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


KMAN wrote:
...snip...

Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious
belief system is somehow disctinct from "what is usually
passed off as religion."

...snip...

yawn

The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common
understanding of the meaning of the word "religion."

You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is not
"religion." I am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty well
with
what most people would describe as a religion.
...snip...

You could address points instead of skipping over them. The key
would
be to
skip the preambles and epilogues, which generally contain nothing
but
senseless blather.

...snip...

All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of something
that goes beyond religion.

Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must
be
WAY OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!

I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if
grounded
in belief or worship, according to your text book definition.
All
these thing are things that man is doing

Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do it
again. Notice how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in
this.

Was I right?

And notice that you are still thinking in terms of what man is
doing,
Religion! And are not able to open your eyes to see the
possibility
of
what God is doing independent of man and religion! That is not
hypocritical, or a surprise, for someone that is blind and
clueless.
Not that there was not a time, I was any different than you, so I
understand, and I do not say these things to be mean or hateful
towards
you!

Oh, I agree, I don't think it's necessarily about being mean or
hateful to
what is around you, but more of an expression of the mean and hate
that is
inside of you.

Well I can discount this statement as being self serving, on your
part,
because you don't know me to know what is inside of me. You are
just
expressing your preconceived ideas against religion, which is not
what
I am talking about anyway.

I'm not talking about my "ideas against religion" either.

Of course you are, but that that is another issue as well!


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, I've seen enough from you
to
understand that you often use your belief system as a passive
aggressive
weapon.


My snipping was based on your request to "skip the preambles and
epilogues." I tried to leave your core statements, along with mine to
see where they led. They apparently led to my internal "expression of
the mean and hate that is inside of you (me)", at least as you see it.

I don't see where I have said anything mean and hateful to you about
anything that would indicate any passive aggressive hostility towards
you. If you are feeling some hostility, I would suggest that it is self
generated on your part to coincide with your preconceived ideas about
religion, and people who practice religion, and are willing to talk
about religion.

You have attempted to shoehorn what I am saying into your definition of
religion, and when the shoe doesn't fit, you can't convict, wait that
was a glove!

I have agreed all along that there is a man sized element of religion,
often, when man talks about God. But what I have also said is that I
would like to get beyond the elements of religion to talk about God and
what He is doing that would be of interest to us. Apparently you are
not able to make that shift of thinking, and evidently it is of no
interest to you! All you seem to want to talk about is religion, I want
to talk about God! But since you don't know anything about God, then I
should not be surprised if all you know to talk about is religion. So
we are like two ships passing in the dark, going separate directions,
with little in common.


....snip...

I just know there is a greater reality beyond
religion, if you can't see it, who's blind? If you hear yapping,
you
may be hard of hearing as well! That we all practice some form of
religion is not the question either.

I do not practice any form of religion.


Of course you do, Atheism and Agnostism are both religions that take a
step of blind faith as you demonstrate below.

I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or observation?

The same method I use to conclude that the centre of the earth is not
made
of cream cheese.


And that method is ... ?? Blind Faith!

...snip...

Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are practicing
religion!

Sorry that bothers you.
You and the pope are in the same business. He just has a
fancier car.

I'm sure he does, though I did not know the pope is a locksmith!
Golly
you learn something new every day!

I took the liberty to do some snipping, if there is something you
want
to discuss further, let me know.

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you that
there is no god."

What argument is that?

At least we agree here, you present no argument that is sound enough
for you to be able to recognize even as an arguement that you are
arguing for anything!


I'm not sure what you think I am arguing. The only "argument" I am
aware of
here is that you are espousing your religious beliefs and trying to
deny
that you are doing so.

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god." which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic or
support to make it, probably just another one of your non-religious
statments of your faith!

I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100% consistent
with a
mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.


I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you continue
to bring up. I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is a
god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously can't
prove to
you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT


I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment.


The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.


That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and She
alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for saying
that I am
wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

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

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


KMAN wrote:
...snip...

Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious
belief system is somehow disctinct from "what is usually
passed off as religion."

...snip...

yawn

The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common
understanding of the meaning of the word "religion."

You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is not
"religion." I am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty well
with
what most people would describe as a religion.
...snip...

You could address points instead of skipping over them. The key
would
be to
skip the preambles and epilogues, which generally contain nothing
but
senseless blather.

...snip...

All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of something
that goes beyond religion.

Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you must
be
WAY OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!

