Prayer request

On 6/19/2020 5:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb :

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.

There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't
need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced
in understanding insect flight.

You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student
that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps
deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing
device when in fact it is not.

A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee
being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be
correct.

Rather like the fact that Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous
substance.


Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is
clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this
universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign
of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create
human beings.


"Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous substance."

Well, of course. Chemicals are bad,


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.


Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.

No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase.

Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you
give me chapter and verse?

If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon.

It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it
sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is
no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t
punish you if you don’t.�, would your moral compass point a different
direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral
behaviour.

Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two
choices; not even close.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/19/2020 1:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Some religious people are deserving of mockery...

And so are some atheists, some lawyers, some retired professors, some
high school dropouts, some software engineers, some bike shop owners,
etc. etc.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 5:16:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.


Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.

No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase.

Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you
give me chapter and verse?

If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon.

Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the
art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink.
Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with
that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to
consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you.

It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it
sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is
no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t
punish you if you don’t.�, would your moral compass point a different
direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral
behaviour.

Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two
choices; not even close.

Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page
treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to
boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the
confluence of “How did we get here?� and “If I invoke some omnipresent
being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to
do.�

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 1:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Some religious people are deserving of mockery...

And so are some atheists, some lawyers, some retired professors, some
high school dropouts, some software engineers, some bike shop owners,
etc. etc.

Yes, we all get to wear the pointy hat sometimes.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:32:09 -0700, cyclintom wrote:

I'm Catholic though perhaps lapsed, but MAN are there loopholes. I'm
thinking that my wife is going to be doing God's dishes for at least
half of an eternity in purgatory until she learns to clean something. In
her Church of England style she thinks that all you have to do is say,
"I'm sorry" and all is forgiven.

That is correct. Hint, don't do a Donald and actually read your bible.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I think that the Jews had something like 622 religious laws.

Not "had". We still have them today.

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. 248 that say one should do
this or that. 365 that say one should not do this or that. Some of
the list is quite practical, such as how to deal with lepers and what
constitutes ethical business practices. Think micro-management.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
Much of today's legal code can be traced back to these 613
commandments, or their practical interpretation as English common law.

Jesus reduced these to just two - Remember thy lord thy God and
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That should
be simple enough for even a lawyer to understand.

There is always a group that believes that minimalist living and
lifestyle simplification are the answers to life's complications. It
even appears in computers as RISC (reduced instruction set computer):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_instruction_set_computer
While there are some benefits to minimizing the number of laws and
computer instructions, in the long haul, complex systems are more
useful and successful. That's because simplification forces the
practitioners to make far more decisions than with a complex system,
where all the rules are neatly codified as laws and inscribed in
stone. Complex systems also have the benefit of having everyone
operating by an identical rule set, instead of inventing or
interpreting a small rule set as we blunder our way through life. As
near as I can tell, there is not the slightest indication that the
number of rules governing our lives is decreasing in number or in
complexity.

The "real" Jesus:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/15/jesus-face-recreated-scientists-skulls_n_8809466.html
which is also all wrong. Jesus was an Arab and therefore had much
darker skin, a narrow face, a longer nose, a rather thin build, and a
full hipster beard. Since he was Jewish, long sidelocks. At age 30
something, he should be showing the start of a receding hair line.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 11:59:44 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

Don't forget that you are worshiping the God of the Jews, who have a
contract with him/her/it. Do the Muslims and Christians have a formal
agreement with God?
--
cheers,

John B.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Slow Johnny. Your ignorance and lack of education is showing again. The Jews are not, repeat NOT, the only believers to have a compact with God (nobody has a "contract" with God, as you try to make out in your ignorance). For instance a very large group of Christians, Calvinists, has as its central belief predestination, which is the purest expression of the compact with God that all the Abrahamic religions profess if not in such pre-eminent form as Calvinists. But if you use your brain and read beyond Wikipedia (Jesus save me, Wikipedia!), you'll discover that the compact with their God is pretty near the surface of the religion professed by about 99.999% of the world's religious people. For instance, Confucianism is a patriarchal religion, just like the Abrahamic religions, which promises that if you study hard and let your little fingernail grow very long indeed, you will be rewarded with plum government jobs even in this life.

Andre Jute
You should try reading some of the King James version. It's not only very interesting but will improve your English, possibly even onto nuanced insight, and, perhaps, if you aren't your usual asshole self, improve your chances of not landing up in the flames in the afterlife.

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 6:27:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:

I don't know where you get the belief that a lifetime of evil can be offset by a last moment request for leniency.

Priest, sloshing holy water, to old roue on his deathbed: "Do you now renounce the Devil and all his works."

Old sinner, with his last breath: "I do not, Father. Now is no time to be making new enemies!"

Andre Jute
Reflecting on the life of William James Roué (1879–1970), the naval designer famous for his Bluenose fishing schooner: what changes he saw in his life!