Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings

Expand Messages
  • richard godwin
    ... From: cnapmak86 To: Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:05 AM Subject: [Death To Religion] Re:
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "cnapmak86" <cnapmak86@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:05 AM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


      > you forget that the first scientists were magicians, or that science
      > has coused more death then religeon.

      Times change. Science has not caused the deaths. Science has devised the
      tools for death, but death itself was caused by religious beliefs,
      collectively called religion

      if religeon has been used as a
      > tool to insite violence then it is not religeon you are against
      > but 'people' who had no understanding of it other that it was a useful
      > tool of control.

      True for the leaders, but not for the masses of followers who are religious.


      > i concern myself little with religeon, its not to my taste, so it
      > seems wrong to use the term to try and describe the argument. my
      > research and belief is to do with occult; where all persuits are done
      > in a 'scientific' manner and a great deal of them can and are backed
      > up with science research; whats worse is that the more we discover
      > about science the more we prove that there is a solid basis for these
      > beliefs.

      Supposed or pseudo-science often in applied in cults, like the oc-cult. But
      it is a far way from real science.

      >
      > my favourite example is the first rule of physics -- energy is never
      > lost or created, it is only transfered from point to another-- now
      > compare this with the Semetic statement of God -- He does not beget
      > and He is not begoten. (and its writen how many milenia prior?)

      Not a good comparison. You should know that analogical reasoning is faulty.
      And yours here is a category mistake, as well as poor analogy.

      >
      > now its a known fact that moder religeon has lost the theory behind
      > the practice and priest perform ceremonies without a clue as to what
      > they are ment to be doing. you are right that the practicle is more
      > important then the theory, but without it you have no idea what
      > results you are getting, looking for, not to mention specific details
      > as to what you are ment to do in the practicle.

      The practice produces the theory that substantiates the practice because it
      works, and the results are easily observed and identified.

      Richard.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • richard godwin
      Very good, IMO. Richard. ... From: Lovejoe To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:29 AM Subject:
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Very good, IMO.

        Richard.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:29 AM
        Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


        > If you refer to Einstein, he was not a religious, he
        > never practiced Jews and he was opposed to a God
        > figure who controls the fate and physics in this world.
        > But he was believing in Spinoza's God as
        > MOST of the 20th century's first generation scientiests believe.
        > You oppose, probably because of lack of your information on
        > "history" and philosophy of science, as I diagnosed
        > in your early e-mail.
        > As far as you do not grasp scientific philosophies
        > and know the history of the area that you love to work,
        > you cannot be a damn good complete scientist.
        >
        > It's not wise to come into deathtoreligion group and
        > promote your views of god or religious science,
        > thinking may be that deathtoreligion'ers are absent of science...
        >
        > Let me explain more about these generations.
        > I can group the 20th century
        > physics scientists in 3 generations;
        > The first generation, including Einstein,
        > were mostly beliving in Spinoza's God,
        > the God who has created the universe with great
        > enthusiasm and hope but turned down and depressed
        > by the HUMANITY working with evil and then God
        > left everything uncontrolled, turned down the humans...
        > Except of course, few names like Bohr who were really religious
        > from the first generation.
        >
        > The second generation of scientists including R. Feynman,
        > were mostly pure atheists, no religion - no God type.
        > They who understood the views and visions of the first
        > generation and improved the theories of first generations.
        > They did not change, but understood and improved them.
        > The second generation were so successfull understanding
        > and solving the problems and questions left by the first
        > generations. But, they produced very heavy questions
        > and paradoxes to the next generations.
        > They left extremely complex hypothesis and ungraspable
        > number of dimensions together with imaginary solutions,
        > imaginary experiments, imaginary particles, forces etc
        > to the next generation.
        >
        > And the third and last generation of scientists
        > probably including yourself, are somehow hit the wall!
        > Meaning, rendered themselves unsucsesfull to understand
        > even underlying fundamental principles.
        > Because the amount of complex and imaginary information
        > left by 2nd generation is too big to grasp,
        > you never find time and energy to understand
        > the first generation's simpler and factual fundementals.
        >
        > New scientists, feeling hopeless, carrying heavy load,
        > under pressure of new economical systems, they actually
        > transformed simple physical questions to
        > the searching of the meaning of life and of course
        > they can't find an answer... Their mind is really mixed up.
        > Like the one who falls into ocean asks help from the sharks,
        > they turned to God, because they can't understand a
        > damn thing, even they can perfectly calculate !
        >
        > Hiting the wall is a good example, because some of 3rd generations
        > do not stop by hitting the wall once,
        > they want to hit again and again... Like religious people
        > hits themselves to cry-walls or whatever.
        > For example; if one understand and agrees with
        > the theory of General Relativity, should not run after
        > an imaginary particle called "graviton".
        > Could imagine it, could use it in a mathematical model
        > or whatever, but should not get crazy to find it !
        > If one spend his/her life searching for a "real" graviton
        > means three things:
        > 1- GR is wrong.
        > 2- He/she understood GR but does not agree.
        > 3- He/she agree with GR but does not understand.
        >
        > 1st and 2nd options are same thing, if GR is wrong
        > or he/she does not agree, before searching the graviton,
        > he/she must provide a better and correct explanation,
        > a new theory !!!!! Then can search for the graviton
        > to prove the new theory. They do not provide a new
        > theory, they agree with GR, but they still look for
        > graviton, leaves only one option: They don't understand GR!
        > Although they calculate everything but everything like a magician.
        >
        > This is a generic problem in science with the 3rd generation.
        > This problem is abundant in Quantum physics, not only GR.
        > They simply do not understand fundemental idea of theories.
        > They know formulas and calculations like a hell.
        > But doesn't know what formulas or calculations really means!
        > Either they think theories represent the reality
        > or they think reality is result of calculations.
        >
        > Apperently you think you are a damn good scientist,
        > but your fate is already drawn! 3rd generation is hopeless.
        > Believe in God or not, there is no solution.
        > About 20 or more years, you'll strugle with equations
        > without understanding the real meaning behind.
        > It is 4th may be 5th generations in end of 21st century
        > who will make "some" acheivements, real acheivements...
        > With the help of self destruction or weakness
        > of religions as the war between them intensifying in these years.
        >
        > Of course I'm not sure, I'm not a fortune teller neither magican!
        > But Asimov says; if you have enough
        > information about the past, you can predict the future...
        > You just need to see the patterns of evolution.
        >
        > Cem
        >
      • a a
        Good email Lovejoe, as I don t think it was directed specifically at me I don t find much reason to respond. I would however say that it is difficult to say
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 25, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Good email Lovejoe, as I don't think it was directed
          specifically at me I don't find much reason to
          respond. I would however say that it is difficult to
          say what one truly believes in one's heart and mind
          about God and at best we are left with their writings
          as to quessing what their thinking may have been on
          the issue-their writings are certainly a strong
          indication of what they proclaimed to believe but we
          should be humble in really talking about what they may
          or may not have thought.

          --- richard godwin <meta@...> wrote:

          > Very good, IMO.
          >
          > Richard.
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...>
          > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:29 AM
          > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings
          >
          >
          > > If you refer to Einstein, he was not a religious,
          > he
          > > never practiced Jews and he was opposed to a God
          > > figure who controls the fate and physics in this
          > world.
          > > But he was believing in Spinoza's God as
          > > MOST of the 20th century's first generation
          > scientiests believe.
          > > You oppose, probably because of lack of your
          > information on
          > > "history" and philosophy of science, as I
          > diagnosed
          > > in your early e-mail.
          > > As far as you do not grasp scientific philosophies
          > > and know the history of the area that you love to
          > work,
          > > you cannot be a damn good complete scientist.
          > >
          > > It's not wise to come into deathtoreligion group
          > and
          > > promote your views of god or religious science,
          > > thinking may be that deathtoreligion'ers are
          > absent of science...
          > >
          > > Let me explain more about these generations.
          > > I can group the 20th century
          > > physics scientists in 3 generations;
          > > The first generation, including Einstein,
          > > were mostly beliving in Spinoza's God,
          > > the God who has created the universe with great
          > > enthusiasm and hope but turned down and depressed
          > > by the HUMANITY working with evil and then God
          > > left everything uncontrolled, turned down the
          > humans...
          > > Except of course, few names like Bohr who were
          > really religious
          > > from the first generation.
          > >
          > > The second generation of scientists including R.
          > Feynman,
          > > were mostly pure atheists, no religion - no God
          > type.
          > > They who understood the views and visions of the
          > first
          > > generation and improved the theories of first
          > generations.
          > > They did not change, but understood and improved
          > them.
          > > The second generation were so successfull
          > understanding
          > > and solving the problems and questions left by the
          > first
          > > generations. But, they produced very heavy
          > questions
          > > and paradoxes to the next generations.
          > > They left extremely complex hypothesis and
          > ungraspable
          > > number of dimensions together with imaginary
          > solutions,
          > > imaginary experiments, imaginary particles, forces
          > etc
          > > to the next generation.
          > >
          > > And the third and last generation of scientists
          > > probably including yourself, are somehow hit the
          > wall!
          > > Meaning, rendered themselves unsucsesfull to
          > understand
          > > even underlying fundamental principles.
          > > Because the amount of complex and imaginary
          > information
          > > left by 2nd generation is too big to grasp,
          > > you never find time and energy to understand
          > > the first generation's simpler and factual
          > fundementals.
          > >
          > > New scientists, feeling hopeless, carrying heavy
          > load,
          > > under pressure of new economical systems, they
          > actually
          > > transformed simple physical questions to
          > > the searching of the meaning of life and of course
          >
          > > they can't find an answer... Their mind is really
          > mixed up.
          > > Like the one who falls into ocean asks help from
          > the sharks,
          > > they turned to God, because they can't understand
          > a
          > > damn thing, even they can perfectly calculate !
          > >
          > > Hiting the wall is a good example, because some of
          > 3rd generations
          > > do not stop by hitting the wall once,
          > > they want to hit again and again... Like religious
          > people
          > > hits themselves to cry-walls or whatever.
          > > For example; if one understand and agrees with
          > > the theory of General Relativity, should not run
          > after
          > > an imaginary particle called "graviton".
          > > Could imagine it, could use it in a mathematical
          > model
          > > or whatever, but should not get crazy to find it !
          > > If one spend his/her life searching for a "real"
          > graviton
          > > means three things:
          > > 1- GR is wrong.
          > > 2- He/she understood GR but does not agree.
          > > 3- He/she agree with GR but does not understand.
          > >
          > > 1st and 2nd options are same thing, if GR is wrong
          > > or he/she does not agree, before searching the
          > graviton,
          > > he/she must provide a better and correct
          > explanation,
          > > a new theory !!!!! Then can search for the
          > graviton
          > > to prove the new theory. They do not provide a new
          > > theory, they agree with GR, but they still look
          > for
          > > graviton, leaves only one option: They don't
          > understand GR!
          > > Although they calculate everything but everything
          > like a magician.
          > >
          > > This is a generic problem in science with the 3rd
          > generation.
          > > This problem is abundant in Quantum physics, not
          > only GR.
          > > They simply do not understand fundemental idea of
          > theories.
          > > They know formulas and calculations like a hell.
          > > But doesn't know what formulas or calculations
          > really means!
          > > Either they think theories represent the reality
          > > or they think reality is result of calculations.
          > >
          > > Apperently you think you are a damn good
          > scientist,
          > > but your fate is already drawn! 3rd generation is
          > hopeless.
          > > Believe in God or not, there is no solution.
          > > About 20 or more years, you'll strugle with
          > equations
          > > without understanding the real meaning behind.
          > > It is 4th may be 5th generations in end of 21st
          > century
          > > who will make "some" acheivements, real
          > acheivements...
          > > With the help of self destruction or weakness
          > > of religions as the war between them intensifying
          > in these years.
          > >
          > > Of course I'm not sure, I'm not a fortune teller
          > neither magican!
          > > But Asimov says; if you have enough
          > > information about the past, you can predict the
          > future...
          > > You just need to see the patterns of evolution.
          > >
          > > Cem
          > >
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • a a
          First, in a none descending matter I m truly interested to know if you ve read any of the Gospels or of the writings of Paul? What has your exposure to these
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 25, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            First, in a none descending matter I'm truly
            interested to know if you've read any of the Gospels
            or of the writings of Paul? What has your exposure to
            these writings been? I'm truly interested.