I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if
grounded
in belief or worship, according to your text book definition.
All
these thing are things that man is doing

Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do it
again. Notice how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in
this.

Was I right?

And notice that you are still thinking in terms of what man is
doing,
Religion! And are not able to open your eyes to see the
possibility
of
what God is doing independent of man and religion! That is not
hypocritical, or a surprise, for someone that is blind and
clueless.
Not that there was not a time, I was any different than you, so I
understand, and I do not say these things to be mean or hateful
towards
you!

Oh, I agree, I don't think it's necessarily about being mean or
hateful to
what is around you, but more of an expression of the mean and hate
that is
inside of you.

Well I can discount this statement as being self serving, on your
part,
because you don't know me to know what is inside of me. You are
just
expressing your preconceived ideas against religion, which is not
what
I am talking about anyway.

I'm not talking about my "ideas against religion" either.

Of course you are, but that that is another issue as well!


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, I've seen enough from you
to
understand that you often use your belief system as a passive
aggressive
weapon.


My snipping was based on your request to "skip the preambles and
epilogues." I tried to leave your core statements, along with mine to
see where they led. They apparently led to my internal "expression of
the mean and hate that is inside of you (me)", at least as you see it.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with snipping, you are off on a wild
tangent.

I don't see where I have said anything mean and hateful to you about
anything that would indicate any passive aggressive hostility towards
you. If you are feeling some hostility, I would suggest that it is self
generated on your part to coincide with your preconceived ideas about
religion, and people who practice religion, and are willing to talk
about religion.

LOL. That was passive aggressive/hostile right there Tinkerntom!

I'd suggest studying your own patterns of godtalk. You tend to get most
preachy when you are on the defensive.

You have attempted to shoehorn what I am saying into your definition of
religion, and when the shoe doesn't fit, you can't convict, wait that
was a glove!

There's no shoehorn required. Taking any standard understanding of what
religion is, and your belief system fits perfectly.

I have agreed all along that there is a man sized element of religion

Right. You are a man talking about god. That's religion.

often, when man talks about God. But what I have also said is that I
would like to get beyond the elements of religion to talk about God and
what He is doing that would be of interest to us.

I'm not sure how you can be a man proselytizing your particular belief
system about a supernatural being and get "beyond religion" because, well,
you'll be practicing religion.

Apparently you are
not able to make that shift of thinking

I'm not sure. Perhaps one could say I am beyond religion in that, well, I'm
beyond it.

and evidently it is of no
interest to you! All you seem to want to talk about is religion, I want
to talk about God!

Talking about god *is* religion.

But since you don't know anything about God, then I
should not be surprised if all you know to talk about is religion. So
we are like two ships passing in the dark, going separate directions,
with little in common.

Perhaps, but the major issue is actually your need to differentiate your
godtalk from religion, when clearly it is one in the same.


...snip...

I just know there is a greater reality beyond
religion, if you can't see it, who's blind? If you hear yapping,
you
may be hard of hearing as well! That we all practice some form of
religion is not the question either.

I do not practice any form of religion.

Of course you do, Atheism and Agnostism are both religions that take a
step of blind faith as you demonstrate below.

You are off your nut.

Understanding that the earth is not made of cream cheese and believing that
the universe is managed by an invisible being are two vastly different
things, Tinkerntom.

I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or observation?

The same method I use to conclude that the centre of the earth is not
made
of cream cheese.

And that method is ... ?? Blind Faith!

Er. No. There's absolutely no evidence that the earth is made of cream
cheese, and rational methods for exploring what the earth is made of do not
lend themselves to a theory of a core made of cream cheese.

...snip...

Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are practicing
religion!

I'm not practicing any religion, Tinkerntom.

Sorry that bothers you.
You and the pope are in the same business. He just has a
fancier car.

I'm sure he does, though I did not know the pope is a locksmith!
Golly
you learn something new every day!

I took the liberty to do some snipping, if there is something you
want
to discuss further, let me know.

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you that
there is no god."

What argument is that?

At least we agree here, you present no argument that is sound enough
for you to be able to recognize even as an arguement that you are
arguing for anything!

See below.

I'm not sure what you think I am arguing. The only "argument" I am
aware of
here is that you are espousing your religious beliefs and trying to
deny
that you are doing so.

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god." which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic or
support to make it, probably just another one of your non-religious
statments of your faith!

Oh. That was just one line out of all that we've written. I was just trying
to show you how ridiculous your godtalk is.

I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100% consistent
with a
mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.

I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you continue
to bring up.

