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

God's Warriors

Expand Messages
  • jvnicdao
    I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on God s Christian Warriors . It featured short interviews of various Christian leaders/ministers by
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
      Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various Christian
      leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
      respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
      politics and law.

      I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
      about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two. I'll
      try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to CNN
      to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the documentaries,
      will appreciate your feedback.

      Cheers! - Joseph
    • Gregory Macaltao
      Hi Joseph, It might come out in a torrent site. Part 2 can be downloaded here: http://www.mininova.org/tor/854555 I am interested to watch it myself. Cheers,
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Joseph,

        It might come out in a torrent site.

        Part 2 can be downloaded here:
        http://www.mininova.org/tor/854555

        I am interested to watch it myself.

        Cheers,

        Greg


        On 8/25/07, jvnicdao <jvnicdao@...> wrote:
        >
        > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
        > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various Christian
        > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
        > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
        > politics and law.
        >
        > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
        > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two. I'll
        > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to CNN
        > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the documentaries,
        > will appreciate your feedback.
        >
        > Cheers! - Joseph
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Oliver Floralde
        any idea when is the replay going to air? ... From: jvnicdao To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:27:30 PM
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          any idea when is the replay going to air?



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: jvnicdao <jvnicdao@...>
          To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:27:30 PM
          Subject: [pinoy_atheists] God's Warriors

          I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
          Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various Christian
          leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
          respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
          politics and law.

          I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
          about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two. I'll
          try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to CNN
          to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the documentaries,
          will appreciate your feedback.

          Cheers! - Joseph






          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
          Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
          http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • jvnicdao
          Greg, thanks for the link. I hope they can also make available Parts 1 and 3. I think Part 2 (about Christian warriors) fairly presents Christian
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Greg, thanks for the link. I hope they can also make available Parts
            1 and 3.

            I think Part 2 (about Christian warriors) fairly presents Christian
            fundamentalism, with all its flaws. One good scene showed a family
            being interviewed by Amanpour in their living room. Both parents
            talked proudly of how they homeschool their children because they
            didn't believe anymore in America's corrupt and immoral educational
            system, and were afraid their children would also be corrupted by the
            immoral culture outside their home. When Amanpour deftly questioned
            the father about evolution, he flatly said it was a false theory he
            would not teach his children, and holding the bible in his hand,
            quotes Genesis on creation!

            For those who may want only a summary of the series, the following
            review from New York Times may be helpful:

            "RADICAL FUNDAMENTALISM IN THREE FLAVORS
            By Neil Genzlinger
            Published: August 21, 2007

            "Christiane Amanpour, CNN's chief international correspondent, is
            more tour guide and history teacher than reporter in "CNN Presents:
            God's Warriors," and that makes this ambitious look at three flavors
            of religious fundamentalism less than it could be.

            "Christiane Amanpour in "God's Warriors," on CNN.
            This three-part series, which begins tonight on CNN, is a fine primer
            on the emergence of strains of Judaism, Islam and Christianity that
            want to fuse politics and religion, and have shown a willingness to
            blow things up and kill people to do it. But too often Ms. Amanpour
            relies on talking heads rather than on actual representatives of
            these groups, and when she does get a live specimen she rarely bores
            in with hard, blunt questions. Maybe that's by design; the point
            seems to be to describe rather than challenge. Still, given the waves
            these movements are making, it would be nice to hear their leaders
            talk about what specifically they have to offer the world.

            "Tonight's opening installment, "God's Jewish Warriors," seems
            particularly timid, spending more time than necessary on clips of the
            Six-Day War and other familiar historical episodes. The warriors are
            Jews who have forcefully pushed settlements into areas even the
            Israeli government has placed off-limits, making political inroads at
            the same time. We've already heard quite a lot from these people; Ms.
            Amanpour's most interesting contribution is a segment on the fund-
            raising in the United States that supports them.

            "God's Muslim Warriors," tomorrow, is sharper, with Ms. Amanpour
            finally showing some aggressiveness, on the issue of women's rights
            under radical Islam, brashly confronting leaders about things like
            stonings. But mostly she's polite and lets her subjects stay in their
            comfort zones. The most compelling interview in the segment is not
            with a radical but with a former radical, Ed Husain. And it turns out
            he's just hawking a book.

            "In Part 3, "God's Christian Warriors," on Thursday, the focus shifts
            to the United States and its electoral politics. The issues on these
            Christian warriors' minds seem positively quaint next to the agendas
            of the people in Parts 1 and 2. The episode includes the final
            interview with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died in May."

            -----

            Cheers! - Joseph

            ---------------------

            --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Macaltao"
            <gregory.macaltao@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Joseph,
            >
            > It might come out in a torrent site.
            >
            > Part 2 can be downloaded here:
            > http://www.mininova.org/tor/854555
            >
            > I am interested to watch it myself.
            >
            > Cheers,
            >
            > Greg
            >
            >
          • jvnicdao
            Oliver, unfortunately I think the replays were shown from 24-26 August. I don t see in the CNN schedule future replays, though it may be possible if a lot of
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 26, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Oliver, unfortunately I think the replays were shown from 24-26
              August. I don't see in the CNN schedule future replays, though it may
              be possible if a lot of viewers request so. However, the CNN site
              contains fairly extensive video portions of the series; please go to:
              http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/

              Also, you may wish to visit the torrent site mentioned by Greg where
              you can download Part 3 (God's Muslim Warriors).

              Cheers! - Joseph

              -------

              --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, Oliver Floralde
              <edlarolf_revilo@...> wrote:
              >
              > any idea when is the replay going to air?
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message ----
              > From: jvnicdao <jvnicdao@...>
              > To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:27:30 PM
              > Subject: [pinoy_atheists] God's Warriors
              >
              > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
              > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various
              Christian
              > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
              > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
              > politics and law.
              >
              > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
              > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two.
              I'll
              > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to
              CNN
              > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the documentaries,
              > will appreciate your feedback.
              >
              > Cheers! - Joseph
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              ______________________________________________________________________
              ______________
              > Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
              > Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
              > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • santoseptimo7
              The CNN series revolves around the main theme: that of a certain segment of the faithful (fundamentalists, as defined) whose faith, values and demands are
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                The CNN series revolves around the main theme: that of a certain
                segment of the faithful (fundamentalists, as defined) whose faith,
                values and demands are constantly being ignored by the state and
                society at large. Very similar with atheists' own experience, eh.

                But what caught my curiosity is the first part presentation/
                narration about the Jewish underground/ extremists' plan to blow up
                the Dome of the Rock – a shrine Muslims regard as their third
                holiest site. It seems Jewish extremists wanted the 4th holiest
                site moved up to third, the fifth to 4th?

                Seriously, had the Jewish extremists succeeded, the event would have
                triggered a full-blown or yet another six-day war in which the Jews,
                if victorious, would have cleaned up the remnants of the Dome of the
                Rock and erect a Hardrock Café instead. Or, if Muslims would have
                their way, rebuild the shrine but without the original rock, as it'd
                be blasphemous to replace it with adobe or hollow blocks. Am not
                just sure if everyone will be contented with having just a big Dome,
                as no one these days praises the relic that is Araneta Coliseum. Ay!
                the war goes on.

