going in the details. Seems they can't really prove you wrong. :)

Well, Barbara, the point isn't really whether anyone can prove Bob wrong.
The point is whether Bob can prove himself right.

Barbara Schwarz

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40c8ca70.2081152@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: The essence of the Universe cannot be existence. That's because the Universe is made up of finite objects that are mutable. A mutable entity cannot have existence as its essence. Do you know why?Because you really really really want to belive it's so? No, because reason dictates it.

No, you decided that it's that way. Doesn't make it so.
Of course I can reject reason and all that implies.

Reason is a tool to find answers. It doesn't guarantee correct answers.
Other tools include observation, testing ideas, and (this is a really good
one) accepting the possibilty that you may be in error.
But I chose to accept the tenets of reason and therefore I am forced to accept the existence of the Supreme Being.

There you go with the insults again. Anyone who believes in more or less
than one god is 'unreasonable' according to you. Why are you such a mean
face?
What if only one essence of an object is to exist, Then it has only that essence and it is immutable because its essence is to exist in one and only one way. It cannot have other essences if its essence is to exist.

Something can have more than one essence. "Es·sence The intrinsic or
indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something."
(The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Note that the word 'properties' is plural.

For example, the essence of chocolate cake is that it exists, and it tastes
chocolaty. The essence of a proton is that it exists, and that it has a
positive charge. The essence of dogmatism is that it rhymes with frogmatism
and that it's common to people who are phobic of admitting error, or
admitting the possibility of error. Don't be afraid. We all make mistakes.
I've made at least 6 of them myself.
You're describing a conjectured something which has two essences not one;existence and immutability. Everything we've seen in the universe alsohas two essences, existence and mutability. No need for Hoohoo the
Immutableto have existed & to have created it.

Karl Johanson

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:21:33 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
The Universe implies a being that is the cause of the existence of the Universe.
The universe doesn't imply that. You've inferred that. (And regardless,implication isn't proof.) Evolution has left humans with a tendency to inferthings, some of which turn out to be so and some of which turn out not to beso. It's perfectly understandable that you'd confuse inference withimplication.

If you accept the tenets of Existential Realism and you accept the
findings of Physics, then you will conclude that there must be a
Supreme Being once you take the time to analyze what you know about
the Universe. That's what I mean when I say that (the existence of)
the Universe implies the existence of the Supreme Being.
There can only be one such being. For there to be more than one it would result in a contradiction.
Would not.


You are not trained in Metaphysics so it is futile to discuss this
with you. All you are doing is pontificating whatever it takes to make
your case. That is not how Science works.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
Well, Barbara, the point isn't really whether anyone can prove Bob wrong.The point is whether Bob can prove himself right.

I can, but not on a Usenet forum. It's a bit more involved. I can
recommend some basic texts if you want to explore this topic.

If all you want to do is argue, then I can't help you.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:31:54 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Special Relativity is the theory that the Ether does not exist.
No it isn't. It's a complex theory, which includes the notion that etherisn't necessary to account for the wave aspect of light.

What are your credentials in Physics?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:37:38 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known>
wrote:
All 42 gods provided just as much evidence. You've insulted 41 of the godsby not believing in them. You don't get to go to pie heaven!
hairpie heaven?

That's Radical Islam.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40ca9850.49507027@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:Well, Barbara, the point isn't really whether anyone can prove Bob wrong.The point is whether Bob can prove himself right. I can, but not on a Usenet forum. It's a bit more involved.

Does it involve a retreat, a zero protien diet & not be allowed to sleep?

Karl Johanson

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:25:28 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Reason is a tool to find answers. It doesn't guarantee correct answers.

I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
--Ronald Reagan

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40ca9850.49507027@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:Well, Barbara, the point isn't really whether anyone can prove Bob wrong.The point is whether Bob can prove himself right. I can, but not on a Usenet forum. It's a bit more involved. I can recommend some basic texts if you want to explore this topic. If all you want to do is argue, then I can't help you.

I agree, Bob, it is difficult to do that in a newsgroup. You are
overwhellmingly right, Bob, but I have found a little bit something
were you err. This is also for you, John, and for everyone else who
follows this discussion.

More and more scientists believe now that the universe was build of
strings. They call it the "elegant universe", saying that there is a
common denomminator within the smallest and largest particle in
existance and that even gravity can be explained that way: everything
hangs on strings.

If there would be three or more God, who developed the universe, the
universe would show not the same kind of pattern, as individuals have
different signatures, you have to assume that the same applies to
Gods.

Moreover, the universe is too great, too beautiful, too wonderful and
also too complicated to have evolved from a big bang or from nothing.
There is a God, and he created the physical universe and designed our
bodies. A very amazing creation!

Bob probably agrees with me to this point, but I now come to the point
where he errs a bit.

He posted: "For all eternity before you came into existance, you did
not exist."

In other words, he assumes that God created the spirits, but he did
not. They existed all the time. Only because people can't remember
their former existance, might it be as spirits or incarnation, doesn't
mean that they did not exist since ever. Just like God, the spirits
existed once with him, as equal spirits, but apparently lost their
powers to what they are today. However, God, the creator of the
universe did not lose his powers, he still is there as mighty as he
ever was.

As God created the physicial universe, he certainly can destroy it in
a blink of an eye, but as Bob rightfully posted, God is good, so he
won't do it.

We all have our own will, and many people do bad things to each other
You can be certain that God doesn't like it at all, he is watching
that with disgust, but he is not just watching. God has a mission to
change the universe to a better place, and that is the legacy he will
be even more remembered for one day than having created the universe.
That legacy is having changed a universe with Gazillions of beings
that did not get along and having them pulled away from stupidity to
understanding.

God knows what to expect from people. He knows what they will do down
the road. He can predict them perfectly and can read their minds. He
can see in the future. He is more powerful than you think, Bob. He
could even duplicate himself, could have him stand behind each person,
and kick that person's behind whenever that person does something
rotten but what a life would that be for him? He did not do anthing
wrong, why should he be the police in all eternity? People have to
learn to change to the better. They have to learn to understand that
in a wild universe, they fall victims themselves over and over again.

Barbara Schwarz

I belive there is a God . . . .basically because it makes my life sweeter to
do so . . . . I dont know what your God does but Im certain that my God made
athiests too and loves them just the same . . . .
Rusty




"Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:7a350238.0406041016.4867c8ae@posting.google.c om... I found that posting on Usenet, and it is really interesting. It basically says that all U.S. states believe that there is a God. As a Scientologist, I say, thetan basically knows. Barbara Schwarz --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Separation of God and state? Posted: October 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By William J. Federer America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ... Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ... Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ... California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ... Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ... Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ... Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ... Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ... Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ... Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ... Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ... Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ... Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ... Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ... Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ... Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ... Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ... Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ... Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ... Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ... New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors . New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ... North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ... North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain... Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ... Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ... Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ... Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ... South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ... Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ... Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ... Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ... Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ... Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ... Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ... After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.

On 12 Jun 2004 08:29:40 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
More and more scientists believe now that the universe was build ofstrings. They call it the "elegant universe",

That would be Brian Greene. Did you read his book?

There is another I can recommend: Anthony Zee, "Quantum Field Theory
in a Nutshell". It helps to be well versed in relativistic quantum
mechanics.
saying that there is acommon denominator within the smallest and largest particle inexistance and that even gravity can be explained that way: everythinghangs on strings.

Don't forget "branes".
If there would be three or more God, who developed the universe, theuniverse would show not the same kind of pattern, as individuals havedifferent signatures, you have to assume that the same applies toGods.

There can be only one being whose essence is existence. To claim there
is more than one results in a contradiction, assuming you accept the
tenets of Realism. If instead you accept the tenets of Idealism or
Mysticism then anything is possible, including your nonexistence.
Moreover, the universe is too great, too beautiful, too wonderful andalso too complicated to have evolved from a big bang or from nothing.

None of those qualities precludes the Big Bang. But whatever you
postulate as the cause of the Universe, you eventually have to
determine the cause of existence. The only being who can be
responsible for existence is the being whose essence is existence.
He posted: "For all eternity before you came into existance, you didnot exist."
In other words, he assumes that God created the spirits,

What "spirits"? I assume no such thing.

The Universe existed for all eternity because that is the least
complex explanation. If you claim that the Universe began at some
moment in time you have to concoct an elaborate theory to explain that
moment. There is no such moment - the Universe has existed for all
eternity. Of course the Universe as we know it today has changed
considerably over eternity so I am not saying that the Universe as it
exists today has existed the same for all eternity. I have no problem
with the string theorists and their speculation that our Universe is
an "outpocketing" of a much larger universe. When I use the term
Universe in upper case, I mean the entirety of physical reality, not
just our corner of it.
As God created the physicial universe, he certainly can destroy it ina blink of an eye, but as Bob rightfully posted, God is good, so hewon't do it.

I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would
have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago. When the
time comes for Christ to return, He is going to take a close look and
decide it is not worth it.
We all have our own will, and many people do bad things to each other

That has to be the understatement of the millenium.
God knows what to expect from people. He knows what they will do downthe road. He can predict them perfectly and can read their minds.

Then you have just done away with free will. And you have just done
away with a century of physics.
He can see in the future.

There is no reason to accept that claim.
He is more powerful than you think, Bob.

I hate to inform you, but you are pontificating.
He could even duplicate himself,

That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence
is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence? Absurd.

Will the real existence please stand up.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb1a58.82799289@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:25:28 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Reason is a tool to find answers. It doesn't guarantee correct answers. I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.

Reason alone lead to the notion that heavier objects fell faster than
lighter objects, and that notion was assumed correct for centuries. Galileo
thought to actually test the notion. (I'll leave it as a dramatic hook for
Bob, to see if he looks up how it turned out.)

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb1a58.82799289@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:25:28 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Reason is a tool to find answers. It doesn't guarantee correct answers. I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.

YOU are being nonsensical, since reason has led to mistakes and reasonable
people are often mistaken, but unlike you are capable of correcting their
mistakes -- or by reasoning discovering that they were wrong. Einstein
reasoned and was sometimes wrong. Others took up his reasoning and found
his flaws and corrected them.

On another point of reasoning the title to this thread is flawed, inasmuch
as the thesis should be "All long for a god." That's what it's all about.
And having found no god, men and women everywhere have created gods in their
own image. That's the reason why most gods are violent, devious, hateful.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb3c93.91561718@news-server.houston.rr.com...
I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago.

One more data point on the idea that being religious doesn't make you good.

"Hey hey hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean cuz... no matter where
you go, there you are." -Buckaroo Banzai
When the time comes for Christ to return,

According to the story, Christ already came back, just over 2 days after he
apparently died.
He is going to take a close look and decide it is not worth it.We all have our own will, and many people do bad things to each other That has to be the understatement of the millenium.God knows what to expect from people. He knows what they will do downthe road. He can predict them perfectly and can read their minds. Then you have just done away with free will. And you have just done away with a century of physics.

:)
He can see in the future. There is no reason to accept that claim.

Well there I agree. We can only conjecture on such things.
He is more powerful than you think, Bob. I hate to inform you, but you are pontificating.

*Holds up a mirror for Bob to look into.* She was expressing her opinion on
how things are. Her religious conjectures are as likely to be correct as
yours or anyone else's.
He could even duplicate himself, That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence?

Why not? Oh, yeah; because you decided it's that way & everyone who
disagrees is 'unreasonable'.
Absurd.

Insults instead of ideas. Ah well, insults are at least better than 'blowing
things to smithereens' at least. Try not to be violent Bob. All you have to
do is say, "I will not be violent, today." It might even get to be habit
forming.

Karl Johanson

"Religion drove those planes into those buildings, it's amazing how good
religion is at mobilizing people to do awful, murderous things. There is
this dark side to it, and anyone who loves religious experience, including
me, better begin to own that there is a serious shadow side to this
thing." - Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld.

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cb3c93.91561718@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 12 Jun 2004 08:29:40 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote:More and more scientists believe now that the universe was build ofstrings. They call it the "elegant universe", That would be Brian Greene. Did you read his book?

