"A-Z" yahoo.co.uk>
2004-04-04 11:13:36 UTC
PLEASE NOTE THAT THOUGH IT IS SINCERELY DESIRED THAT ALL ISSUES RAISED TO
WHAT IS SAID HEREIN,
AS IT IS NOT CURRENTLY FEASIBLE (NOR AT TIMES POSSIBLE) to respond as such I
ASK MERELY THAT ANY TRUE CRITICISM BE CROSS POSTED TO our groups listed
below so then all perhaps can be responded to.
TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
Actually the approach advanced within this group by Theists and Atheists at
best represents the fratricidal conflict in the world at large though it is
actually often presented in simplistic disingenuous as it is presented (by
both Theists and Atheists) in that:
Theists say here is the world and universe isn't amazing and glorious where
did it all come from?
And Atheists for the most part espousing feigned ignorance on great and
respected authority say here is nature, the world and the universe which
came from a BIG BANG (or some other trendy and meritorious theory none the
less good) and where did "g-d" come from?".
When actually rationally The Deist argument (wisely) may differ is avoid (as
there are some so wise to see) the labels and nomenclature of both "g-d" and
"nature", "theology" and "science", "dogma" and "theories", and avow to
labor so to go straight to work in trying to define the TRUE epistemological
basis of both as:
IN THAT THEY BOTH SEEM EXPLAINABLE AS ONE AND THE SAME WHICH DIFFER ONLY IN
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND VARIED USES OF LANGUAGE.
Unfortunately the opportunistic advantages in marketing and publishing such
ideas is clear, that has most fighting over which sets of terminology should
be adopted as actually the major religions of the worlds, and people they
represent would be better off abandoning such posturing as such as which has
been the bread and butter of fanaticsm for many centuries since the creation
of the "Tower of Babel".
As such I must discount the precise text of the messages directly preceding
this in order to reply on the real issues as much stated prior to this
seemingly has been irrelevant, immaterial, without foundation, or merit.
On a constructive note if one is to preoccupy themselves with good true
works in this life (either individually or collectively) then they would
have not time to preoccupy themselves with the senseless and endless
religious / philosophical debates that have marked human existence to date
for even their terminology when it is taken literally calls them liars,
thieves, and of little holy, sacred, or true.
AS IS'NT IT THAT THEISTS AND ATHEISTS WISH TO CHANGE THEIR RULES ONCE THEY
START PLAYING THEIR GAME/s?
A-Z
WHAT IS SAID HEREIN,
AS IT IS NOT CURRENTLY FEASIBLE (NOR AT TIMES POSSIBLE) to respond as such I
ASK MERELY THAT ANY TRUE CRITICISM BE CROSS POSTED TO our groups listed
below so then all perhaps can be responded to.
TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
Actually the approach advanced within this group by Theists and Atheists at
best represents the fratricidal conflict in the world at large though it is
actually often presented in simplistic disingenuous as it is presented (by
both Theists and Atheists) in that:
Theists say here is the world and universe isn't amazing and glorious where
did it all come from?
And Atheists for the most part espousing feigned ignorance on great and
respected authority say here is nature, the world and the universe which
came from a BIG BANG (or some other trendy and meritorious theory none the
less good) and where did "g-d" come from?".
When actually rationally The Deist argument (wisely) may differ is avoid (as
there are some so wise to see) the labels and nomenclature of both "g-d" and
"nature", "theology" and "science", "dogma" and "theories", and avow to
labor so to go straight to work in trying to define the TRUE epistemological
basis of both as:
IN THAT THEY BOTH SEEM EXPLAINABLE AS ONE AND THE SAME WHICH DIFFER ONLY IN
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND VARIED USES OF LANGUAGE.
Unfortunately the opportunistic advantages in marketing and publishing such
ideas is clear, that has most fighting over which sets of terminology should
be adopted as actually the major religions of the worlds, and people they
represent would be better off abandoning such posturing as such as which has
been the bread and butter of fanaticsm for many centuries since the creation
of the "Tower of Babel".
As such I must discount the precise text of the messages directly preceding
this in order to reply on the real issues as much stated prior to this
seemingly has been irrelevant, immaterial, without foundation, or merit.
On a constructive note if one is to preoccupy themselves with good true
works in this life (either individually or collectively) then they would
have not time to preoccupy themselves with the senseless and endless
religious / philosophical debates that have marked human existence to date
for even their terminology when it is taken literally calls them liars,
thieves, and of little holy, sacred, or true.
AS IS'NT IT THAT THEISTS AND ATHEISTS WISH TO CHANGE THEIR RULES ONCE THEY
START PLAYING THEIR GAME/s?
A-Z