                Surely, symbols and rituals are big deals in religion, as they help
                ensure the irrational attachment (and dependency) of the faithful.
                Christians in Florida(?) wanted a marker of the ten Commandments
                installed in front of a government building. Jews want to reclaim
                the site of their ancient temple, now catering to the Dome of the
                Rock. These are fundamentalist demands, yes, but with a social
                purpose, as faith or religion, being a private affair for some
                individuals, is a social activity and a way of life for others.

                I wonder if symbols would work for atheism, as I also believe,
                atheism should have an expressed social cause. What atheists should
                expose and defeat is organized religion's exploitation /manipulation
                of people in their belief in a God to serve the leaders' selfish
                interests – for political and economic power, or for the plain
                survival of their church and organizations. Subjugation and control
                is every preacher's end. If Religion is the opium of the people/
                masses, ergo, religious addicts should be rehabilitated. Preachers,
                er, pushers, must be jailed.

                As a social being, the atheist should have a social purpose: to
                liberate the captives of religion. Atheism, if practiced for pure
                self-gratification cannot overcome (the masses') ignorance, thereby,
                giving more control to religious exploiters and manipulators, and
                even more power to God-fearing tyrants and oppressors.



                --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "jvnicdao" <jvnicdao@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
                > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various
                Christian
                > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
                > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
                > politics and law.
                >
                > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
                > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two.
                I'll
                > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to
                CNN
                > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the
                documentaries,
                > will appreciate your feedback.
                >
                > Cheers! - Joseph
                >
              • santoseptimo7
                this may not even be connected to the article and thread as that of my previous post, but if I may add: Not too long ago, I chanced upon a documentary
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  this may not even be connected to the article and thread as that of
                  my previous post, but if I may add: Not too long ago, I chanced
                  upon a documentary presented in the Discovery Channel. The Docu
                  posits that "humans are genetically programmed to search for
                  a `God'." I know nothing about genetic science but if indeed this
                  is the case, as scientific and logical as it appears, then I'd see
                  nothing wrong with religious faith, per se, since I suppose, the
                  process of faith lies within the realm and context of
                  this "genetically programmed search" – which ultimately may find
                  nothing.

                  We, as humans (at least in the current evolutionary stage) cannot
                  escape this programmed search. If it's genetic, then the search
                  must be embedded in our instincts, or better yet, in our
                  consciousness. Our atheism, I would think, is an unconscious
                  expression within the context of this "genetically programmed search
                  for a God." Hmm… Just a thought.


                  --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "santoseptimo7"
                  <santoseptimo7@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The CNN series revolves around the main theme: that of a certain
                  > segment of the faithful (fundamentalists, as defined) whose
                  faith,
                  > values and demands are constantly being ignored by the state and
                  > society at large. Very similar with atheists' own experience, eh.
                  >
                  > But what caught my curiosity is the first part presentation/
                  > narration about the Jewish underground/ extremists' plan to blow
                  up
                  > the Dome of the Rock – a shrine Muslims regard as their third
                  > holiest site. It seems Jewish extremists wanted the 4th holiest
                  > site moved up to third, the fifth to 4th?
                  >
                  > Seriously, had the Jewish extremists succeeded, the event would
                  have
                  > triggered a full-blown or yet another six-day war in which the
                  Jews,
                  > if victorious, would have cleaned up the remnants of the Dome of
                  the
                  > Rock and erect a Hardrock Café instead. Or, if Muslims would have
                  > their way, rebuild the shrine but without the original rock, as
                  it'd
                  > be blasphemous to replace it with adobe or hollow blocks. Am not
                  > just sure if everyone will be contented with having just a big
                  Dome,
                  > as no one these days praises the relic that is Araneta Coliseum.
                  Ay!
                  > the war goes on.
                  >
                  > Surely, symbols and rituals are big deals in religion, as they
                  help
                  > ensure the irrational attachment (and dependency) of the
                  faithful.
                  > Christians in Florida(?) wanted a marker of the ten Commandments
                  > installed in front of a government building. Jews want to
                  reclaim
                  > the site of their ancient temple, now catering to the Dome of the
                  > Rock. These are fundamentalist demands, yes, but with a social
                  > purpose, as faith or religion, being a private affair for some
                  > individuals, is a social activity and a way of life for others.
                  >
                  > I wonder if symbols would work for atheism, as I also believe,
                  > atheism should have an expressed social cause. What atheists
                  should
                  > expose and defeat is organized religion's
                  exploitation /manipulation
                  > of people in their belief in a God to serve the leaders' selfish
                  > interests – for political and economic power, or for the plain
                  > survival of their church and organizations. Subjugation and
                  control
                  > is every preacher's end. If Religion is the opium of the people/
                  > masses, ergo, religious addicts should be rehabilitated.
                  Preachers,
                  > er, pushers, must be jailed.
                  >
                  > As a social being, the atheist should have a social purpose: to
                  > liberate the captives of religion. Atheism, if practiced for pure
                  > self-gratification cannot overcome (the masses') ignorance,
                  thereby,
                  > giving more control to religious exploiters and manipulators, and
                  > even more power to God-fearing tyrants and oppressors.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "jvnicdao" <jvnicdao@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
                  > > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various
                  > Christian
                  > > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on
                  their
                  > > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
                  > > politics and law.
                  > >
                  > > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2
                  is
                  > > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these
                  two.
                  > I'll
                  > > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in
                  to
                  > CNN
                  > > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the
                  > documentaries,
                  > > will appreciate your feedback.
                  > >
                  > > Cheers! - Joseph
                  > >
                  >
                • ggmac1972
                  Well - - I think atheism simply affirms the absence/non-existence of a theistic deity. I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion. The need for a
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Well - - I think atheism simply affirms the absence/non-existence of a
                    theistic deity.

                    I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion.

                    The need for a social purpose can be achieved by being part of other
                    organizations and groups. Being engaged and part of civic society
                    will definitely help our lives become meaningful. Which is proof that
                    we create meaning in our lives and we can create (find) meaning and
                    purpose outside and even in the absence of a belief in a theistic being.

                    As Hitchens commented in this book (and not a verbatim quote) - To
                    create a life built on the cumulative wisdom of people from science,
                    literature, philosophy, ethics, etc.

                    I think we can also learn a lot from religious folks. While our ideas
                    about God is opposed to theirs, we can still learn a thing or two
                    (even more) from the Bible or religious texts. And it is that
                    openness on that particular aspect that will help us grow, etc.

                    The challenge really is not for atheists to establish an alternative
                    group to belong to but to show those who are "questioning" or the
                    "agnostics" that one doesn't have to belong to a religious group, or
                    believe in God to live a meaningful purposeful life.

                    When I talk about the questioning folks and the agnostics, I was
                    really thinking of an adoption curve here. Who are the easiest to
                    "convince". Not the fundamentalists at first but those who are closer
                    to our side of the spectrum. Convince them and you build a bigger
                    base that hopefully reaches tipping point.

                    I think we are the early adopters for our era/generation. It takes
                    time - -there were early adopters 400 or more years ago. But the nos.
                    are growing.

                    Think of this - - - our parents' generation - not too many atheists
                    among them I suppose. Our generation - -more than theirs especially
                    now with the Internet. Then I guess it'll keep growing in the next
                    and beyond.

