KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ps.com...

huge snippage of nothingness

If not believing in god is a religion, then so too is not
believing
that the
earth is made of cream cheese.


Huh!

That was a lot of reading and snipping for "Huh!"

Did you not understand?

If you are saying that NOT believing in god is a religion, then so
too is
NOT believing in anything else...e.g. that the earth is made of cream

cheese, that Tinkerntom is the reincarnation of Howdy Doody, etc.


A belief system regarding God, is a religion, even if it is a system
that believes that God does not exist. Believing that the earth is made
of cream cheese, as long as it does not say anything about God, has
nothing to do with religion, may say something about your credentials
as a geophysicist, and definitely means I would not want to be sending
you to the store for a gallon of cream cheese.


snip

As you just said, I cannot prove or disprove what is in your
mind.
Now you make the equally absurd statement that Oprah is a
Goddess

I actually doubt I am the only person to ever describe her as
such,
even
though I was doing so only for hypothetical purposes.

which again is a figment of your mind

A hypothetical figment. Whereas you really believe that your
supernatural being is real.

Maybe there is evidence that would show that He is not
hypothetical,
would that mean He is not a figment of my mind, and in fact is
real!

Maybe gravity will end tomorrow. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

The facts are that She exists only in your mind.

and I would again ask you to support that


Nono, you have to prove that Oprah is not god, in the same way you
asked me
to disprove your god.

I am going to have to review our discussion, where did I ask you to
disprove my God? Whatever that means?

If you've never asked me how I know there is no god, I apologize.


Apology acknowledged and accepted! However, disproving my God, is not
the same as proving the lack of your god. As you can not prove or
disprove the existance of my God, just on the statement of my belief
which cannot be examined being a figment of my mind, except by examing
supporting evidence. Neither can I prove your contention of no god,
apart from evidence you provide. Do you have evidence of there being no
god?

I have ask you repeatedly to provide evidence and support the basis
of
what you say you believe, "There is no god", or the hypothetical
statement that "Oprah is the Goddess." Which though hypothetical,
would
require some sort of evidence to validate any claim to her diety.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You are aksing me to support the basis for my knowing that there is
no god.

I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what is only in your
mind.


I agree that if it is only in your mind, then it is impossible to
disprove, but if there is evidence out side your mind, then we can
examine that and draw some conclusions!


To help you understand this, I am using the Oprah example.

If I (hypothetically) belive that Oprah is god, can you prove to me
that she
is not?

You prove to me that you have any basis for the claim,
then I will make counter-claims. What evidence are you providing
for
your claim about Oprah? Do you now believe that God is? You have
some
inside info that Oprah is God? Please share it! What is the
nature
of
this God that uniquely identifies her as God. I have never seen
any
such evidence, and as far as I know, she does not make the claim
for
herself. So if you only make the claim with no support, no
evidence, no
corobborating statements by God, what is the basis of your
Faith,
or is
it Blind Faith? The ravings of a lunatic?

It's a hypothetical. If I were to truly believe that Oprah is a
supreme
being, can you prove me wrong?

See, I already explained this...

Please don't get bent out of shape thinking that I am calling
you a
lunatic, unless you believe what you said, which I don't think
you
do!
You were making the statements for the benefit of discussion,
and I
make mine as a reaction to the absurd proposal as if it was for
real.

It's not very absurd, Tinkerntom. Much less absurd than your
belief
in an
invisible man.

You say that I believe in an invisible man! What is your basis for
saying He is invisible. Because you haven't seen Him? How do you
know
God is invisible? Again what is the basis for this statement?

Let's take it another way, since you are the one with the belief.

Have you seen god Tinkerntom?

The scriptures say that no man has seen God, but the same scriptures
say that many men have seen Theophanies. These are apperances of God in
a form that is recognizable to the observer as being Godly, and yet
being understandable from our earthly perspective. To answer your
question, yes I have seen numerouus Theophanies at numerous times. I am
also sure that there have been times that He has appeared, that I did
not recognize him, but that would not mean that He was not seen, just
not recognized.

Now again, what is your evidence that He is invisible? or imaginary? no
god, or no God?

Your first question that you ask, though was more interesting,
"what
would be the basis for saying that I am wrong?" Now this is
something
that we could look into.

The basis has to do with the evidence of the claim. Evidence can
be
examined, and compared, and measured, and introduced as evidence
of
a
claim. The claim itself may be the figment of someones mind
where
we
can't go except indirectly by evidence. You have yet to provide
any
evidence for any of your claims, so I will allow you to present
whatever evidence you have as a basis of whatever claim you
would
like
to make! Respectfully TnT

No evidence is required for a religious belief system. Since it is
founded
in belief in a supernatural being, there is no evidence. The
belief
exists
only in the imagination. If I truly believed Oprah to be a supreme
being,
the evidence for this would be no more or no less than your own
belief in
your own supreme being.

"I still have no idea where you think godtalk and religion depart."

You made this statement above, and considering it with your last
series
of comments about the basis of a person's faith in God, I begin to
get
a better idea of what you belive about religion, and Godtalk, as I
summarize below in the next paragraph..

