--- In [email protected], "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > I think I figured out something important concerning the dialog between > > theists and atheists. When theists argue against atheists, it usually > > concerns the actual existence of a God. The arguments are often at the > > most abstract range of philosophical discussion where metaphysics and > > ontology (the study of what exists in philosophy) wander into a local > > Starbucks, and after ordering bloatedly caloric peppermint and gingerbread > > lattes,sit together eating cake balls off sticks (actual Starbucks > > overpriced confectionery)like a couple of dorks. > > Basicaly, there are two types of Gods. The personal god of > Abraham, Issac and Jacob. And the god of the Spinoza, > absolutely impersonal having no special people and no active > interst in causation.
That is the God of the deists I think. I don't see how any atheist could have a problem with such ideas as a theory about how this all began. I certainly don't. But there is a gray area where people claim special mental states that align them with say abstract natural laws so they can claim as was claimed about Maharishi, that they are nature speaking English or have spontaneous "right" action. The claims line gets kind of fuzzy with the claims of what "higher" or "altered" states mean. Abstract philosophers don't cross into this gray zone but most yogic claims do. > > Do you think a babbling moron like Robin can make > distinctions between the two? Robin hasn't really clarified or expanded on his theological views. I believe he does make this distinction, but has given priority to the personal as being more real in some unexplained sense. > > > > > If I hear one more theist announce that you "can't prove that God does NOT > > exist" as if proving a negative is even logically possible for anything, I > > might just have to replace all those Starbucks' cake balls with C4 plastic > > explosives, order my $1.53 coffee-of-the-day, and sit down to enjoy the > > fireworks. (Surprisingly little brain matter gets splattered from the > > cake-ball-on-a-stick eaters.) > > > > Wow, sorry about that. I didn't realize my homicidal rage at this faux > > Tootsie-pop till I started writing. But in my defense, I sat through the > > whole mini cupcake fad without a single peep. It was only when they > > covered the little bastards in chocolate and put them on a stick that I had > > to say my piece. So where was I...so easily distracted by food... > > > > Oh yeah, the problem atheists have has nothing to do with the existence or > > non existence of any of the various god ideas that people enjoy. And the > > move by theists to frame the discussion in those terms can now officially > > cease with this post. > > > > I have never heard any atheist (and I've read a few) make a case for the > > non existence of God. The actual existence of God is not an up topic. It > > literally doesn't come up much. It is completely eclipsed by the actual > > problem atheist's have is the theist's claim that anyone knows what God > > wants. > > > > That is the problem atheists have with theism. They don't believe that any > > of the self-appointed managers for the big guy, are actually receiving W-9s > > (Yeah, God never gives health insurance benefits of fulltime employment > > just like Maharishi. We are all independent contractors to save on taxes.) > > with heaven listed as the address of the employer and the employment ID > > number being Pi. > > > > So if someone holds up say, a Bible, and says, "this is the word of God and > > we are going to follow everything in it except the part where we need to > > kill people for working on the sabbath because we might run out of Bud-lite > > during the football game and might need a 7-11 run including but not > > limited to pork rinds and Yahoo. And we can't openly support slavery or > > beating women with a rod the thickness of your thumb, but when you try to > > bring these cases in front of a judge, don't worry we will work something > > out for you. But that thing that says that gay people are an abomination > > is the word of God, and we are the right ones to be making these > > distinctions..." > > > > the atheist puts up one of his fingers and says, "I don't mean you are > > number one". > > > > It has nothing to do with the possibility that there might be some kind of > > super being out there, or in here or wherever, it has to do with whether or > > not it is credible that this particular book can be distinguished from any > > other wonderful examples of people making shit up and repeating the stories > > again and again until other people forgot that someone made it up. And > > back in the day before celebrity publishing dominated, the catch phrase for > > anything someone wanted to promote as the next best seller was that God > > wrote it, or dictated it, or had it ghost written for him or her or him > > dressed like a her.(Yes I mean you cross-dressing Krishna. The Christian > > Bible says you are an abomination with your blue Jersey Shore spray tan.) > > > > So this is my cause for the New Year. Bringing up this critical distinction > > between what atheists actually are saying, and what many theists want them > > to be saying because it would be much more convenient if the burden of > > proof could be shifted away from the person claiming to speak for God. > > > > I want to start the New Year off right by stating unequivocally that I have > > never met any human being who I believe is so different from the rest of us > > that this specialness can only be explained by actual contact with the > > creator of the universe. What I do see are one out of a million of us, > > audacious enough to claim to have this connection, and whole bunches of the > > rest of us deferring to this claim without demanding more proof than that > > he stays up late a lot, giggles at his own jokes and one time a plane or > > boat didn't leave without him when it usually leaves on time. (actual proof > > offered of Maharishi's special state of mind) > > > > I am resisting the temptation to stick the landing with some cutesy > > reference to those damn cake pops to tie this whole post together because > > I'm serious this time. > > > > Atheists don't know if there really is some God being. Neither do theists. > > Or if they do, they have not made a convincing case to atheists. But that > > is a moot point. > > > > The real point is that nobody knows that God hates gay people so lets get > > the F off their backs (unfortunate image I know) and let them enjoy the > > hell of marriage like straight people. Because we may not be living > > eternally, but being married can sure make it feel as if you are. > > > > That's as stuck a landing as I'm gunna get. > > >