                    As to symbols, Dawkins gave a nice example in his book GD. He said
                    when his friend died, they have a moving remembrance ceremony. It
                    wasn't an atheist ceremony. However, it was a secular ceremony where
                    poems were read, stories/anecdotes about the dead friend, etc. were
                    told. Dawkins acknowledges that humans seek this kind of bonding,
                    etc. Religions filled that void with its ceremonies/symbols. He says
                    there can be a secular alternative. He cautions though that secular
                    does not mean atheist. Atheism again he said is not a new religion
                    but simply an assertion that there are no theistic deities/gods.
                    That's all. All other things we do is something we do on our own and
                    not something sanctioned by an atheistic religion.

                    --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "santoseptimo7"
                    <santoseptimo7@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > The CNN series revolves around the main theme: that of a certain
                    > segment of the faithful (fundamentalists, as defined) whose faith,
                    > values and demands are constantly being ignored by the state and
                    > society at large. Very similar with atheists' own experience, eh.
                    >
                    > But what caught my curiosity is the first part presentation/
                    > narration about the Jewish underground/ extremists' plan to blow up
                    > the Dome of the Rock � a shrine Muslims regard as their third
                    > holiest site. It seems Jewish extremists wanted the 4th holiest
                    > site moved up to third, the fifth to 4th?
                    >
                    > Seriously, had the Jewish extremists succeeded, the event would have
                    > triggered a full-blown or yet another six-day war in which the Jews,
                    > if victorious, would have cleaned up the remnants of the Dome of the
                    > Rock and erect a Hardrock Caf� instead. Or, if Muslims would have
                    > their way, rebuild the shrine but without the original rock, as it'd
                    > be blasphemous to replace it with adobe or hollow blocks. Am not
                    > just sure if everyone will be contented with having just a big Dome,
                    > as no one these days praises the relic that is Araneta Coliseum. Ay!
                    > the war goes on.
                    >
                    > Surely, symbols and rituals are big deals in religion, as they help
                    > ensure the irrational attachment (and dependency) of the faithful.
                    > Christians in Florida(?) wanted a marker of the ten Commandments
                    > installed in front of a government building. Jews want to reclaim
                    > the site of their ancient temple, now catering to the Dome of the
                    > Rock. These are fundamentalist demands, yes, but with a social
                    > purpose, as faith or religion, being a private affair for some
                    > individuals, is a social activity and a way of life for others.
                    >
                    > I wonder if symbols would work for atheism, as I also believe,
                    > atheism should have an expressed social cause. What atheists should
                    > expose and defeat is organized religion's exploitation /manipulation
                    > of people in their belief in a God to serve the leaders' selfish
                    > interests � for political and economic power, or for the plain
                    > survival of their church and organizations. Subjugation and control
                    > is every preacher's end. If Religion is the opium of the people/
                    > masses, ergo, religious addicts should be rehabilitated. Preachers,
                    > er, pushers, must be jailed.
                    >
                    > As a social being, the atheist should have a social purpose: to
                    > liberate the captives of religion. Atheism, if practiced for pure
                    > self-gratification cannot overcome (the masses') ignorance, thereby,
                    > giving more control to religious exploiters and manipulators, and
                    > even more power to God-fearing tyrants and oppressors.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "jvnicdao" <jvnicdao@>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
                    > > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various
                    > Christian
                    > > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on their
                    > > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
                    > > politics and law.
                    > >
                    > > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2 is
                    > > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these two.
                    > I'll
                    > > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in to
                    > CNN
                    > > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the
                    > documentaries,
                    > > will appreciate your feedback.
                    > >
                    > > Cheers! - Joseph
                    > >
                    >
                  • ggmac1972
                    Interesting you mentioned that. One of the articles that reinforced my doubts and questioning was a Time Magazine article in 2004 called the God Gene. Here s
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Interesting you mentioned that. One of the articles that reinforced
                      my doubts and questioning was a Time Magazine article in 2004 called
                      the God Gene. Here's the link (not sure if you have to subscribe to
                      Time to see it). But I am sure libraries would have a copy.

                      http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/

                      Well - in a sense, nothing is wrong with it per se. But I guess we've
                      escaped complete natural selection at this point. While we as humans
                      continue to evolve, we have reached a stage where we're no longer
                      completely at the mercy of random selection. So here's my thought:
                      Knowing what we know (and we still don't know a lot), if "belief" or
                      "seeking a deity" has a genetic basis, then we can come up with many
                      conclusions. One conclusion would be - our actions about religion
                      therefore are a result of a genetic tendency to believe. If this is
                      so - we have a choice. Do we let this tendency dictate then our
                      actions and therefore believe because we have a "belief gene." Or do
                      we rewire our thinking (and I am not talking of genetic
                      re-engineering) and say to ourselves: "My tendency to believe may not
                      necessarily be a rational thing because it is rooted in a genetic
                      tendency. So let me take a step back. Does belief make sense. If
                      not, then let me reexamine my tendency and come up with a rational
                      choice."

                      I guess just to highlight the point: Let's say I have a gene that
                      makes me hate horses. If I didn't know that gene existed, I could say
                      - I hate horses because that's me. But let's say one day, scientists
                      discover that my tendency to hate horses is due to Gene HH (Hate
                      Horses). Armed with that knowledge, I can take a step back and say -
                      -hmmm - -does my hating horses make sense then? I am not saying that
                      taking a step back will lead to love for horses. But at least now -
                      I am understanding my "hatred" better and control aspects of it within
                      my control (e.g., way of thinking) that don't make sense. It is at
                      this stage that evolution becomes "controlled" and doesn't become random.

                      Note: I don't intend to simplify genetics here because it is a
                      complicated thing with myriads of dimensions and where much have yet
                      to be discovered. But my point above is meant merely to provide an
                      example of how I'd view the gene debate on God.

                      Other people might claim on the other hand that "God" placed the gene
                      there as his link to us. Of course, such affirmations are non-sense
                      to me and I consider such thoughts as belonging in the realm of
                      creationism/intellectual design (using science to support one's
                      religious beliefs.).