God is an invisible man, the product of an over-active imagination.
Religion is the worship practice of the man with the over-active
imagination that believes in the invisible man. Because the man is
invisible, it is really god who is invisible, and so there is no
evidence to support the belief of the invisible man being god.
Since
there is no evidence to establish the claims that the invisible man
is
God, their is no point looking for evidence that is not there. If
evidence were provided, at best it is evidence of an over-active
imagination, imagining an imaginary invisible man/God, so the
evidence
is not even worth any serious consideration, since it could not be
truly evidence of God, since God is invisible and only exist in the
imagination of a particular mans mind, and not in real life, now,
or
ever before, or in the future. In real life, god is just the
product of
an over-active imagination, and so there are not real life examples
or
expressions of God in real life. So any talk about God is
unnecessary
and unproductive, and any talk about religion is basically the
same,
and of very little difference. Since there is little difference,
they
are essentially the same, and since there is no evidence to support
either one as being necessary and productive, there is little need,
to
seriously consider either one, and the lack of supporting evidence
only
provides proof that there is no reason to believe in God as
anything
other than the product of an over-active imagination. So since
there is
no evidence for a basis for Godtalk and religion, there is no need
to
have a basis for Godtalk and religion, and hence any god is Ok for
someone, if that is what they choose, though there is no evidence,
because evidence is not necessary. Not only is evidence not
necessary,
but it is undesirable, since it would tend to point to
authenticating
the claims of one particular man about his imaginary god, over the
equally unvalidated claims of another about his imaginary god, and
since all imaginary gods are of equal value, non-value, then having
evidence that supports one god over another is undesirable because
it
biases men's imagination. You choose not to provide any evidence to
support your claims because it would be unnecessary and
undesirable.
You do not endorse one god over another, and each person is welcome
to
their own imaginary God, since it really does not make any
difference
at all. You can not prove what is in the mind of a man, and since
there
is no evidence to believe in a particular God, then you can believe
in
any one of them or none of them for equal benefit. You can not
prove
what each imagines in his mind about his god, and the evidence that
forms that basis of belief is non existant, and unnecessary, and
undesirable, so you choose to not believe in any particular god
since
he is invisible and imaginary. Which gets me back to where I
started
this paragraph.

How am I doing so far with understanding what you are saying? TnT

Let me try giving an example:

A manager claims that the bank is robbed, but in actuality there
was no
robbery. The police show up and look for evidence. Because the
robbery
is just in the mind of the manager, there can be no evidence of a
robbery. Any evidence that is found may be evidence of something
happening, but it could not be evidence of a bank robbery. The
police
not wanting to look inept, bag and classify a lot of evidence, and
work
on building a case. They may even come up with a description of the
imaginary robber. Now the banker may feel safer with all the police
around, and the police feel good because they are hot on the trail
to
solve a case, and the imaginary robber feels good because he will
never
get caught. He becomes known as the invisible bank robber, because
there is never any evidence left at any of the hundreds of banks he
has
held up. We as consumers can know that our money is safe because of
all
the police protection, and the adequate security measures that the
bank
manager has in place to protect our money. Any future robbery the
police don't look for evidence, since they know there won't be any
left
at the crime scene, and evetually they may even stop coming at the
sound of the burglar alarm. But the manager is ok with that since
he
has never lost any of the money entrusted to him. And the robber is
happy because the police have released 100s of pictures of him, and
not
one is close, but it really does not matter because any one of them
will do, since he is the invisible robber.

All this works out just fine until there is a real robbery at the
bank.
The bank manager has now lost alot of money, the police don't come,
and
the real robber gets away with no good description because everyone
thought he was the invisible bank robber.

So truth in reporting, evidence, and valid descriptions does matter
in
RL and in Godtalk! Maybe not in religion, which is where the two
depart, since there are plenty of religions without any of the
above,
that men trust to be led by the invisible god. Personally I prefer
the
visible God who makes Himself known to them who seek Him! TnT

Er. But he/she still only exists in your imagination, just like the
robbery
that never happened.

The fact that you could contrive a lie, get people to believe it, and
change
their behaviour as a result is not in dispute. That's exactly what
religion
is.

and politics, and education, and multitude of other scams that have
been perpetrated on mankind for the advantage of a few.

And that is why I am interested in talking about something that goes
beyond religion! TnT

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/21/05 9:26 PM:

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

KMAN wrote:
in article
,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/21/05 12:53 AM:


KMAN wrote:
...snip...


And you chose to ignore the "often, when man talks about God",
Because
you assert that whenever man talks about God it is religion and
religion is all about power and control , and hence bad, so
talking
about God is all about power and control, and hence bad. Not at
all
sublime and spiritual, and worth your sincere attention. I would
submit
that this is passive agressive on your part!

I have many deeply religious friends, Tinkerntom, including a nun.
There are
definitely different ways of talking about god. First and
foremost,
my
friends and I share mutual respect.

One form of disrespect involves godtalk where the religified
person
applies
their religion to the non-religified person - for example, a
religified
person insisting on blathering about how their god loves the
non-religified
person.


I am not surprised, and am glad to know that you have other friends
that you talk to about God. You and your deeply religious friends,
including a nun, may share all kinds of mutual respect, but this is
the
usenet where conversations happen fast and furious, and sometimes
things get wild and wooley. It is as you and I have continued to
share
with each other that we also develope mutual respect. You would
have to
admit that for all kinds of reasons, we got off to a harsh start. I
think it says a lot that we are still in the market place swapping
thoughts. This is certainly more like a fish market than a
cloistured
library or discussion hall. In some ways I like the format, because
you
can discuss issues and hear perspectives that you probably would
not
hear in a polite society, especially concerning religion and
politics,
which you are not supposed to talk about in public. However the
very
forum sometimes make it difficult to talk in a significant
conversation, and follow uninterupted thoughts, with many side
comments
and thoughts. I am aware that there are groups dedicated to these
discussions, but I especially appreciate the perspective of people
who
are willing to have fun paddling, I think that it has to do with a
basic life philosophy that gets carried into other philosophies.