            Next, let me say that even if the Gospels were just
            "opinion" but they were documents and they were
            historical then they would still be considered
            historical documentations about Christ, therefor it
            would be inadequate to say there is no historical
            documentation of Jesus. What you seem to imply is that
            what we know about Christ as presented to writers of
            the Gospels can't be true, why such a leap?

            Next you seem to go off into the "historical Jesus"
            motif so many liberal academians seem to pursue,
            illogically. Next, let me say that I'm referring to
            Jesus The Christ, and honestly in all fairness you
            Should be refering to him as Jesus The Christ and not
            trying to tear down the manifested message of this
            figure and not trying to, at this point, inadquately
            and some what pompously, telling me what I should or
            should not refer to a specific person as. Jesus
            Christ, as no other name in all of human history, is
            solicitfied in it's expression and I've found no
            rational, academic reason why you would take such a
            leap of faith and believeing this to be different, I'm
            not insulting and I will discuss this more if you'd
            like. Have respect, that's all I ask.

            In response to your thinking that there is no
            historical documentation of Chirst, well, honestly,
            have you considered the alternative? I don't mean this
            as a philosophically entrenched presentation, which I
            can present, but just as a point of reflection.

            What you seem to be saying is that there is no
            historical evidence for Christ, and what there is is
            just "opinions" and by opinions you mean lies. So, you
            are claiming in this type of thought that the most
            impactful,ethical,meaningful and hopeful figure in all
            of human history is simply an illusion created by 4
            jewish fisherman some 2,000 years ago and that all the
            thinking,love,worship,respect and aw with which these
            4 men(who betrayed christ) and all the generations
            since are absolutely wrong in every essential way? I
            don't know if you've noticed but the Jews don't
            convert pretty easily, or let me say it this way God
            has so allowed his chosen people to know a reality
            outside of light that as their history has progressed
            that have developed into the most proud(not a good
            thing) tough, resilent people of all time. Jews are
            many things, but they are defintely Jews. I don't
            logically imagine 4, somewhat literate, Jews created
            this Figure which still changes millions of lives, all
            based on lies and I ask why you make such a leap? One
            of the purposes of being a Christian is to disciple, I
            find it fitting that the one who is Christ so
            manifested his message that his disciples were meant
            to express most indepthly his message.

            You know, I wish we were just chatting so that I
            didn't have to put soo much into each email, for that
            I'm sorry. Please, ask me one specific question that I
            can refer to for the sake of time.

            Next let me say that, as priorly discussed, there is
            sufficent evidence for the historical documentation of
            Christ.


            > of those referred to in the NT (but not Paul); the
            > opinions are
            > interpretations of Jesus. You should not be
            > referring to Christ, but rather
            > to the man, Jesus. There is no historical
            > documentation about Jesus except
            > in the NT, other than some oblique references in
            > Pliny; those in Josephus
            > are known to be interpolations by Christians who had
            > his writings. The
            > external evidence shows that a man named Jesus was
            > crucified. The Jewish
            > community soundly rejected Jesus as the Messiah and
            > reject the new
            > Christians. It appears the John community was
            > kicked out of the synagogue.
            > The OT has no reference to the man Jesus or the
            > Christ. The NT writers, for
            > the purpose of establishing an historical tradition,
            > used the pesher method
            > of interpreting the OT to prophesy Christ. If you
            > wish we can talk about
            > Isaiah's suffering servant.
            >
            > There are a number of definitions of myth. One is:
            > explanation in story
            > form what cannot adequately be expressed in any
            > other way. Hence the genre
            > myth, story-telling, has always been the most
            > important genre in religious
            > scriptures world-wide.
            >
            > Richard.


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • bestonnet_00
            The reason there is no historical evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ is largely because the Gospels were written long after Jeses was said to have
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              The reason there is no historical evidence for the existance of Jesus
              Christ is largely because the Gospels were written long after Jeses
              was said to have died. Too long after for them to have been by
              eyewitnesses (and nothing else by those who lived in that time
              mentioning him exists despite the description of what he did in the
              Gospels being something that people would have noticed and mentioned).

              --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, a a <Praesto12@...> wrote:
              >
              > First, in a none descending matter I'm truly
              > interested to know if you've read any of the Gospels
              > or of the writings of Paul? What has your exposure to
              > these writings been? I'm truly interested.
              >
              >
              > Next, let me say that even if the Gospels were just
              > "opinion" but they were documents and they were
              > historical then they would still be considered
              > historical documentations about Christ, therefor it
              > would be inadequate to say there is no historical
              > documentation of Jesus. What you seem to imply is that
              > what we know about Christ as presented to writers of
              > the Gospels can't be true, why such a leap?
              >
              > Next you seem to go off into the "historical Jesus"
              > motif so many liberal academians seem to pursue,
              > illogically. Next, let me say that I'm referring to
              > Jesus The Christ, and honestly in all fairness you
              > Should be refering to him as Jesus The Christ and not
              > trying to tear down the manifested message of this
              > figure and not trying to, at this point, inadquately
              > and some what pompously, telling me what I should or
              > should not refer to a specific person as. Jesus
              > Christ, as no other name in all of human history, is
              > solicitfied in it's expression and I've found no
              > rational, academic reason why you would take such a
              > leap of faith and believeing this to be different, I'm
              > not insulting and I will discuss this more if you'd
              > like. Have respect, that's all I ask.
              >
              > In response to your thinking that there is no
              > historical documentation of Chirst, well, honestly,
              > have you considered the alternative? I don't mean this
              > as a philosophically entrenched presentation, which I
              > can present, but just as a point of reflection.
              >
              > What you seem to be saying is that there is no
              > historical evidence for Christ, and what there is is
              > just "opinions" and by opinions you mean lies. So, you
              > are claiming in this type of thought that the most
              > impactful,ethical,meaningful and hopeful figure in all
              > of human history is simply an illusion created by 4
              > jewish fisherman some 2,000 years ago and that all the
              > thinking,love,worship,respect and aw with which these
              > 4 men(who betrayed christ) and all the generations
              > since are absolutely wrong in every essential way? I
              > don't know if you've noticed but the Jews don't
              > convert pretty easily, or let me say it this way God
              > has so allowed his chosen people to know a reality
              > outside of light that as their history has progressed
              > that have developed into the most proud(not a good
              > thing) tough, resilent people of all time. Jews are
              > many things, but they are defintely Jews. I don't
              > logically imagine 4, somewhat literate, Jews created
              > this Figure which still changes millions of lives, all
              > based on lies and I ask why you make such a leap? One
              > of the purposes of being a Christian is to disciple, I
              > find it fitting that the one who is Christ so
              > manifested his message that his disciples were meant
              > to express most indepthly his message.
              >
              > You know, I wish we were just chatting so that I
              > didn't have to put soo much into each email, for that
              > I'm sorry. Please, ask me one specific question that I
              > can refer to for the sake of time.
              >
              > Next let me say that, as priorly discussed, there is
              > sufficent evidence for the historical documentation of
              > Christ.
              >
              >
              > > of those referred to in the NT (but not Paul); the
              > > opinions are
              > > interpretations of Jesus. You should not be
              > > referring to Christ, but rather
              > > to the man, Jesus. There is no historical
              > > documentation about Jesus except
              > > in the NT, other than some oblique references in
              > > Pliny; those in Josephus
              > > are known to be interpolations by Christians who had
              > > his writings. The
              > > external evidence shows that a man named Jesus was
              > > crucified. The Jewish
              > > community soundly rejected Jesus as the Messiah and
              > > reject the new
              > > Christians. It appears the John community was
              > > kicked out of the synagogue.
              > > The OT has no reference to the man Jesus or the
              > > Christ. The NT writers, for
              > > the purpose of establishing an historical tradition,
              > > used the pesher method
              > > of interpreting the OT to prophesy Christ. If you
              > > wish we can talk about
              > > Isaiah's suffering servant.
              > >
              > > There are a number of definitions of myth. One is:
              > > explanation in story
              > > form what cannot adequately be expressed in any
              > > other way. Hence the genre
              > > myth, story-telling, has always been the most
              > > important genre in religious
              > > scriptures world-wide.
              > >
              > > Richard.
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              > http://mail.yahoo.com
              >
            • richard godwin
              ... From: a a To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re:
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM
                Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                > First, in a none descending matter I'm truly
                > interested to know if you've read any of the Gospels
                > or of the writings of Paul? What has your exposure to
                > these writings been? I'm truly interested.