                      --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "santoseptimo7"
                      <santoseptimo7@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > this may not even be connected to the article and thread as that of
                      > my previous post, but if I may add: Not too long ago, I chanced
                      > upon a documentary presented in the Discovery Channel. The Docu
                      > posits that "humans are genetically programmed to search for
                      > a `God'." I know nothing about genetic science but if indeed this
                      > is the case, as scientific and logical as it appears, then I'd see
                      > nothing wrong with religious faith, per se, since I suppose, the
                      > process of faith lies within the realm and context of
                      > this "genetically programmed search" � which ultimately may find
                      > nothing.
                      >
                      > We, as humans (at least in the current evolutionary stage) cannot
                      > escape this programmed search. If it's genetic, then the search
                      > must be embedded in our instincts, or better yet, in our
                      > consciousness. Our atheism, I would think, is an unconscious
                      > expression within the context of this "genetically programmed search
                      > for a God." Hmm� Just a thought.
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "santoseptimo7"
                      > <santoseptimo7@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The CNN series revolves around the main theme: that of a certain
                      > > segment of the faithful (fundamentalists, as defined) whose
                      > faith,
                      > > values and demands are constantly being ignored by the state and
                      > > society at large. Very similar with atheists' own experience, eh.
                      > >
                      > > But what caught my curiosity is the first part presentation/
                      > > narration about the Jewish underground/ extremists' plan to blow
                      > up
                      > > the Dome of the Rock � a shrine Muslims regard as their third
                      > > holiest site. It seems Jewish extremists wanted the 4th holiest
                      > > site moved up to third, the fifth to 4th?
                      > >
                      > > Seriously, had the Jewish extremists succeeded, the event would
                      > have
                      > > triggered a full-blown or yet another six-day war in which the
                      > Jews,
                      > > if victorious, would have cleaned up the remnants of the Dome of
                      > the
                      > > Rock and erect a Hardrock Caf� instead. Or, if Muslims would have
                      > > their way, rebuild the shrine but without the original rock, as
                      > it'd
                      > > be blasphemous to replace it with adobe or hollow blocks. Am not
                      > > just sure if everyone will be contented with having just a big
                      > Dome,
                      > > as no one these days praises the relic that is Araneta Coliseum.
                      > Ay!
                      > > the war goes on.
                      > >
                      > > Surely, symbols and rituals are big deals in religion, as they
                      > help
                      > > ensure the irrational attachment (and dependency) of the
                      > faithful.
                      > > Christians in Florida(?) wanted a marker of the ten Commandments
                      > > installed in front of a government building. Jews want to
                      > reclaim
                      > > the site of their ancient temple, now catering to the Dome of the
                      > > Rock. These are fundamentalist demands, yes, but with a social
                      > > purpose, as faith or religion, being a private affair for some
                      > > individuals, is a social activity and a way of life for others.
                      > >
                      > > I wonder if symbols would work for atheism, as I also believe,
                      > > atheism should have an expressed social cause. What atheists
                      > should
                      > > expose and defeat is organized religion's
                      > exploitation /manipulation
                      > > of people in their belief in a God to serve the leaders' selfish
                      > > interests � for political and economic power, or for the plain
                      > > survival of their church and organizations. Subjugation and
                      > control
                      > > is every preacher's end. If Religion is the opium of the people/
                      > > masses, ergo, religious addicts should be rehabilitated.
                      > Preachers,
                      > > er, pushers, must be jailed.
                      > >
                      > > As a social being, the atheist should have a social purpose: to
                      > > liberate the captives of religion. Atheism, if practiced for pure
                      > > self-gratification cannot overcome (the masses') ignorance,
                      > thereby,
                      > > giving more control to religious exploiters and manipulators, and
                      > > even more power to God-fearing tyrants and oppressors.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "jvnicdao" <jvnicdao@>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I watched last night the interesting CNN documentary on "God's
                      > > > Christian Warriors". It featured short interviews of various
                      > > Christian
                      > > > leaders/ministers by Christian Amanpour and commentaries on
                      > their
                      > > > respective groups' agenda on how to influence America's culture,
                      > > > politics and law.
                      > > >
                      > > > I think Part 1 deals with "God's Jewish Warriors" while Part 2
                      > is
                      > > > about "God's Islamic Warriors"; unfortunately I missed these
                      > two.
                      > > I'll
                      > > > try to catch the replay. For those interested, you may tune in
                      > to
                      > > CNN
                      > > > to catch the replay, too. To those who have seen the
                      > > documentaries,
                      > > > will appreciate your feedback.
                      > > >
                      > > > Cheers! - Joseph
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • Romeo Macapobre
                      ggmac1972 I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion atheism is not a religion. it is not faith based. -- apprenons francais
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ggmac1972> I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion

                        atheism is not a religion. it is not faith based.

                        --
                        apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com].
                        apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com].


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ggmac1972
                        I am 100% with you on that. So not sure where this is coming from. I think you are merely stating things right?
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am 100% with you on that.

                          So not sure where this is coming from.

                          I think you are merely stating things right?

                          --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "Romeo Macapobre"
                          <romeo.macapobre@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > ggmac1972> I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion
                          >
                          > atheism is not a religion. it is not faith based.
                          >
                          > --
                          > apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com].
                          > apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com].
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Romeo Macapobre
                          i thought you wrote this .. hehe i misattributed a line then .. ggmac1972 I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion dyou guys still regularly meet
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 27, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            i thought you wrote this .. hehe i misattributed a line then ..
                            ggmac1972> I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion

                            dyou guys still regularly meet in makati?

                            ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                            From: ggmac1972 <gregory.macaltao@...>
                            Date: 28 août 2007 04:53
                            Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: God's Warriors
                            To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
                            I am 100% with you on that.
                            So not sure where this is coming from.
                            I think you are merely stating things right?

                            --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "Romeo Macapobre"

                            <romeo.macapobre@...> wrote:
                            > ggmac1972> I do not consider myself part of the atheist religion
                            > atheism is not a religion. it is not faith based.

                            --
                            apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com].
                            apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com].
                          • spiritual_truth07
                            ... other ... that ... being. Dear Greg, May I ask you if what s wrong believing in God, where this belief is applied to our society to achieve a meaningful
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 28, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                              <gregory.macaltao@...> wrote:


                              > The need for a social purpose can be achieved by being part of
                              other
                              > organizations and groups. Being engaged and part of civic society
                              > will definitely help our lives become meaningful. Which is proof
                              that
                              > we create meaning in our lives and we can create (find) meaning and
                              > purpose outside and even in the absence of a belief in a theistic
                              being.

                              Dear Greg,

                              May I ask you if what's wrong believing in God, where this belief is
                              applied to our society to achieve a meaningful life. I dont share an
                              extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                              (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God, but I just
                              want to know from you if the ultimate or absolute attainment of
                              meaningful life is to be an atheist.

                              thank you

                              regards,

                              spiritual truth
                            • ggmac1972
                              Spiritual truth, Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be best attained by being part of an organized religion or some other group. In
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 28, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Spiritual truth,

                                Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be best
                                attained by being part of an organized religion or some other group.
                                In fact, I am sure, despite your best efforts, you will feel sometimes
                                an emptiness or sadness etc. as part of your life. I think you are
                                missing a big point here - atheism is not a lifestyle. It is an
                                affirmation that there are no "beings" up there in the sky that
                                intervenes in our lives. So when you ask me if I am saying that "the
                                ultimate or absolute attainment of meaningful life is to be an
                                atheist", you did not read carefully what I wrote. Being an atheist
                                does not give meaning to my life. Atheism does not have any system of
                                beliefs other than the belief that there are no theistic deities in
                                the sky. So as to what meaning my life would have, that's up to me to
                                create.

                                Now, religion on the other hand, particularly the 3 major religions
                                would claim that without being part of their religion, one cannot
                                attain full meaning. They would have to assert some kind of
                                superiority among religions because if they say - -"well, all of us do
                                similar things and achieve the same things" - - then why chose 1 over
                                the other. So yes - they do assert primacy over others while trying
                                to maintain good relations with other religions for co-existence purposes.