Not yet. I will soon, I hope. I saw a documentary on Public TV about
it. It was rather interesting and pretty convincing. There is another I can recommend: Anthony Zee, "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell". It helps to be well versed in relativistic quantum mechanics.

I'll check my library on that one.saying that there is acommon denominator within the smallest and largest particle inexistance and that even gravity can be explained that way: everythinghangs on strings. Don't forget "branes".
Right.If there would be three or more God, who developed the universe, theuniverse would show not the same kind of pattern, as individuals havedifferent signatures, you have to assume that the same applies toGods. There can be only one being whose essence is existence. To claim there is more than one results in a contradiction, assuming you accept the tenets of Realism. If instead you accept the tenets of Idealism or Mysticism then anything is possible, including your nonexistence.

The universe shows the handwritting of one being, one creator, one
artist if you want so, all over it, but that does not mean that we,
the spiritual beings, the souls did not already exist when the
universe was created. Just as God, the souls of people always existed.
They are part of God, but they lost their godly ability through
foolish activities.Moreover, the universe is too great, too beautiful, too wonderful andalso too complicated to have evolved from a big bang or from nothing. None of those qualities precludes the Big Bang. But whatever you postulate as the cause of the Universe, you eventually have to determine the cause of existence. The only being who can be responsible for existence is the being whose essence is existence.He posted: "For all eternity before you came into existance, you didnot exist."In other words, he assumes that God created the spirits, What "spirits"? I assume no such thing.
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. I understood you as you think that
the souls of people were created. The Universe existed for all eternity because that is the least complex explanation.

The physical universe exists since a long time, planets, space,
bodies, but they don't exist since ever.
If you claim that the Universe began at some moment in time you have to concoct an elaborate theory to explain that moment. There is no such moment - the Universe has existed for all eternity.

Only the spiritual universe, Bob. All the people, without their
bodies, in harmony and unity with God.

Of course the Universe as we know it today has changed considerably over eternity so I am not saying that the Universe as it exists today has existed the same for all eternity. I have no problem with the string theorists and their speculation that our Universe is an "outpocketing" of a much larger universe. When I use the term Universe in upper case, I mean the entirety of physical reality, not just our corner of it.

Alright, but in the beginning there was nothing but God, which means
we all, unified in God, existing as spirits, as souls. However, some
wanted a game other than that, the physicial universe was created by
God, the souls (we Scientologists call them thetans) splitted away
from unitiy and harmony and rest is life as we know it, history.
As God created the physicial universe, he certainly can destroy it ina blink of an eye, but as Bob rightfully posted, God is good, so hewon't do it. I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago.

Lol.
When the time comes for Christ to return, He is going to take a close look and decide it is not worth it.

What is not worth it?We all have our own will, and many people do bad things to each other That has to be the understatement of the millenium.

I tried to put it politely. :)God knows what to expect from people. He knows what they will do downthe road. He can predict them perfectly and can read their minds. Then you have just done away with free will. And you have just done away with a century of physics.

No, not at all. You have your free will, you posted properly before
that people will always make their own decision, but God nevertheless
can predict people and read their minds. It is not even that difficult
for a human to do.
He can see in the future. There is no reason to accept that claim.
I don't force you too. :)He is more powerful than you think, Bob. I hate to inform you, but you are pontificating.

That is not nice.He could even duplicate himself, That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence? Absurd.

As I said, you acknowledge God, but he is not too powerful in your
universe.
That would be two different people, but they still would have his
qualities.
It seems you believe in Jesus. The existance in Jesus can be explained
that way. Jesus is basically God, but in another identity. Can you
follow? Will the real existence please stand up.

Very funny. He does not do what posters order, Bob. No need to.


Barbara Schwarz

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:11:29 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago.
One more data point on the idea that being religious doesn't make you good.

Who said I was religious? I am the farthest thing from religious you
will ever meet. I am a Jesuitical Heathen. If I went to church on
Sunday, everyone would leave.
He can see in the future.
There is no reason to accept that claim.
Well there I agree. We can only conjecture on such things.

You can speculate with Metaphysics. At least them you have reason to
fall back on.
That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence?
Why not? Oh, yeah; because you decided it's that way & everyone whodisagrees is 'unreasonable'.

How can you have two instances of existence. One is all there can be.
Absurd.
Insults instead of ideas.

Declaring a statement absurd is not an insult.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:16:31 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.
Reason alone lead to the notion that heavier objects fell faster thanlighter objects,

No, reason did not do any such thing.
and that notion was assumed correct for centuries. Galileothought to actually test the notion. (I'll leave it as a dramatic hook forBob, to see if he looks up how it turned out.)

Why would I have to look it up. I have a Ph.D. in Physics.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:54:52 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Barbara; Bob has already declared anyone who disagrees with his religiousnotions as unreasonable.

You are partly correct. I do not accept religious notions. But I do
not have any religious notions myself. My speculations are purely
Metaphysical.
To engage in Bobian style conjecture:

These conjectures as you call them are not mine. They belong to Thomas
Aquinas. Therefore you should call them by their correct name,
"Thomistic conjectures".
perhaps the strings are at their basis immutableand have existence as their essence.

They cannot have existence as their essence because they would be
immutable if they did. The very most important essence of strings is
their manifest mutability. It is precisely because they can change
form that they are important.

The patterns and combinations of thestrings may be mutable, while the strings are immutable.

That's absurd. You have just violated the Principle of Consistency,
first popularized by Aristotle. It says that you cannot have A and
not-A at the same time. Either strings are mutable or they are
immutable. They can't be both mutable and immutable at the same time.

Let me urge you never to consider philosophy as a profession because
you are not skilled enough.
Bob has already stated that those who disagree with his notions isunreasonable.

When someone makes a mistake, I consider their argument to be
unreasonable. Do you have a problem with that?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:02 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.
That's the reason why most gods are violent, devious, hateful.

You win - you are the most insane poster to date.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb7f82.108697378@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:02 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote: I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.That's the reason why most gods are violent, devious, hateful. You win - you are the most insane poster to date.

Ah, but no. I confer the award upon you, poor accursed one who has been
left with insufficient grey matter. Yes, Jehovah was thinking on you when
he said, "And I will curse unto the third and fourth generations the
children of those who hate me."

"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<0kIyc.701302$Pk3.479415@pd7tw1no>... "Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message news:bf456302.0406120729.1b84fc30@posting.google.c om... spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40ca9850.49507027@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:52:11 GMT, "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

Karl, here is somebody who lists why evolution does not make much sense.

www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in-evolution.htm

and I posted below in another thread.
Message-ID: <eddd254a.0403250841.580272a6@posting.google.com>

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz wrote:
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<MZPxc.722278$Ig.448093@pd7tw2no>..."Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in messageCriminal people are not religious. Period.No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (orbecause of) a lack of evidence. Not Scientologists. They believe in religious evidence.
Oh, really? Show me a Thetan.
Criminals are people who commit crimes. Somepeople who believe in any number of gods (or other metaphysical things)commit all sorts of crimes, as do some people without beliefs.Being non-religious doesn't make you bad, Not necessarily, but truly religious people have more conscience.

That is a religious misapprehension on your part.
In your dreams are non-religious people unterrepresented in prisons. How do you know, where or are you in one?

Matter of record, according to census of prisons. Don't have
the cite
but it was eelated ti me by a soiologist who worked in prisons
for many
years
Their lack of religiosity brought them in the slammer.

No, their crime did. Again, you are using circular logic, as I
explained before: "If you a "true" believer you can't commit a
crime, therefore if you commit a crime you are proved to be not
a true believer. That conveniently disassociates all believers
from all criminals. It just ain't so."


Vince B.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb7ca7.107965956@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:11:29 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago.One more data point on the idea that being religious doesn't make you
good. Who said I was religious? I am the farthest thing from religious you will ever meet. I am a Jesuitical Heathen. If I went to church on Sunday, everyone would leave.

You're not religious. You have the one true slant on things. Okay:)
>He can see in the future. There is no reason to accept that claim.Well there I agree. We can only conjecture on such things. You can speculate with Metaphysics. At least them you have reason to fall back on. That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence?Why not? Oh, yeah; because you decided it's that way & everyone whodisagrees is 'unreasonable'. How can you have two instances of existence. One is all there can be.

You exist, I exist. There's two. Pie exists, cake exists. Need more?

Karl Johanson

"Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message
I would not count on that. It's a good thing I am not God or I would have blown the entire mess to smithereens a long time ago. Lol.

My. Not only does being religious not insure you're not 'good'. Apparently
it doesn't insure you don't find the notion of mass destruction funny,
either.
He is more powerful than you think, Bob. I hate to inform you, but you are pontificating. That is not nice.

Sometimes when people are convinced they have the one true slant on things,
they decide it's okay to be nasty to people whom they think don't have the
one true slant. That isn't the only excuse people use to be mean, but it is
one..
He could even duplicate himself, That is not a metaphysical statement. How can the being whose essence is existence duplicate himself? Two instances of existence? Absurd. As I said, you acknowledge God, but he is not too powerful in your universe. That would be two different people, but they still would have his qualities.

Or 42.
It seems you believe in Jesus. The existence in Jesus can be explained that way. Jesus is basically God, but in another identity. Can you follow? Will the real existence please stand up. Very funny. He does not do what posters order, Bob. No need to.

Well said. Although, one can decide to believe in a god which follows Bob's
orders, if they want.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cb7f82.108697378@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:44:02 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote: I cannot believe I am reading such insane nonsense.That's the reason why most gods are violent, devious, hateful. You win - you are the most insane poster to date.

Now you're calling people insane. Why are you so mean all the time?

Karl Johanson

Bob wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:11 GMT, "ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Atheism is the theory that God does not exist. In order for Atheism tobecome accepted, evidence has to be presented that God does not exist.That evidence has not been presented.No, it doesn't. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exists,either. Sure you can. All you have to do is define what you mean by Santa Clause and show that such an entity cannot exist.Do you believe Santa Claus exists?If not, prove why it is so. It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.

Actually that's not precise. Positing the existence of
something is not the same thing as positing the characteristics
attached to it. There could be a Santa Claus without the
proposed associated traits.

Same way with God. If one proposes "God Exists" and that "God
is a Blue Rhinoceres, then one proceeds to prove that blue
rhinos[1] cannot exist, that does not prove that God does not
exist, only that that the posited trait of God does not apply.

Of course dogmatists each have therir own, slightly different
list of characteristice that they assign to "God" and will not
allow any variation from their description, so their arguments
may fail for that reason.
However the being whose essence is existence, who causes things to exist, is very real. Without such a being, nothing would exist because finite entities do not have existence as part of their essence and therefore must rely on their existence being caused by a separate entity. We call that entity the Supreme Being.

"Essence of existence" is a questionable entity, because it
leads to a circular fallacy. Heck, so is "essence", as a synonym
of "property" The only completely impossible single property is
non-existence, since such a nonentity can have no property. See
the looming circularity? That implies all things must have the
property of existence, since non-existence is not possible as a
property.

Existence as a property therefore has no negation, so it can't
be meaningful.

Vince B.


[1] Here I cleverly avoid the nasty plural form!

Vince B.

Bob wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:06:22 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:Even if you're right that there must be one god, there's an infinite numberof ways this god might be. That is not true. There is only one way the Supreme Being can exist.

Why?
>I must ask. What do you think the scientific method is?I am not talking about the scientific method,So you don't know? Don't infer that because you would be very wrong.I am talking aboutScience in its most general sense, which includes Philosophy andMetaphysics.Ah... you really really don't know... That is your erroneous claim.Ahem... physics predicts probabalistically. Physics also predicts deterministically. The Schrodinger Equation is deterministic because it is unitary. Physics predicts probabilistically only those processes which are intrinsically unknowable. like the precise time a radioactive nucleus will decay.Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.

Quite erroneous. Probability plays a major role in physics, and
not because parts are unknowable. Some paired properties HAVE no
specific state; it is not merely a matter of the impossibility
of measuring them.
Try to accurately predict both the position and velocity of an electron atthe same time.
I did not say all physical processes are known accurately. But there are enough to make my statement true.Causality is a property of the Universe that we discover in Physics.

