Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[arthur]

Wrong, arthur.

Futhermore, we don't knock people's character on ToeQuest, as it is against the rules.

Any more, signifying a trend, and you will probably get reported.

Your post demonstrates how a 'concept of good' can label and pursue the contrary as 'evil'.

Hello again Austin.

I have no idea what you mean by "wrong". I have re-read my reply to you and I agree that to some one who is not the objective scientific minded expert that so many of your post imply that you are, my reply to you might appear a little harsh, but character knocking definitely not. That is of course unless you consider your academic and intellectual, scientific and objective understanding of religion your character as opposed to your personality, your approach to life and all of the qualities that make you the (no doubt wonderful) person you are.
Austin, let us assume for a moment that you are in fact the wonderful person that I feel you might possibly be and ask the question of why you feel it necessary to impugn the character of, and I quote from my earlier post, "so many beautiful honest people accepting and believing in the concept that there is an all loving almighty god who looks over us and who will ultimately protect us." Could the reason possibly be in your character, could the reason possibly be that because of your character you, like so many other "intellectual" and "academic" derive a sense of satisfaction from bullying, sneering and ridiculing people who have a faith that you don’t understand? Now here Austin I am not suggesting that for one moment that it is the case but, if it were to be, don't you think that perhaps someone like me has a obligation to comment upon the pseudo intellectual and uninformed and contrary to your claim "we don't knock people's character on Toe Quest," bullying?
I don't understand what you mean by "Your post demonstrates how a 'concept of good' can label and pursue the contrary as 'evil'
Finally, Austin I suggest that you re-read my earlier reply to you and my reply to Greg and reconsider how much of your superior intellectual prowess is supported by impugning the faiths, beliefs, lifestyles and religions and characters of billions of people.
We have a saying here in Ireland "If you cant take it don't give it"

My kindest regards and forgiveness (see reply to Greg)

arthur..

[racecar]

Oh my goodness, Arthur...

sorry, not that it interests you, but I didn't know you were Irish and I was using my Irish brogue(probably lost you there)...kinda coincidental. I'm only part Irish...and part Italian.

Top of the morn to ya!

[leskey]

Those intellectuals who knock God are amazingly adept at summoning the forces of hell.

Man has survived millennia of religious faith with little, lasting indication of destructive environmental harm. Evidence supports mankind's worship of God/gods from the beginning. There have been approximately 11,600 years of belief in the major religions. Yet, 350 years of science's brand of (broadly-speaking) atheistic/agnostic intellectualism and we daily face another aspect of our probable demise - most of which has arisen in the past 65 years.

"So, in only three percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appears to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era." - "The Irrational Atheist" - Vox Day

Rather than being the heroic rescuer of Mankind, science is increasingly conspicuous in it's the capacity to send us all back to the caves. Who'd have thought, it would take any kind of intellectual to achieve that?

[austintorn@aol.com]

"we don't knock people's character on Toe Quest," bullying

You may consider the referenced ToeQuest guidelines to be bullying on you and so you may take it up with the owner of ToeQuest. I am only the messenger.

To message you, further we only kick the fair game of ball of ideas around on TQ, never the players themselves[or bans follow].

God is an idea.

Hate to tell you guys, Leskey included, but ‘knocking’ ideas is allowed on TQ. Calling them ‘knocks’ instead of discussions is a ploy that is easily seen through.

To discuss a particular idea of God no more impugns character, even indirectly, than, say, discussing pro and con of whether there is an actual reality of space or if it is just an empty place. Otherwise, all sides of a debate could be charged with impugning the actual characters of the debaters. Lame reason to try to stifle debate. Ironically, in reply to this lame claim, ToeQuest is here exactly for such debate!

The ‘evil’ is trying to protect your [flawed] ‘concept of good’ by undermining the character of those contrary, a common ploy used before on TQ and in life. Kicking the player does nothing to support one’s ideas. In fact, it probably even dissuades and distances some members from taking the idea seriously and/or wishing to discuss it further. (Count me out, for one.)

God is not just an idea—a beautiful one actually—but an an idea about an invisible. So, it is a theory.