                                Now - you ask - what's wrong in believing in God? The question you
                                should have asked is: Does one need to belief in God to find meaning
                                in life. Obviously, you would probably posit that yes - belief in God
                                is a necessity to find true meaning in life. I on the other hand
                                would posit things differently: I would say - there is no meaning in
                                life other than the meaning we ascribe to it. And so belief in God is
                                not a prerequisite to finding meaning in life.

                                But if you really want to know - what is wrong in believing in God?
                                Well, believe what you want to believe. That is your right. What is
                                wrong with it is if your belief in God makes you think that all those
                                who don't cannot find true complete meaning in their lives.

                                On the other hand - if in your desire to embrace humanity - you will
                                say it is not necessary - then, that makes religion a non-prerequisite
                                in finding meaning.

                                So did I put you in a catch 22 position - damned if you do, damned if
                                you don't. That's what you call logical checkmate.

                                So I'll bet the best position to adopt is the attitude you seem to
                                have right now - -that those who believe in God have found the light
                                and are in the best position to find true meaning in life. Those who
                                do not believe in God, will not find true meaning in their lives.

                                Contrary therefore to that position - I'll say that there is no one
                                way to finding meaning. Just as each individual is unique, each
                                individual would have to create the meaning that makes sense to them.

                                Now - did my atheism tell me this. Not at all. It's my logic,
                                reason, human experience, etc. that helped me think this through.


                                --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "spiritual_truth07"
                                <spiritual_truth07@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                                > <gregory.macaltao@> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > > The need for a social purpose can be achieved by being part of
                                > other
                                > > organizations and groups. Being engaged and part of civic society
                                > > will definitely help our lives become meaningful. Which is proof
                                > that
                                > > we create meaning in our lives and we can create (find) meaning and
                                > > purpose outside and even in the absence of a belief in a theistic
                                > being.
                                >
                                > Dear Greg,
                                >
                                > May I ask you if what's wrong believing in God, where this belief is
                                > applied to our society to achieve a meaningful life. I dont share an
                                > extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                > (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God, but I just
                                > want to know from you if the ultimate or absolute attainment of
                                > meaningful life is to be an atheist.
                                >
                                > thank you
                                >
                                > regards,
                                >
                                > spiritual truth
                                >
                              • ggmac1972
                                Okay- - it s time to be humble: You did acknowledge that: I dont share an extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life (possibly, to an
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 28, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Okay- - it's time to be humble:

                                  You did acknowledge that: "I dont share an
                                  extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                  (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God."

                                  If this is so - then the whole element of religion being a MUST goes away.

                                  No religion would ever say that you can find meaning apart from God.

                                  It's like saying - - and let's just create this absurd example: One
                                  need not go to a doctor to get cured. It is sufficient that one goes
                                  to the supermarket.

                                  If that's the case, the importance of a doctor is diminished, right?

                                  On that score - no religion would ever want to diminish itself, right?

                                  So while your view is admirable (non extreme view), it does lead to
                                  absurd consequences for organized religion.


                                  --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                                  <gregory.macaltao@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Spiritual truth,
                                  >
                                  > Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be best
                                  > attained by being part of an organized religion or some other group.
                                  > In fact, I am sure, despite your best efforts, you will feel sometimes
                                  > an emptiness or sadness etc. as part of your life. I think you are
                                  > missing a big point here - atheism is not a lifestyle. It is an
                                  > affirmation that there are no "beings" up there in the sky that
                                  > intervenes in our lives. So when you ask me if I am saying that "the
                                  > ultimate or absolute attainment of meaningful life is to be an
                                  > atheist", you did not read carefully what I wrote. Being an atheist
                                  > does not give meaning to my life. Atheism does not have any system of
                                  > beliefs other than the belief that there are no theistic deities in
                                  > the sky. So as to what meaning my life would have, that's up to me to
                                  > create.
                                  >
                                  > Now, religion on the other hand, particularly the 3 major religions
                                  > would claim that without being part of their religion, one cannot
                                  > attain full meaning. They would have to assert some kind of
                                  > superiority among religions because if they say - -"well, all of us do
                                  > similar things and achieve the same things" - - then why chose 1 over
                                  > the other. So yes - they do assert primacy over others while trying
                                  > to maintain good relations with other religions for co-existence
                                  purposes.
                                  >
                                  > Now - you ask - what's wrong in believing in God? The question you
                                  > should have asked is: Does one need to belief in God to find meaning
                                  > in life. Obviously, you would probably posit that yes - belief in God
                                  > is a necessity to find true meaning in life. I on the other hand
                                  > would posit things differently: I would say - there is no meaning in
                                  > life other than the meaning we ascribe to it. And so belief in God is
                                  > not a prerequisite to finding meaning in life.
                                  >
                                  > But if you really want to know - what is wrong in believing in God?
                                  > Well, believe what you want to believe. That is your right. What is
                                  > wrong with it is if your belief in God makes you think that all those
                                  > who don't cannot find true complete meaning in their lives.
                                  >
                                  > On the other hand - if in your desire to embrace humanity - you will
                                  > say it is not necessary - then, that makes religion a non-prerequisite
                                  > in finding meaning.
                                  >
                                  > So did I put you in a catch 22 position - damned if you do, damned if
                                  > you don't. That's what you call logical checkmate.
                                  >
                                  > So I'll bet the best position to adopt is the attitude you seem to
                                  > have right now - -that those who believe in God have found the light
                                  > and are in the best position to find true meaning in life. Those who
                                  > do not believe in God, will not find true meaning in their lives.
                                  >
                                  > Contrary therefore to that position - I'll say that there is no one
                                  > way to finding meaning. Just as each individual is unique, each
                                  > individual would have to create the meaning that makes sense to them.
                                  >
                                  > Now - did my atheism tell me this. Not at all. It's my logic,
                                  > reason, human experience, etc. that helped me think this through.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "spiritual_truth07"
                                  > <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                                  > > <gregory.macaltao@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > > The need for a social purpose can be achieved by being part of
                                  > > other
                                  > > > organizations and groups. Being engaged and part of civic society
                                  > > > will definitely help our lives become meaningful. Which is proof
                                  > > that
                                  > > > we create meaning in our lives and we can create (find) meaning and
                                  > > > purpose outside and even in the absence of a belief in a theistic
                                  > > being.
                                  > >
                                  > > Dear Greg,
                                  > >
                                  > > May I ask you if what's wrong believing in God, where this belief is
                                  > > applied to our society to achieve a meaningful life. I dont share an
                                  > > extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                  > > (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God, but I just
                                  > > want to know from you if the ultimate or absolute attainment of
                                  > > meaningful life is to be an atheist.
                                  > >
                                  > > thank you
                                  > >
                                  > > regards,
                                  > >
                                  > > spiritual truth
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Igmidio Galingan
                                  Just curious, did anybody save God s Warriors on a VHS or CD cause I missed it all... May I be so bold as to borrow your copy. :)
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 28, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Just curious, did anybody save God's Warriors on a VHS or CD cause I
                                    missed it all...

                                    May I be so bold as to borrow your copy. :)
                                  • jose mario sison
                                    I am excited to read ST s direct reply to the query below and hoping it does not degenerate to the usual dodging which are frequent in the past. ggmac1972
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Aug 29, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I am excited to read ST's direct reply to the query below and hoping it does not degenerate to the usual dodging which are frequent in the past.