Huh?

I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

I wasn't making any argument along those lines.

I'm just explaining to you that your godtalk is religious, and you are
trying to deny it for some reason. I'm not out to convince you to give up
your faith. I don't care what people want to imagine. If they use what they
imagine as an excuse to harm others, I'll likely speak out against it, but
hey, if I meet someone who tells me they believe the world is managed by a
giant omnipotent invisible frog, I wouldn't spend one minute trying to
convince them otherwise.

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is a
god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously can't
prove to
you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT

I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment.

In the same way that I have decided the earth is not made of cream cheese,
as explained above.

The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.

That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

I do not practice any religion. Unless not believing that the earth is made
of cream cheese is a religion.

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and She
alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for saying
that I am
wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

Yup, let's go for it Tinkerntom.

As of today, I believe Oprah is the physical manifestation of the true
supreme beying. Prove me wrong!

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...

Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious
belief system is somehow disctinct from "what is usually
passed off as religion."

...snip...

yawn

The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common
understanding of the meaning of the word "religion."

You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is
not
"religion." I am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty
well
with
what most people would describe as a religion.
...snip...

You could address points instead of skipping over them. The key
would
be to
skip the preambles and epilogues, which generally contain
nothing
but
senseless blather.

...snip...

All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of
something
that goes beyond religion.

Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you
must
be
WAY OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!

I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if
grounded
in belief or worship, according to your text book
definition.
All
these thing are things that man is doing

Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do
it
again. Notice how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in
this.

Was I right?

And notice that you are still thinking in terms of what man is
doing,
Religion! And are not able to open your eyes to see the
possibility
of
what God is doing independent of man and religion! That is not
hypocritical, or a surprise, for someone that is blind and
clueless.
Not that there was not a time, I was any different than you,
so I
understand, and I do not say these things to be mean or
hateful
towards
you!

Oh, I agree, I don't think it's necessarily about being mean or
hateful to
what is around you, but more of an expression of the mean and
hate
that is
inside of you.

Well I can discount this statement as being self serving, on
your
part,
because you don't know me to know what is inside of me. You are
just
expressing your preconceived ideas against religion, which is
not
what
I am talking about anyway.

I'm not talking about my "ideas against religion" either.

Of course you are, but that that is another issue as well!


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, I've seen enough from
you
to
understand that you often use your belief system as a passive
aggressive
weapon.


My snipping was based on your request to "skip the preambles and
epilogues." I tried to leave your core statements, along with mine
to
see where they led. They apparently led to my internal "expression
of
the mean and hate that is inside of you (me)", at least as you see
it.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with snipping, you are off on a
wild
tangent.

I don't see where I have said anything mean and hateful to you
about
anything that would indicate any passive aggressive hostility
towards
you. If you are feeling some hostility, I would suggest that it is
self
generated on your part to coincide with your preconceived ideas
about
religion, and people who practice religion, and are willing to talk
about religion.

LOL. That was passive aggressive/hostile right there Tinkerntom!

I'd suggest studying your own patterns of godtalk. You tend to get
most
preachy when you are on the defensive.

You have attempted to shoehorn what I am saying into your
definition of
religion, and when the shoe doesn't fit, you can't convict, wait
that
was a glove!

There's no shoehorn required. Taking any standard understanding of
what
religion is, and your belief system fits perfectly.

I have agreed all along that there is a man sized element of
religion

Right. You are a man talking about god. That's religion.

often, when man talks about God. But what I have also said is that
I
would like to get beyond the elements of religion to talk about God
and
what He is doing that would be of interest to us.


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!

The fact that your argument always seems to get back to religion,
indicates to me an subliminal fear of sincerely searching for God,
because you know that you will not like what you find, and that it will
contradict everything else you say you believe.

I'm not sure how you can be a man proselytizing your particular
belief
system about a supernatural being and get "beyond religion" because,
well,
you'll be practicing religion.

Apparently you are
not able to make that shift of thinking

I'm not sure. Perhaps one could say I am beyond religion in that,
well, I'm
beyond it.

and evidently it is of no
interest to you! All you seem to want to talk about is religion, I
want
to talk about God!

Talking about god *is* religion.

But since you don't know anything about God, then I
should not be surprised if all you know to talk about is religion.
So
we are like two ships passing in the dark, going separate
directions,
with little in common.

Perhaps, but the major issue is actually your need to differentiate
your
godtalk from religion, when clearly it is one in the same.


...snip...

I just know there is a greater reality beyond
religion, if you can't see it, who's blind? If you hear yapping,
you
may be hard of hearing as well! That we all practice some form
of
religion is not the question either.

I do not practice any form of religion.

Of course you do, Atheism and Agnostism are both religions that
take a
step of blind faith as you demonstrate below.

You are off your nut.

Understanding that the earth is not made of cream cheese and
believing that
the universe is managed by an invisible being are two vastly
different
things, Tinkerntom.

I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or
observation?

The same method I use to conclude that the centre of the earth is
not
made
of cream cheese.

And that method is ... ?? Blind Faith!

Er. No. There's absolutely no evidence that the earth is made of
cream
cheese, and rational methods for exploring what the earth is made of
do not
lend themselves to a theory of a core made of cream cheese.

...snip...

Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are practicing
religion!

I'm not practicing any religion, Tinkerntom.

Sure you are, both atheism and agnotism make comments about the nature
of God, unless you are admitting that you can talk about the nature of
God without getting into religion! Which is close to my contention,
though I allow myself at the same time to admit practicing religion for
its own benefit. But they can be two different issues.

My dad, as a geophysicist, and involved in the developement of the
theory of Plate Tectonic, described the earth as having the consistancy
of Butter, due to the extreme pressure and heat involved at depths
beyond the crust. This spinning gob of butter, has spun itself into a
speroid, buldging at the equator due to the spinning action. Tidal
waves that affect the ocean, equally affect the "solid" land pushing it
this way and that. The core is not hard, but very fluid. He maintained
that the hydrocarbons we call oil, were primarily stellar in origin,
and trapped at the time of coalesence of the Earth. They have been
working their way to the surface where they were trapped by subsurface
rock formations. All this means that you are right, it is not cream
cheese, its Butter! Like the ad says. Can you prove me wrong!

And if you can't prove me wrong on this, how can you make the quattum
leap about the universe and who manages it. And yet you offered no real
proof of either statement.



....snip...

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you
that
there is no god."

....snip...

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god."
which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic or
support to make it, probably just another one of your non-religious
statments of your faith!

Oh. That was just one line out of all that we've written. I was just
trying
to show you how ridiculous your godtalk is.


But it was the most significant line that you said, that showed the
lack of substance for your position on this and other subjects
contained in this discussion. It is basic to your position about
religion, if there is no God, then religion is a joke. If there is God,
then all the rules change.


I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100%
consistent
with a mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.

I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that
includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search
for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at
sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you
continue
to bring up.

Huh?

Thats my line, regarding your persistant cluelessness, and cotinuing to
bring up religion.


I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

I wasn't making any argument along those lines.

I'm just explaining to you that your godtalk is religious, and you
are
trying to deny it for some reason. I'm not out to convince you to
give up
your faith. I don't care what people want to imagine. If they use
what they
imagine as an excuse to harm others, I'll likely speak out against
it, but
hey, if I meet someone who tells me they believe the world is managed
by a
giant omnipotent invisible frog, I wouldn't spend one minute trying
to
convince them otherwise.

As I acknowledged that often God talk is religious, but not necessarily
so, and that is what I would like to achieve is to leave behind petty
religion, and find and tap in to what God is!

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is a
god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously can't
prove to
you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT

I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment.

In the same way that I have decided the earth is not made of cream
cheese,
as explained above.

The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.

That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure
one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual
curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay
away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

I do not practice any religion. Unless not believing that the earth
is made
of cream cheese is a religion.

Now you are blathering!

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and She
alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for saying
that I
am wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still
ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

Yup, let's go for it Tinkerntom.

As of today, I believe Oprah is the physical manifestation of the
true
supreme beying. Prove me wrong!

I was not offering to prove or disprove what is in your mind, even as
stated above, "I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you
to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment."

Now you make the equally absurd statement that Oprah is a Goddess,
which again is a figment of your mind, and I would again ask you to
support that. 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?

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.

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

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...

Tinkerntom. So I'm not sure why you think your religious
belief system is somehow disctinct from "what is usually
passed off as religion."

...snip...

yawn

The dictionary definition is a reflection of a common
understanding of the meaning of the word "religion."

You seem to be saying that your particular god blather is
not
"religion." I am pointing out that it seems to fit pretty
well
with
what most people would describe as a religion.
...snip...

You could address points instead of skipping over them. The key
would
be to
skip the preambles and epilogues, which generally contain
nothing
but
senseless blather.

...snip...