Causality is not necessarily absolute. Some things happen
without immediate cause. Randomness is one property of the
physical world, causality is another, but only when probability
is part of it. If there is even _one_ non-causal instance, one
cannot apply the first-cause argument to any specific thing,
including God.
When we carry it into Metaphysics we discover that there must be anentity that causes things to exist, because things that are finitecannot be the cause of their own existence.If that's true, then that entity must be caused, and it's cause must becaused, ad infinitem. There is no infinite regression because the Supreme Being is that entity whose essence is existence.

That's a non sequitur. If the "essence" of anything can be
existence, then there's no reason to suppose that the universe
can't have the essence of existence also, or instead. It
doesn't bail you out of recursive causality.
The terminus is the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is its own cause because its essence is existence. But given that the Supreme Being is its own cause then there are properties that follow, like immutability. The Universe is not immutable so it cannot be its own cause.
When you go into the realm of metaphysics you can decide anything you want. Not true. Before you can engage in metaphysics you must accept a specific Worldview. If you accept the Worldview of Existential Realism, as practicing Physicists do,

Whoah, No "practicing" physicist I have ever met believes in
existential realism. How can you make this generalization?
That is indeed the case if you adopt the Worldview of Idealism. You are making my case for me.

What if I don't accept that worldview? Now you have made your
entire argument based on a totally unprovable hypothesis.
There's aninfinite number of metaphysical conjectures and no way to test them. In the case of Idealism you are absolutely correct. But if you accept Realism, then you can fall back on Science to test them.

You insist on Idealism as an axiom of your argument, so its
untestability destroys your deductions from it. It is not
enough to have a self-consistent system, some axioms have to be
agreed on, and this isn't one of them. Also, your "essence of
existence" element is highly questionable, as I said in an
earlier post.
Idealism has the principle characteristic that "reality" exists in our mind and the objective world is "shaped" by concepts. I reject that Worldview because there are fundamental flaws. For one thing if reality is so arbitrary that you cannot decide which flavor is "really real", then Physics is impossible because you cannot create a rational ordering of cause and effect. It all comes down to whether you accept the tenets of Realism, Idealism, Mysticism or some other version of a Worldview. A Worldview is your fundamental epistemological framework plus its supporting ontology. How do you know anything? If you claim you know things because they exist objectively then you are a Realist. If, however, you claim you know things because you can form concepts in your subjective mind, then you are an Idealist.

And your fusion of these is ....?

Vince B.

On 12 Jun 2004 14:53:51 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
That would be Brian Greene. Did you read his book?
Not yet. I will soon, I hope. I saw a documentary on Public TV aboutit. It was rather interesting and pretty convincing.

I hate to inform you, but the PBS show really stunk compared to the
book. It was way too watered down. You will have to read his book to
understand what was feebly presented on PBS. I read the book firsrt
then saw the show much later.
Don't forget "branes".
Right.

See, that's one example of how the show was a flop, whereas the book
was a success. Greene goes into brane theory extensively in the book
but barely mentions it in the show.
The universe shows the handwritting of one being, one creator, oneartist if you want so, all over it, but that does not mean that we,the spiritual beings, the souls did not already exist when theuniverse was created.

I remind you that the "soul" is a creation of religion. There is no
metaphysical support for the notion of the soul other than it can be
considered the essence of mankind, which means it is an abstract
entity and not something that each human being possesses.
Just as God, the souls of people always existed.They are part of God, but they lost their godly ability throughfoolish activities.

There is not metaphysical support for that religious claim.

You do not need to invoke the concept of a "soul" to explain mankind.
The function of the brain is sufficient.
The physical universe exists since a long time, planets, space,bodies, but they don't exist since ever.

There is no physical support for a non-eternal Universe. There is no
support for either an eternal or non-eternal Universe. Aquinas had no
problem with an eternal Universe, and neither do open-minded
physicists like Greene.
Only the spiritual universe, Bob. All the people, without theirbodies, in harmony and unity with God.

There is no support for the notion of a "spiritual universe". You have
to invoke religious belief for that.
When the time comes for Christ to return, He is going to take a close look and decide it is not worth it.
What is not worth it?

Not worth fixing.

God, in the person of Christ, cannot be required to do something that
is contradictory in reality. For instance, God cannot be required to
make a rock so huge that even He cannot lift it. That's because no
such rock exists in reality.

If man destroys the planet, then not even God can repair it without
recreating it into something it is not. To remove radioactive
particles from the ecosphere would require massive amounts of energy
which would destroy the planet as we know it. God cannot be reauired
to remove radioactivity in a way that violates the very laws of nature
that make the planet what it is. Miracles must be consistent with
physical laws to be real.

Therefore if man destroys the planet beyond repair, there is no reason
for Christ to attempt to repair it if it will be altered significantly
in the process. Remember that Christ said that He does not know if he
will return or not.
Then you have just done away with free will. And you have just done away with a century of physics.
No, not at all. You have your free will, you posted properly beforethat people will always make their own decision, but God neverthelesscan predict people and read their minds. It is not even that difficultfor a human to do.

That is a contradiction. I recommend you read about Turing's Halting
Problem to gain some insight into why that is a contradiction.

If God has the capability you claim to know what I am going to do in
the future, all I have to do is do the exact opposite when the time
comes. I have free will so I can change my mind at the last instant.
When I do that I contradict God's prediction, which means He failed to
predict the future accurately.

If, however, you maintain that once I make up my mind I have to stick
with it, then you have removed my free will. Either I can do whatever
I choose at the moment, and God cannot know what that is prior to my
doing it - that is, I have free will - or God knows what I am going
to do and I cannot change it - that is, I do not have free will.

The Principle of Consistency argues that it has to be one or the other
because both cannot exist at the same time. Either I have free will
and God therefore cannot know the future or I do not have free will
and God can know the future.
He can see in the future.
There is no reason to accept that claim.
I don't force you too. :)

I meant there is no metaphysical reason.
He is more powerful than you think, Bob.
I hate to inform you, but you are pontificating.
That is not nice.

I know. Pontificating is not allowed in a metaphysical discussion. You
can do it in a religious discussion, but I am not willing to indulge
in a religious discussion because such discussions never lead to
anything reasonable.
As I said, you acknowledge God, but he is not too powerful in youruniverse.

I realize that the Supreme Being must exist for the Universe to exist.
I do not accept that the Supreme Being is a contradiction.
That would be two different people, but they still would have hisqualities.It seems you believe in Jesus. The existance in Jesus can be explainedthat way. Jesus is basically God, but in another identity. Can youfollow?

I don't know who taught you the Christian religion, but whoever did
was deficient. Nowhere in Christianity does it say that God and Christ
are two different people - two different identities. The 3 persons of
the Trinity are 3 different personalities of the same God, not 3
separate entities.

There can be only one being whose essence is existence. That being can
have multiple personalities if you insist, although that is not a
metaphysical certainty.

BTW, don't lose sight of the fact that Christ is the Word, the latter
which is the real personality of God. The human being named Christ was
just an embodiment. Most Christians do not realize that because they
are too dull to understand it. You are not too dull.
Will the real existence please stand up.
Very funny. He does not do what posters order, Bob. No need to.

Lighten up.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:55:20 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
You're not religious. You have the one true slant on things. Okay:)

I have a consistent metaphysical system. Does that cause you a
problem?
How can you have two instances of existence. One is all there can be.
You exist, I exist. There's two. Pie exists, cake exists. Need more?

You, I and pies are not beings whose essence is existence.

You are not paying attention. Could that be because you are too dull
to understand?

Naw.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:32:55 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
You win - you are the most insane poster to date.
Now you're calling people insane. Why are you so mean all the time?

There is nothing mean about pointing out the obvious.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On 12 Jun 2004 15:25:16 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
as he apparently gave much thought to very basic questions

Included in "much though" is 50 semester hours of undergraduate
instruction in Thomistic metaphysics compliments of the Jesuits. I
have more hours in philosophy and theology than in my major (phsyics)
and my minor (mathematics) combined. But they would not let you
declare philosophy as a major. But I did go on to get a Doctor of
Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Physics. Metaphysics has been an ongoing study
for the past 45 years. In particular I finally got the opportunity to
read Etienne Gilson's several masterpieces, something we did not have
time for back in the student days. Aquinas' "n Being and Essence"
ounds out the list.
My point is that there is a clear pattern throughout the universewhich indeed points to one creator. If there were different creators,we would find not the same handwriting of that artist everywhere. Ihave nothing against many Gods, but it seems that whoever was aroundwhen the universe was created was rather watching that creator doingthat work.

I have a problem with many Gods just like I have a problem with many
universes. There can be only one being whose essence is existence. To
claim more than one would result in a contradiction, for as you point
out each of those Gods would be necessarily different in their
behavior regarding creation. But there can only be one existence. Two
existences are a contradiction because in order to be a participant in
existence #1, you could not be a participant in existence #2. That
means you simultaneously exists and not-exist. That is a
contradiction. Here we use the term "existence" in its full
ontological meaning, not just some "mode of existence".

If two Gods did exist, they could create 2 different modes of
existence, but those modes would have to be created from the same
existence, not 2 different existences. But there cannot be 2 Gods
because God is the being whose essence is existence, and there can
only be one such being. Two existences is absurd.
Turtles all the way down again. If, according to you, something complicated like a universe can't happen to exist, then something infinitely more complicated (such as a god) is infinitely less likely to have happened to exist.
I can't follow you. What do you mean with "can't happen to exist"?

He is getting this from GEB. You would have to read the book to
understand the lingo.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On 12 Jun 2004 15:29:46 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in-evolution.htm

Broken.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On 12 Jun 2004 15:29:46 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in-evolution.htm

www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:33:05 GMT, Vince Barmann
<vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote:
It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.
Actually that's not precise. Positing the existence ofsomething is not the same thing as positing the characteristicsattached to it. There could be a Santa Claus without theproposed associated traits.

Santa Claus has to have an essence for it to be meaningful.

One of the essential characteristics of Santa is flying.

If I told a class full of kindergarten children that Santa can't fly,
they would say that is not Santa.

But OK - what is the essence of Santa Claus?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:07:24 GMT, Vince Barmann
<vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote:
That is not true. There is only one way the Supreme Being can exist.
Why?

There is only one existence at the ontological level.
>Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.
Quite erroneous. Probability plays a major role in physics, andnot because parts are unknowable.

You claim that Physics could exist without accurate prediction. That's
certainly a new one on me.

Good luck trying to sell that to the Physics community.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cc7af6.173073816@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:33:05 GMT, Vince Barmann <vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote: It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.Actually that's not precise. Positing the existence ofsomething is not the same thing as positing the characteristicsattached to it. There could be a Santa Claus without theproposed associated traits. Santa Claus has to have an essence for it to be meaningful. One of the essential characteristics of Santa is flying. If I told a class full of kindergarten children that Santa can't fly, they would say that is not Santa. But OK - what is the essence of Santa Claus?

There ought to be a sanity clause in your important papers so that someone
will be there to care for you when you inexorably go off the deep end.
You're on the precipice now.

Three different personalities of the same god? I read in that book that
blaspheming two of them is forgivable, whereas blasphemy against the third
is not. The latter is the one who slid into the bed and cuckolded Joseph.
They look like three different entities to me, even as I post from
misc.legal. One is three and three is one? Now THAT is what I call
insane.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cc76d8.172020262@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:55:20 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:You're not religious. You have the one true slant on things. Okay:) I have a consistent metaphysical system. Does that cause you a problem?

Me? No. Consistency doesn't mean that it isn't religious. There is an
infinite number of possible consistent metaphysical systems & all of them
are about equally likely. .
How can you have two instances of existence. One is all there can be.You exist, I exist. There's two. Pie exists, cake exists. Need more? You, I and pies are not beings whose essence is existence.

You didn't say that. You asked, "How can you have two instances of
existence." I showed examples.
You are not paying attention. Could that be because you are too dull to understand?