                                      ggmac1972 <gregory.macaltao@...> wrote: Okay- - it's time to be humble:

                                      You did acknowledge that: "I dont share an
                                      extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                      (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God."

                                      If this is so - then the whole element of religion being a MUST goes away.

                                      No religion would ever say that you can find meaning apart from God.

                                      It's like saying - - and let's just create this absurd example: One
                                      need not go to a doctor to get cured. It is sufficient that one goes
                                      to the supermarket.

                                      If that's the case, the importance of a doctor is diminished, right?

                                      On that score - no religion would ever want to diminish itself, right?

                                      So while your view is admirable (non extreme view), it does lead to
                                      absurd consequences for organized religion.

                                      --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                                      <gregory.macaltao@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Spiritual truth,
                                      >
                                      > Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be best
                                      > attained by being part of an organized religion or some other group.
                                      > In fact, I am sure, despite your best efforts, you will feel sometimes
                                      > an emptiness or sadness etc. as part of your life. I think you are
                                      > missing a big point here - atheism is not a lifestyle. It is an
                                      > affirmation that there are no "beings" up there in the sky that
                                      > intervenes in our lives. So when you ask me if I am saying that "the
                                      > ultimate or absolute attainment of meaningful life is to be an
                                      > atheist", you did not read carefully what I wrote. Being an atheist
                                      > does not give meaning to my life. Atheism does not have any system of
                                      > beliefs other than the belief that there are no theistic deities in
                                      > the sky. So as to what meaning my life would have, that's up to me to
                                      > create.
                                      >
                                      > Now, religion on the other hand, particularly the 3 major religions
                                      > would claim that without being part of their religion, one cannot
                                      > attain full meaning. They would have to assert some kind of
                                      > superiority among religions because if they say - -"well, all of us do
                                      > similar things and achieve the same things" - - then why chose 1 over
                                      > the other. So yes - they do assert primacy over others while trying
                                      > to maintain good relations with other religions for co-existence
                                      purposes.
                                      >
                                      > Now - you ask - what's wrong in believing in God? The question you
                                      > should have asked is: Does one need to belief in God to find meaning
                                      > in life. Obviously, you would probably posit that yes - belief in God
                                      > is a necessity to find true meaning in life. I on the other hand
                                      > would posit things differently: I would say - there is no meaning in
                                      > life other than the meaning we ascribe to it. And so belief in God is
                                      > not a prerequisite to finding meaning in life.
                                      >
                                      > But if you really want to know - what is wrong in believing in God?
                                      > Well, believe what you want to believe. That is your right. What is
                                      > wrong with it is if your belief in God makes you think that all those
                                      > who don't cannot find true complete meaning in their lives.
                                      >
                                      > On the other hand - if in your desire to embrace humanity - you will
                                      > say it is not necessary - then, that makes religion a non-prerequisite
                                      > in finding meaning.
                                      >
                                      > So did I put you in a catch 22 position - damned if you do, damned if
                                      > you don't. That's what you call logical checkmate.
                                      >
                                      > So I'll bet the best position to adopt is the attitude you seem to
                                      > have right now - -that those who believe in God have found the light
                                      > and are in the best position to find true meaning in life. Those who
                                      > do not believe in God, will not find true meaning in their lives.
                                      >
                                      > Contrary therefore to that position - I'll say that there is no one
                                      > way to finding meaning. Just as each individual is unique, each
                                      > individual would have to create the meaning that makes sense to them.
                                      >
                                      > Now - did my atheism tell me this. Not at all. It's my logic,
                                      > reason, human experience, etc. that helped me think this through.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "spiritual_truth07"
                                      > <spiritual_truth07@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "ggmac1972"
                                      > > <gregory.macaltao@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > > The need for a social purpose can be achieved by being part of
                                      > > other
                                      > > > organizations and groups. Being engaged and part of civic society
                                      > > > will definitely help our lives become meaningful. Which is proof
                                      > > that
                                      > > > we create meaning in our lives and we can create (find) meaning and
                                      > > > purpose outside and even in the absence of a belief in a theistic
                                      > > being.
                                      > >
                                      > > Dear Greg,
                                      > >
                                      > > May I ask you if what's wrong believing in God, where this belief is
                                      > > applied to our society to achieve a meaningful life. I dont share an
                                      > > extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                      > > (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God, but I just
                                      > > want to know from you if the ultimate or absolute attainment of
                                      > > meaningful life is to be an atheist.
                                      > >
                                      > > thank you
                                      > >
                                      > > regards,
                                      > >
                                      > > spiritual truth
                                      > >
                                      >






                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • spiritual_truth07
                                      Dear Greg, ... best ... group. ... sometimes ... My reply: I m not missing your point from your previous message where I reacted. I clearly know that you did
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Aug 29, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Greg,

                                        You said:
                                        >
                                        > Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be
                                        best
                                        > attained by being part of an organized religion or some other
                                        group.
                                        > In fact, I am sure, despite your best efforts, you will feel
                                        sometimes
                                        > an emptiness or sadness etc. as part of your life.

                                        My reply:

                                        I'm not missing your point from your previous message where I
                                        reacted. I clearly know that you did never say that attaining
                                        meaningful life 'is best achieved' by being part of an organization
                                        or groups. Well, I leave to an individual on how he can attain or
                                        have meaningful life.

                                        I agree that despite how rational or religious a man is, he still
                                        has this emptiness and sadness. This is natural. Part of our being
                                        human. Only a sheer calculating machine that has no emotional needs
                                        to fill any void in its being. We're an infinite being too. We have
                                        the infinite possibilities of choosing of what we want 'to be' in a
                                        very short span of our human existence.


                                        You say:

                                        I think you are
                                        > missing a big point here - atheism is not a lifestyle. It is an
                                        > affirmation that there are no "beings" up there in the sky that
                                        > intervenes in our lives. So when you ask me if I am saying
                                        that "the
                                        > ultimate or absolute attainment of meaningful life is to be an
                                        > atheist", you did not read carefully what I wrote. Being an
                                        atheist
                                        > does not give meaning to my life. Atheism does not have any
                                        system of
                                        > beliefs other than the belief that there are no theistic deities in
                                        > the sky. So as to what meaning my life would have, that's up to
                                        me to
                                        > create.

                                        My reply:

                                        Greg, I do not think that I'm missing a point. You see, my question
                                        is an open question where any other atheist in this group could
                                        answer. It's an open minded question where you are capable of
                                        sharing your ideas. Im asking from your own poitn of view if (this
                                        is not a matter if you were an atheist or a theist) atheistm
                                        provides the absolute or ultimate attainment of meaningful life...if
                                        the level of meaninful life is grander to an atheist than to a theis.

                                        It's not fair to accuse me that I'm not reading carefully of what
                                        you're writing here. I don't give a superficial comment or just to
                                        upset your respectful ideas when I've a great interest on them here.


                                        You say:

                                        > Now, religion on the other hand, particularly the 3 major religions
                                        > would claim that without being part of their religion, one cannot
                                        > attain full meaning. They would have to assert some kind of
                                        > superiority among religions because if they say - -"well, all of
                                        us do
                                        > similar things and achieve the same things" - - then why chose 1
                                        over
                                        > the other. So yes - they do assert primacy over others while
                                        trying
                                        > to maintain good relations with other religions for co-existence
                                        purposes.