I would also agree there are many different ways to talk about god,
or
should I say God! Even that demonstrates how various nuances are
slipped into our conversation. Not alot of respect by one party! I
wonder when you talk to the nun, whether you would be so
disrespectful.
I have also proffered that if you did not want to talk about God or
religion, we could go back to paddle talk, and that is a standing
offer. I have understood that you were interested in this
converstion
though, and your participation was totally voluntary.

I have appreciated your input, though not often agreeing, we have
been
having a relatively civil conversation, and I have resisted telling
you
about God's Love in a personal way. This was largely due to the
fact of
your stated discomfort on one hand, and on the other, when SW came
to
my defense, stating that I was within my rights to say what I was
saying, I realized that as a Christian, I am bound by even a higher
law, that I try to live by. SW may have been technically correct,
but I
don't believe that I needed his approval or credentials to
authenticate
what I was saying. You will not find that I based any of my action
on
what he said, but instead modified my behavior.

Not that I do not reserve the right to be obnoxious in the future
if
necessary, if so instructed by my Higher Power, I do not go here
and
there and do what I do, except as I believe, one under orders. But
as
one under orders, I believe I was told to ease up on you guys, and
give
you a break. Though it does not change the facts of the matter, you
have heard the facts though. And this was done as an act of
respect. If
you respect me and my God, I can assure you the respect will be
reciprocated.

I desired to shorten up this discussion thread inorder to highlight
the
above statement that I did not respond to directly in my previous
post
but did not want you to think that I did not think it significant.
In
fact, I thought that it was significant enough to respond to
separately
here. Similarly, I found the following statement by you astounding,
and
wanted to separate it completely by itself here at the end of this
post, and will respond at the bottom.


...snip...

KMAN wrote:

"No evidence is required for a religious belief system. Since it is
founded
in belief in a supernatural being, there is no evidence. The belief
exists
only in the imagination. If I truly believed Oprah to be a supreme
being,
the evidence for this would be no more or no less than your own
belief
in
your own supreme being."


I found your basic statement in the first sentence to be
astounding,
and something I have never heard before from anyone else. Most of
academic efforts in theologial academia is toward proving ones
position
on any number of subjects or minutia. Literally straining at gnats,
oftentimes swallowing camels. Getting so caught up in the details,
they
cannot see the forest for the trees. And surprisingly I agree with
you
to a large degree on this point.

There are many religious belief systems that have little or no
evidence
to support the various practices of the participants. Man has a
religious streak in him, and if you go to dark Africa, or darker
NYC,
you will find religious practices that may have no more evidence to
validate the practice, than tea leaves, or how blood patterns from
a
sacrifical monkey fall on the ground. I would say that most
religions
have little or no evidence to support their practice, and this
includes
many so called Christian denominations and their followers. Here in
USA, and I can not speak of other places, but I would suspect that
they
are similar, alot of the practices are based on traditions that
most of
the followers would have no real understanding of. They just do
whatever they do because that is the way it has always been done.

Here it is Easter season, and if ask, many Christians could tell
you
the Easter story, but could not explain to you why the early
Christians
did not celebrate it as a special day, or why certain practices are
included. This did not happen until the early Catholic Church
formed
and found it necessary to assimilate the religious practices of the
heretofore heathen or pagan practices of the Spring rites. Now I am
not
saying that the Easter pagent cannot be profitable for many to
participate in, and be reminded of what Easter is all about, But
what
evidence is there that the religious practice has anything to do
with
the core Christian faith?

There are many similar issues in modern Christianity, which
actually
act as a major distraction as far as I am concerned with the core
practices, which many supposed practitioners are woefully ignorant
of,
and yet practice their faith as happy as clams in a shell, just
taking
it in and squirting it out. Then announcing how they are living
their
faith by being involved in the right or the left or whatever that
actually has little to do with their faith, but it makes them feel
good, though it might not be significantly better evidenced than
the
tea leaves and monkey blood. Religious practice does not
necessarily
need the support of evidence to validate those practices.

The fact that religious practice is oftentimes couched in
supernatural
occurences, only contributes to the impression that evidence is not
only not needed, but the request for evidence would cause you to be
suspected as being unfaithful. This twist then results in looking
at
any evidence as suspect as well. The evidence is suspect, the
looking
is suspect, and this continues to build a religious culture where
evidence, and looking for evidence is undesirable at best, and a
quick
route to being shunned at worst.

Some of the super churches are the worst in this regards, they put
on a
great show, but woe onto the person that would question the leader
if
you could even get to them. I recently watched the special on Benny
Hinn, as an example. But be assured this phenomenon can be found in
the
smallest basement gathering. The practice of religion, including
Christianity, and maybe especially Christianity, requires the
reinforcement and protection of the religious practice as soon as
the
practitioners become vested in any particular practice, and
especially
a particular leader that leads their particular religious practice.
Very little evidence is sought once they have their specific kernal
of
truth.

This all reminds me of the little train sets that run around in
circles, around and around, as soon as the track are set up. And
that
is how many religious people, and especially Christians live their
lives.