No no. Your frustration is that I'm not giving you the answer you want. The
answer you want is clearly, "wow, are you ever smart for knowing that." But
that isn't an appropriate answer. The appropriate answer is, "You're
presenting conjecture as fact. You conjecture that only one being can have
existence as it's essence, despite (or maybe because of) a lack of
evidence."

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cc7739.172117561@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:32:55 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote: You win - you are the most insane poster to date.Now you're calling people insane. Why are you so mean all the time? There is nothing mean about pointing out the obvious.

You're very mean. No wonder you wish to destroy the universe. Bad person.

Karl Johanson

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40cc7af6.173073816@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:33:05 GMT, Vince Barmann <vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote: It is a violation of the laws of Physics to attach reindeer to a sleigh and fly thru the air. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.Actually that's not precise. Positing the existence ofsomething is not the same thing as positing the characteristicsattached to it. There could be a Santa Claus without theproposed associated traits. Santa Claus has to have an essence for it to be meaningful. One of the essential characteristics of Santa is flying.

You're reading accounts of Santa Claus laid down by imperfect humans.

Karl Johanson

Bob wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:07:24 GMT, Vince Barmann <vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote:That is not true. There is only one way the Supreme Being can exist.Why? There is only one existence at the ontological level.

Meaningless.
>>Without accurate prediction there would be no Physics.Quite erroneous. Probability plays a major role in physics, andnot because parts are unknowable. You claim that Physics could exist without accurate prediction. That's certainly a new one on me.

You need to get out more, then :oD
Good luck trying to sell that to the Physics community.

They sold it to me, actually. For example, a dropped bowling
ball doesn't HAVE to fall to the ground. It just has the
highest probability of doing so. All the air in a room COULD
rush to one side, but the highest probability by far is that it
won't. There is no such thing as perfect prediciton. Your term
"accurate" assumes an absolute that does not exist.

Vince B.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:37:27 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
Me? No. Consistency doesn't mean that it isn't religious. There is aninfinite number of possible consistent metaphysical systems & all of themare about equally likely. .

As we discussed earlier it all starts with the Worldview you accept as
you fundamental epistemological and ontological system. If you accept
Realism you will get one kind of Metaphysics, and if you accept
Idealism or Mysticism, you will get radically different Metaphysical
systems.

So it all comes down to which Worldview you accept. I accept Realism
because it is the one necessary to be a practicing scientist. Indeed
there have been attempts to build physics around subjective
epistemological/ontological Worldview, but then the physics that
resulted sounded psychotic. Unknown to most laymen, Bohr and the
Copenhagen School, with their weird half-alive and half-dead cats in
boxes, is not considered seriously anymore. Realism won out.

I accept Realism because I cannot accept any other Worldview. I
suppose it would be a lot easier if I were an Idealist because then I
could make up any world I wanted and no one could challenge me. But if
you are going to be a serious physicist then you have no choice but to
accept Realism.

In fact talking about the physical behavior of a world with no real
objects is kinda stupid. But what it really stupid is when your
Idealist world cannot be proven to exist because it and its exact
opposite are equally represented.

So the "infinite number of possible consistent metaphysical systems &
all of them are about equally likely" refers only to those constructed
from an Idealist perspective. There is one system that is constructed
from a Realist perspective and it has no resemblance to those Idealist
systems.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:10:15 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
But OK - what is the essence of Santa Claus?
There ought to be a sanity clause in your important papers so that someonewill be there to care for you when you inexorably go off the deep end.You're on the precipice now.
Three different personalities of the same god? I read in that book thatblaspheming two of them is forgivable, whereas blasphemy against the thirdis not. The latter is the one who slid into the bed and cuckolded Joseph.They look like three different entities to me, even as I post frommisc.legal. One is three and three is one? Now THAT is what I callinsane.

Troll.

<yawn>

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:15:39 GMT, Vince Barmann
<vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote:
There is only one existence at the ontological level.
Meaningless.

To you it is meaningless because you are too dull to understand it.
They sold it to me, actually. For example, a dropped bowlingball doesn't HAVE to fall to the ground. It just has thehighest probability of doing so. All the air in a room COULDrush to one side, but the highest probability by far is that itwon't. There is no such thing as perfect prediciton. Your term"accurate" assumes an absolute that does not exist.

My definition does not assume any such thing.

There are absolutes in Physics. For example, the eigenstates
constitute a collection of absolutes. An electron in an atom can be in
one of several states, but whichever one it is in, its quantum numbers
are absolutely precise.

Take the fine structure constant. Are you saying it does not have an
absolute value? The charge of the electron, Plank's constant and the
speed of light in a vacuum are all absolute constants.




--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40ccab5a.185461819@news-server.houston.rr.com... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:10:15 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote: But OK - what is the essence of Santa Claus?There ought to be a sanity clause in your important papers so that
someonewill be there to care for you when you inexorably go off the deep end.You're on the precipice now.Three different personalities of the same god? I read in that book thatblaspheming two of them is forgivable, whereas blasphemy against the
thirdis not. The latter is the one who slid into the bed and cuckolded
Joseph.They look like three different entities to me, even as I post frommisc.legal. One is three and three is one? Now THAT is what I callinsane. Troll. <yawn>

Answer the question. Doesn't the bible specifically say that blaspheming
the holy ghost is a cause of irrevocable damnation? --

By the way, what is "hypocracy"? You used this un-word in another thread.
Did you mean "hypocrisy"?

>By the way, what is "hypocracy"? You used this un-word in another thread.

Hypocracy: government by dirty needles.

Gordon L. Burditt

>However the being whose essence is existence, who causes things toexist, is very real. Without such a being, nothing would exist becausefinite entities do not have existence as part of their essence andtherefore must rely on their existence being caused by a separateentity. We call that entity the Supreme Being.

The entity you describe does not appear to have any of the
characteristics normally attributed to "God". What you call a
"Supreme Being", I call "matter/energy". This entity does not
appear to have/need any of the following characteristics normally
attributed to "God":

- Intelligence, even intelligence slightly above that of a rock.
- Ability to create.
- Ability to design.
- Ability to understand communications from man (commonly called "prayer")
- Being a "being" as distinguished from an "entity" or "thing".
- Ability to form an opinion on the actions of humans.

The interpretation of the metaphysical "supreme being" as matter/energy
does give some credence to religions that claim "there is a little
bit of God in all of us".

Gordon L. Burditt

On 13 Jun 2004 22:37:06 GMT, gordonb.8881q@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:
The entity you describe does not appear to have any of thecharacteristics normally attributed to "God".

I made it clear from the outset that I was not discussing religion.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Commenting on Congress and the federal budget, cures
were developed for which there were no known diseases."
--Ronald Reagan

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40ccab77.185491672@news-
They sold it to me, actually. For example, a dropped bowlingball doesn't HAVE to fall to the ground. It just has thehighest probability of doing so. All the air in a room COULDrush to one side, but the highest probability by far is that itwon't. There is no such thing as perfect prediciton. Your term"accurate" assumes an absolute that does not exist. My definition does not assume any such thing. There are absolutes in Physics. For example, the eigenstates constitute a collection of absolutes. An electron in an atom can be in one of several states, but whichever one it is in, its quantum numbers are absolutely precise. Take the fine structure constant. Are you saying it does not have an absolute value? The charge of the electron, Plank's constant and the speed of light in a vacuum are all absolute constants.

His comment was "Probability plays a major role in physics..." Not that
there are no constants used in physics. Surely you can reply to what people
write, rather than straw man versions of their points.

Karl Johanson

jls wrote:
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40ccab5a.185461819@news-server.houston.rr.com...On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:10:15 -0400, " jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net>wrote:>But OK - what is the essence of Santa Claus?There ought to be a sanity clause in your important papers so that someonewill be there to care for you when you inexorably go off the deep end.You're on the precipice now.Three different personalities of the same god? I read in that book thatblaspheming two of them is forgivable, whereas blasphemy against the thirdis not. The latter is the one who slid into the bed and cuckolded Joseph.They look like three different entities to me, even as I post frommisc.legal. One is three and three is one? Now THAT is what I callinsane.Troll.<yawn> Answer the question. Doesn't the bible specifically say that blaspheming the holy ghost is a cause of irrevocable damnation?-- By the way, what is "hypocracy"? You used this un-word in another thread. Did you mean "hypocrisy"?

It's a form of government, popular in the first few years of the
21st century in the US.

Glad to be of service.

Vince B.

Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am real
not some fictional character!
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:nJ3wc.669026$oR5.274036@pd7tw3no... "Guess who?" <theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount.com> wrote in message America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions: There's a seperation of 'church' and state. If we assume there is
something supernatural, and further assume there's only one (rather than 10, 1,000,007, a centillion, etc.) then we still can only conjecture about the nature of this supernatural being. Some churches have members or leaders
who are deluded into thinking they precisely know the will of this alleged
being (or they pretend they know). Clearly, the state should be seperate from
such folks who pass off their own conjectures as fact. Not completely though, deluded or not, members of churches should have the same right to vote as anyone else, and in the US's case they do. If there's a god (and only one) and she's omnipotent, then her will is always done, regardless of what anyone else wants, so why worry about it? Karl Johanson

"Eat me" <Sirol@cox.net> wrote in message
news:k1bzc.19480$K45.6748@fed1read02... Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am real not some fictional character!

Open your eyes. God is evident all around you. You and I are as dust.
Transient as a moment is brief. God is the original mover; organizer of
chaos; the Alpha and Omega; independent of the understanding of His
creation. Time will show you.

"Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote in message
news:XZbzc.19490$K45.18183@fed1read02... "Eat me" <Sirol@cox.net> wrote in message news:k1bzc.19480$K45.6748@fed1read02... Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am
real not some fictional character! Open your eyes. God is evident all around you. You and I are as dust. Transient as a moment is brief. God is the original mover; organizer of chaos; the Alpha and Omega; independent of the understanding of His creation.

Quite so. And the name of the one true god is "Batman" (just ask him after
you die). Sure, the unbelievers mock, basing their opinion on flawed human
portrayals of the holy fighter of wrongness and nasitude.
Time will show you.

It sure will!

Karl Johanson

Robin: "Batman, look! What skinny macaroni!"
Batman: "No, it's spaghetti, Robin. A variety of alimentary paste, larger
then vernachelli but not as tubular as macaroni."

Clearly pasta is used as allegorical symbolism for man's struggle to achieve
inner goodness and closer to goddnessness.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:51:18 -0700, "Eat me" <Sirol@cox.net> wrote:
Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am realnot some fictional character!

Prove it.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:55:51 -0700, "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net>
wrote:
Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am real not some fictional character!
Open your eyes. God is evident all around you.

The very fact that we exist is proof that God must exist. Without God,
nothing would exist.
God is the original mover; organizer of chaos;

God is the being who causes things to be and to be what they are.
Without God there would be nothing.
Time will show you.

Unfortunately that is not universally true. There are humans who are
blinded to the truth, even when it is so obvious that they have to go
out of their way not to see it.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

Bob

I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real good
at refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bring
my lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we can
hash this out.


On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:43:42 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:55:51 -0700, "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net>wrote: Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am real not some fictional character!Open your eyes. God is evident all around you.The very fact that we exist is proof that God must exist. Without God,nothing would exist.God is the original mover; organizer of chaos;God is the being who causes things to be and to be what they are.Without God there would be nothing.Time will show you.Unfortunately that is not universally true. There are humans who areblinded to the truth, even when it is so obvious that they have to goout of their way not to see it.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird
<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:
I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real goodat refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bringmy lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we canhash this out.

Troll.

<yawn>

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:59:40 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real goodat refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bringmy lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we canhash this out.Troll.<yawn>


I'm serious.

You interested in taking me up on my offer?

Goony Bird <goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote in message news:<cvbrc0pn02kkric4lnvbid3amv4vbta6qs@4ax.com>... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:59:40 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real goodat refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bringmy lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we canhash this out.Troll.<yawn> I'm serious. You interested in taking me up on my offer?

well he's got the chance to prove his favourite mythological character exists...
I expect that he will squink and avoid any actual real contact..
goodun :-)

Vince Barmann <vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<gCLyc.7165$Y3.2819@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>... Barbara Schwarz wrote: "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<MZPxc.722278$Ig.448093@pd7tw2no>..."Barbara Schwarz" <StilllovingMarty@myway.com> wrote in message>Criminal people are not religious. Period.No. Religious people are those who choose to believe things despite (orbecause of) a lack of evidence. Not Scientologists. They believe in religious evidence. Oh, really? Show me a Thetan.

I could. You can see them. When somebody dies, you have to film the
person with a special infra-red camera, you will see a milky-white
cloudy and transparent golfball size thing leaving the old body and
going in the search of a new body.

I have seen them. They don't fly high, so don't step on Grandma when
she died, she will not appreciate it.

That is the soul, the spirit or the thetan.

Barbara Schwarz

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cc7763.172159161@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 12 Jun 2004 15:25:16 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote:as he apparently gave much thought to very basic questions Included in "much though" is 50 semester hours of undergraduate instruction in Thomistic metaphysics compliments of the Jesuits.

Aren't they a kind of a Christian secret service? That is how others
described them to me.

I have more hours in philosophy and theology than in my major (phsyics) and my minor (mathematics) combined. But they would not let you declare philosophy as a major. But I did go on to get a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Physics. Metaphysics has been an ongoing study for the past 45 years. In particular I finally got the opportunity to read Etienne Gilson's several masterpieces, something we did not have time for back in the student days. Aquinas' "n Being and Essence" ounds out the list.
I never claimed you are an uneducated bag of air, Bob. :)
You spend your time studying and writing and you might tear your hair
out by reading some postings, but nevertheless, while I understand
that you explain the universe and God scientific, you hopefully admit
that science might have missed something.My point is that there is a clear pattern throughout the universewhich indeed points to one creator. If there were different creators,we would find not the same handwriting of that artist everywhere. Ihave nothing against many Gods, but it seems that whoever was aroundwhen the universe was created was rather watching that creator doingthat work. I have a problem with many Gods just like I have a problem with many universes.
Me too, those parallel universes make no sense whatsoever to me. There
is one, it is huge, but there is no other earth for example, in which
we live at the same time, and this kind of garbage.

There can be only one being whose essence is existence. To claim more than one would result in a contradiction, for as you point out each of those Gods would be necessarily different in their behavior regarding creation.

Right. All has a common denominator and it would be different if
several Gods would have created from scratch.
But there can only be one existence. Two existences are a contradiction because in order to be a participant in existence #1, you could not be a participant in existence #2. That means you simultaneously exists and not-exist. That is a contradiction. Here we use the term "existence" in its full ontological meaning, not just some "mode of existence". If two Gods did exist, they could create 2 different modes of existence, but those modes would have to be created from the same existence, not 2 different existences. But there cannot be 2 Gods because God is the being whose essence is existence, and there can only be one such being. Two existences is absurd.

Except that God can take different identities, as also the Christian
Trinity suggests. It is still one God, coordinating some activities
through different identities.

However, all the people, the souls, the spirits, today rather less
able, were once a part of God, never created, but unified in him. Come
on, Bob, you were one of them, just remember. :)

Barbara Schwarz

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cdaae9.3642727@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:55:51 -0700, "Thoth" <thoth@notlisted.net> wrote: Then all are blind!Open your eyes..God is not real,you are real,I am real not some fictional character!Open your eyes. God is evident all around you. The very fact that we exist is proof that God must exist. Without God, nothing would exist.

It is strange Bob, I agree with you but just on different creations.
You (if I understood you right) say the physical universe was NOT
created and existed since ever. I say, it was created including the
human body.

You say (if I understood you right) say that the souls, the spirits (I
am a Scientologist and we call it thetans) were created, and I say
they existed since ever.
God is the original mover; organizer of chaos; God is the being who causes things to be and to be what they are. Without God there would be nothing.Time will show you. Unfortunately that is not universally true. There are humans who are blinded to the truth, even when it is so obvious that they have to go out of their way not to see it.

Lol. True, but you have to be an optimist to survive.

Barbara Schwarz

Goony Bird <goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote in message news:<cvbrc0pn02kkric4lnvbid3amv4vbta6qs@4ax.com>... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:59:40 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real goodat refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bringmy lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we canhash this out.Troll.<yawn> I'm serious. You interested in taking me up on my offer?

God doesn't need a lawyer, but lawyers and judges need God. (And many
people say they will go anyway to hell.) But watch out that Grandpa
doesn't get a heart attack when you tell him that, Birdie.

Barbara Schwarz

On 14 Jun 2004 13:22:42 -0700, gblack@hnpl.net (George) wrote:
Goony Bird <goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote in message news:<cvbrc0pn02kkric4lnvbid3amv4vbta6qs@4ax.com>... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:59:40 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:>I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real good>at refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bring>my lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we can>hash this out.Troll.<yawn> I'm serious. You interested in taking me up on my offer?well he's got the chance to prove his favourite mythological character exists...I expect that he will squink and avoid any actual real contact..goodun :-)


Bingo.

Frankly, my point here isnt even that God doesnt exit, but that
there's no solid evidence of God, nothing that will stand up to
scientific or legal scrutiny. THe whole God thing is about faith, not
proof.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:03:39 -0400, Goony Bird
<goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote:
well he's got the chance to prove his favourite mythological character exists...I expect that he will squink and avoid any actual real contact..goodun :-)
Bingo.
Frankly, my point here isnt even that God doesnt exit, but thatthere's no solid evidence of God, nothing that will stand up toscientific or legal scrutiny. THe whole God thing is about faith, notproof.

Two complete morons wanking each other.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On 14 Jun 2004 16:32:10 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
But you are nevertheless underestimating God. Perhaps there are godlyphysical laws that the modern science has not yet discovered?

That would be a contradiction. There are physical laws or their are
godly laws which are not physical laws, but not both.
Therefore if man destroys the planet beyond repair, there is no reason for Christ to attempt to repair it if it will be altered significantly in the process. Remember that Christ said that He does not know if he will return or not.
If history is recorded properly, and I don't think it is.

It's in Scripture.
If God has the capability you claim to know what I am going to do in the future, all I have to do is do the exact opposite when the time comes. I have free will so I can change my mind at the last instant. When I do that I contradict God's prediction, which means He failed to predict the future accurately.
As soon as you change your mind, God will know that you have changedit, but he will know in advance that you will change it or not.

In which case He would have said it to begin with.
Highly intelligent people can predict that already, now imagine what Godcould do.

Neither you nor God can predict whether a Turing Machine will halt in
general. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable. Neither
you nor God can know the value of an uncomputable number. That's
something that is intrinsically unknowable.

You cannot require or expect God to do something which does not exist
in reality. God does not engage in contradictions.
Inform me if I am wrong, but you believe there is a God, but he is nottoo able, right? (I think that you underestimate him.)

I do not believe there is a God, I *know* there is a God. There *must*
be a God or nothing would exist.

God is as able as it gets in reality. God cannot violate the very laws
of existence - that would be contradictory. You are expecting God to
conform to a mythological order which cannot exist in reality.
You think the physical universe was not created it always existed,right? (The spiritual world, the souls existed, but the physicialuniverse was a creation is my view.)

I did not say that. The Universe is most definitely created. And for
all I know it has been around for all eternity.

At this instant the Universe exists. It is not the cause of its own
existence. So it relies on God to create it - every moment of its
existence. There is no need for a beginning or an end. The Universe is
created every instant it exists because if it weren't, it would not
exist.
You think there is no spirit and no soul? How can you? You are evendenying yourself. What is with the spirit inside of your body? Youdeny it?

There is a process which we call conscious awareness. That process is
a function of brain activity. There is no need to fabricate some
entity called the soul.
What would you say if I tell you that you can see (with a specialcamera) a spirit moving out of the body while dying and searching foranother body?

I'd say you need to document it and publish it. Then get ready for a
trip to Stockholm to receive your Nobel Prize.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On 14 Jun 2004 16:51:42 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
Included in "much though" is 50 semester hours of undergraduate instruction in Thomistic metaphysics compliments of the Jesuits.
Aren't they a kind of a Christian secret service? That is how othersdescribed them to me.

LOL. Most people confuse the Jesuits with Christians.

There's a story about this guy who wants a new Mercedes so badly that
he consults his parish priest. "If I say a novena, will I get a
Mercedes?" The priest asks, "What is a Mercedes?" So the guy consults
a Jesuit and asks, "If I say a novena, will I get a Mercedes?" The
Jesuit asks, "What's a novena?"
You spend your time studying and writing and you might tear your hairout by reading some postings, but nevertheless, while I understandthat you explain the universe and God scientific, you hopefully admitthat science might have missed something.

It has a lot missing. What do you have in mind?

Just keep in mind that yiu cannot require God to violate the very
existence He is. It is the height of arrogance to expect God to do
things that are no more that fabrications of the human mind.
However, all the people, the souls, the spirits, today rather lessable, were once a part of God, never created, but unified in him. Comeon, Bob, you were one of them, just remember. :)

For all eternity before I existed, I did not exist. And for all
eternity after I cease to exist, I will not exist.

Why is that so hard for people to accept?

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On 14 Jun 2004 16:58:44 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
The very fact that we exist is proof that God must exist. Without God, nothing would exist.
It is strange Bob, I agree with you but just on different creations.You (if I understood you right) say the physical universe was NOTcreated and existed since ever. I say, it was created including thehuman body.

Your notion of creation is faulty. Creation is an act, one that must
be sustained every moment of existence. That does not imply that there
is a beginning or an end.
You say (if I understood you right) say that the souls, the spirits (Iam a Scientologist and we call it thetans) were created, and I saythey existed since ever.

I say that what you claim to be a "soul" is a fabrication to explain
the phenomenon of conscious awareness. But that phenomenon can be
adequately explained by brain activity. There is no need to fabricate
entities to explain it.

I am not saying that we understand it, just that we can account for it
without having to fabricate meaningless entities like the "soul".

Aquinas believed that the soul was the essence of man. Indeed in that
sense the soul is immortal since the essence of man is immortal. But
individual instances of conscious awareness are the manifestation of
brain activity. There is no reason to fabricate fictitious entities to
explain its existence.
Lol. True, but you have to be an optimist to survive.

Not really. Albert Camus was hardly an optimist and yet he survived
quite well.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

Goony Bird <goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote in message news:<r1fsc01kkrbqc0e99hses3tfo07teom208@4ax.com>... On 14 Jun 2004 13:22:42 -0700, gblack@hnpl.net (George) wrote:Goony Bird <goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote in message news:<cvbrc0pn02kkric4lnvbid3amv4vbta6qs@4ax.com>... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:59:40 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:23 -0400, Goony Bird ><goonybird@nwboronet.com> wrote: > >>I'll make ya a deal. My grandfather is a retired judge. He's real good >>at refereeing disputes. If you let him referee this, and let me bring >>my lawyer to help me out, you can bring God and HIS lawyer, and we can >>hash this out. > >Troll. > ><yawn> I'm serious. You interested in taking me up on my offer?well he's got the chance to prove his favourite mythological character exists...I expect that he will squink and avoid any actual real contact..goodun :-) Bingo. Frankly, my point here isnt even that God doesnt exit, but that there's no solid evidence of God, nothing that will stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny. THe whole God thing is about faith, not proof.

I completely agree
As my abiding interest is in Archaeology I have knowledge of hundreds
of 'gods' invented throughout the ancient world.
In many cases these 'gods' were dead rulers with cult followings.
The Greeks of the Hellenistic Age invented the 'saviour' religions as
part of their city states with the threat to citizens that exile meant
loss of 'gods' house land and citizenship...
These people also had books to 'believe' in the Avesta (Vendidad)
for example..
this god thing was the ancients way of explaining to much rain, to
little rain, death, birth, feast, famine..... a cop out that the sad,
the mad, the sick and the bad have to excuse their behaviour

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cf2394.10801862@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 14 Jun 2004 16:58:44 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote: The very fact that we exist is proof that God must exist. Without God, nothing would exist.It is strange Bob, I agree with you but just on different creations.You (if I understood you right) say the physical universe was NOTcreated and existed since ever. I say, it was created including thehuman body. Your notion of creation is faulty. Creation is an act, one that must be sustained every moment of existence. That does not imply that there is a beginning or an end.

If you have a problem with the words that I use, try to explain it on
yours. I am saying that once there was no physical universe, no space,
no planets, no material, nothing, except a spiritual existence, God,
with each soul (thetan as Scientologists call it) united.

You are just telling me that I am wrong, but not what you actually
think there was.
You say (if I understood you right) say that the souls, the spirits (Iam a Scientologist and we call it thetans) were created, and I saythey existed since ever. I say that what you claim to be a "soul" is a fabrication to explain the phenomenon of conscious awareness. But that phenomenon can be adequately explained by brain activity. There is no need to fabricate entities to explain it.

You believe seriously that you, the person, is just a brain activity?
Are you kidding me? And who is activating that brain activity, if I
may ask? You, who can feel, you who has emotions and refers to "I,
Bob" is just a brain activity?

When you die, Bob, what do you think happen to you? Do you think you
ease to exist? And how does God fit into this, whom you acknowledge as
existent?
I am not saying that we understand it, just that we can account for it without having to fabricate meaningless entities like the "soul".

I understand it. Souls sounds a lot better than brain activity and is
not meaningless. Aquinas believed that the soul was the essence of man.

And they were right.
Indeed in that sense the soul is immortal since the essence of man is immortal.

So how can that be just a brain-wave?

But individual instances of conscious awareness are the manifestation of brain activity. There is no reason to fabricate fictitious entities to explain its existence.

I can't believe that after all your studies you came to to this poor
solution, really.

Barbara Schwarz
Lol. True, but you have to be an optimist to survive. Not really. Albert Camus was hardly an optimist and yet he survived quite well.

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cf238d.10795623@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 14 Jun 2004 16:32:10 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote:But you are nevertheless underestimating God. Perhaps there are godlyphysical laws that the modern science has not yet discovered? That would be a contradiction. There are physical laws or their are godly laws which are not physical laws, but not both.

There could be some physical laws that people don't understand yet.
Therefore if man destroys the planet beyond repair, there is no reason for Christ to attempt to repair it if it will be altered significantly in the process. Remember that Christ said that He does not know if he will return or not.If history is recorded properly, and I don't think it is. It's in Scripture.

People lied all through history. What makes you think that scriptures
are based on truth and nothing but the truth? Who knows how many
people added false stuff to it for whatever reason.
If God has the capability you claim to know what I am going to do in the future, all I have to do is do the exact opposite when the time comes. I have free will so I can change my mind at the last instant. When I do that I contradict God's prediction, which means He failed to predict the future accurately.As soon as you change your mind, God will know that you have changedit, but he will know in advance that you will change it or not. In which case He would have said it to begin with.Highly intelligent people can predict that already, now imagine what Godcould do. Neither you nor God can predict whether a Turing Machine will halt in general. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable. Neither you nor God can know the value of an uncomputable number. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable.

Again, you are underestimating God. I have all reasons to believe that
there might be scientific laws that modern science has not even
figured out yet.
You cannot require or expect God to do something which does not exist in reality. God does not engage in contradictions.

I don't require and expect God of anything.Inform me if I am wrong, but you believe there is a God, but he is nottoo able, right? (I think that you underestimate him.) I do not believe there is a God, I *know* there is a God. There *must* be a God or nothing would exist.

Sorry, Bob, but that seems a contradiction to that you said that the
universe was not created. But it would not exist without God? God is as able as it gets in reality.

Alright, I understand what you mean, but humans might not have
understood all the reality yet.
God cannot violate the very laws of existence - that would be contradictory.
He can, but he doesn't do it as he is God.

You are expecting God to conform to a mythological order which cannot exist in reality.

No, you are putting words in my mouth which I never said.
You think the physical universe was not created it always existed,right? (The spiritual world, the souls existed, but the physicialuniverse was a creation is my view.) I did not say that. The Universe is most definitely created. And for all I know it has been around for all eternity.

But if you agree that the universe was created, there was a beginning,
and you scolded me in the first paragraph for not having understood
that the creation has no beginning. I believe that creation has a
beginning.
At this instant the Universe exists. It is not the cause of its own existence.

So, you say that the universe was created, and I remember that you
earlier said it was not created by just ever existed.
So it relies on God to create it - every moment of its existence.

So you mean that God takes a break, all will end to exist? I think he
has created the universe that it can stand on its own. It would be not
wise to create a universe that is constant work.
There is no need for a beginning or an end.

Not for an end, but certainly for a beginning.

The Universe is created every instant it exists because if it weren't, it would not exist.

Alright.You think there is no spirit and no soul? How can you? You are evendenying yourself. What is with the spirit inside of your body? Youdeny it? There is a process which we call conscious awareness. That process is a function of brain activity. There is no need to fabricate some entity called the soul.

I can't believe this! How can you confirm the existance of God but
deny the existence of souls? That you don't know more about the
existance of souls worries me. You are an educated man, but something
went wrong with your cognitions on that basic matter.What would you say if I tell you that you can see (with a specialcamera) a spirit moving out of the body while dying and searching foranother body? I'd say you need to document it and publish it. Then get ready for a trip to Stockholm to receive your Nobel Prize.

I don't want a Nobel Prize. Psychiatrists who also deny the human soul
and see a spiritual being only as brain wave got that prize. They even
want to give it to a serial killer on death row. Thanks, but I would
decline.

I am serious, Bob, rent yourself an infra-red camera, go at night (you
see them better against dark background) to a graveyard, an old attic
or ground zero in NY and film the space. Then tell me what the cloudy
transparent/white shadows are that play like lost toddlers. The
universities failed completely to document how the spirit leaves the
body and looks for a new one, a new incarnation.

Barbara Schwarz

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40cf2391.10798908@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 14 Jun 2004 16:51:42 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote: Included in "much though" is 50 semester hours of undergraduate instruction in Thomistic metaphysics compliments of the Jesuits.Aren't they a kind of a Christian secret service? That is how othersdescribed them to me. LOL. Most people confuse the Jesuits with Christians.

There's a story about this guy who wants a new Mercedes so badly that he consults his parish priest. "If I say a novena, will I get a Mercedes?" The priest asks, "What is a Mercedes?" So the guy consults a Jesuit and asks, "If I say a novena, will I get a Mercedes?" The Jesuit asks, "What's a novena?"

What are the Jesuits then if no Christians? Don't they believe in
Jesus calling themselves Jesuits? And is the belief in Jesus not the
basic Christian belief?
You spend your time studying and writing and you might tear your hairout by reading some postings, but nevertheless, while I understandthat you explain the universe and God scientific, you hopefully admitthat science might have missed something. It has a lot missing. What do you have in mind?
Everything that is missing of course. :)
Just keep in mind that yiu cannot require God to violate the very existence He is. It is the height of arrogance to expect God to do things that are no more that fabrications of the human mind.

Why would you think I want God to violate his own laws? I just said
that there might be great things that modern science or many religions
don't know of him.However, all the people, the souls, the spirits, today rather lessable, were once a part of God, never created, but unified in him. Comeon, Bob, you were one of them, just remember. :) For all eternity before I existed, I did not exist. And for all eternity after I cease to exist, I will not exist. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

IT IS WRONG, BOB, IT IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

You exist since ever, you always will exist. There are techniques to
remember past lives! There are ways to see the soul emerges from a
dying body and diving in a new baby body. And that can be proven
scientific and is not just religious belief.

You acknowledge God, but you don't acknowledge your own survival as a
spiritual being? Now I worry about you! How can nerves and a brain
wave be you? Makes no sense in heaven or hell. You make the waves, but
you are not the brain or just a brain wave.

Barbara Schwarz

On 15 Jun 2004 15:57:22 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
That would be a contradiction. There are physical laws or their are godly laws which are not physical laws, but not both.
There could be some physical laws that people don't understand yet.

Fine, but that doesn't mean the ones we do understand will all of a
sudden be shown to be wrong. Each new discovery adds knowledge to the
laws we already have. No law has ever destroyed a previous law. If you
think otherwise, then you are misinformed.
Neither you nor God can predict whether a Turing Machine will halt in general. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable. Neither you nor God can know the value of an uncomputable number. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable.
Again, you are underestimating God.

No, I am treating God as the cause of existence. That means He cannot
be expected to act in ways that are contradictory, which is what you
are expecting. That's because you are operating from a Mystical
Worldview and not a Realism.
I have all reasons to believe thatthere might be scientific laws that modern science has not evenfigured out yet.

Indeed. But that does not mean that God can be required to act in ways
that are contradictory to reality.
I don't require and expect God of anything.

Sure you do. You require and expect God to know things that are
unknowable.
I do not believe there is a God, I *know* there is a God. There *must* be a God or nothing would exist.
Sorry, Bob, but that seems a contradiction to that you said that theuniverse was not created.

I never said any such thing. I said that it is possible that the
Universe was not created in time. That does not mean that it was not
created. You are using the mythological notion of creation, which is
not accurate for metaphysics.
But it would not exist without God?

The Universe would not exist unless God caused it to exist - and I am
talking about this moment now.

Like so many people untrained in metaphysics, you imagine that reality
consists of "things". Existence consists of an "act", not a thing.
Even quantum field theorists know that. Things are manifestations of
acts.
You are expecting God to conform to a mythological order which cannot exist in reality.
No, you are putting words in my mouth which I never said.

You said that you expect God to be able to know that which is
intrinsically unknowable. That mythology.
But if you agree that the universe was created, there was a beginning,

That is not correct. The Universe is created every instant it exists.
There is no requirement for that act to have a beginning.
and you scolded me in the first paragraph for not having understoodthat the creation has no beginning. I believe that creation has abeginning.

It can and maybe it does. I have a problem with that because I cannot
imagine what would characterize that moment. The now-defunct Big Bang
theory swept the problem under the carpet by claiming there was a
"singularity" present at some moment in time and it resulted in the
birth of the Universe.

According to string theory (Greene, op. cit) it is possible that a
black hole in a higher-level universe spawned the universe we now see
around us, and that this black hole came into existence at some moment
in time.

I guess my point is that it really doesn't make any difference
metaphysically if the Universe was created in time or not. What counts
is the fact that for the Universe to exist, God must act to cause it
to exist at every instant of its existence.
At this instant the Universe exists. It is not the cause of its own existence.
So, you say that the universe was created, and I remember that youearlier said it was not created by just ever existed.

I never said "just ever existed". I said that it is eternal.
So it relies on God to create it - every moment of its existence.
So you mean that God takes a break, all will end to exist? I think hehas created the universe that it can stand on its own. It would be notwise to create a universe that is constant work.

The Universe cannot "stand on its own" ontologically. For the Universe
to exist, God must cause it to exist at every instant of its
existence.

The reason is straightforward. The Universe does not have existence as
part of its essence, because if it did it would be immutable - it
would be what it was and never change. But we know that the Universe
is mutable - very mutable when you go to the subatomic level.
Therefore the Universe must have something outside it as the cause of
its existence - a being whose essence is existence. God.
There is no need for a beginning or an end.
Not for an end, but certainly for a beginning.

Why? The Universe could exist without a beginning if God caused it to
exist in eternity?

You are expecting creation to behave like baking a cake. One minute
there is no cake and another there is a cake. But that's not how
creation works. Also you must heed Einstein's comment:

"Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under
which we live."
--Albert Einstein
There is a process which we call conscious awareness. That process is a function of brain activity. There is no need to fabricate some entity called the soul.
I can't believe this! How can you confirm the existance of God butdeny the existence of souls?

I see no metaphysical problems with doing that.