                Yes, for a number of decades I have studied the whole Bible in depth. I
                attended a Christian theological school for a year. I have taught it in
                classes, church and college.


                > Next, let me say that even if the Gospels were just
                > "opinion" but they were documents and they were
                > historical then they would still be considered
                > historical documentations about Christ, therefor it
                > would be inadequate to say there is no historical
                > documentation of Jesus. What you seem to imply is that
                > what we know about Christ as presented to writers of
                > the Gospels can't be true, why such a leap?

                Again, this is your "either-or" dichtomy, typical of your group. "If it's
                not that, then it must be this." Wrong-headed thinking, habitual, and you
                need to get it out of your mental system. Get in the real world of thinking
                and debate. The Gospels, more than just opinion, it is visionary sincere
                INTERPRETATION of the man Jesus who was crucified, followers trying to
                understand this picture and place him into the long Judean tradition, how to
                do that. They DEVISED the schema. With all good intentions and with strong
                belief, enough for willing martyrdom. But that is NOT historical
                documentation. Perhaps it would be well for you to study what history is,
                the criteria for correct representation of the past. So, again your idea of
                a "leap" is not only wrong but very bad inference.

                >
                > Next you seem to go off into the "historical Jesus"
                > motif so many liberal academians seem to pursue,
                > illogically.

                And how "illogically"? You just leave that dangling?

                Next, let me say that I'm referring to
                > Jesus The Christ, and honestly in all fairness you
                > Should be refering to him as Jesus The Christ and not
                > trying to tear down the manifested message of this
                > figure and not trying to, at this point, inadquately
                > and some what pompously, telling me what I should or
                > should not refer to a specific person as.

                Your linguistical reference seems to imply that one may become convinced by
                just concentrating on the words. You are not debating, you are preaching.
                Based on your argument, I should not be trying to tear down the cultic
                beliefs of fundamentalist Mormons, or Islamic terrorists in their belief in
                Allah.


                Jesus
                > Christ, as no other name in all of human history, is
                > solicitfied in it's expression and I've found no
                > rational, academic reason why you would take such a
                > leap of faith and believeing this to be different, I'm
                > not insulting and I will discuss this more if you'd
                > like. Have respect, that's all I ask.

                Herd psychology, ad populum fallacy. So you see no rational basis for
                suggesting you really support you belief. Then why do you talk about
                debate. Your reaction is that your feelings have been hurt, but all I asked
                for is your giving us some support in real evidence and some reasoning. So
                what is my "leap of faith"? Faith in what?


                > In response to your thinking that there is no
                > historical documentation of Chirst, well, honestly,
                > have you considered the alternative? I don't mean this
                > as a philosophically entrenched presentation, which I
                > can present, but just as a point of reflection.

                It does not meet acceptable criteria in historical methodology, agreed to by
                all historians. That's no leap of faith. The leap of faith would be that
                of accepting this as history. Of course I have considered the alternative.
                All alternatives must be considered, even that of a fierce war-like Allah,
                which is wrong, but must be considered. I feel no entrenchment at all. But
                I do require reason. And reason is the criterion for any debate.

                >
                > What you seem to be saying is that there is no
                > historical evidence for Christ, and what there is is
                > just "opinions" and by opinions you mean lies.

                There you go again, making things up. Opinions = lies. I supposed you knew
                better than that.

                So, you
                > are claiming in this type of thought that the most
                > impactful,ethical,meaningful and hopeful figure in all
                > of human history is simply an illusion created by 4
                > jewish fisherman some 2,000 years ago and that all the
                > thinking,love,worship,respect and aw with which these
                > 4 men(who betrayed christ) and all the generations
                > since are absolutely wrong in every essential way?

                The number of peoples proves nothing. ALL peoples believe the sun revolves
                around the earth. Why don't you look up the logical fallacies. Did I say
                or indicate "absolutely wrong...."? No. Again all alternatives and
                possibilities must be considered. The rest of what you say is just
                continued bla, bla, bla. Come on, either debate or shut up. But first
                educate yourself on historical methodology.

                Richard.
              • Dr. Newton Joseph
                ... From: a a To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re:
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                  To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                  > First, in a none descending matter I'm truly
                  > interested to know if you've read any of the Gospels
                  > or of the writings of Paul? What has your exposure to
                  > these writings been? I'm truly interested.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  ABOUT THE BIBLE

                  New10

                  XXXX







                  The word for a holy book came from Byblos, the city of the Great Mother, the
                  oldest continuously occupied temple in the world. The Goddess-called
                  Astarte, Baal, Hather, etc.-patronized learning, and her priestesses
                  collected a library of papyrus scrolls. Therefore, Greeks called any papyrus
                  byblos, which came to mean any holy book. Hence the 'Bible"1.

                  Scholars have found in the Bible's numerous layers of additions
                  and corrections a substrate of former Semitic matriarchy, such as the Book
                  of Judges with its feminine government of Israel. (Judges 4;4). In several
                  books the word translated" God" is really a feminine plural, "Goddesses,
                  " especially in reference to the matriarchal functions of lawgiving,
                  avenging crimes, and bestowing the emporium leadership.

                  Some of the miracles attributed to biblical heroes were copied
                  from older myths of the Goddess. Joshua's arrest of the sun was formerly
                  credited to the priestesses of Isis, Hecate, and the Thessalian Great
                  Mother, who were said to stop heavenly bodies in their courses, and lengthen
                  night or day at will.3 Moses's flowering rod, river of blood, and the
                  tablets of law were all symbols of the ancient Goddess. His miracle of
                  drawing water from a rock was first performed by Mother Rhea after she gave
                  birth to Zeus, and by Atalanta with the help of Artemis. 4 His miracle of
                  drying up waters to travel dry-shoud was earlier performed by Isis, or
                  Hathor on her way to Byblos.5

                  The greatest mistake of religious authorities in the western
                  world was their view of the Bible as intrinsically different from other
                  ancient scriptures, in that it was dedicated word for word by god, not human
                  beings for a long time. The notion that the Bible did not evolve
                  haphazardly, like most other holy writings of the same period, persisted
                  almost up the present day, even among people who should have know better.

                  According to the prevailing myth of biblical origins, the Old
                  Testament was supposed to have been translated from Hebrew to Greek by
                  seventy-two translators sent to Ptolemy by Eleazar, a Jewish high priest, in
                  the 3rd century B.C., hence its name, Septuagint. Ptolemy locked the
                  scholars in individual cells on the island of Pharos, where each one made
                  his own version in the exactly seventy-two days. Each translation agreed
                  exactly, in every word, with the other seventy-one translations

                  Of course this never happened. The Bible's real history was far
                  less tidy. A collection appeared in the first century B.C. and again in the
                  first century A.D. to be accepted by the Jews of the Diaspora as sacred, and
                  passed on to Christians. In both Jewish and Christian hands the papyri
                  underwent many changes. In the 4th century A.D. St. Jerome collected some
                  Hebrew manuscripts and edited them to produce the Latin vulgate, a Bible of
                  considerable inaccuracy, differing markedly from Jerome's stem texts.

                  The King James Bible relied mostly on the Greek text collected
                  and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century, which in turn relied on a
                  Byzantine collection assembled gradually at Constantinople between the 4th
                  and 8th centuries. A few older texts have been discovered: the Codex
                  Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Chester Beatty papri. All are
                  fragmentary; all differ from one another and from the King James version.
                  There are no known portions of the Bible older than the 4th century A.D.6

                  The revised Version of the New Testament published in 1881 tried
                  to correct some of the more glaring errors. It erased the spurious final
                  twelve verses of Mark, which were late interpolations including the words
                  that caused centuries of suffering: "He that believeth not shall be dammed."
                  It eliminated the fraudulent translation"Joseph and his mother," intended to
                  preserve the dogma of the virgin birth, and restore the original "his father
                  and his mother." It omitted the forged interpolation intended to preserve
                  the dogma of the trinity: For there are three that bear record in heaven,
                  the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these are one," These words
                  appeared nowhere before the 15th century A.D. However, the Catholic Church
                  insisted on retaining the forgery. Churchmen's argument was: "How, if these
                  verses were interpolation, could the Holy Spirit, who guides and directs the
                  Church, have allowed her to regard this lofty affirmation of the Trinity as
                  authentic, and permitted its insertion in the official edition of the sacred
                  books?" In 1897 the Congregation of the Index, with the approval of Pope Leo
                  XIII, forbade any further research into the origins of this text.7

                  Traditionally, the church forbade not only research but even
                  reading of the Bible by laymen. Throughout the Middle Ages, possession of
                  the Bible written in the vernacular was a crime punished by burning at the
                  stake. 8 With the Reformation came Bible-reading in search of a new basis
                  for faith: but in the process were found many new grounds for skepticism.

                  Richard Simon's 17th century Critical History of the Old Testament
                  exhibited the now well-known internal evidence that the books of Moses ere
                  not written by Moses but were compiled by many hands at a much later date.
                  Bishop Bossuet pronounced this work of scholarship" a mass of impieties,
                  "drove its author out of Oratory, and ordered the entire first edition
                  burned. Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Catholic scholar, translated the Old
                  Testament in 1792 with a critical volume proving the Pentateuch could not
                  have been written by Moses, nor at any time prior to the reign of David. He
                  was denounced as "a would-be corrector of the Holy Ghost.'9

                  As the years past, it became increasingly clear that the Holy
                  Ghost needed correcting. Seven clerical scholars published Essays and Review
                  in 1860, defining the new science of Bible criticism. They were denounced,
                  and two were suspended from office, but they took their case to court, and
                  won. In 1869 Kuenen's The Religion of Israel established Bible criticism as
                  a valid field of investigation. He was followed by others in Holland,
                  Germany, and France. In 1889 the book of biblical essay's called Lux Mundi
                  gave up all pretense of the scriptures historicity or divine inspiration,
                  admitting that the Bible is a confused mass of myth, legend, and garbled
                  history, often contradicting provable facts.10

                  Naturally, there was constant opposition to the efforts of the
                  scholars. Many 19th century churchmen insisted that the Bible's only author
                  was God. Dean Burgon said, "The Bible is the very utterance of the Eternal,
                  as much God's own word as if high heaven were open and we heard God speaking
                  to us with human voice. Every book is inspired alike, and inspired entirely.
                  "Dr.Baylee said the Bible is" infallibly accurate; all its histories and
                  narrations of every kind are without any inasccuracy."Dr. Hodge declared
                  that the books of the Bible are "one and all, in thought and verbal
                  expression, in substance, and in form, wholly the work of God, conveying
                  with absolute accuracy and divine authority all god meant to convey without
                  human additions and admixtures."12 Apparently none of these gentlemen were
                  familiar with the earlier contradictory texts; nor had they read the Bible
                  closely enough to see the many passages where God contradicted himself.

