This is poo (shite)

[David]

Just to concur with the thoughts expressed about "this is poo". I have never
felt God as some autonomous exitence but merely as institution with a
history of power and corruption and do-gooding tendencies. An institution
with a history and a pathway that seeks to maintain a group of followers
that contribute to what is a corporate entity by any definition. The
shareholders do not necessarily make a monetry investment although many do.
But they surely want some dividends on their investment. Like most
corporations the body becomes corrupt and also may have some philanthropic
tendencies. Modern religion now constricted and unable to use death and
torture like past times appeals to consumerism in effective happy-clappy
churches the world over. I would say the current mantra of evangelical
churches polluting our youth in Australia is not get down on your knees and
believe but pick up a musical instrument, play it badly or sing with your
hands in the air with your eyes closed to some pop-rock monstrosity and yes
indeed you are the chosen few. But do not fuck the girl you desire until you
have an expensive wedding and ban the cameras from the speaking in toungues
orgy that gives bad press.
Simply this type of theism is well wrong. Literal interpretations of the
bible mixed up with rock music in some abomination that is surely evil. I
don't even think Deicide can match the evil that dwells.
Simply in some cases also an excuse for business people of like ( converted
business opportunities) minds to make lots of money ( we network you know)
as is the gospel of this style of christianity let them go for it and well
"a screaming comes across the sky". Enuff!!!! I just wish a new Slothrop
would start fucking on the sly in the evangelical churches of this nation.
We could get a pattern going!!!! And a screaming...




Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:47:33 -0400
From: "Joel Katz" <mittelwerk at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Big Bang?

>From: "Tully Rector" <tully_rector at hotmail.com>

Theists make a claim: "the concept of God is exemplified in the real world";
Atheists make a claim: "the concept of God is not exemplified in the real
world"



this is poo.  you're attempting to intellectualize what is by your own
admission an irrational decision.  you're like a technical consumer who,
after great deliberation, buys the thing that doesn't work.  osama is far
preferable to this -- at least i can tell where he's coming from when he
speaks of notions like 'transcendence' and demands sacrifice.  why don't you
explain to me what it means to you?  that fuzzy feeling you get when you're
waiting on line at the cinnabuns?

like most atheists, i don't believe in a deity because (then, as a child,
and now)  i never felt or thought its autonomous existence -- only the
immense, often menacing and hysterical social and institutional pressure to
say i did.  how the fuck is that a claim?  the only claims ever being made
(like yours) were the ones that made implicit the 'believers' views of their
own moral superiority as 'initiates.'  obviously, god contacted you, rectal,
and not me -- you must be really special.  you and osama and torquemada.

i'm also sick of these puerile definitions of faith vis a vis 'evidentiary
proof.'  as if the power and gelt of the holy roman empire did not suggest
'evidentiary proof' to your common illiterate shit-piler.  religion did not
choose to go, pace kierkegaard's bourgeois affirmation (of private anxiety),
but retreated beyond faith in modernity.  in a sense it simply returned to
its ideological roots in magic.  only now the word is not equal to the
sacred, but is uttered in place of it, as all that's left.  or, as pascal
said -- get down on your knees, and you will believe.




>To truly "make no claim" is impossible. Only someone who has never heard of
>the concept of God is capable of that (& they would not be aware of it).
>Theists make a claim: "the concept of God is exemplified in the real
>world"; Atheists make a claim: "the concept of God is not exemplified in
>the real world"; Agnostics make a claim about themselves w/r/t God: "I dont
>know if the concept of God is exemplified in the real world or not". And
>faith is not employed by theists (or at least not by those theists who are
>worth listening to)---it is the only way in which their decision to believe
>can have meaning. God would not be God, and belief would not save us, if we
>could access God thru belief on the basis of evidentiary proof (ie,
>rational compulsion). Reunion w/ God demands self-transcendence through
>faith alone. Read Kierkegaard & Simone Weil on this point.
>
>Atheism is not prior to theism. Persons who come too early for the idea of
>God cannot, obviously, say that the idea is not exemplified in the world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:06:31 -0700
From: Keith McMullen <keithsz at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Big Bang?

dogmatism is poo whatever its claim or non-claim

On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:47 AM, Joel Katz wrote:

> From: "Tully Rector" <tully_rector at hotmail.com>

Theists make a claim: "the concept of God is exemplified in the real
world"; Atheists make a claim: "the concept of God is not exemplified
in the real world"



this is poo.  you're attempting to intellectualize what is by your own
admission an irrational decision.  you're like a technical consumer
who, after great deliberation, buys the thing that doesn't work.  osama
is far preferable to this -- at least i can tell where he's coming from
when he speaks of notions like 'transcendence' and demands sacrifice.
why don't you explain to me what it means to you?  that fuzzy feeling
you get when you're waiting on line at the cinnabuns?

like most atheists, i don't believe in a deity because (then, as a
child, and now)  i never felt or thought its autonomous existence --
only the immense, often menacing and hysterical social and
institutional pressure to say i did.  how the fuck is that a claim?
the only claims ever being made (like yours) were the ones that made
implicit the 'believers' views of their own moral superiority as
'initiates.'  obviously, god contacted you, rectal, and not me -- you
must be really special.  you and osama and torquemada.

i'm also sick of these puerile definitions of faith vis a vis
'evidentiary proof.'  as if the power and gelt of the holy roman empire
did not suggest 'evidentiary proof' to your common illiterate
shit-piler.  religion did not choose to go, pace kierkegaard's
bourgeois affirmation (of private anxiety), but retreated beyond faith
in modernity.  in a sense it simply returned to its ideological roots
in magic.  only now the word is not equal to the sacred, but is uttered
in place of it, as all that's left.  or, as pascal said -- get down on
your knees, and you will believe.




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >