in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.

They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands my
perspective on deity belief.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink asks:
===========
You mention " a mythical deity". I am not sure what your mean, by
mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be like?
=============

Good point, Tink. Replace with either "mythical entity" or "deity".

Cheers,
frtzw906

So I would understand, that the issue is not mythical vs. non-mythical,
but that the concept of deity is of no interest to you? TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard. TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in "deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs.
New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament
today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question,
to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on
empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able
to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me
at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a
server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now
this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would
like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am
not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with
understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that
which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how
you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you
to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities
are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and
imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that
you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard.
TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more
straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a
supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is
imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only
in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not
imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is
that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in
"deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization
comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt

Tink asks:
===========
So I would understand, that the issue is not mythical vs. non-mythical,
but that the concept of deity is of no interest to you?
==================

Correct. I'm interested in philosophy, ethics, codes of conduct and the
like -- the religion meme. My interest in dieties extends only so far
as being intellectually curious about why people find a need to
"create" such entities.

frtzw906

Tink asks of KMAN:
=====================
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist?
===================

Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time?

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs.
New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament
today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question,
to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on
empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able
to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me
at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a
server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now
this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would
like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am
not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with
understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that
which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how
you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you
to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities
are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and
imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that
you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard.
TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more
straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a
supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is
imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only
in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not
imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is
that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in
"deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization
comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt

Just sane.

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink asks of KMAN:
=====================
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist?
===================

Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time?

frtzw906

I think so...

What Is Secular Humanism?
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years
to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether
religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each
individual and not simply accepted on faith.
b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and
scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking
solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both
the individual and humankind in general.
d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new
knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful
through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and
artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of
ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being
and individual responsibility.
g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good
will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for
ourselves and our children.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html