                  The real point was that organized religions had the economic
                  interest in maintaining literal interpretations of the biblical myths.
                  Guignebert says, " The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible---necessarily
                  placed theology in the attitude of surly and sanguinary hostility toward the
                  exact and experimental sciences, which it will not abandon save most
                  reluctantly and after as much delay as possible.(M)ethods have changed, the
                  illusion still current have decreased, but its spirit is scarcely altered."12

                  When the theologians began to give in, they complained that
                  viewing the Bible as myth would destroy the wholes structure that their
                  livelihood and self-respect depended on. After David Straus's Leben Jesu
                  showed that the Gospels cannot be taken as literal truth but only as a
                  romantic symbolism, the Rev. Maurice Jones exclaimed, "If the Christ-Myth
                  theory is true, and if Jesus never lived, the whole civilized world has foe
                  close upon two thousand years lain under the spell of a lie."13 The
                  Archbishop of Canterbury found it impossible to deny the Bible's apparent
                  lies, and began to backtrack with his plaintive question, "May not the Holy
                  Spirit make use of myth and legend?"14

                  Obviously the Bible was full of myths and legends, but most
                  orthodox theologians had no idea of their meaning. One reason was that they
                  didn't study the corresponding myths and legends of other cultures-ancient
                  paganism, modern mysticism, the non-Christian beliefs of people both
                  civilized and uncivilized throughout the rest of the world. Christians
                  missionaries thought theirs was the only pipeline to divinity, the deities
                  of all other people throughout the world were devils, and the myths of the
                  Bible were absolutely true whereas all other myths were absolutely false

                  Nowadays such crude beliefs seem no less superstitious than the
                  primitive animism that the missionaries sought to destroy. Yet an even
                  darker blot on history of Christian missions was their arrogant
                  vandalism-burning books and artworks, smashing images, forbidding the songs
                  and poems of heathen tradition instead of listening and recording them in
                  order to understand the people, to display a decent respect for what alien
                  races held sacred, as the pagan Romans did in the fays of their empire. It
                  may well have been that, had the missionaries been willing to listen and
                  learn, they would have discovered the mythology of the Bible all over again
                  in order offshoots from its original sources; for all peoples, nearly
                  everywhere in the world, shared the same fables of the creation, the flood,
                  the magic garden with its tree of life and its primal couple, the wise
                  serpent, the heaven-piercing tower, the divided waters, the chosen people,
                  the virgin mothers, the saviors, and all the rest. It has been said both
                  testaments of the Bible are only recent and relatively corrupt derivations
                  from a world0wide cycle of archetypal myths.15

                  Least of all were righteous Christians prepared to understand
                  that their awe of the Bible rested on a foundation of magical superstition:
                  it was, and is, a fetish. Legal oaths were taken in physical contact with a
                  Bible because of a very primitive belief in its destructive mana. Which
                  would automatically punish perjurors. Both Jews and Christians used their
                  Bible for divination, just as a witch might use a crystal ball, an African
                  might use thunder-stone, or a Roman augur might use the sacred chickens.
                  Bibliomancy)taking omens from the Bible) was sometimes deplored, but from
                  the 4th to the 14th centuries was "repeatedly practiced by Kings, Bishops,
                  and Saints.'16 St. Augustine frankly recommended taking omens from the
                  Bible "in all cases of spiritual difficulty." 17 Even in this "enlightened"
                  age, in both Europe and America, the Bible is still used to give omens. 18

                  A favorite biblical method for discovering a thief easily lent
                  itself to conscious legerdemain. The name of the accused was written on a
                  piece of paper and inserted into the hollow end of a key, which was put into
                  the Bibles pages. The diviner recited Psalm 50;18 'Why thou sawest a thief.
                  Then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partakers with adulterers."
                  The guilt of the accused was proven if the key was found turned around
                  afterward.19

                  Despite the many discoveries and the clarification made by
                  biblical scholars in the last century or so, the average Christian's
                  attitude towards the Bible is still hardly more sophisticated than this
                  simple-minded magic. Most churchmen see to it that their congregations are
                  not told the true origins of biblical myths. The most primitive or
                  unattractive of these are constantly re-interpreted as deep allegories or
                  metaphorical fables, intended by their divine author to wait two thousand
                  years or more for a correct explanation. Yet the real explanation of the
                  higher critics, is seldom mentioned. Likewise ignored are many of the truly
                  awkward passages such as " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," or Gods
                  frequent commands to wage merciless war, which no amount of exegesis can fit
                  into a more tolerant ethic.20

                  Erroneous but traditional views of Bible origins and meanings
                  are doggedly preserved by male chauvinists in particular, since the
                  canonical books were deliberately selected and edited to wipe out all
                  feminine images of divinity and sanction religious suppression of women.
                  Robert Ingersoll pointed out that "As long as women regard the Bible as the
                  charter of her rights, she will be slave of man." Josephine Henry grumbled,
                  "The Bible records that God created women by a different from that employed
                  in bringing into life any other creature, then cursed her for seeking
                  knowledge." Elizabeth Stanton said there is no escape from the Bible's
                  degrading teaching" as to the position of women, and advised women to
                  boycott churches. "It is not commendable for women to get up fairs and
                  donation parties for churches in which the gifted of their sex may neither
                  pray, preach, share in the office and the honors, nor have a voice in the
                  business affairs, creeds and discipline, and from whose altars come from
                  Biblical interpretations in favor of women's subjection. 21

                  One of the erroneous notions that still keep Christian women
                  shackled to their Bible-based "inferior" image is the notion that
                  Christianity was founded on the New Testament, when in fact the early
                  churches had no Gospels but rather created and produced their own. 23 Not
                  only did churchmen falsely pretend to apostolic origins for their
                  scriptures; they also weeded out all references to female authority or
                  participation in Christian origins.23 Only the forbidden Gnostic Gospels
                  retained hints that Jesus had 12 female disciples corresponding to the 12
                  male disciples, or that that Mary Magdalene was the leader of them all. Even
                  women's scholarship was denied. St. Jerome openly admitted that his
                  co-authors of the Vulgate were two learned women; but later scholars erased
                  the women's names and substituted the words "venerable brothers"

                  1.Encyc. Brit., "Byblos." 2. Mendenhall, 85. 3. Wedeck, 231

                  4. Graves, G.M. 1 264. 5. Budge, G.E., 2 191. 6. Pfeifer,
                  103. 7 Reinach, 260

                  8. Coulton., 123. 9. White 2, 319, 327. 10. White 2, 343-59.
                  11. White 2, 368.

                  12. Guignebert, 381. 13. H. Smith 190, 479. 14.White 2,359.
                  15 Hallet,328

                  16. Hazlitt,47. 17. Waite, O.S.,131 18 Cavendish P.E., 83.
                  19. Maple, 39

                  20. Muller, 91. 21. Stanton, ix 125, 196, 214. 22. Muller,
                  148 23. Pagels, 57.

                  21. Boulding, 356 372



                  From The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker
                • Dr. Newton Joseph
                  ... From: bestonnet_00 To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:47 AM Subject: [Death To
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                    To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:47 AM
                    Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                    > The reason there is no historical evidence for the existance of Jesus
                    > Christ is largely because the Gospels were written long after Jeses
                    > was said to have died.
                    JESUS CHRIST

                    Part I

                    By New 10



                    The Jesus who was called Christos, "Anointed" took his title from Middle
                    Eastern savior gods like Adonis and tammuz. Born of the virgin Sea-goddess
                    Aphrodite-Maria (Myrrha), or Ishar-Mari( Hebrew Marianne). Earlier biblical
                    versions of the same hero were Joshua son of Nun (Exodus 33:11),Jehu son of
                    Nimshi, whom Elijah anointed as a sacred king ( 1 Kings 19:16), and Yeshua
                    son of Marah. The book of Enoch said in the 2nd century B.C. that Yeshua or
                    Jesus was the secret name given by God to the son of Man (a Persian
                    title).and that meant "Yahweh saves"
                    In northern Israel the name was written Ieu. It was the same as
                    Leud or Jeud, the "only begotten son " dressed in royal robes and sacrificed
                    by the god-king Isra-El. Greek versions of the name were Iasion, Jason, or
                    Iasus--the name of one Demeter's sacrificed consorts, killed by Father Zeus
                    after the fertility rite that coupled him with his Mother. Iasus signified a
                    healer or Therapeuta, as the Greeks called the Essenes, whose cult groups
                    always included a man with the title Christos. The literal meaning of the
                    name was "healing moon -man," fitting the Hebrew version of Jesus as a son
                    of Mary , the almah or the "moon maiden"

                    It seems Jesus was not one person but a composite of many. He
                    played a role of sacred king of the Jews who periodically died in an
                    atonement ceremony as surrogate for the real king. "The Semitic religions
                    practiced human immolations longer than any other religion, sacrificing
                    children and grown men in order to please sanguinary gods. In spite of the
                    Hadrian's prohibition of those murderous offerings, they were maintained in
                    certain clandestine rites". The priesthood of the Jewish God insisted that
                    "one man should die for the people.that the whole nation should perish not"
                    (John 11:50) Yahweh forgave no sins without bloodshed: "without shedding
                    blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22)

                    Middle -Eastern traditions presented a long line of slain and
                    cannibalized Saviors extending back to prehistory. At first kings, they
                    became king- surrogates or "sacred" kings as the power of real monarchies
                    developed. The Gospels' Jesus was certainly not the first of them, though he
                    may have been one of the last. One passage hints at a holy man's
                    understandable fear of such brief, doomed eminence:" When Jesus therefore
                    perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him king, he
                    departed again into mountain himself alone"(John 6;15).