That you don't know more about theexistance of souls worries me. You are an educated man, but somethingwent wrong with your cognitions on that basic matter.

Please, spare us the theatrics. I have given this a lot of thought
over a long time, coming off of a sound education in the fundamentals
of both physics and metaphysics. The burden of proof lies with you to
prove that "souls" exist in reality.

The "soul" is not a real thing - it is a description of a process,
namely brain activity, that is adequately explained by realizing that
the brain is capable of conscious awareness. How that happens is
something we do not know. Roger Penrose thinks it has something to do
with what he calls "Correct Quantum Gravity", but then some people
think he is off his rocker.

I won't get into this discussion because I have no idea how brain
activity results in conscious awareness - maybe it's a property of the
quantum vacuum and our brains are connected to the vacuum because they
are quantum electricdynamical in nature. Whatever.
I am serious, Bob, rent yourself an infra-red camera, go at night (yousee them better against dark background) to a graveyard, an old atticor ground zero in NY and film the space. Then tell me what the cloudytransparent/white shadows are that play like lost toddlers.

If I were to conduct such an experiment I would want to design and
build my own equipment so I could know what is going on. Who knows
what rental equipment is doing - it's like just cheap crap anyway.
There are thermal fluctuations in any thermodynamic system, including
the atmosphere, so may what you are seeing is a manifestation of
ordinary physical processes.

I would not stake my entire metaphysical system on rented crap.
The universities failed completely to document how the spirit leaves thebody and looks for a new one, a new incarnation.

Not true. Recent experiments in brain activity indicate that under
suitable laboratory conditions subjects can be made to experience the
so-called "near death" phenomenon(white lights, shadowy figure talking
to them, et al) - yet they are not dying at all.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On 15 Jun 2004 16:08:42 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
What are the Jesuits then if no Christians? Don't they believe inJesus calling themselves Jesuits? And is the belief in Jesus not thebasic Christian belief?

Chill out - it was a joke.

The point is that the Jesuits are not your typical Christians. They
have a very different approach to Christianity - one that is based
heavily on reason. That's why Thomas Aquinas is their poster boy.
Why would you think I want God to violate his own laws? I just saidthat there might be great things that modern science or many religionsdon't know of him.

But whatever those things are, they cannot contradict what we do know.
There is no magical law waiting to be discovered which will eradicate
centuries of scientific discovery. Anything we add to our knowledge
must be added not replaced.

Keep in mind that the laws of physics we know today are consistent
with all those experiments we have performed over the centuries. You
don't expect some magic new law to come along which repeals all those
earlier laws, do you? If that happened, what about all those
experiments?

If someone comes along with a magical new law of gravity which repeals
Newton's Laws, then how did the astronauts make it to the moon?
For all eternity before I existed, I did not exist. And for all eternity after I cease to exist, I will not exist.
Why is that so hard for people to accept?
IT IS WRONG, BOB, IT IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prove it.

I do not accept pontification, even when it is shouted at me. The
burden of proof lies with you.
You exist since ever, you always will exist. There are techniques toremember past lives! There are ways to see the soul emerges from adying body and diving in a new baby body. And that can be provenscientific and is not just religious belief.

If you say this can be proven scientific, then where are the refereed
journals?
You acknowledge God, but you don't acknowledge your own survival as aspiritual being? Now I worry about you! How can nerves and a brainwave be you? Makes no sense in heaven or hell. You make the waves, butyou are not the brain or just a brain wave.

That makes no sense metaphysically.

You are behaving in the classic tradition of a religious
fundamentalist. That's OK, but it is not metaphysics.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

On 15 Jun 2004 15:33:54 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
I am saying that once there was no physical universe, no space,no planets, no material, nothing, except a spiritual existence, God,with each soul (thetan as Scientologists call it) united.

Prove it using reason.

There is no good reason to believe that.
You are just telling me that I am wrong, but not what you actuallythink there was.

I do not know if the Universe was created in time or not. I suspect it
was not created in time. I am not talking about just our little corner
of the Universe, what people mean when they use the word "universe"
but the entirety of physical creation, including higher-order
universes which could be the spawning ground for our little universe.

There is no reason to believe the entirety of physical creation must
begin at a moment in time. In fact, time does not exist prior to that
moment so it makes no sense to talk about a "time" of creation. You
could extrapolate backwards but you will come to a point where there
is no time, and waving your hands about "singularities" and "big
bangs" does not shed any light on the subject.
You believe seriously that you, the person, is just a brain activity?

I maintain that my conscious awareness is the result of my brain
activity.
And who is activating that brain activity, if I may ask?

Why must there be a "who"? I am the who.
You, who can feel, you who has emotions and refers to "I,Bob" is just a brain activity?

Why would I have to invoke a mythological fabrication like the "soul"
to account for what I observe? My emotions are part of the process
called conscious awareness. There is no more to it than that.
When you die, Bob, what do you think happen to you?

I cease to exist.
Do you think you cease to exist?

Yes.
And how does God fit into this, whom you acknowledge asexistent?

What do you mean by "how does God fit into this"?

God is the cause of our existence. What more do you want?
I understand it. Souls sounds a lot better than brain activity and isnot meaningless.

What is meaningless with the term "brain activity"? It is a lot more
meaningful than some mythical entity called the "soul".
Aquinas believed that the soul was the essence of man.
And they were right.

Yeah, but there is only one of those.
Indeed in that sense the soul is immortal since the essence of man is immortal.
So how can that be just a brain-wave?

I never said that the essence of man was a brain wave. You are putting
words in my mouth. Please pay closer attention to what I do say.
But individual instances of conscious awareness are the manifestation of brain activity. There is no reason to fabricate fictitious entities to explain its existence.
I can't believe that after all your studies you came to to this poorsolution, really.

Why do you imagine that this is a "poor solution". At least it is not
based on mythical entites that have no reality.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when
individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and
benefitting from their success, only then can societies remain economically
alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one
irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion
that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
--Ronald Reagan

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40d04955.60683207@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 15 Jun 2004 15:33:54 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote:I am saying that once there was no physical universe, no space,no planets, no material, nothing, except a spiritual existence, God,with each soul (thetan as Scientologists call it) united. Prove it using reason.
I basically know. You could try to remember by going back.
Scientologists do that with auditing and the e-meter that measures
spiritual energy. It seems also that people independently from each
other found that out. Moreover, all matter can be destroyed, which
tells me that it is not eternal. The soul, the spirit, or as we
Scientologists call it, is eternal and survives just about anything. There is no good reason to believe that.You are just telling me that I am wrong, but not what you actuallythink there was. I do not know if the Universe was created in time or not. I suspect it was not created in time. I am not talking about just our little corner of the Universe, what people mean when they use the word "universe" but the entirety of physical creation, including higher-order universes which could be the spawning ground for our little universe.
That is also the universe that I mean. There is no reason to believe the entirety of physical creation must begin at a moment in time. In fact, time does not exist prior to that moment so it makes no sense to talk about a "time" of creation. You could extrapolate backwards but you will come to a point where there is no time, and waving your hands about "singularities" and "big bangs" does not shed any light on the subject.
I think it was created but continued to expand. It is also possible
that other creatures, people, in former times expanded the universe
with technology.
You believe seriously that you, the person, is just a brain activity? I maintain that my conscious awareness is the result of my brain activity.

And who is behind the brain activity? Do the Jesuits believe they are
just a brain wave? I thought they believe in that they are spirits or
at least have one. Do you think that Jesus was only a brain activity?And who is activating that brain activity, if I may ask? Why must there be a "who"? I am the who.

Exactly, and you are the soul, not the brain wave. You have brain
waves, but you are none. You are a ever existing spirit, a soul who
has a mind, a body and a brain.You, who can feel, you who has emotions and refers to "I,Bob" is just a brain activity? Why would I have to invoke a mythological fabrication like the "soul" to account for what I observe? My emotions are part of the process called conscious awareness. There is no more to it than that.

You err very much on that. Yes, you are concious awareness because you
ARE a spiritual being. The conscious awareness IS the being, who has
emotions and a mind and a brain and a body.When you die, Bob, what do you think happen to you? I cease to exist.Do you think you cease to exist? Yes.

What do you think started that "brainwave"? How did it (you) come to
be in the first place? (Not the body, the concious awareness.)And how does God fit into this, whom you acknowledge asexistent? What do you mean by "how does God fit into this"? God is the cause of our existence. What more do you want?
And you think that God created this gruesome thing? Awareness that
just dies off forever?
I understand it. Souls sounds a lot better than brain activity and isnot meaningless. What is meaningless with the term "brain activity"? It is a lot more meaningful than some mythical entity called the "soul".

But to call it the soul a soul is better than to call it a brain wave,
as the soul makes the brain waves. And as there are so many
misunderstandings about the soul, we Scientologists call it thetans.
But isn't a brain wave, I tell you that. Aquinas believed that the soul was the essence of man.And they were right. Yeah, but there is only one of those.

You think God is the being and we are his brainwaves? And he just let
them die off?Indeed in that sense the soul is immortal since the essence of man is immortal.So how can that be just a brain-wave? I never said that the essence of man was a brain wave. You are putting words in my mouth. Please pay closer attention to what I do say.

I try to figure your thinking about that out. I don't try to suggest
something wrong, that why I am asking. Okay, you say now that the
essence of man is not a brain wave but concious awareness with
emotions, right? There, we have the soul again, as a brain wave can't
be aware and have emotions. It is just a wave. You get one by sticking
your toe in water.

But individual instances of conscious awareness are the manifestation of brain activity. There is no reason to fabricate fictitious entities to explain its existence.I can't believe that after all your studies you came to to this poorsolution, really. Why do you imagine that this is a "poor solution". At least it is not based on mythical entites that have no reality.

Reality is that you are a spiritual being. If you are leaving this
body behind, you are still existing, Bob, you can still feel, see,
hear, think and have emotions. Just because universities don't got it
yet, doesn't mean that it is a scientific fact.

Once again, I don't want to take anything away from your studies. I
posted before that you are educted and considered lots of essential
questions. But you are wrong by not trying discovering more in you
than what you sofar discovered. Perhaps you thought to much about
other problems than about yourself, what you are and where you are
going.

You are sort of a soul atheist who believes in God. Most people who
don't believe that they are spirits and just a brain don't believe in
God.

Barbara Schwarz

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<40d068d7.68748895@news-server.houston.rr.com>... On 15 Jun 2004 15:57:22 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote: That would be a contradiction. There are physical laws or their are godly laws which are not physical laws, but not both.There could be some physical laws that people don't understand yet. Fine, but that doesn't mean the ones we do understand will all of a sudden be shown to be wrong.

I never said so.
Each new discovery adds knowledge to the laws we already have. No law has ever destroyed a previous law. If you think otherwise, then you are misinformed.
Depends what you understand under "law".
Neither you nor God can predict whether a Turing Machine will halt in general. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable. Neither you nor God can know the value of an uncomputable number. That's something that is intrinsically unknowable.Again, you are underestimating God. No, I am treating God as the cause of existence. That means He cannot be expected to act in ways that are contradictory, which is what you are expecting. That's because you are operating from a Mystical Worldview and not a Realism.

I understand what you mean, Bob. I know God. As a little girl, I
talked already to him. I observed what happened in my world after I
asked him for help that is why I say that God should not be
underestimated. I am so stranger to miracles, that is what I am trying
to tell you.I have all reasons to believe thatthere might be scientific laws that modern science has not evenfigured out yet. Indeed. But that does not mean that God can be required to act in ways that are contradictory to reality.

That means that people have to know all of the reality. What if they
just know a small part of it?I don't require and expect God of anything. Sure you do. You require and expect God to know things that are unknowable.

I even expect from myself to know it all. I have predicted the future
so often rightfully, Bob. I often know what will happen, how people
react, what the result will be. It is not even difficult if you just
put your mind to it. I do not believe there is a God, I *know* there is a God. There *must* be a God or nothing would exist.Sorry, Bob, but that seems a contradiction to that you said that theuniverse was not created. I never said any such thing. I said that it is possible that the Universe was not created in time. That does not mean that it was not created. You are using the mythological notion of creation, which is not accurate for metaphysics.