I am left to wonder, not that I really wonder, if there is an
alternative? TnT

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

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

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ps.com...

huge snippage of nothingness

If not believing in god is a religion, then so too is not
believing
that the
earth is made of cream cheese.


Huh!

That was a lot of reading and snipping for "Huh!"

Did you not understand?

If you are saying that NOT believing in god is a religion, then so
too is
NOT believing in anything else...e.g. that the earth is made of cream

cheese, that Tinkerntom is the reincarnation of Howdy Doody, etc.


A belief system regarding God, is a religion, even if it is a system
that believes that God does not exist. Believing that the earth is made
of cream cheese, as long as it does not say anything about God, has
nothing to do with religion, may say something about your credentials
as a geophysicist, and definitely means I would not want to be sending
you to the store for a gallon of cream cheese.

Again, I know you have a distaste for dictionaries, but the common
understanding of what religion means is:

1. a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.

The fact that I do not have a religious belief system cannot possible result
in my being "religious" or "having religion."

As you just said, I cannot prove or disprove what is in your
mind.
Now you make the equally absurd statement that Oprah is a
Goddess

I actually doubt I am the only person to ever describe her as
such,
even
though I was doing so only for hypothetical purposes.

which again is a figment of your mind

A hypothetical figment. Whereas you really believe that your
supernatural being is real.

Maybe there is evidence that would show that He is not
hypothetical,
would that mean He is not a figment of my mind, and in fact is
real!

Maybe gravity will end tomorrow. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

The facts are that She exists only in your mind.

and I would again ask you to support that


Nono, you have to prove that Oprah is not god, in the same way you
asked me
to disprove your god.

I am going to have to review our discussion, where did I ask you to
disprove my God? Whatever that means?

If you've never asked me how I know there is no god, I apologize.


Apology acknowledged and accepted! However, disproving my God, is not
the same as proving the lack of your god. As you can not prove or
disprove the existance of my God

We've been over this. You can create anything you want in the confines of
your imagination, and obviously there is nothing I can do to disprove it.

just on the statement of my belief
which cannot be examined being a figment of my mind, except by examing
supporting evidence. Neither can I prove your contention of no god,
apart from evidence you provide. Do you have evidence of there being no
god?

I have no more evidence that there is no god than I have evidence that the
core of the earth is not made of kraft dinner. I am quite confident that the
core of the earth is not made of kraft dinner. I am even more confident that
there is no supernatural invisible being thingy that rules the universe. I
cannot, however, offer proof of either, as I cannot travel to the core of
the earth, nor can I force your own imagination to function within the
confines of reality.

I have ask you repeatedly to provide evidence and support the basis
of
what you say you believe, "There is no god", or the hypothetical
statement that "Oprah is the Goddess." Which though hypothetical,
would
require some sort of evidence to validate any claim to her diety.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You are aksing me to support the basis for my knowing that there is
no god.

I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what is only in your
mind.


I agree that if it is only in your mind, then it is impossible to
disprove, but if there is evidence out side your mind, then we can
examine that and draw some conclusions!

If there is evidence of something, then there must be evidence of it. Or
there would be no evidence of it. That is true. Also a ridiculous waste of
bandwidth to note that it is true.

To help you understand this, I am using the Oprah example.

If I (hypothetically) belive that Oprah is god, can you prove to me
that she
is not?

You prove to me that you have any basis for the claim,
then I will make counter-claims. What evidence are you providing
for
your claim about Oprah? Do you now believe that God is? You have
some
inside info that Oprah is God? Please share it! What is the
nature
of
this God that uniquely identifies her as God. I have never seen
any
such evidence, and as far as I know, she does not make the claim
for
herself. So if you only make the claim with no support, no
evidence, no
corobborating statements by God, what is the basis of your
Faith,
or is
it Blind Faith? The ravings of a lunatic?

It's a hypothetical. If I were to truly believe that Oprah is a
supreme
being, can you prove me wrong?

See, I already explained this...

Please don't get bent out of shape thinking that I am calling
you a
lunatic, unless you believe what you said, which I don't think
you
do!
You were making the statements for the benefit of discussion,
and I
make mine as a reaction to the absurd proposal as if it was for
real.

It's not very absurd, Tinkerntom. Much less absurd than your
belief
in an
invisible man.

You say that I believe in an invisible man! What is your basis for
saying He is invisible. Because you haven't seen Him? How do you
know
God is invisible? Again what is the basis for this statement?

Let's take it another way, since you are the one with the belief.

Have you seen god Tinkerntom?

The scriptures say that no man has seen God, but the same scriptures
say that many men have seen Theophanies. These are apperances of God in
a form that is recognizable to the observer as being Godly, and yet
being understandable from our earthly perspective. To answer your
question, yes I have seen numerouus Theophanies at numerous times. I am
also sure that there have been times that He has appeared, that I did
not recognize him, but that would not mean that He was not seen, just
not recognized.

Have you seen god Tinkerntom?

Now again, what is your evidence that He is invisible? or imaginary? no
god, or no God?

I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what is only in your mind. You
can obviously conjure up a belief in any supernatural thingamajig you want,
and I can't disprove it.

Your first question that you ask, though was more interesting,
"what
would be the basis for saying that I am wrong?" Now this is
something
that we could look into.