                    This Jesus seems to have made little or no impression on his
                    contemporaries. No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any
                    known writing. The Gospels were not written in his own time, nor were they
                    written by anyone who ever saw him in the flesh. The names of the apostles
                    attached to these books were fraudulent. The books were composed after the
                    establishment of the church, some as late as the 2nd century A.D. or later,
                    according to the church's requirement for the manufactured tradition. Most
                    scholars believe the earliest book of the New Testament was I Thessalonians,
                    written perhaps 51 A.D. by Paul, who never saw Jesus in person and knew no
                    details of his life story.



                    from the book The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

                    By Barbara G. Walker

                    Part 2 and 3 upon request

                    drnjoseph@...
                  • Dr. Newton Joseph
                    ... From: richard godwin To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "richard godwin" <meta@...>
                      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:53 AM
                      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                      > Yes, for a number of decades I have studied the whole Bible in depth. I
                      attended a Christian theological school for a year. I have taught it in
                      classes, church and college.

                      This proves you are forever lost to rational thought

                      New10
                    • lord damien
                      I find it amazing that christians believe a complex and standardised series of myths, yet can still stand up and say that they are not brainwashed and have
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I find it amazing that christians believe a complex and standardised series of myths, yet can still stand up and say that they are not brainwashed and have control over their own beliefs (dont they call it freewill or some such garbage)


                        ---------------------------------
                        The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Dr. Newton Joseph
                        ... From: lord damien To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Death To
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "lord damien" <lord_damien2002@...>
                          To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:47 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                          >I find it amazing that christians believe a complex and standardised series
                          >of myths, yet can still stand up and say that they are not brainwashed and
                          >have control over their own beliefs (dont they call it freewill or some
                          >such garbage)
                          >
                          >




                          THE MYTH OF FREE WILL

                          By Newton Joseph, Ph.D.





                          The concept of free will has only one purpose, to defend and protect God
                          from blame and responsibility and puts the burden of responsibility on its
                          hapless victims who buys into this concept. Free will means there is nothing
                          in our upbringing, nothing in our environment when we were children that
                          there were no genetic predispositions that shaped and influenced us in any
                          way or our temperament when we were born. Free will denies psychological
                          factors such as influence and persuasion when we are young and easily
                          influenced by authority figures. (All who are religious were conditioned in
                          the manner of Pavlov's dogs) Do you naively think that a child exposed to
                          the catholic catechism will be a free thinker with free will or will he be a
                          brainwashed child seduced into the Catholic faith, which can no longer think
                          free or have free will?



                          Free will implies free thought. Free thought means Free thinker to be
                          worthy of the name, One must be free of two things--the force of traditions
                          and the tyranny of ones passions.

                          -----------------------Bertrand Russell




                          Free will is the Christian concept of humankind's depravity and their way to
                          manipulate and control those who are under its spell and seduced by the
                          concept of free will.

                          Christians are too eager to put the blame on themselves to protect their
                          father in the sky. Even this is not free will but a conditioned response
                          after years of brainwashing.


                          www.atheistfellowship.com
                        • a a
                          Well Godwin, I m interested to know what brought you out of your belief in God. You seem like you were on a positive track then you seemed to have be derailed.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Well Godwin, I'm interested to know what brought you
                            out of your belief in God. You seem like you were on a
                            positive track then you seemed to have be derailed.
                            What happened?

                            > Yes, for a number of decades I have studied the
                            > whole Bible in depth. I
                            > attended a Christian theological school for a year.
                            > I have taught it in
                            > classes, church and college.

                            What caused your split? You sound like you could be a
                            good apologist. What single handedly caused you to
                            change your mind? I want and will debate with you on
                            every intellectual aspect on this issue, but I
                            seriously doubt your breaking from Christianity has
                            been based on intellectual intent but rather anger or
                            response to some event or someone. I don't know, I'm
                            interested to discuss that as well with you. When is
                            the last time you read scripture?



                            >
                            > Again, this is your "either-or" dichtomy, typical of
                            > your group.

                            Well, that's quite a leap, my group? haha, Maybe that
                            is a comment you mean to be refering at some one else.
                            Come on man, you talk about logical fallicies and then
                            you start using ad homenim attacks. I believe that
                            you're better than that. Don't insult just talk about
                            what you believe intelligently.

                            Next If by my group you mean people that believe in
                            the law of non contradiction then I have to say yes,
                            that is generally where I try to align my
                            beliefs-Truth.

                            Are you saying I'm wrong? So let me ask you, in my
                            "either-or" dichtomy, am I wrong and you're right in
                            my decision, and are you not in my group at that
                            point. All I said was that if the gospels were
                            historical(which they are and yes we can define that)
                            and they were documents(which they were and yes we can
                            define that) then they would be historical
                            documents....Would you not agree? You blatantly
                            said that there were no historical documents of jesus.
                            I don't think that's a fair or logical statement, I
                            think you are saying that the historical documents
                            that there were are not valid.

                            But yes in my thinking there is a tendency to believe
                            that if I know something and I can know it to be true
                            then it is true or false. You could look at a hegelian
                            dialect-especially being as he was a philosopher of
                            history or you could lean towards a non-dualistic
                            thinking in line with pantheistic thought, but I doubt
                            you would be trying to apply pantheistic thinking to
                            any historical method.


                            "If it's
                            > not that, then it must be this." Wrong-headed
                            > thinking, habitual, and you
                            > need to get it out of your mental system.

                            So let me ask you, If it's not your own way then it
                            must be wrong? You're contradicting yourself. I don't
                            say that rudely. If it's not in accord with what you
                            think then it must be that I'm absolutely wrong? Your
                            own method doesn't work on what you're saying.
                            Again, if by logic and adhering to the law of non
                            contradiction is what you mean by wrong-headed then
                            I'd say that you are, again, contradicting yourself.
                            If there is a philosophical contradiction in my
                            thinking and I am shown such a way then I will look at
                            the fallacy surrounding it. However at this point
                            you've given me no reason to assume such an event has
                            occured, and in all fairness you've simply insulted me
                            and contradicted yourself. Truthfully don't just
                            insult but look at what you're saying and logically
                            think through the specifics and talk them out and
                            defend what you have to say intellectually.


                            The Gospels, more than just opinion, it
                            > is visionary sincere
                            > INTERPRETATION of the man Jesus who was crucified,
                            > followers trying to
                            > understand this picture and place him into the long
                            > Judean tradition, how to
                            > do that. They DEVISED the schema.

                            Well I haven't really gone into how you sort of
                            avoided the historical support of the Christ, but let
                            me go from this point. I will discuss your idea of
                            Visionary sincere interpreatation when you give the
                            specific definition you wish to define this thinking
                            with and when you express what academian you are
                            alluding to in believing this. We'll go from there.

                            Again, I think that you're not really considering the
                            complexity of what you're saying-as discussed in the
                            prior email. You really think these 4 fishermen and
                            other individuals died,fought for and traveled the
                            world to express "visionary interpretation." They were
                            either crazy or truthful.

                            Either their opinions aligned with reality or they did
                            not, and if they did not then there is an
                            inconsistency with what they expoused as
                            truth-therefore it was a lie. You sound like you're
                            trying to be academic and say that these people that
                            were actually with jesus were liers and crazy. If
                            anything the various aspects of the interpretive
                            element in the gospels would only solictify the fact
                            that there were(and is) several examples of
                            commonality implying a reality which occured-do you
                            see what I'm saying? No matter what linguistic garb
                            you try to address it with you're saying that Paul,
                            all of the Gospel writers and all the other influenced
                            by the figure of Christ at that time and now were
                            crazy. I'm not going for an ad populism effect here,
                            but I do think that there is a higher degree of
                            validity in the reality described by the witnesses of
                            these events then some Atheist 20 centuries later. I
                            have to take the witnesses acounts-as consistent as
                            they are over your claims of something you didn't see,
                            don't know of,and repeatedly attack me about. They
                            devised a schema, what is your intellectual basis of
                            that? I think that the schema was created by you,
                            perhaps because of something personally because I
                            don't see an intellectual basis behind what you're
                            saying. You're just insulting.





                            >
                            > >
                            > > Next you seem to go off into the "historical
                            > Jesus"
                            > > motif so many liberal academians seem to pursue,
                            > > illogically.
                            >
                            > And how "illogically"? You just leave that
                            > dangling?


                            Well you've contradicted yourself, you claim that
                            individual witnesses are lying without saying they are
                            lying, you criticize me for logical inconsistencies
                            but then you regress into ad homenium attacks and no
                            real logic behind what you're saying.
                            At this point, in gaging the material you've put
                            forth-there is adequate validity to saying that you're
                            illogical. I'm waiting for something different.


                            >
                            > Your linguistical reference seems to imply that one
                            > may become convinced by
                            > just concentrating on the words.

                            No, not at all. I think that there's no basis for that
                            at all. Politely,but you're simply wrong on that
                            matter. I'm not hair splitting.


                            You are not
                            > debating, you are preaching.

                            No more so then you were trying to slip in your bias.
                            You were trying to split the "historical Jesus" from
                            the real Jesus. I think you're still Christian, to be
                            perfectly honest, but with that aside I countering
                            your flagrant abuse of language. At this point, I
                            don't think or feel that you're debating, honestly.


                            > Based on your argument, I should not be trying to
                            > tear down the cultic
                            > beliefs of fundamentalist Mormons, or Islamic
                            > terrorists in their belief in
                            > Allah.

                            If there were an Argument in my correction of your
                            implict word play then it would be that you are more
                            illogical,ilfounded, and unhistorical in your thinking
                            that the "historical Jesus" is some how Not Jesus The
                            Christ. You haven't adequately supplied any reason why
                            I would assume your image of, what sides like Jesus
                            Seminar thinking, is correct and that 20 centuries of
                            historical thought is absolutely wrong.
                            You've simply created a straw man in your prior
                            statements.


                            > Herd psychology, ad populum fallacy.

                            Again a straw man, and no in saying that the name
                            Jesus Christ is solicitifed in it's expressing is not
                            ad populum. However if you are refering to the comment
                            that I said Christ is like no other name in all of
                            human history then I have to say that this is an
                            objective fact-try it. Bring up the name and compare
                            it to any other name, it is unique in it's expressing
                            and in the reaction it gets from others. Look at your
                            own responses. If there is any hear psychology then i
                            would say that this occurs as much in the Atheist
                            "community" as in any other religion. You've said
                            nothing at this point.