                                        MY reply:

                                        I don't think that we need to delve deeply on these particular
                                        religions just to sort out our own points.

                                        We need to transcend this limiting view and look out for the
                                        universal criticsm of being religious (to God).

                                        We can be religious (to God) without belonging to these organized
                                        religions. Therefore, for us to be silent and keep us away into
                                        limiting our understanding of the issue, let us treat the meaning of
                                        being religious in its universal term.



                                        You say:

                                        > Now - you ask - what's wrong in believing in God? The question you
                                        > should have asked is: Does one need to belief in God to find
                                        meaning
                                        > in life.


                                        my reply:

                                        My question is personal and of course logical. What logics makes it
                                        incorrect or not the type of question where a concerned individual
                                        like me or any other else can think of? My question has a universal
                                        form. Why universal? It directly/immediately, even to an ordinary
                                        thinker, concerns everybody. Yes, what's wrong in believing in God.
                                        Of course, our notion of these particular religions (where a
                                        disbeliever might accused them as source of human oppression,
                                        malevolence, lies, moral degradation, blind reasoning etc etc) comes
                                        into mind and can conceive such question and a possible answer. The
                                        question is a challenge especially to the disbeliever where he tries
                                        to dispose the meaning of belief in God.

                                        Of course, the question you're suggesting was an another kind of
                                        question which to be treated distinctively. A sort of question where
                                        having a belief ( belief in God is only a one sample) makes sense at
                                        all.


                                        You say:

                                        Obviously, you would probably posit that yes - belief in God
                                        > is a necessity to find true meaning in life. I on the other hand
                                        > would posit things differently: I would say - there is no meaning
                                        in
                                        > life other than the meaning we ascribe to it. And so belief in
                                        God is
                                        > not a prerequisite to finding meaning in life.



                                        My reply:

                                        There are individuals that belief in God, for them, is necessity.
                                        What does necessity means? Of course this question can create vast
                                        replies. It's best to leave this question. But why did I raise it?
                                        It's because, the application or function of necessart to an
                                        individual can be different from an another individual basing from
                                        their physiological, psychological and sociological complex.

                                        You say:

                                        > But if you really want to know - what is wrong in believing in
                                        God?
                                        > Well, believe what you want to believe. That is your right. What
                                        is
                                        > wrong with it is if your belief in God makes you think that all
                                        those
                                        > who don't cannot find true complete meaning in their lives.


                                        My reply:

                                        To say to me 'believe what you (I) want to believe', is unnecessary.

                                        Being an intelligent man, you already knew that I have my own belief
                                        before I enter this group and before I came across to your thoughts
                                        here. I also knew that you've your own belief. I need not to
                                        say, 'believe what YOU WANT to believe'. My believing is not an act
                                        of wanting.

                                        If we could classify people under the rubric of atheism.agnosticism.
                                        and theism, and if Im a theist, I don't and I can't claim that only
                                        in theism where TRUE and complete meaning in life is achievable.
                                        Example, can I have the ultimate logic or right to undress the
                                        belief of an atheist 'dressing' his meaningful life? No.

                                        You say:

                                        > On the other hand - if in your desire to embrace humanity - you
                                        will
                                        > say it is not necessary - then, that makes religion a non-
                                        prerequisite
                                        > in finding meaning.

                                        My reply:

                                        Humanity or humanism is a broad term. The meaning of humanism or of
                                        what humanity is, to an individual, could be 'to be religious' or to
                                        be a freethinker or agnostic, free from superstitious beliefs
                                        (contrary to scientific truths) or from dogmas of organized
                                        religions. My existentialism is not ultimately concerned on the
                                        proofs or disproofs of God's existence but on how I could stand my
                                        own way in this present life whether in the absence or presence of
                                        God. Of course, I you want to ask me if God exist's or does not
                                        exist is an another issue.


                                        You say:

                                        > So did I put you in a catch 22 position - damned if you do, damned
                                        if
                                        > you don't. That's what you call logical checkmate.
                                        >
                                        > So I'll bet the best position to adopt is the attitude you seem to
                                        > have right now - -that those who believe in God have found the
                                        light
                                        > and are in the best position to find true meaning in life. Those
                                        who
                                        > do not believe in God, will not find true meaning in their lives.



                                        My reply:

                                        I want to reiterate that my question to you was an open-question.
                                        what did I mean? It's a question where your honest replies were
                                        required. It was supposed to be, your moment to share your
                                        understanding of life. Let us avoid language that implicitly
                                        generates disgust.


                                        regards,


                                        spiritual truth
                                      • ggmac1972
                                        Well - -I ll have to agree with you on one point - - -your question was open ended and I think you genuinely wanted to understand what I had to say. I don t
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Aug 29, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Well - -I'll have to agree with you on one point - - -your question
                                          was open ended and I think you genuinely wanted to understand what I
                                          had to say.

                                          I don't know what your beliefs are and where you stand really. And I
                                          have to admit that my response sort of (understatement?) was
                                          aggressive. I actually regretted the "tone" after I pressed "send."

                                          Anyway - - I hope this acknowledgment from me is proof that I am
                                          basically rational and level-headed and if that particular moment
                                          caught me off guard and made me act like a rottweiler, then my
                                          apologies.

                                          Let me read your response again and I'll post something if there's
                                          anything to add. It's bedtime over here and I gotta hit the sack.
                                          But I wanted to get this note out - -because your last paragraph is
                                          something I realized before you even mentioned it.