The basis has to do with the evidence of the claim. Evidence can
be
examined, and compared, and measured, and introduced as evidence
of
a
claim. The claim itself may be the figment of someones mind
where
we
can't go except indirectly by evidence. You have yet to provide
any
evidence for any of your claims, so I will allow you to present
whatever evidence you have as a basis of whatever claim you
would
like
to make! Respectfully TnT

No evidence is required for a religious belief system. Since it is
founded
in belief in a supernatural being, there is no evidence. The
belief
exists
only in the imagination. If I truly believed Oprah to be a supreme
being,
the evidence for this would be no more or no less than your own
belief in
your own supreme being.

"I still have no idea where you think godtalk and religion depart."

You made this statement above, and considering it with your last
series
of comments about the basis of a person's faith in God, I begin to
get
a better idea of what you belive about religion, and Godtalk, as I
summarize below in the next paragraph..

God is an invisible man, the product of an over-active imagination.
Religion is the worship practice of the man with the over-active
imagination that believes in the invisible man. Because the man is
invisible, it is really god who is invisible, and so there is no
evidence to support the belief of the invisible man being god.
Since
there is no evidence to establish the claims that the invisible man
is
God, their is no point looking for evidence that is not there. If
evidence were provided, at best it is evidence of an over-active
imagination, imagining an imaginary invisible man/God, so the
evidence
is not even worth any serious consideration, since it could not be
truly evidence of God, since God is invisible and only exist in the
imagination of a particular mans mind, and not in real life, now,
or
ever before, or in the future. In real life, god is just the
product of
an over-active imagination, and so there are not real life examples
or
expressions of God in real life. So any talk about God is
unnecessary
and unproductive, and any talk about religion is basically the
same,
and of very little difference. Since there is little difference,
they
are essentially the same, and since there is no evidence to support
either one as being necessary and productive, there is little need,
to
seriously consider either one, and the lack of supporting evidence
only
provides proof that there is no reason to believe in God as
anything
other than the product of an over-active imagination. So since
there is
no evidence for a basis for Godtalk and religion, there is no need
to
have a basis for Godtalk and religion, and hence any god is Ok for
someone, if that is what they choose, though there is no evidence,
because evidence is not necessary. Not only is evidence not
necessary,
but it is undesirable, since it would tend to point to
authenticating
the claims of one particular man about his imaginary god, over the
equally unvalidated claims of another about his imaginary god, and
since all imaginary gods are of equal value, non-value, then having
evidence that supports one god over another is undesirable because
it
biases men's imagination. You choose not to provide any evidence to
support your claims because it would be unnecessary and
undesirable.
You do not endorse one god over another, and each person is welcome
to
their own imaginary God, since it really does not make any
difference
at all. You can not prove what is in the mind of a man, and since
there
is no evidence to believe in a particular God, then you can believe
in
any one of them or none of them for equal benefit. You can not
prove
what each imagines in his mind about his god, and the evidence that
forms that basis of belief is non existant, and unnecessary, and
undesirable, so you choose to not believe in any particular god
since
he is invisible and imaginary. Which gets me back to where I
started
this paragraph.

How am I doing so far with understanding what you are saying? TnT

Let me try giving an example:

A manager claims that the bank is robbed, but in actuality there
was no
robbery. The police show up and look for evidence. Because the
robbery
is just in the mind of the manager, there can be no evidence of a
robbery. Any evidence that is found may be evidence of something
happening, but it could not be evidence of a bank robbery. The
police
not wanting to look inept, bag and classify a lot of evidence, and
work
on building a case. They may even come up with a description of the
imaginary robber. Now the banker may feel safer with all the police
around, and the police feel good because they are hot on the trail
to
solve a case, and the imaginary robber feels good because he will
never
get caught. He becomes known as the invisible bank robber, because
there is never any evidence left at any of the hundreds of banks he
has
held up. We as consumers can know that our money is safe because of
all
the police protection, and the adequate security measures that the
bank
manager has in place to protect our money. Any future robbery the
police don't look for evidence, since they know there won't be any
left
at the crime scene, and evetually they may even stop coming at the
sound of the burglar alarm. But the manager is ok with that since
he
has never lost any of the money entrusted to him. And the robber is
happy because the police have released 100s of pictures of him, and
not
one is close, but it really does not matter because any one of them
will do, since he is the invisible robber.

All this works out just fine until there is a real robbery at the
bank.
The bank manager has now lost alot of money, the police don't come,
and
the real robber gets away with no good description because everyone
thought he was the invisible bank robber.

So truth in reporting, evidence, and valid descriptions does matter
in
RL and in Godtalk! Maybe not in religion, which is where the two
depart, since there are plenty of religions without any of the
above,
that men trust to be led by the invisible god. Personally I prefer
the
visible God who makes Himself known to them who seek Him! TnT

Er. But he/she still only exists in your imagination, just like the
robbery
that never happened.

The fact that you could contrive a lie, get people to believe it, and
change
their behaviour as a result is not in dispute. That's exactly what
religion
is.

and politics, and education, and multitude of other scams that have
been perpetrated on mankind for the advantage of a few.

Correct. Deity belief systems are among this multitude of scams. Only it is
even worse than politics, because a religious person can do or say anything
they want and put the blame on what "god" told them to do.

And that is why I am interested in talking about something that goes
beyond religion! TnT

Good luck. You haven't managed it yet.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism and delusion
of a deity belief system.

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism and
delusion
of a deity belief system.

Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love who
created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion, you
can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who you
thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism and
delusion
of a deity belief system.

Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love who
created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion, you
can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who you
thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT

Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God of Love
the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.

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

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ps.com...

....snip...

A belief system regarding God, is a religion, even if it is a
system
that believes that God does not exist. Believing that the earth is
made
of cream cheese, as long as it does not say anything about God, has
nothing to do with religion, may say something about your
credentials
as a geophysicist, and definitely means I would not want to be
sending
you to the store for a gallon of cream cheese.

Again, I know you have a distaste for dictionaries, but the common
understanding of what religion means is:

1. a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
and
worship.

The fact that I do not have a religious belief system cannot possible
result
in my being "religious" or "having religion."


You are your own god , you worship self, what you say determines the
reality of your existence. Sounds like religion to me.

....snip...

I have no more evidence that there is no god than I have evidence
that the
core of the earth is not made of kraft dinner. I am quite confident
that the
core of the earth is not made of kraft dinner. I am even more
confident that
there is no supernatural invisible being thingy that rules the
universe. I
cannot, however, offer proof of either, as I cannot travel to the
core of
the earth, nor can I force your own imagination to function within
the
confines of reality.

So if you have no evidence to support what you say, "there is no God",
then what you believe is based on Blind Faith, and not any rational
thought process. The scriptures say, the fool has said there is no God.
I guess they had you in mind when they wrote this. From the beginning,
there have been those who made a similar claim. And there is still
nothing new under the sun.


I have ask you repeatedly to provide evidence and support the
basis of
what you say you believe, "There is no god",

....snip...

So if you only make the claim with no support, no evidence, no
corobborating statements by God, what is the basis of your
Faith, or is it Blind Faith?

....snip...

It's not very absurd, Tinkerntom. Much less absurd than your
belief
in an invisible man.

You say that I believe in an invisible man! What is your basis
for
saying He is invisible. Because you haven't seen Him? How do you
know
God is invisible? Again what is the basis for this statement?

Let's take it another way, since you are the one with the belief.

Have you seen god Tinkerntom?

The scriptures say that no man has seen God, but the same
scriptures
say that many men have seen Theophanies. These are apperances of
God in
a form that is recognizable to the observer as being Godly, and yet
being understandable from our earthly perspective. To answer your
question, yes I have seen numerouus Theophanies at numerous times.
I am
also sure that there have been times that He has appeared, that I
did
not recognize him, but that would not mean that He was not seen,
just
not recognized.

Have you seen god Tinkerntom?


I have seen various manefestations of the Trinity! I have seen Jesus on
a number of ocassions, I believe Jesus is a member of the Trinity.
Jesus said, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Jesus said
that He is in equal partnership with the Father, and the Holy Spirit
who make up the Godhead. In His theophanies, He appears not as God,
but as man though some have seen Him pass through walls as recorded in
the Scriptures, which is miraculous.
He has eaten food and wine with them, and healed the sick, and raised
the dead.

I have seen confirmed cancer healed instantly, and confirmed by the
doctors that the cancer is gone the very next day. When she was healed,
I saw the Lord standing above the congregation, and reach down and
touch her.

I have seen a man with rhumetoid arthritis so bad that he could not
stand up, his hands all twisted and knarled, so that he could not hold
a pen to write, I saw the hand straighten out, and the back and the
legs, so that not only did he stand up, but he started shouting and
praising God and the people ask Him to leave the service. They were not
to happy about God interupting their service, but he was very glad.
Dave P. 1984

I saw a woman rigid in death grip, get up from a bed and start dancing.
She was one of you Canadians, and she got very excited about God and
being alive again. She literally took up her bed and danced. This shook
up a bunch of Christians who said God does not do this any more. Jan F.
1974

I saw a man in his late twenties that had diabetes, and had taken
insulin shots every day of his life. God touched him and healed him so
that his body never needed another insulin shot. Mike M. 1988

I have personally been healed, my knees were injured in a work related
accident, and the doctor said even with surgery I would never be able
to walk normal again. God touched me by the Holy Spirit, and my knees
snapped back into place. I literally heard the snap. I have since taken
up biking, Skiing, rollerblading, and all to the Dr. amazement and who
still does not believe his own eyes.

I know a man whose back was literally broken, and the Drs said no way
will he ever be more than a quad, but God healed him, and if you think
I won't stop talking about God's Love, you need to meet Harold K. 1977
to present



Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to the early church and
comfort them even as Jesus had been comforting them. I have seen
evidence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, being the third member of
the Trinity, is a spiritual or non coporeal entity, who appeared as
flames of fire on Pentacost, and at other times in various
manefestations. The Holy Spirit works through the Body of Christ,
expressing Himself by using various Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and in
the lives of Believers through the Fruit of the Spirit. In my own life
I have experienced many of the manefestations of the Holy Spirit.

You would not be able to see the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit, since
then you would in fact be seeing Jesus. For the same reason you can not
directly see the Father. If you think you see the Father, you are
actually seeing Jesus, who demonstrates the Father to us.