All I can say to you KMAN, is that I am speaking of
something
that goes beyond religion.

Since religion involves belief in the supernatural, you
must
be
WAY OUT THERE to go beyond that, Tinkerntom!

I am not interested in religion per se; belief in,
reverence for, personal or institutional system, even if
grounded
in belief or worship, according to your text book
definition.
All
these thing are things that man is doing

Right. A man like Tinkerntom. And I think he's about to do
it
again. Notice how he won't be able to see the hypocrisy in
this.

Was I right?

And notice that you are still thinking in terms of what man is
doing,
Religion! And are not able to open your eyes to see the
possibility
of
what God is doing independent of man and religion! That is not
hypocritical, or a surprise, for someone that is blind and
clueless.
Not that there was not a time, I was any different than you,
so I
understand, and I do not say these things to be mean or
hateful
towards
you!

Oh, I agree, I don't think it's necessarily about being mean or
hateful to
what is around you, but more of an expression of the mean and
hate
that is
inside of you.

Well I can discount this statement as being self serving, on
your
part,
because you don't know me to know what is inside of me. You are
just
expressing your preconceived ideas against religion, which is
not
what
I am talking about anyway.

I'm not talking about my "ideas against religion" either.

Of course you are, but that that is another issue as well!


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, I've seen enough from
you
to
understand that you often use your belief system as a passive
aggressive
weapon.


My snipping was based on your request to "skip the preambles and
epilogues." I tried to leave your core statements, along with mine
to
see where they led. They apparently led to my internal "expression
of
the mean and hate that is inside of you (me)", at least as you see
it.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with snipping, you are off on a
wild
tangent.

I don't see where I have said anything mean and hateful to you
about
anything that would indicate any passive aggressive hostility
towards
you. If you are feeling some hostility, I would suggest that it is
self
generated on your part to coincide with your preconceived ideas
about
religion, and people who practice religion, and are willing to talk
about religion.

LOL. That was passive aggressive/hostile right there Tinkerntom!

I'd suggest studying your own patterns of godtalk. You tend to get
most
preachy when you are on the defensive.

You have attempted to shoehorn what I am saying into your
definition of
religion, and when the shoe doesn't fit, you can't convict, wait
that
was a glove!

There's no shoehorn required. Taking any standard understanding of
what
religion is, and your belief system fits perfectly.

I have agreed all along that there is a man sized element of
religion

Right. You are a man talking about god. That's religion.

often, when man talks about God. But what I have also said is that
I
would like to get beyond the elements of religion to talk about God
and
what He is doing that would be of interest to us.


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.

The fact that your argument always seems to get back to religion

What argument are you speaking of? It would really help me if you would tell
me what it is you think I am arguing.

indicates to me an subliminal fear of sincerely searching for God

No more than my subliminal fear of searching for cream cheese at the centre
of the earth.

because you know that you will not like what you find, and that it will
contradict everything else you say you believe.

Uh, like what? Like, the earth is not flat? What?

I'm not sure how you can be a man proselytizing your particular
belief
system about a supernatural being and get "beyond religion" because,
well,
you'll be practicing religion.

Apparently you are
not able to make that shift of thinking

I'm not sure. Perhaps one could say I am beyond religion in that,
well, I'm
beyond it.

and evidently it is of no
interest to you! All you seem to want to talk about is religion, I
want
to talk about God!

Talking about god *is* religion.

But since you don't know anything about God, then I
should not be surprised if all you know to talk about is religion.
So
we are like two ships passing in the dark, going separate
directions,
with little in common.

Perhaps, but the major issue is actually your need to differentiate
your
godtalk from religion, when clearly it is one in the same.


...snip...

I just know there is a greater reality beyond
religion, if you can't see it, who's blind? If you hear yapping,
you
may be hard of hearing as well! That we all practice some form
of
religion is not the question either.

I do not practice any form of religion.

Of course you do, Atheism and Agnostism are both religions that
take a
step of blind faith as you demonstrate below.

You are off your nut.

Understanding that the earth is not made of cream cheese and
believing that
the universe is managed by an invisible being are two vastly
different
things, Tinkerntom.

I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or
observation?

The same method I use to conclude that the centre of the earth is
not
made
of cream cheese.

And that method is ... ?? Blind Faith!

Er. No. There's absolutely no evidence that the earth is made of
cream
cheese, and rational methods for exploring what the earth is made of
do not
lend themselves to a theory of a core made of cream cheese.

...snip...

Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are practicing
religion!

I'm not practicing any religion, Tinkerntom.

Sure you are, both atheism and agnotism make comments about the nature
of God, unless you are admitting that you can talk about the nature of
God without getting into religion! Which is close to my contention,
though I allow myself at the same time to admit practicing religion for
its own benefit. But they can be two different issues.

My dad, as a geophysicist, and involved in the developement of the
theory of Plate Tectonic, described the earth as having the consistancy
of Butter, due to the extreme pressure and heat involved at depths
beyond the crust. This spinning gob of butter, has spun itself into a
speroid, buldging at the equator due to the spinning action. Tidal
waves that affect the ocean, equally affect the "solid" land pushing it
this way and that. The core is not hard, but very fluid. He maintained
that the hydrocarbons we call oil, were primarily stellar in origin,
and trapped at the time of coalesence of the Earth. They have been
working their way to the surface where they were trapped by subsurface
rock formations. All this means that you are right, it is not cream
cheese, its Butter! Like the ad says. Can you prove me wrong!

And if you can't prove me wrong on this, how can you make the quattum
leap about the universe and who manages it. And yet you offered no real
proof of either statement.

As I've already stated, I can never prove wrong that which only exists in
your imagination.

If, as a hypothetical, I imagine that Oprah is god, you cannot prove me
wrong, Tinkerntom. Because that belief would exist only in my mind, and only
I can choose not to believe that Oprah is god. You can offer no real proof
that Oprah is not god.

...snip...

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you
that
there is no god."

...snip...

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god."
which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic or
support to make it, probably just another one of your non-religious
statments of your faith!

Oh. That was just one line out of all that we've written. I was just
trying
to show you how ridiculous your godtalk is.

But it was the most significant line that you said, that showed the
lack of substance for your position on this and other subjects
contained in this discussion. It is basic to your position about
religion, if there is no God, then religion is a joke. If there is God,
then all the rules change.

Just like if Oprah is god, all the rules change.

Or, one can accept - or even embrace - reality.

I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100%
consistent
with a mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.

I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that
includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search
for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at
sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you
continue
to bring up.

Huh?

Thats my line, regarding your persistant cluelessness, and cotinuing to
bring up religion.

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

You have a belief system that incorporates worship of a supernatural being.
That's a religion. When you talk about your belief system, that's talking
about religion. It's just basic logic.

I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

I wasn't making any argument along those lines.

I'm just explaining to you that your godtalk is religious, and you
are
trying to deny it for some reason. I'm not out to convince you to
give up
your faith. I don't care what people want to imagine. If they use
what they
imagine as an excuse to harm others, I'll likely speak out against
it, but
hey, if I meet someone who tells me they believe the world is managed
by a
giant omnipotent invisible frog, I wouldn't spend one minute trying
to
convince them otherwise.

As I acknowledged that often God talk is religious, but not necessarily
so, and that is what I would like to achieve is to leave behind petty
religion, and find and tap in to what God is!

Good luck. I haven't seen anything like that from you.

I leave petty religion behind through the understanding that god is a
conceptual tool utilized by many religious belief systems to create an
unaccountable foundation for the establishment of doctrines that allow for
the control of followers.

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is a
god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously can't
prove to
you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT

I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment.

In the same way that I have decided the earth is not made of cream
cheese,
as explained above.

The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.

That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure
one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual
curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay
away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

I do not practice any religion. Unless not believing that the earth
is made
of cream cheese is a religion.

Now you are blathering!

Nope, quite logical.

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

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and She
alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for saying
that I
am wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still
ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

Yup, let's go for it Tinkerntom.

As of today, I believe Oprah is the physical manifestation of the
true
supreme beying. Prove me wrong!

I was not offering to prove or disprove what is in your mind

Now you are getting it. Amazing, just when I thought all was lost.

I cannot disprove what is in your mind either.

Only the difference is I don't actually believe in a supreme being.

even as
stated above, "I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you
to support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your statment."

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. Wherease you really believe that your supernatural
being is real.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...
....snip... I snipped a big passage out since we have been around that
merry-go-round a few times, dig it out if there is something I missed
that you wanted to comment on!


I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or
observation?

....snip...
Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are
practicing
religion!

I'm not practicing any religion, Tinkerntom.

Sure you are, both atheism and agnostism make comments about the
nature
of God, unless you are admitting that you can talk about the nature
of
God without getting into religion! Which is close to my contention,
though I allow myself at the same time to admit practicing religion
for
its own benefit. But they can be two different issues.

snip...