                            So you see no
                            > rational basis for
                            > suggesting you really support you belief.

                            Again, straw man. You've said little-logically- that
                            has giving me cause to present logical historical
                            evidence at this point, which I will. I'm responding
                            to you and all I basically stated was that your
                            hypothesis makes less sense then alternative. You
                            haven't even adequately stated why you believe the
                            contrary to what the actually witnesses recorded. You
                            are steeping on the limb at this point.


                            Then why
                            > do you talk about
                            > debate. Your reaction is that your feelings have
                            > been hurt, but all I asked
                            > for is your giving us some support in real evidence
                            > and some reasoning.


                            No, it wasn't about my feelings. I think that if you
                            were to honestly look at the emails-so far- you will
                            see me say avoid emotionalism,ad homenium, and straw
                            man tactics more than yourself. I think also, that
                            you've shown more emotion and less logic. I think also
                            that you done little in listening or in asking for
                            "some reasoning" but if you want to go that route then
                            we can do that as well. I've basically just shown some
                            inconsistencies in your own thinking and you just seem
                            pissed off. I haven't really even begun to get into
                            the matter honestly and you're already complaining. No
                            emotions, logic,coherence and rationality is what I
                            want and I want intelligent debate.


                            So
                            > what is my "leap of faith"? Faith in what?

                            Well, would you prefer for me to cite a source or
                            given an opinion?
                            >

                            >
                            > It does not meet acceptable criteria in historical
                            > methodology, agreed to by
                            > all historians.

                            Okay, I want to hammer at this point and I want you to
                            elaborate and go further in where you're getting this
                            thinking from. Elaborate and we will go from there.
                            Would you like to look at Green leafs review on the
                            matter, or which specific historian or train of
                            thinking on this matter are you pulling from.
                            Challenge me, no insults. Come on. Elaborate.





                            >
                            > There you go again, making things up. Opinions =
                            > lies. I supposed you knew
                            > better than that.

                            You are saying that the opinions of the writers of the
                            gospels are inconsistent with the objective reality of
                            what occur at these particular moments in the
                            spaceo-temporally expreinces expressed and that these
                            historically bound events as presented in these
                            scriptures are not true, are you not? If these
                            opinions are not true then they are False. If you wish
                            for me to say that they were expressing falsehoods,
                            but you don't consider falsehoods deliberately
                            expressed to be lies then we will have to establish a
                            commonality of defintions. If someone indeliberately
                            or direct tells me something that does not cohere to
                            reality then they are saying something inconsistent
                            and ultimately giving a falsehood or lie. This is a
                            fair succession of thought, common sense really.


                            >
                            > So, you
                            > > are claiming in this type of thought that the most
                            > > impactful,ethical,meaningful and hopeful figure in
                            > all
                            > > of human history is simply an illusion created by
                            > 4
                            > > jewish fisherman some 2,000 years ago and that all
                            > the
                            > > thinking,love,worship,respect and aw with which
                            > these
                            > > 4 men(who betrayed christ) and all the generations
                            > > since are absolutely wrong in every essential way?
                            >
                            > The number of peoples proves nothing.

                            Well, I was specifically only talking about the 4
                            writers, but implictedly their is much which you
                            simply dismiss illogically. By this statement I do
                            mean that there is evidence which must be reviewed
                            when there are literally millions of witnesses to an
                            event. This isn't ad populism, and I doubt a court of
                            law would dismiss witnesses because their stories
                            aligned with one another on the grounds of the fact
                            that they were similiar. There is a reality which has
                            touched billions of lives which you simply disregard,
                            as well there is an emphatic and develop subjective
                            process of experiental evidence which you will find as
                            well when you decide to come back to God. I do think
                            that it would be fair to examine if we are
                            specifically only imply aristotelian logic or if we
                            are assuming other aspects of evidence as well(which
                            we'd have to be), specifically alluding to the nature
                            of understanding legality and how evidence is
                            evaluated in this mode of thought.




                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • a a
                            ALL peoples ... Yes, one must avoid over generalities in reviewing what may or may not be true-or this is a means through which we should be mindful of at the
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ALL peoples
                              > believe the sun revolves
                              > around the earth. Why don't you look up the logical
                              > fallacies. Did I say
                              > or indicate "absolutely wrong...."? No. Again all
                              > alternatives and
                              > possibilities must be considered. The rest of what
                              > you say is just
                              > continued bla, bla, bla. Come on, either debate or
                              > shut up. But first
                              > educate yourself on historical methodology.

                              Yes, one must avoid over generalities in reviewing
                              what may or may not be true-or this is a means through
                              which we should be mindful of at the very least.

                              Think about it though, you contradicted yourself when
                              you stated that ALL PEOPLE believe the earth revolves
                              around the sun. You're telling me not to over
                              generalize and then you give an example by over
                              generalizing. I think that you are an intelligent
                              person and I think that we can learn from each other,
                              but thus far it would be fair to say that you are more
                              contradictory in what you've been saying. Also, I
                              think it's a bit rash to assume that I haven't looked
                              at logical fallacies-but I'm not(on a personal note)
                              impressed enough but what you've said to feel so
                              challenged that I must go back and look them up.
                              You're more incoherent,more rash and more apt to
                              commit the logical fallacies you tell me to avoid, why
                              would I then feel that I should take your advice in
                              looking these matters up. Simply, the proof is not in
                              the pudding.

                              Then you say blah blah and shut up or debate, but I
                              haven't seen enough coherence in what you've said to,
                              at this point, present whatever bodies of evidence I
                              may want to discuss. I'm certianly not clear that you
                              understand the historical method and I seriously doubt
                              that you know what I do know or do not know on the
                              process and I think that you're taking a leap to
                              assume you do. Again, you make a leap of faith.
                              Elaborate w/o insults and we will go from there.



                              > Richard.
                              >
                              >







                              --- "Dr. Newton Joseph" <drnjoseph@...>
                              wrote:

                              >
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: "richard godwin" <meta@...>
                              > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:53 AM
                              > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > > From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                              > > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                              > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:58 PM
                              > > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings
                              >
                              >
                              > > Yes, for a number of decades I have studied the
                              > whole Bible in depth. I
                              > attended a Christian theological school for a year.
                              > I have taught it in
                              > classes, church and college.
                              >
                              > This proves you are forever lost to rational thought
                              >
                              > New10
                              >


                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                            • a a
                              Well, I find it amazing that you regress into insults-lack logical basis for your faulty assumptions and so passionately argue against passion. So, did you
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 26, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Well, I find it amazing that you regress into
                                insults-lack logical basis for your faulty assumptions
                                and so passionately argue against passion.

                                So, did you chose to write what you just wrote or were
                                you simply a process of a mechanistic determinism as
                                alluded to in Newtonian thought? If you had no choice
                                in the matter then you are simply an automaton and not
                                a free thinker, which I think may be true. If you did
                                have free will then how are you logically trying to
                                completely disprove free will, using free will.

                                Come on guys, you have some knowledge philosophy and I
                                appreciate it, but I want you guys to be challenging.
                                Stop contradicting what you're saying. Let's debate.

                                >
                                >
                                > >I find it amazing that christians believe a complex
                                > and standardised series
                                > >of myths, yet can still stand up and say that they
                                > are not brainwashed and
                                > >have control over their own beliefs (dont they call
                                > it freewill or some
                                > >such garbage)
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > THE MYTH OF FREE WILL
                                >
                                > By Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The concept of free will has only one purpose, to
                                > defend and protect God
                                > from blame and responsibility and puts the burden of
                                > responsibility on its
                                > hapless victims who buys into this concept. Free
                                > will means there is nothing
                                > in our upbringing, nothing in our environment when
                                > we were children that
                                > there were no genetic predispositions that shaped
                                > and influenced us in any
                                > way or our temperament when we were born. Free will
                                > denies psychological
                                > factors such as influence and persuasion when we are
                                > young and easily
                                > influenced by authority figures. (All who are
                                > religious were conditioned in
                                > the manner of Pavlov's dogs) Do you naively think
                                > that a child exposed to
                                > the catholic catechism will be a free thinker with
                                > free will or will he be a
                                > brainwashed child seduced into the Catholic faith,
                                > which can no longer think
                                > free or have free will?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Free will implies free thought. Free thought
                                > means Free thinker to be
                                > worthy of the name, One must be free of two
                                > things--the force of traditions
                                > and the tyranny of ones passions.
                                >
                                > -----------------------Bertrand Russell
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Free will is the Christian concept of humankind's
                                > depravity and their way to
                                > manipulate and control those who are under its spell
                                > and seduced by the
                                > concept of free will.
                                >
                                > Christians are too eager to put the blame on
                                > themselves to protect their
                                > father in the sky. Even this is not free will but a
                                > conditioned response
                                > after years of brainwashing.
                                >
                                >
                                > www.atheistfellowship.com
                                >
                                >


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                http://mail.yahoo.com
                              • lord damien
                                nah - i dont think so. you bore me sorry a a wrote: Well, I find it amazing that you regress into insults-lack logical basis for
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 27, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  nah - i dont think so. you bore me sorry

                                  a a <Praesto12@...> wrote: Well, I find it amazing that you regress into
                                  insults-lack logical basis for your faulty assumptions
                                  and so passionately argue against passion.

                                  So, did you chose to write what you just wrote or were
                                  you simply a process of a mechanistic determinism as
                                  alluded to in Newtonian thought? If you had no choice
                                  in the matter then you are simply an automaton and not
                                  a free thinker, which I think may be true. If you did
                                  have free will then how are you logically trying to
                                  completely disprove free will, using free will.

                                  Come on guys, you have some knowledge philosophy and I
                                  appreciate it, but I want you guys to be challenging.
                                  Stop contradicting what you're saying. Let's debate.