If it was not created in time, how was it created?But it would not exist without God? The Universe would not exist unless God caused it to exist - and I am talking about this moment now.
I really try to get to the buttom of this. In this moment? What is in
the next moment? Like so many people untrained in metaphysics, you imagine that reality consists of "things". Existence consists of an "act", not a thing. Even quantum field theorists know that. Things are manifestations of acts.

Take a soul. That is no act, that is an existing being. (Consists out
of a tiny tiny bit of material.) But he can act. How does he fit in?You are expecting God to conform to a mythological order which cannot exist in reality.No, you are putting words in my mouth which I never said. You said that you expect God to be able to know that which is intrinsically unknowable. That mythology.
But you don't know what is intrinsically unknowable. You may know if
for a human, but you don't know if for God.

Let me ask you something else, Bob. Do you see God as person with
emotions or more like a wave, a light, an indentity that is not aware
of itself?But if you agree that the universe was created, there was a beginning, That is not correct. The Universe is created every instant it exists. There is no requirement for that act to have a beginning.

It does not make sense to me that something like the physical universe
has no beginning despite it was created.and you scolded me in the first paragraph for not having understoodthat the creation has no beginning. I believe that creation has abeginning. It can and maybe it does. I have a problem with that because I cannot imagine what would characterize that moment.
Try to imagine God and we souls all united in a spiritual universe,
but some wanted something different, a game to play, and the idea of a
physical universe and bodies came up. That would be the moment where
God, apparently a being with extreme powers postulated the physical
universe. As the universe has the same pattern or signature in the
largest and smallest things, I am certain that one being created it
and not many.
The now-defunct Big Bang theory swept the problem under the carpet by claiming there was a "singularity" present at some moment in time and it resulted in the birth of the Universe.
They basically say there is a God, just don't want to admit it. According to string theory (Greene, op. cit) it is possible that a black hole in a higher-level universe spawned the universe we now see around us, and that this black hole came into existence at some moment in time. I guess my point is that it really doesn't make any difference metaphysically if the Universe was created in time or not.

It matters to me. I want to know all about it. There is nothing more
faszinating and important than all the basic questions.
What counts is the fact that for the Universe to exist, God must act to cause it to exist at every instant of its existence.

You you mean that the universe would crash if God would not hold it
together? I think he created the universe to stand on its own, that
constant new creation of the same thing is not constantly expected
from him, e.g. look how humans multiply, look how plants grow, etc. At this instant the Universe exists. It is not the cause of its own existence.So, you say that the universe was created, and I remember that youearlier said it was not created by just ever existed. I never said "just ever existed". I said that it is eternal.

What is the difference between ever existing and eternal? So it relies on God to create it - every moment of its existence.So you mean that God takes a break, all will end to exist? I think hehas created the universe that it can stand on its own. It would be notwise to create a universe that is constant work. The Universe cannot "stand on its own" ontologically. For the Universe to exist, God must cause it to exist at every instant of its existence.

You say that I expect too much from God but you say that if God would
give up on the universe, e.g. would not continue to create it, it
would end to exist?
The reason is straightforward. The Universe does not have existence as part of its essence, because if it did it would be immutable - it would be what it was and never change. But we know that the Universe is mutable - very mutable when you go to the subatomic level. Therefore the Universe must have something outside it as the cause of its existence - a being whose essence is existence. God.

Alright, I understand you better now. But try to give an example with
the subatomic level. I know God is all over the universe, but the way
I know him and his other creations, he does not do things
uneconomically. I just gave you the example of how plants grow from a
grain and another grain or also how humans create new bodies. He has
not to invent everything all the time again, as he created it so
perfectly, that his creation can copy on their own.There is no need for a beginning or an end.Not for an end, but certainly for a beginning. Why? The Universe could exist without a beginning if God caused it to exist in eternity?

I would agree with you if you would make that the spiritual universe,
God himself, and we, the spiritual beings, but the physical universe
started at a time and had a beginning.
You are expecting creation to behave like baking a cake.

Only the physical creation as a cake is also a physical creation.
However, the spiritual universe, is the one that works as you
described it, but it is too bad that you see only God and not yourself
and other souls in it.

One minute there is no cake and another there is a cake. But that's not how creation works.

Lol. Tell that to the housewife or the baker!

Also you must heed Einstein's comment: "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." --Albert Einstein

I have no problem with that, but it is not contrary to that I say that
the physical universe is a creation but the spiritual universe, God
and the souls, always existed. There is a process which we call conscious awareness. That process is a function of brain activity. There is no need to fabricate some entity called the soul.I can't believe this! How can you confirm the existance of God butdeny the existence of souls? I see no metaphysical problems with doing that. That you don't know more about theexistance of souls worries me. You are an educated man, but somethingwent wrong with your cognitions on that basic matter. Please, spare us the theatrics. I have given this a lot of thought over a long time, coming off of a sound education in the fundamentals of both physics and metaphysics. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that "souls" exist in reality.

Piece of cake, Bob. The "soul" is not a real thing - it is a description of a process, namely brain activity, that is adequately explained by realizing that the brain is capable of conscious awareness.

The "conscious awareness" is the soul who has a mind and a brain, but
is not his mind and not his brain or body. The soul is the real thing,
the only real important thing next to God.
How that happens is something we do not know.

Only because university professors don't know, it doesn't mean that
nobody doesn't know. It often seems to me that too much independent
thinking is not allowed in universities and that they give no room for
new explorations in that field.

Roger Penrose thinks it has something to do with what he calls "Correct Quantum Gravity", but then some people think he is off his rocker.

I never heard of his theory. I won't get into this discussion because I have no idea how brain activity results in conscious awareness - maybe it's a property of the quantum vacuum and our brains are connected to the vacuum because they are quantum electricdynamical in nature. Whatever.

But you believe in that you are only a conscious awareness, how come
you don't dig deeper? Let me tell you, it is garbage as the brain does
not make the concious awareness, the concious awareness is bringing
the brain to life.I am serious, Bob, rent yourself an infra-red camera, go at night (yousee them better against dark background) to a graveyard, an old atticor ground zero in NY and film the space. Then tell me what the cloudytransparent/white shadows are that play like lost toddlers. If I were to conduct such an experiment I would want to design and build my own equipment so I could know what is going on.

No problem.
Who knows what rental equipment is doing - it's like just cheap crap anyway.

True. There are thermal fluctuations in any thermodynamic system, including the atmosphere, so may what you are seeing is a manifestation of ordinary physical processes.

Not what I have seen. Those were not very realistic souls. I would not stake my entire metaphysical system on rented crap.

But as long as you can't afford to buy that stuff, you could at least
try it with the rented stuff. I bet if you see what's crawling on the
floor, that inspires you to watch them more.

People look in the trees when somebody dies, as if the person would
fly there. From what I have seen, they better should look on the
floor, as they don't fly high. Probably bird's soul fly, but humans
are used to walk and they tend to do that also when they are dead.
There was one of those souls, who was higher int he air than the
others, (must have been a real dare devil)but the rest sort of crawled
the staircase up like toddlers.The universities failed completely to document how the spirit leaves thebody and looks for a new one, a new incarnation. Not true. Recent experiments in brain activity indicate that under suitable laboratory conditions subjects can be made to experience the so-called "near death" phenomenon(white lights, shadowy figure talking to them, et al) - yet they are not dying at all.

Which means they stopped the research at near death. Too bad, and I
don't think it is difficult to prove scientific life after death.

Barbara Schwarz

On 16 Jun 2004 17:18:26 -0700, StilllovingMarty@myway.com (Barbara
Schwarz) wrote:
Fine, but that doesn't mean the ones we do understand will all of a sudden be shown to be wrong.
I never said so.

But you implied it. You, like most non-scientists, expect that one day
an brand new theory will be forthcoming, one which will explain all
the phenomena you want and which will show that the world is
fundamentally different from what we have claimed to know all along.

I hate to tell you, but that is just more mystical nonsense. Each new
theory, from the days of the Greeks, has been an enhancement of
existing theory. Quantum Mechanics enhances Classical Physics, as does
Relativity. In both cases there is a limit where Classical Physics is
recovered (in the case of QM, it is the limit of large quantum number,
and in the case of Relativity it is the limit of velocity small
compared with the speed of light, or in the absence of strong
gravitational fields).
I understand what you mean, Bob. I know God. As a little girl, Italked already to him. I observed what happened in my world after Iasked him for help that is why I say that God should not beunderestimated. I am no stranger to miracles, that is what I am tryingto tell you.

There is a scientific explanation for that, and it doesn't require
souls or immortality.
Indeed. But that does not mean that God can be required to act in ways that are contradictory to reality.
That means that people have to know all of the reality. What if theyjust know a small part of it?

You do not need to know all of reality to know a contradiction when
you see one. God cannot be required to make a rock so huge that He
cannot lift it. Such a rock does not exist in reality. It might exist
as a subjective concept, but that is not reality (unless you reject
Realism as your Worldview, then anything's possible).
I even expect from myself to know it all. I have predicted the futureso often rightfully, Bob.

So have I and many others. Just be sure to score the failures too.
Then you will see that your performance can be explained by
probability theory.
I often know what will happen, how peoplereact, what the result will be. It is not even difficult if you justput your mind to it.

That's called intuition. I believe intuition is a property of an
advanced form of brain activity - although lower animals seem to
exhibit it too, in their own way. I also believe that intuition is a
property of the quantum nature of the brain.

A quantum computer is a device which is capable of computing things
all at the same time. If I give you a polynomial and ask you to find
the root (say there is just one), and you can't solve the problem
analytically, you will have to resort to trial and error. You will
have to program your computer to try various numbers and see which one
works. (The root of a polynomial is the value which causes the
polynomial to be zero, so all you have to do is guess at a value and
try it - if the result is zero, then that value is the root).

Your attempt to find the value is going to take a lot of time, on
average, using a conventional computer. But if you use a quantum
computer, assuming the algorithm exists for finding roots of
polynomials, then the answer will be almost immediate because the
quantum computer computes all possibilities at once. It is a massively
parallel computing machine.

Intuition benefits from the brain's ability to engage in quantum
activity. You are amazed at the fact that you can get the right answer
so quickly because you imagine that if you did not have intuition, you
would have to spend a lot of time coming up with the answer, whereas
thanks to intuition you can come up with it almost immediately.

However, I warn you that "garbage in, garbage out". If the input data
is flawed, then the result will be flawed even if it was intuition
that gave you the result. The good news is that you can train your
intuition to behave "critically", which means you can get it to
question the validity of the inputs and reject any that are suspect.
That refinement allows you to use your intuition to solve problems
even when you have limited inputs.
If it was not created in time, how was it created?

It is created each instant of its existence.

Once again, you are thinking that existence is a thing. One minute the
thing does not exist, the next it does. But creation is not like
baking a cake. Creation is the act of causing a finite being to exist.
(In that sense God was not created, because God is not a finite being.
God is existence so He does not need to be created).

Creation is not a thing, it is an act. There is no need for time in
acts - they can happen for all eternity. God is an Act - the Act of
Existence.
Take a soul.

I can't because there is no such thing in objective reality. I am sure
you can "take a soul" in the mystical world of your subjective mind,
but that's the only place you can.
Let me ask you something else, Bob. Do you see God as person withemotions or more like a wave, a light, an indentity that is not awareof itself?

God is not a physicial being, therefore none of the characterizations
you have given apply - they are all physical characterizations.
It does not make sense to me that something like the physical universehas no beginning despite it was created.

That's because you think creation is a thing, whereas it is an act.
The act of creation can be eternal because the cause of that act is
God, who is eternal. If God can exist for all eternity, then God can
create for all eternity. Why would you claim God exists for all
eternity, but limit His powers to create to something less than
eternity? How can that restriction be understood metaphysically? The
answer is that it cannot be understood metaphysically because it
results in a rather obvious contradiction.

You ar