One of the first introductions to the Holy Spirit manefesting Himself,
was in 1970 I was visiting a church in Portland, that I was not
familiar with. I was standing in the congregation, and not sure about
what was going on. I turned and looked back to see what appeared to be
long flames of fire swirling above the congregation as they worshiped.
The best I can describe them is like the northern lights, except inside
the building. I had never seen anything like this, and was certainly
not expecting what I was seeing. This was before lazer light shows, of
which even the best would pale in comparison. The Pastor came up to me
afterward and said, "You saw Him also didn't you! It is always
wonderful to see Him move over the Congregation!" Bible Tempel, Pastor
Dick Iverson. 1970

At the same time a man started speaking in tongues, which again I was
not very familiar with, and certainly had reservations about. But then
a little old Chinaman, probably in his 90s setting right behind me got
all excited, because the young man speaking in tongues, was speaking in
a dialect of Chinese that was unique to the village where this old man
had left as a young person. The village was wiped out by the communist,
and the language died. He never expected to hear his mother tongue
again.

And I could tell you more wonderful stories, some even more wonderful!

Now again, what is your evidence that He is invisible? or imaginary? no
god, or no God?

I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what is only in your
mind. You
can obviously conjure up a belief in any supernatural thingamajig you
want,
and I can't disprove it.

This stuff, was happening in real life, with others present, sometimes
believers, sometimes those who did not want to believe what they were
seeing. If necessary, they could be documented as evidence. Though I
expect the old Chinaman is with Jesus in Glory now! There was no
conjuring up belief as you must do to believe what you say you believe
based on Blind Faity. What I believe, is based on what I have seen and
heard and experienced myself. You are right, you can not disprove it
but not for the reason you give for which you have no evidence, But
because there is a God who loves us and made His Love known to us when
He sent Jesus into this world to die for us, so that we can Live by the
power of the Holy Spirit, that now lives in us even as Jesus lived on
earth 2000 years ago. This God is beyond proof, did not prove Himself
as Jesus when Jesus was on the earth, though many pressed Him for proof
of who He is. He told them to consider what they were seeing and
hearing of His Ministry.

Now if you choose to shut your eyes, not only do you have Blind Faith,
but you are in effect blind. True Christianity is not based on Blind
Faith, or that proverbial leap into the dark, but Christianity is a
step into the light!



Your first question that you ask, though was more
interesting,
"what
would be the basis for saying that I am wrong?" Now this is
something
that we could look into.

The basis has to do with the evidence of the claim. Evidence
can
be
examined, and compared, and measured, and introduced as
evidence
of
a
claim. The claim itself may be the figment of someones mind
where
we
can't go except indirectly by evidence. You have yet to
provide
any
evidence for any of your claims, so I will allow you to
present
whatever evidence you have as a basis of whatever claim you
would
like
to make! Respectfully TnT

No evidence is required for a religious belief system.

But evidence can be piled high that there is God, and He loves us. What
we do with that evidence, may be a religion, or it may be running from
God from whom there is not escape. C.S. Lewis, described God as the
Hound of Heaven. He hunts us down, and will never give up on hounding
us. Religion does not require evidence as evidenced by all that have
none. But To have a relationship with God, we need to know what the
house rules are, since He owns the House, and makes the rules.



Since it is founded
in belief in a supernatural being, there is no evidence. The
belief
exists
only in the imagination.

This would be true if your goddess is Oprah, or any other pretender,
but if the God is the real God, then don't make the mistake of so many
in ages past.

If I truly believed Oprah to be a supreme being,
the evidence for this would be no more or no less than your own
belief in your own supreme being.

Unless you are trully and sincerely wrong!


"I still have no idea where you think godtalk and religion
depart."

You made this statement above, and considering it with your last
series
of comments about the basis of a person's faith in God, I begin
to get
a better idea of what you belive about religion, and Godtalk, as
I
summarize below in the next paragraph..

God is an invisible man, the product of an over-active
imagination.
Religion is the worship practice of the man with the over-active
imagination that believes in the invisible man. Because the man
is
invisible, it is really god who is invisible, and so there is no
evidence to support the belief of the invisible man being god.
Since
there is no evidence to establish the claims that the invisible
man is
God, their is no point looking for evidence that is not there.
If
evidence were provided, at best it is evidence of an over-active
imagination, imagining an imaginary invisible man/God, so the
evidence
is not even worth any serious consideration, since it could not
be
truly evidence of God, since God is invisible and only exist in
the
imagination of a particular mans mind, and not in real life,
now, or
ever before, or in the future. In real life, god is just the
product of
an over-active imagination, and so there are not real life
examples or
expressions of God in real life. So any talk about God is
unnecessary
and unproductive, and any talk about religion is basically the
same,
and of very little difference. Since there is little difference,
they
are essentially the same, and since there is no evidence to
support
either one as being necessary and productive, there is little
need, to
seriously consider either one, and the lack of supporting
evidence only
provides proof that there is no reason to believe in God as
anything
other than the product of an over-active imagination. So since
there is
no evidence for a basis for Godtalk and religion, there is no
need to
have a basis for Godtalk and religion, and hence any god is Ok
for
someone, if that is what they choose, though there is no
evidence,
because evidence is not necessary. Not only is evidence not
necessary,
but it is undesirable, since it would tend to point to
authenticating
the claims of one particular man about his imaginary god, over
the
equally unvalidated claims of another about his imaginary god,
and
since all imaginary gods are of equal value, non-value, then
having
evidence that supports one god over another is undesirable
because it
biases men's imagination. You choose not to provide any evidence
to
support your claims because it would be unnecessary and
undesirable.
You do not endorse one god over another, and each person is
welcome to
their own imaginary God, since it really does not make any
difference
at all. You can not prove what is in the mind of a man, and
since there
is no evidence to believe in a particular God, then you can
believe in
any one of them or none of them for equal benefit. You can not
prove
what each imagines in his mind about his god, and the evidence
that
forms that basis of belief is non existant, and unnecessary, and
undesirable, so you choose to not believe in any particular god
since
he is invisible and imaginary. Which gets me back to where I
started
this paragraph.