Can you prove me wrong!

And if you can't prove me wrong on this, how can you make the
quattum
leap about the universe and who manages it. And yet you offered no
real
proof of either statement.

As I've already stated, I can never prove wrong that which only
exists in
your imagination.

If, as a hypothetical, I imagine that Oprah is god, you cannot prove
me
wrong, Tinkerntom. Because that belief would exist only in my mind,
and only
I can choose not to believe that Oprah is god. You can offer no real
proof
that Oprah is not god.

...snip...

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you
that
there is no god."

...snip...

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god."
which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic
or
support to make it, probably just another one of your
non-religious
statments of your faith!

Oh. That was just one line out of all that we've written. I was
just
trying to show you how ridiculous your godtalk is.

But it was the most significant line that you said, that showed the
lack of substance for your position on this and other subjects
contained in this discussion. It is basic to your position about
religion, if there is no God, then religion is a joke. If there is
God,
then all the rules change.

Just like if Oprah is god, all the rules change.

Or, one can accept - or even embrace - reality.

I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100%
consistent with a mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.

I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that
includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not
the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search
for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at
sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you
continue
to bring up.

Huh?

Thats my line, regarding your persistant cluelessness, and
continuing to
bring up religion.

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

You have a belief system that incorporates worship of a supernatural
being.
That's a religion. When you talk about your belief system, that's
talking
about religion. It's just basic logic.

I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

I wasn't making any argument along those lines.

I'm just explaining to you that your godtalk is religious, and you
are
trying to deny it for some reason. I'm not out to convince you to
give up
your faith. I don't care what people want to imagine. If they use
what
they imagine as an excuse to harm others, I'll likely speak out
against
it, but hey, if I meet someone who tells me they believe the world
is
managed by a giant omnipotent invisible frog, I wouldn't spend one
minute trying to convince them otherwise.

As I acknowledged that often God talk is religious, but not
necessarily
so, and that is what I would like to achieve is to leave behind
petty
religion, and find and tap in to what God is!

Good luck. I haven't seen anything like that from you.

I leave petty religion behind through the understanding that god is a
conceptual tool utilized by many religious belief systems to create
an
unaccountable foundation for the establishment of doctrines that
allow for
the control of followers.

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is
a god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously
can't prove
to you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT

I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to
support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your
statment.

In the same way that I have decided the earth is not made of cream
cheese,
as explained above.

The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.

That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure
one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual
curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay
away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

I do not practice any religion. Unless not believing that the
earth
is made of cream cheese is a religion.

Now you are blathering!

Nope, quite logical.

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


Huh!

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and
She alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for
saying that
I am wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still
ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

Yup, let's go for it Tinkerntom.

As of today, I believe Oprah is the physical manifestation of the
true supreme beying. Prove me wrong!

I was not offering to prove or disprove what is in your mind

Now you are getting it. Amazing, just when I thought all was lost.

I cannot disprove what is in your mind either.

Only the difference is I don't actually believe in a supreme being.

even as stated above, "I did not ask you to prove what is in my
mind, I ask you to support what is in yours. You said there is no
God, support
your statment."

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. Wherease you really believe that your
supernatural
being is real.

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.

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?

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.

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

Wolfgang thinks:
==============
All we gotta do is get a few dozen
nitwits together on a newsgroup and have them pretend they've got
something
to say.
=============

Wolfgang, do you think Scotty has met Mike Vandeman over in
rec.bicycles.soc ... I think they deserve each other. One hates
kayakers in his creek, the other hates m-bikers in "his" woods. What a
pair!

Wilf

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...

....snip... I snipped a big passage out since we have been around that
merry-go-round a few times, dig it out if there is something I missed
that you wanted to comment on! No point recycling it through the usenet
otherwise.


I assure you that there is God

I assure you that there is no god.


And You base this conclusion on exactly what fact or
observation?

....snip...
Whatever you are experiencing, as soon as you express it as a
religious belief system (as you are doing) you are practicing
religion.

Even as you do with your atheism and agnostism, you are
practicing
religion!

I'm not practicing any religion, Tinkerntom.

Sure you are, both atheism and agnostism make comments about the
nature
of God, unless you are admitting that you can talk about the nature
of
God without getting into religion! Which is close to my contention,
though I allow myself at the same time to admit practicing religion
for
its own benefit. But they can be two different issues.

snip...

Can you prove me wrong!