We’ve explained through natural selection how humans naturally came to believe in good and evil spirits, all of which later on were shown to be wrong. The Gods were not on mountain tops or the moon. Physical ills were not caused by evil spirits but by bacteria and viruses. Mental ills, called sins, were not of the Evil Spirit, the Devil, but of brain chemistry, upbringing and human nature. Nor was the Earth flat or the center of anything. The Jewish even dispute the divinity of Jesus, they being there at the the time, he even being one of their own.

Anyway, from there—the wish of an idea—religion makes a leap to that it is a truth. This is an error—to preach a theory as a truth. Until 5th grade, I was one of the little ones preached to by this merciless indoctrination by the Catholic Church. So, from the invisible, a whole further structure was built upon more assumptions, umteen levels high.

Religion retarded science, burning and pursuing the scientists. The Catholic religion (and others) even attempted to squash other religions with crusades of killing, even those with relatively minor differences.

Anyway, then from the ‘truth’, they claimed proof. There is none. So, live and let live.

We would just leave it at that, if it were harmless, but Religion still ever attempts stifle inquiry, for it there is no further questioning of its answer that ‘God did it.” So, there are clashes about what science should be taught in schools, as if the known can’t be taught, in favor of the unknown., not to mention more wars The Church still lobbies Congress against scientific progress.

To boot, God, as known in the testament of old, is not a good role model but is even a menace of an emotional vengeful person. Good riddance to that Guy whose traits are not good to follow, joining the forgotten lot of those hundreds of gods come before. That insanity, couched in words like ‘mysterious ways’ makes the Guy look very much to have a human nature imposed on Him.

So, these are thoughts on the idea of [the more recent] Imaginary Friend—God, and the actual instances of religion’s beliefs.

Leskey, we know you are anti-science, which is fine, but it gave you electricity and airplanes, 2 of which were used on 9-11. If only the religious of the past had had betters weapons?

Science discoveries had to come sometime. No one wishes to return what science has given, do they?

Like all things, good and bad are of humans, not of things discovered as 'bad' byproducts of other good things.

I don't understand what you mean by "Your post demonstrates how a 'concept of good' can label and pursue the contrary as 'evil'

The answer:

The Root of Evil

Other than direct hurts to persons,
Is what some groups think of ‘good’ arbitrary?
And harmless, until it is imposed on people?

We see many good and bad things directly,
Person to person,
Via the actual.
Such are the good civil laws
And good human values taught.

The problem becomes when we ‘see’
From no direction but the imagined,
Via the unreal.
These ‘good’ things, merely pronounced,
Also define their ‘bad’ counterparts.

One then ‘forgets’ their null source,
Leaping into complete adoption,
Becoming more and more with them one;
Thus, the ideas must be protected.

Anger arises toward the contrary,
As emotion stains the brain.

Then, evil is done
In the name of ‘good’.

All these ‘good’ things
Eventually
Come to a bloody end.

[leskey]

The opinions displayed here may or may not be those of the poster. Open discussion (or debate, if you can find it) and a wide spectrum of opinions ARE welcome. It's all in the name of brain-storming.

Evil is NOT the topic here...however, evil is no more than the absence of love. If you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, start another thread.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Evil is NOT the topic here... however, evil is no more than the absence of love. If you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, start another thread.

Leskey, do you mind if I answered the guy's question?

..I don't understand what you mean by "Your post demonstrates how a 'concept of good' can label and pursue the contrary as 'evil'

Please try to follow the thread questions, Leskey.

[austintorn@aol.com]

(Leave the moderating to the moderators .... stick to the thread .... mod)

[arthur]

"we don't knock people's character on Toe Quest," bullying

You may consider the referenced ToeQuest guidelines to be bullying on you and so you may take it up with the owner of ToeQuest. I am only the messenger.

To message you, further we only kick the fair game of ball of ideas around on TQ, never the players themselves[or bans follow].

God is an idea.

Hate to tell you guys, Leskey included, but ‘knocking’ ideas is allowed on TQ. Calling them ‘knocks’ instead of discussions is a ploy that is easily seen through.