                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >I find it amazing that christians believe a complex
                                  > and standardised series
                                  > >of myths, yet can still stand up and say that they
                                  > are not brainwashed and
                                  > >have control over their own beliefs (dont they call
                                  > it freewill or some
                                  > >such garbage)
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > THE MYTH OF FREE WILL
                                  >
                                  > By Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The concept of free will has only one purpose, to
                                  > defend and protect God
                                  > from blame and responsibility and puts the burden of
                                  > responsibility on its
                                  > hapless victims who buys into this concept. Free
                                  > will means there is nothing
                                  > in our upbringing, nothing in our environment when
                                  > we were children that
                                  > there were no genetic predispositions that shaped
                                  > and influenced us in any
                                  > way or our temperament when we were born. Free will
                                  > denies psychological
                                  > factors such as influence and persuasion when we are
                                  > young and easily
                                  > influenced by authority figures. (All who are
                                  > religious were conditioned in
                                  > the manner of Pavlov's dogs) Do you naively think
                                  > that a child exposed to
                                  > the catholic catechism will be a free thinker with
                                  > free will or will he be a
                                  > brainwashed child seduced into the Catholic faith,
                                  > which can no longer think
                                  > free or have free will?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Free will implies free thought. Free thought
                                  > means Free thinker to be
                                  > worthy of the name, One must be free of two
                                  > things--the force of traditions
                                  > and the tyranny of ones passions.
                                  >
                                  > -----------------------Bertrand Russell
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Free will is the Christian concept of humankind's
                                  > depravity and their way to
                                  > manipulate and control those who are under its spell
                                  > and seduced by the
                                  > concept of free will.
                                  >
                                  > Christians are too eager to put the blame on
                                  > themselves to protect their
                                  > father in the sky. Even this is not free will but a
                                  > conditioned response
                                  > after years of brainwashing.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > www.atheistfellowship.com
                                  >
                                  >

                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                  http://mail.yahoo.com





                                  ---------------------------------
                                  All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • richard godwin
                                  ... From: a a To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re:
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 27, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
                                    To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:36 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                                    > Well Godwin, I'm interested to know what brought you
                                    > out of your belief in God. You seem like you were on a
                                    > positive track then you seemed to have be derailed.
                                    > What happened?

                                    Well, double a, it appears you have difficulty understanding. It takes
                                    practice and needs to be made habitual. You have to study what someone
                                    says, very carefully, then draw your conclusion, and then re-read what
                                    you're replying to and check your conclusion to that. Takes time, but pays
                                    off so you don't misunderstand what someone says. Nowhere did I say I don't
                                    believe in God. Now it would pay for you to study over what I said and
                                    understand that I didn't say or indicate that, or even given a hint at that.
                                    What I do disbelieve is your idea, but as I said before, we are debating,
                                    according to your will. It is your beliefs we are debating. Why? Because
                                    that's what you asked for, and I took the bait. So now you need to cease
                                    your skirting around issues and your distractions to try to get me off
                                    track. If you will agree to that, then I'll continue with you, but I have
                                    to tell you, I can easily become impatient and give it up and throw you to
                                    the dogs (atheists here).

                                    So, don't comment on me and my beliefs, don't ask me what happened. All
                                    you're doing is throwing out, as I said, distractions. Now, for the sake of
                                    satisfying your curiosity to some extent, I do believe in God, just not your
                                    kind of God, and I NEVER DID. And I am a Christian, just not your kind of
                                    Christianity. OK? So that discounts your additional statements on that
                                    point, in your distraction of trying to psychoanalyze. And I do read the
                                    Bible, that particular scripture, daily in studies. I also read scriptures
                                    of other religions.


                                    >> Again, this is your "either-or" dichtomy, typical of
                                    >> your group.
                                    >
                                    > Well, that's quite a leap, my group? haha, Maybe that
                                    > is a comment you mean to be refering at some one else.
                                    > Come on man, you talk about logical fallicies and then
                                    > you start using ad homenim attacks. I believe that
                                    > you're better than that. Don't insult just talk about
                                    > what you believe intelligently.

                                    Another attempt to distract, and without answering my statement, which is
                                    not an ad hominem. Boy how you jump to that! What a way of escaping the
                                    hard questions. I was referring to you first and realizing you're not the
                                    only one with that viewpoint, i.e. a group. Simple as that. That's what
                                    your group, those self-styled Christians (again not ad hominem, just truth)
                                    do all the time. I've seen it so much it has to be throroughly the
                                    distinctive mark of your type (descriptive, not ad hominem). No insults
                                    here, just truth.

                                    >
                                    > Next If by my group you mean people that believe in
                                    > the law of non contradiction then I have to say yes,
                                    > that is generally where I try to align my
                                    > beliefs-Truth.

                                    So how do you bring that up from my reference to your group? Actually you
                                    evidently don't believe in the law of non-contradiction, since it is typical
                                    of your beliefs. And seriously so, as Tertullian recognized before he "left
                                    the fold."


                                    >
                                    > Are you saying I'm wrong? So let me ask you, in my
                                    > "either-or" dichtomy, am I wrong and you're right in
                                    > my decision, and are you not in my group at that
                                    > point.

                                    No I'm not saying you're wrong. I never say that, because almost anything
                                    is possible. Just not likely.


                                    All I said was that if the gospels were
                                    > historical(which they are and yes we can define that)
                                    > and they were documents(which they were and yes we can
                                    > define that) then they would be historical
                                    > documents....Would you not agree?

                                    If they are (not were) historical, then they would be historical. That's
                                    just a tautology. But in your parentheses, you are wrong, according to the
                                    principles of historicity.


                                    You blatantly
                                    > said that there were no historical documents of jesus.
                                    > I don't think that's a fair or logical statement, I
                                    > think you are saying that the historical documents
                                    > that there were are not valid.

                                    Not actually. Of course the documents are historical, since we have the
                                    evidence. What I am saying is that what the gospels say about the life and
                                    events of Jesus cannot be judged historical because of lack of sufficient
                                    evidence to satisfy the criteria of what is acceptable to believe as
                                    history. Now do you understand what I just said? And there's nothing
                                    illogical about that.

                                    >
                                    > But yes in my thinking there is a tendency to believe
                                    > that if I know something and I can know it to be true
                                    > then it is true or false. You could look at a hegelian
                                    > dialect-especially being as he was a philosopher of
                                    > history or you could lean towards a non-dualistic
                                    > thinking in line with pantheistic thought, but I doubt
                                    > you would be trying to apply pantheistic thinking to
                                    > any historical method.

                                    Gibberish, plainly not making sense. Unbelievable. No, you can't appeal to
                                    Hegel. His conceptions of historiography are not accepted for a very long
                                    time. Make no difference that he was a philosopher of history. What does
                                    pantheism have to do with historical method? I can see from your statement
                                    you are not educated. Is that true?

                                    > "If it's
                                    >> not that, then it must be this." Wrong-headed
                                    >> thinking, habitual, and you
                                    >> need to get it out of your mental system.
                                    >
                                    > So let me ask you, If it's not your own way then it
                                    > must be wrong? You're contradicting yourself.

                                    Now study carefully what I said, and now see if you really can draw your
                                    conclusion from that. I did not say if your way is wrong mine is right, now
                                    did I? I characterized your methodological approach of the either-or
                                    dichtomy, not allowing for any middle ground. This type of thinking is
                                    wrong, I don't use it, that's not a contradiction. I look for the middle
                                    ground. Example, absolutism and relativism. Either-or says one or the
                                    other, either objective or subjective, no other choice. Reason says there
                                    is another choice and that is objective relativism, made objected by
                                    consensus among people, but nothing absolute.

                                    > If there is a philosophical contradiction in my
                                    > thinking and I am shown such a way then I will look at
                                    > the fallacy surrounding it.

                                    You are mixing up wrong-headed thinking and contradiction. They are
                                    different. I did not say you contradict yourself, but rather than you have
                                    wrong-headed thinking. What is it about that you don't understand? And now
                                    you give more of your bullshit. And address my point, if you really wish to
                                    debate.

                                    > The Gospels, more than just opinion, it
                                    >> is visionary sincere
                                    >> INTERPRETATION of the man Jesus who was crucified,
                                    >> followers trying to
                                    >> understand this picture and place him into the long
                                    >> Judean tradition, how to
                                    >> do that. They DEVISED the schema.
                                    >
                                    > Well I haven't really gone into how you sort of
                                    > avoided the historical support of the Christ, but let
                                    > me go from this point. I will discuss your idea of
                                    > Visionary sincere interpreatation when you give the
                                    > specific definition you wish to define this thinking
                                    > with and when you express what academian you are
                                    > alluding to in believing this. We'll go from there.

                                    Well, no. Don't try to put the bee on me. The burden of proof is on you.
                                    You're the one with the belief being debated. I didn't avoid the historical
                                    support for Jesus, but rather said there is no justified historicity there.
                                    If you want to know names of scholars, that should be easy, because it is
                                    ALL biblical scholars, but not all religionists like you. So what is it
                                    you want defined?

                                    >
                                    > Again, I think that you're not really considering the
                                    > complexity of what you're saying-as discussed in the
                                    > prior email. You really think these 4 fishermen and
                                    > other individuals died,fought for and traveled the
                                    > world to express "visionary interpretation." They were
                                    > either crazy or truthful.

                                    Done all the time. Where have you been? Try reading something besides you
                                    religious propaganda. Try reading from a biblical scholar for a change.
                                    Incidentally, why do you suppose the young Muslims are martyring themselves
                                    through terrorist activities?

                                    >
                                    > Either their opinions aligned with reality or they did
                                    > not, and if they did not then there is an
                                    > inconsistency with what they expoused as
                                    > truth-therefore it was a lie.

                                    Looks like another either-or dichtomy, doesn't it? No, not a lie, and
                                    doesn't make them crazy. They sincerely believed it. And it may be right.
                                    But it isn't justified by reason and the understanding of reality. That
                                    doesn't make it a lie, just makes it wrong, until people like you can
                                    demonstrate through reason it's right. People follow false beliefs all the
                                    time.


                                    > but I do think that there is a higher degree of
                                    > validity in the reality described by the witnesses of
                                    > these events then some Atheist 20 centuries later.

                                    They are witnesses to heresay. No bible writer was an actual witness to
                                    Jesus' death, much less the apparitions. Comparing a wrong witness to a
                                    more wrong witness doesn't make the former a good witness.

                                    I
                                    > have to take the witnesses acounts-as consistent as
                                    > they are over your claims of something you didn't see,
                                    > don't know of,and repeatedly attack me about.

                                    Fine. And those other people will accept their scriptures or Book of
                                    Mormon, or whatever they want and be just as right as you are. No problem.
                                    So you think I'm attacking you? You feel threatened?