                                          --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "spiritual_truth07"
                                          <spiritual_truth07@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Dear Greg,
                                          >
                                          > You said:
                                          > >
                                          > > Unlike most religious folks, I do not claim that meaning can be
                                          > best
                                          > > attained by being part of an organized religion or some other
                                          > group.
                                          > > In fact, I am sure, despite your best efforts, you will feel
                                          > sometimes
                                          > > an emptiness or sadness etc. as part of your life.
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > I'm not missing your point from your previous message where I
                                          > reacted. I clearly know that you did never say that attaining
                                          > meaningful life 'is best achieved' by being part of an organization
                                          > or groups. Well, I leave to an individual on how he can attain or
                                          > have meaningful life.
                                          >
                                          > I agree that despite how rational or religious a man is, he still
                                          > has this emptiness and sadness. This is natural. Part of our being
                                          > human. Only a sheer calculating machine that has no emotional needs
                                          > to fill any void in its being. We're an infinite being too. We have
                                          > the infinite possibilities of choosing of what we want 'to be' in a
                                          > very short span of our human existence.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > I think you are
                                          > > missing a big point here - atheism is not a lifestyle. It is an
                                          > > affirmation that there are no "beings" up there in the sky that
                                          > > intervenes in our lives. So when you ask me if I am saying
                                          > that "the
                                          > > ultimate or absolute attainment of meaningful life is to be an
                                          > > atheist", you did not read carefully what I wrote. Being an
                                          > atheist
                                          > > does not give meaning to my life. Atheism does not have any
                                          > system of
                                          > > beliefs other than the belief that there are no theistic deities in
                                          > > the sky. So as to what meaning my life would have, that's up to
                                          > me to
                                          > > create.
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > Greg, I do not think that I'm missing a point. You see, my question
                                          > is an open question where any other atheist in this group could
                                          > answer. It's an open minded question where you are capable of
                                          > sharing your ideas. Im asking from your own poitn of view if (this
                                          > is not a matter if you were an atheist or a theist) atheistm
                                          > provides the absolute or ultimate attainment of meaningful life...if
                                          > the level of meaninful life is grander to an atheist than to a theis.
                                          >
                                          > It's not fair to accuse me that I'm not reading carefully of what
                                          > you're writing here. I don't give a superficial comment or just to
                                          > upset your respectful ideas when I've a great interest on them here.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > > Now, religion on the other hand, particularly the 3 major religions
                                          > > would claim that without being part of their religion, one cannot
                                          > > attain full meaning. They would have to assert some kind of
                                          > > superiority among religions because if they say - -"well, all of
                                          > us do
                                          > > similar things and achieve the same things" - - then why chose 1
                                          > over
                                          > > the other. So yes - they do assert primacy over others while
                                          > trying
                                          > > to maintain good relations with other religions for co-existence
                                          > purposes.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > MY reply:
                                          >
                                          > I don't think that we need to delve deeply on these particular
                                          > religions just to sort out our own points.
                                          >
                                          > We need to transcend this limiting view and look out for the
                                          > universal criticsm of being religious (to God).
                                          >
                                          > We can be religious (to God) without belonging to these organized
                                          > religions. Therefore, for us to be silent and keep us away into
                                          > limiting our understanding of the issue, let us treat the meaning of
                                          > being religious in its universal term.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > > Now - you ask - what's wrong in believing in God? The question you
                                          > > should have asked is: Does one need to belief in God to find
                                          > meaning
                                          > > in life.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > my reply:
                                          >
                                          > My question is personal and of course logical. What logics makes it
                                          > incorrect or not the type of question where a concerned individual
                                          > like me or any other else can think of? My question has a universal
                                          > form. Why universal? It directly/immediately, even to an ordinary
                                          > thinker, concerns everybody. Yes, what's wrong in believing in God.
                                          > Of course, our notion of these particular religions (where a
                                          > disbeliever might accused them as source of human oppression,
                                          > malevolence, lies, moral degradation, blind reasoning etc etc) comes
                                          > into mind and can conceive such question and a possible answer. The
                                          > question is a challenge especially to the disbeliever where he tries
                                          > to dispose the meaning of belief in God.
                                          >
                                          > Of course, the question you're suggesting was an another kind of
                                          > question which to be treated distinctively. A sort of question where
                                          > having a belief ( belief in God is only a one sample) makes sense at
                                          > all.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > Obviously, you would probably posit that yes - belief in God
                                          > > is a necessity to find true meaning in life. I on the other hand
                                          > > would posit things differently: I would say - there is no meaning
                                          > in
                                          > > life other than the meaning we ascribe to it. And so belief in
                                          > God is
                                          > > not a prerequisite to finding meaning in life.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > There are individuals that belief in God, for them, is necessity.
                                          > What does necessity means? Of course this question can create vast
                                          > replies. It's best to leave this question. But why did I raise it?
                                          > It's because, the application or function of necessart to an
                                          > individual can be different from an another individual basing from
                                          > their physiological, psychological and sociological complex.
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > > But if you really want to know - what is wrong in believing in
                                          > God?
                                          > > Well, believe what you want to believe. That is your right. What
                                          > is
                                          > > wrong with it is if your belief in God makes you think that all
                                          > those
                                          > > who don't cannot find true complete meaning in their lives.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > To say to me 'believe what you (I) want to believe', is unnecessary.
                                          >
                                          > Being an intelligent man, you already knew that I have my own belief
                                          > before I enter this group and before I came across to your thoughts
                                          > here. I also knew that you've your own belief. I need not to
                                          > say, 'believe what YOU WANT to believe'. My believing is not an act
                                          > of wanting.
                                          >
                                          > If we could classify people under the rubric of atheism.agnosticism.
                                          > and theism, and if Im a theist, I don't and I can't claim that only
                                          > in theism where TRUE and complete meaning in life is achievable.
                                          > Example, can I have the ultimate logic or right to undress the
                                          > belief of an atheist 'dressing' his meaningful life? No.
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > > On the other hand - if in your desire to embrace humanity - you
                                          > will
                                          > > say it is not necessary - then, that makes religion a non-
                                          > prerequisite
                                          > > in finding meaning.
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > Humanity or humanism is a broad term. The meaning of humanism or of
                                          > what humanity is, to an individual, could be 'to be religious' or to
                                          > be a freethinker or agnostic, free from superstitious beliefs
                                          > (contrary to scientific truths) or from dogmas of organized
                                          > religions. My existentialism is not ultimately concerned on the
                                          > proofs or disproofs of God's existence but on how I could stand my
                                          > own way in this present life whether in the absence or presence of
                                          > God. Of course, I you want to ask me if God exist's or does not
                                          > exist is an another issue.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You say:
                                          >
                                          > > So did I put you in a catch 22 position - damned if you do, damned
                                          > if
                                          > > you don't. That's what you call logical checkmate.
                                          > >
                                          > > So I'll bet the best position to adopt is the attitude you seem to
                                          > > have right now - -that those who believe in God have found the
                                          > light
                                          > > and are in the best position to find true meaning in life. Those
                                          > who
                                          > > do not believe in God, will not find true meaning in their lives.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > My reply:
                                          >
                                          > I want to reiterate that my question to you was an open-question.
                                          > what did I mean? It's a question where your honest replies were
                                          > required. It was supposed to be, your moment to share your
                                          > understanding of life. Let us avoid language that implicitly
                                          > generates disgust.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > regards,
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > spiritual truth
                                          >
                                        • spiritual_truth07
                                          Dear Greg, ... My reply: I share that principle because any truly intelligent or rational individual must admit that meaning of life is self-imposed. ... goes
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Aug 29, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Greg,

                                            You said:


                                            > Okay- - it's time to be humble:
                                            >
                                            > You did acknowledge that: "I dont share an
                                            > extreme and biased viewed that we can not have a meaningful life
                                            > (possibly, to an individual) without a belief in God."


                                            My reply:

                                            I share that principle because any truly intelligent or rational
                                            individual must admit that meaning of life is self-imposed.

                                            You said:

                                            > If this is so - then the whole element of religion being a MUST
                                            goes away.


                                            My reply:

                                            We need to argue with religious people if that was the case. What
                                            we're up to now or we're trying to 'cook' is the philosophy of
                                            the 'meaning of life' with the view in mind of complex belief
                                            systems. Atheism is a belief just like theism. Atheism requires its
                                            own logical system to exert its belief -)


                                            You say:

                                            > So while your view is admirable (non extreme view), it does lead to
                                            > absurd consequences for organized religion.


                                            My reply:

                                            Why should an indivudal belonging to an organized religion (where he
                                            claims that his religion is the absolute truth) need to adopt my
                                            view? Isn't absurd to suggest a believer to adopt my view?


                                            regards,

                                            spiritual truth
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.