How am I doing so far with understanding what you are saying?
TnT

Let me try giving an example:

A manager claims that the bank is robbed, but in actuality there
was no
robbery. The police show up and look for evidence. Because the
robbery
is just in the mind of the manager, there can be no evidence of
a
robbery. Any evidence that is found may be evidence of something
happening, but it could not be evidence of a bank robbery. The
police
not wanting to look inept, bag and classify a lot of evidence,
and work
on building a case. They may even come up with a description of
the
imaginary robber. Now the banker may feel safer with all the
police
around, and the police feel good because they are hot on the
trail to
solve a case, and the imaginary robber feels good because he
will never
get caught. He becomes known as the invisible bank robber,
because
there is never any evidence left at any of the hundreds of banks
he has
held up. We as consumers can know that our money is safe because
of all
the police protection, and the adequate security measures that
the bank
manager has in place to protect our money. Any future robbery
the
police don't look for evidence, since they know there won't be
any left
at the crime scene, and evetually they may even stop coming at
the
sound of the burglar alarm. But the manager is ok with that
since he
has never lost any of the money entrusted to him. And the robber
is
happy because the police have released 100s of pictures of him,
and not
one is close, but it really does not matter because any one of
them
will do, since he is the invisible robber.

All this works out just fine until there is a real robbery at
the bank.
The bank manager has now lost alot of money, the police don't
come, and
the real robber gets away with no good description because
everyone
thought he was the invisible bank robber.

So truth in reporting, evidence, and valid descriptions does
matter in
RL and in Godtalk! Maybe not in religion, which is where the two
depart, since there are plenty of religions without any of the
above,
that men trust to be led by the invisible god. Personally I
prefer the
visible God who makes Himself known to them who seek Him! TnT

Er. But he/she still only exists in your imagination, just like
the
robbery that never happened.


You may think that He only exists in my imagination, but you do so to
your own loss. Search for Him yourself, on your own before you decide
what I am imagining when you have no idea what I am thinking about,
unless you really are god as I suggested that you may think yourself to
be, and so you practice religion..

The fact that you could contrive a lie, get people to believe it,
and
change their behaviour as a result is not in dispute. That's
exactly what
religion is.

and politics, and education, and multitude of other scams that have
been perpetrated on mankind for the advantage of a few.

Correct. Deity belief systems are among this multitude of scams. Only
it is
even worse than politics, because a religious person can do or say
anything
they want and put the blame on what "god" told them to do.

God gets blamed for all kinds of things, and those who don't pretend to
believe in God, hinge every thing they say on that. Does not mean that
either is right or wrong, just depends on the supporting evidence.

This is true, and that is why we are told to check out their Fruit. The
Fruit of the Holy Spirit, is the evidence that shows that they know
God. We are specifically cautioned about those who come in like a wolf,
to kill and destroy and deceive. But alas people continue to fall for
the scams.

Deity belief systems have undoubtedly been used by unscrupulous men,
but only because as counterfieters, they recognize the value of the
real currency. No counterfeiter copies money that is of no value. The
value of the deity belief system is the deity behind the system. That
men corrupt the system, is due to the nature of man, and not of God.

And that is why I am interested in talking about something that
goes
beyond religion! TnT

Good luck. You haven't managed it yet.

No, you keep wanting to discuss religion, but we will get there, I have
all eternity! TnT

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting
on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism
and
delusion
of a deity belief system.

Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love
who
created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion,
you
can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who
you
thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT

Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God of
Love
the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.

I agree, God made it that way, and us that way, even if you don't
acknowledge Him! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 3:08 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting
on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to say
that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism
and
delusion
of a deity belief system.

Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love
who
created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and delusion,
you
can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who
you
thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT

Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God of
Love
the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.

I agree, God made it that way, and us that way, even if you don't
acknowledge Him! TnT

I disagree, Oprah made It that way, and Us that way, even if You don't
acknowledge Her!

Oprah loves you! It is a gift that she gives to you! You can choose to
accept it or not accept it! It is up to you! KmaN

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 3:08 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/25/05 12:07 AM:


KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip incredible ramble of godtalk and such

I'm left knowing that religious belief systems are nothing but
control
systems used to manipulate people, and in the meantime getting
on
with
reality.

You may be left knowing this, but that is not the same as to
say
that
is all there is to know in reality, just the reality of your
experience, which I maintain is not all of reality! TnT

Reality can be an amazing place to be even without the escapism
and
delusion
of a deity belief system.

Reality is always an amazing place when you know the God of Love
who
created all of Reality, and that now without escapism and
delusion,
you
can explore all of Reality, without fear of running into God who
you
thought did not exist, besides Love you! TnT

Uh. What I mean is reality can be an amazing place without the God
of
Love
the Fear of God or any other nutty godtalk of godthink.

I agree, God made it that way, and us that way, even if you don't
acknowledge Him! TnT

I disagree, Oprah made It that way, and Us that way, even if You
don't
acknowledge Her!

Oprah loves you! It is a gift that she gives to you! You can choose
to
accept it or not accept it! It is up to you! KmaN

What has Oprah done for you lately? For that matter, what has she ever
done for you to prove to you her love? TnT