To discuss a particular idea of God no more impugns character, even indirectly, than, say, discussing pro and con of whether there is an actual reality of space or if it is just an empty place. Otherwise, all sides of a debate could be charged with impugning the actual characters of the debaters. Lame reason to try to stifle debate. Ironically, in reply to this lame claim, ToeQuest is here exactly for such debate!

The ‘evil’ is trying to protect your [flawed] ‘concept of good’ by undermining the character of those contrary, a common ploy used before on TQ and in life. Kicking the player does nothing to support one’s ideas. In fact, it probably even dissuades and distances some members from taking the idea seriously and/or wishing to discuss it further. (Count me out, for one.)

God is not just an idea—a beautiful one actually—but an an idea about an invisible. So, it is a theory.

We’ve explained through natural selection how humans naturally came to believe in good and evil spirits, all of which later on were shown to be wrong. The Gods were not on mountain tops or the moon. Physical ills were not caused by evil spirits but by bacteria and viruses. Mental ills, called sins, were not of the Evil Spirit, the Devil, but of brain chemistry, upbringing and human nature. Nor was the Earth flat or the center of anything. The Jewish even dispute the divinity of Jesus, they being there at the the time, he even being one of their own.

Anyway, from there—the wish of an idea—religion makes a leap to that it is a truth. This is an error—to preach a theory as a truth. Until 5th grade, I was one of the little ones preached to by this merciless indoctrination by the Catholic Church. So, from the invisible, a whole further structure was built upon more assumptions, umteen levels high.

Religion retarded science, burning and pursuing the scientists. The Catholic religion (and others) even attempted to squash other religions with crusades of killing, even those with relatively minor differences.

Anyway, then from the ‘truth’, they claimed proof. There is none. So, live and let live.

We would just leave it at that, if it were harmless, but Religion still ever attempts stifle inquiry, for it there is no further questioning of its answer that ‘God did it.” So, there are clashes about what science should be taught in schools, as if the known can’t be taught, in favor of the unknown., not to mention more wars The Church still lobbies Congress against scientific progress.

To boot, God, as known in the testament of old, is not a good role model but is even a menace of an emotional vengeful person. Good riddance to that Guy whose traits are not good to follow, joining the forgotten lot of those hundreds of gods come before. That insanity, couched in words like ‘mysterious ways’ makes the Guy look very much to have a human nature imposed on Him.

So, these are thoughts on the idea of [the more recent] Imaginary Friend—God, and the actual instances of religion’s beliefs.

Leskey, we know you are anti-science, which is fine, but it gave you electricity and airplanes, 2 of which were used on 9-11. If only the religious of the past had had betters weapons?

Science discoveries had to come sometime. No one wishes to return what science has given, do they?

Like all things, good and bad are of humans, not of things discovered as 'bad' byproducts of other good things.

I don't understand what you mean by "Your post demonstrates how a 'concept of good' can label and pursue the contrary as 'evil'

The answer:

The Root of Evil

Other than direct hurts to persons,
Is what some groups think of ‘good’ arbitrary?
And harmless, until it is imposed on people?

We see many good and bad things directly,
Person to person,
Via the actual.
Such are the good civil laws
And good human values taught.

The problem becomes when we ‘see’
From no direction but the imagined,
Via the unreal.
These ‘good’ things, merely pronounced,
Also define their ‘bad’ counterparts.

One then ‘forgets’ their null source,
Leaping into complete adoption,
Becoming more and more with them one;
Thus, the ideas must be protected.

Anger arises toward the contrary,
As emotion stains the brain.

Then, evil is done
In the name of ‘good’.

All these ‘good’ things
Eventually
Come to a bloody end.

Hello, yet again, Austin.
Let us assume, Austin, that you are, as I believe you to be, a chap of integrity. As such why did you start your post with the partial out of context quote instead of my none rhetorical question of 'do you think that I have an obligation to comment upon, if it were to be the case, your bullying', as in the following.
"Now here Austin I am not suggesting that for one moment that it is the case but, if it were to be, don't you think that perhaps someone like me has a obligation to comment upon the pseudo intellectual and uninformed and contrary to your claim "we don't knock people's character on Toe Quest," bullying? " And then, why on earth did you imply that I might feel bullied?? These and any of my questions are not rhetorical questions therefore as a chap of integrity I'm sure you will feel an obligation to answer them.