                                    They
                                    > devised a schema, what is your intellectual basis of
                                    > that? I think that the schema was created by you,
                                    > perhaps because of something personally because I
                                    > don't see an intellectual basis behind what you're
                                    > saying. You're just insulting.

                                    No, the schema is not mine. It's theirs, cuz they are the ones who wrote
                                    it. I didn't write it. Yes, I know you believe I was insulting. I've seen
                                    this before from your type of Christians. Just disagreeing with you or
                                    those others I have observed is in itself insulting. They are insulted by
                                    everything that doesn't comply with their beliefs, apparently you too. I've
                                    already answered your additional remarks.

                                    I haven't really even begun to get into
                                    > the matter honestly and you're already complaining. No
                                    > emotions, logic,coherence and rationality is what I
                                    > want and I want intelligent debate.

                                    Good. Then get with it.

                                    >> It does not meet acceptable criteria in historical
                                    >> methodology, agreed to by
                                    >> all historians.
                                    >
                                    > Okay, I want to hammer at this point and I want you to
                                    > elaborate and go further in where you're getting this
                                    > thinking from.

                                    Educate yourself. Study some good writings of historians presenting
                                    acceptable methodology. I don't need to elaborate. You need to study.
                                    It's not my job to teach you. Learn for yourself. I'm here to debate you
                                    at your invitation, and all I get from you is complaints about how I have
                                    hurt your feelings, you call insults.

                                    > You are saying that the opinions of the writers of the
                                    > gospels are inconsistent with the objective reality of
                                    > what occur at these particular moments in the
                                    > spaceo-temporally expreinces expressed and that these
                                    > historically bound events as presented in these
                                    > scriptures are not true, are you not?

                                    Nope. First, what they knew was heresay. Second, they interpreted the man
                                    and the events in a way to realize a salvation mechanism, i.e. a way to
                                    salvation they were seeking. Probably, some of the events they reported
                                    really happened, at least in some sense, and much of what they said Jesus
                                    said is what he really said. I am not saying the gospels are not true, but
                                    rather that their historical accounts are not sufficiently testified for us
                                    to believe they were really historical. The Bible is an expression of
                                    religious thinking and beliefs, not meant to be either science or history.
                                    Again, so I can help you understand what I said, I am NOT saying they are
                                    not true, but just that they are questionable, thus cannot be determined
                                    true.

                                    If these
                                    > opinions are not true then they are False.

                                    Your same ole dichothomy. There is not a fine line. Much of what they said
                                    probably had some historical foundation, but it is difficult to sift that
                                    out. Take the feeding of the 5,000: Perhaps there was a picnic of sorts,
                                    but miraculously making 5,000 loaves of bread from 5? No. Not falsehoods.
                                    Rather sincerely believed true representations. Happened all the time,
                                    still does.

                                    By this statement I do
                                    > mean that there is evidence which must be reviewed
                                    > when there are literally millions of witnesses to an
                                    > event.

                                    The more the better to be sure. But we do know about mass psychology.

                                    There is a reality which has
                                    > touched billions of lives which you simply disregard,

                                    No, I realize that, and I appreciate it. Lives are touched by a lot of
                                    things. Jesus was a great, charismatic, prophet and teacher, and his words,
                                    really his, live on touching lives. And a lot of people have their lives
                                    transformed for they psychological benefits and purpose in life, especially
                                    spreading love to all others. And people have been uplifted with the belief
                                    they will life after death in an eternal glory and happiness. A very
                                    powerful message to capture the mind.


                                    > as well there is an emphatic and develop subjective
                                    > process of experiental evidence which you will find as
                                    > well when you decide to come back to God.

                                    Preaching again, uh?

                                    I do think
                                    > that it would be fair to examine if we are
                                    > specifically only imply aristotelian logic or if we
                                    > are assuming other aspects of evidence as well(which
                                    > we'd have to be), specifically alluding to the nature
                                    > of understanding legality and how evidence is
                                    > evaluated in this mode of thought.

                                    Well, as you proceed to get yourself educated, you might learn the
                                    difference between logic and inferential reasoning. The real point is that
                                    religious beliefs are not meant to have evidence. Thus there are many
                                    different religious beliefs.

                                    Richard.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > __________________________________________________
                                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                                    > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                    > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Dr. Newton Joseph
                                    WHY I AM NOT A MOSLEM By Ibn Warraq X Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not Disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 27, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      WHY I AM NOT A MOSLEM

                                      By Ibn Warraq

                                      X



                                      Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not
                                      "Disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of
                                      (other) countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country In
                                      the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam
                                      wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend
                                      that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam
                                      says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this
                                      mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the
                                      unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword
                                      and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims]
                                      overcome us?

                                      Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!
                                      Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever
                                      good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword!
                                      People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key
                                      to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds
                                      of other (Koranic) psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging
                                      Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a
                                      religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls
                                      who make such a claim."

                                      Ayatollah Khomeini

                                      New10
                                    • Dr. Newton Joseph
                                      ... From: richard godwin To: Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [Death To Religion]
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Sep 27, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "richard godwin" <meta@...>
                                        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:48 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion]


                                        IF ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE SO IS

                                        CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

                                        By Newton Joseph,Ph.D.




                                        Laboratory experiments have proven all animals are prone to

                                        addiction. Food, alcohol, God, gambling, drugs, sugar and the

                                        latest addiction, the computer. (I knew I was hooked after sitting in

                                        front of a computer for the first time.) Anti-social behavior can be

                                        addictive. according to experts Sociopaths get a "high" from their
                                        crimes.

                                        Another common addiction is religion (I mean any and all aspects

                                        of religion). God too can become a drug of addiction.

                                        There is or was an organization in New York called
                                        Fundamentalists

                                        Anonymous formed by an Ex-Fundamentalist Richard Yao. He wrote

                                        two books, There is a Way Out and Breaking Free. They show the

                                        common parallel to alcoholism.

                                        I will only list the chapters headings to give you an idea
                                        of how

                                        those who are coming out of Christian Fundamentalism suffer: A

                                        Social and Psychological Disease; Common Problems of Ex-

                                        Fundamentalists; Chronic Depression; Loneliness and

                                        Isolation; Low Self-Esteem; Inability to Talk About Their

                                        Experience; Fear of Divine Retribution; Chronic Distrust of

                                        People and Groups; Bitterness and Anger over Lost Time and

                                        Money; Occasional Lapses into the Fundamentalist

                                        Consciousness; Fear of Harassment, Coercion or

                                        Persecution by Fundamentalists; Sexual Difficulties; Fear of

                                        Success; Fundamentalists and Religious Cults; Other

                                        Characteristics of a Religious "Cult" Includes

                                        Authoritarianism; The Gravitation Towards Charismatic

                                        Authoritarian leaders; Exclusivistic, Legalistic, Persecution

                                        Complex; Anger; Emotional Scars; Guilt; Fundamentalist

                                        Experience and Addiction's Fundamentalism A Mental

                                        Health Hazard? FA's Five Step Program. Those who are

                                        withdrawing from Christian Fundamentalism suffer the same

                                        withdrawal symptoms as an alcoholic giving up drinking.
                                      • richard godwin
                                        Ya ll just appear to be battling over nothing so far. Science, both QM and Cosmology (astrophysics) are a long way from coming up with any satisfactory
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Sep 29, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Ya'll just appear to be battling over nothing so far. Science, both QM and
                                          Cosmology (astrophysics) are a long way from coming up with any satisfactory
                                          conclusions on this matter. There are numerous possibilities, no
                                          probabilities. Science cannot continue without some "standard model" for
                                          anything; it's necessary to have a base from which to work, and that's all
                                          it is. Hang around for another 50 years.

                                          Richard.


                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                          To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:33 AM
                                          Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: greatings


                                          > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Lovejoe" <konusan1@...> wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
                                          >> wrote:
                                          >> >
                                          >> > Why not? Quantum theory would require that such a thing exist and
                                          >> > if we are to unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity we're
                                          >> > probably going to have to have a graviton.
                                          >>
                                          >> Are you trying to say, graviton will reveal itself
                                          >> if we are to unify QM and GR ? :-)
                                          >
                                          > Quantum gravity is likely to have such a particle (and the standard
                                          > model which describes everything except gravity has been very successful).
                                          >
                                          >> I think I disturbed your dreams and hopes on science.
                                          >
                                          > Not really. For now I just see you as someone who doesn't understand
                                          > how science works.
                                          >
                                          >> Sorry but, if you know, Quantum theory
                                          >> has two established parts, electrodynamics and chromodynamics
                                          >> and none of them require graviton for the moment!
                                          >
                                          > Well they can't explain gravity so of course they don't have a graviton.
                                          >
                                          >> However, there is another improving and impressive study
                                          >> called Quantum Field theory which deals with all particles
                                          >> including hypothetical graviton and virtual ones,
                                          >> and there are tries to incorporate gravity into
                                          >> overall Quantum field theory using mathematics but
                                          >> without any evidence of graviton.
                                          >> Superstring theory explains and incorporates
                                          >> gravity much better and healtier than the QFT.
                                          >
                                          > Assuming superstring theory can even predict something we can test.
                                          >
                                          >> It looks like a misarable quest,
                                          >> because they can't even prove that gravity is a generated
                                          >> ordinary force like electro, magnetic or nuclear forces,
                                          >> that it requires a force carying particle...
                                          >
                                          > So?
                                          >
                                          >> Do not forget that anything which is in free fall,
                                          >> while obviously is accelerating due to gravitation
                                          >> has "no" forces acting on it. Magic?
                                          >
                                          > Or it has forces acting approximately equally on all parts of it.
                                          >
                                          >> Of course only GR explains how and why it accelerates
                                          >> without "any" force acting on it.
                                          >> But some obviously do not and cannot understand even if
                                          >> they calculate most complex quantum equations in mind...
                                          >
                                          > What?
                                          >
                                          >> Therefore GR is the closest call to reality like QM,
                                          >> but graviton idea of QFT is nowhere near.
                                          >
                                          > You haven't actually provided any good reason why GR should be closer
                                          > to reality than gravitons.
                                          >
                                          >> You sound like, you put all your hopes into graviton
                                          >> and Quantum theory, in place of God... :-)
                                          >
                                          > No. I simply understand that they are more useful than an imaginary
                                          > friend.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.