And if you can't prove me wrong on this, how can you make the
quantum
leap about the universe and who manages it. And yet you offered no
real
proof of either statement.

As I've already stated, I can never prove wrong that which only
exists in
your imagination.

If, as a hypothetical, I imagine that Oprah is god, you cannot prove
me
wrong, Tinkerntom. Because that belief would exist only in my mind,
and only
I can choose not to believe that Oprah is god. You can offer no real
proof
that Oprah is not god.

...snip...

Your whole argument comes down to the statement "I assure you
that
there is no god."

...snip...

You made the statement that "I assure you that there is no god."
which
sure sounds like an arguement to me, granted with no real logic
or
support to make it, probably just another one of your
non-religious
statments of your faith!

Oh. That was just one line out of all that we've written. I was
just
trying to show you how ridiculous your godtalk is.

But it was the most significant line that you said, that showed the
lack of substance for your position on this and other subjects
contained in this discussion. It is basic to your position about
religion, if there is no God, then religion is a joke. If there is
God,
then all the rules change.

Just like if Oprah is god, all the rules change.

Or, one can accept - or even embrace - reality.

I've illustrated for you that your belief system is 100%
consistent with a mainstream understanding of what religion means.

You continue to deny that you are a religious practitioner, for
whatever
reasons. And that's the only argument I'm aware of.

I have said we all practice some form of religion, and that
includes
me, I have no argument with you on that issue. But that is not
the
issue I have been desiring to look into. If you reject the search
for
God, because some practitioner of religion offended you at
sometime, so
that you can now not see God, that is your issue, and one you
continue
to bring up.

Huh?

Thats my line, regarding your persistant cluelessness, and
continuing to
bring up religion.

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

You have a belief system that incorporates worship of a supernatural
being.
That's a religion. When you talk about your belief system, that's
talking
about religion. It's just basic logic.

I maintain that it is possible and extremely worthwhile
and beneficial and exciting to search for and find God apart from
religious practice. You have your arguement, and I have mine, and
apparently the two do not have much in common.

I wasn't making any argument along those lines.

I'm just explaining to you that your godtalk is religious, and you
are
trying to deny it for some reason. I'm not out to convince you to
give up
your faith. I don't care what people want to imagine. If they use
what
they imagine as an excuse to harm others, I'll likely speak out
against
it, but hey, if I meet someone who tells me they believe the world
is
managed by a giant omnipotent invisible frog, I wouldn't spend one
minute
trying to convince them otherwise.

As I acknowledged that often God talk is religious, but not
necessarily
so, and that is what I would like to achieve is to leave behind
petty
religion, and find and tap in to what God is!

Good luck. I haven't seen anything like that from you.

I leave petty religion behind through the understanding that god is a
conceptual tool utilized by many religious belief systems to create
an
unaccountable foundation for the establishment of doctrines that
allow for
the control of followers.

There's no point arguing with you about whether or not there is
a god,
because She only exists in your imagination and I obviously
can't prove
to you that what you imagine to be real is in fact unreal.

I ask you what is the basis for your statement? TnT

I did not ask you to prove what is in my mind, I ask you to
support
what is in yours. You said there is no God, support your
statment.

In the same way that I have decided the earth is not made of cream
cheese,
as explained above.

The same basis for saying there is no "x" whatever x may be.

That is profound, we should publish a book about that. I am sure
one
copy would sell. If that is the depth of your intellectual
curiosity
or thought process, enjoy wading around in the kiddy pool, stay
away
from the deep end! And this is the basis for your religion?

I do not practice any religion. Unless not believing that the
earth
is made of cream cheese is a religion.

Now you are blathering!

Nope, quite logical.

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


Huh!

If I tell you that Oprah Winfrey is a Goddess and that She and
She alone
controls your life, Tinkerntom, what would be the basis for
saying that
I am wrong?

Now I warned you about going to the deep end, and yet you still
ask!
Are you really sure you want to go there? TnT

Yup, let's go for it Tinkerntom.

As of today, I believe Oprah is the physical manifestation of the
true supreme beying. Prove me wrong!

I was not offering to prove or disprove what is in your mind

Now you are getting it. Amazing, just when I thought all was lost.

I cannot disprove what is in your mind either.

Only the difference is I don't actually believe in a supreme being.

even as stated above, "I did not ask you to prove what is in my
mind, I
ask you to support what is in yours. You said there is no God,
support
your statment."

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. Wherease 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!

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?

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.

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?

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?



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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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