Anyway Austin, as you will no doubt appreciate, for me to dissect, categorise and comment upon the other potentially argumentative silliness's in your rant would be very tedious. So to avoid any further need for the emotional defence of ones ego and to give us, that is you and I, the opportunity to step back and re-appraise how and more importantly why my original question and condensed history prompted you to respond in the way that you did? again a non rhetorical question.
And: are you at this moment, before you browse the Web in search for information snippets, aware of the role Religion has played in your existence, you sense of logic, your physique, your pomposity or humility and of course in the development of your character? yet again a non rhetorical question, although I do know the answer to this one it is 'NO' because if it had been 'Yes' your initial response to my initial question would have been tainted with more humility.
Finally Austin your post did bring up various points which I admit I was tempted to respond to but held back from fear of prolonging your embarrassment but one point was so close to my heart I thought that you would find it interesting to read part of an essay I wrote when I was 13 years old and it is to do with your contention that "We’ve explained" who ever the 'we' are. We here in Ireland have a saying, the meaning of which is self evident to those in the know, 'An emotional rabbit should never try to bite a badgers bum'

Part of that 13 year old boys essay.

In the past eminent scientists, philosophers and intellectuals considered, understood and had no doubts what so ever as to the fact that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all that they contain including 'Humans', the male of which, he created in his own likeness.
In the past after methodical and scientific investigation into the origin of human life skilled theologians and intellectuals concluded that the Moon, Mother of all creation, during an eclipse, mounted the sun and begot 'Man'.
In the past, experts after scrutinising and carefully studying 'the evidence' concluded and accepted as the 'truth' that two great dragons, a male and a female fought over the possession of the world and that when the male defeated and killed the female she as a last act of revenge excreted 'Human beings'.
In the past, because of the overwhelming evidence and proofs that a great serpent from the sea, spewed forth all of the living creatures that populate the world, including 'Human beings' expert scientific studiers of phenomena proclaimed it to be a fact.
In the past, it was considered as fact, by educated people who had acquired a reputation for understanding how the world worked, that when the father of all of the gods was slain, from out of his cleaved skull, into the world, came Man and Woman.
Today, in regards to the origin of human life, some people who have been accredited by some other people with intellectual skills and who have come to believe that they themselves have an intellectual prowess beyond that of the 'ordinary' person argue with the same level of conviction as their intellectual predecessors that by chance, through a complex chain of spontaneous chemical reactions, amino acids, proteins and eventually single celled organisms were created from which all of life evolved.

That's it, by the way Austin that Irish saying really only means 'One can't be emotionally objective' and in some parts of the country it is said to mean 'Always remember how little you actually know' and in other parts of the country, particularly in Mayo (what do they know) it is supposed to mean 'The interpretation comes from what is heard not from what is said' I am sorry if any of my comments or remarks in this or any of my posts prompts you to question your fallibility as an intellectual, as you have implied many times that you are a scientist so that is not likely

my regards…arthur..

[Graybeard]

Dear Peoples ... the moderators decide if the rules are being broken, no one else! I'm tired of deleting posts in this thread. Please stick to Arthur's subject for all further posts. ....

Graybeard ... mod

[Profpat]

Hi Arthur;

Why would any intellectual knock God. Intellectual implies intelligent. Which God would they be knocking? Aristotle's " Prime Mover "? I'm a theist but I don't even try to define God, rather I accept God through faith. I am critical of all organized religion as being antichrist. But I don't believe Jesus is/was God, any more than you and I.

RP has a thread Science vs God. I recommended that he change the title to Science vs Religion. I believe that is where the biggest beef is at, a person's specific belief in Who or What God is.

That God allows " Evil " to happen is obvious, just as it should be obvious, that this is necessary to allow for " Free Will "

For an atheist like Austin to knock God is a paradox. How do you knock something which to you, doesn't exist. Again you may knock or criticize certain beliefs, people may have regarding God. But to knock God, when you profess not to believe in God, confuses me, because that person who would do that is confused.

Best,

Pat