Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)
I hate straying off topic, but what the hell:
> Fact is, all gods were created by men to control other men and women.
Actually, I would say that they were initially created to explain what man
(generic, encompassing both sexes) could not understand. This dates back
beyond the written word when early homo sapiens believed that powerful
beings controlled the winds, the seas, the stars, the moon, volcanic
actions, etc. As man came to understand the natural forces behind them, the
need for that "god" was diminished and eventually forgotten or the god's
role was downplayed, or the responsibilities of that deity replaced by
something different. A similar set of beliefs was espoused by the Egyptians,
Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans, and other early "civilized" nation-states who saw
these represented by celestial beings (hence many of the names we now have
for heavenly objects).
As these civilizations grew, some among them realized just how powerful
these beliefs could be, and used or abused them in the form of controlling
the populations. Some good, some bad. Eventually, the systems of multiple
gods became impractical as the roots of Christianity and other single-god
systems took hold. They made more sense, as it would be impossible to
disprove the existence of an all-powerful being, thus making it easier for
those in control to stay there. This would be in contrast to showing that
the winds were actually just a product of a combination of events (earth's
rotation, the sun, and the seas), which could easily explain away any one
particular god as man's knowledge of the natural world around him grew.
Plus, just to supplement it, many of these newer belief systems encompassed
a tenet that no other god or gods should be believed in.
We have now only a few major religions left, all of whom encompass the
single-god beliefs. There are many that use (or abuse) this to control the
faithful, but there is no way to prove or disprove existence based on
science or logical argument. It takes the 'leap of faith' to entrust oneself
into the arms of belief, or to become comfortable with the knowledge within
oneself that no god exists. The fact that some abuse the faith of others
does not prove that the religion is false, but rather just the person
abusing it.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:Op8bsv8qFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Not being able to prove something doesn't exist could apply to
>>> anything. The xtians say god exists but can't prove it. Even they say
>>> you have to take a "leap in faith" to believe it.
>>
>> And it also takes a leap in faith to know that no god/creator exists. A
>> truly wise man would say "I don't know" whether a god/creator exists or
>> not, and would keep an open mind, as the possibility remains that the
>> existence or non-existence of a god/creator may one day be known.
>>
>> But as I said, on the scale of foolishness knowing a specific "God" is
>> the most foolish of all, as no one has yet to prove that a god/creator,
>> in general, even exists. To know a very specific "God" is like knowing
>> that Peter Pan exists.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>
> So a truly wise man would say "I don't know" to Bush being a god? Or a
> pineapple? How about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Would a truly wise man
> say "I don't know" if she is a god?
>
> Besides, if humankind was created in god's image, that doesn't say much
> for god.
>
> Also, if god created man with all his earthly desires and then says one
> cannot give in to those desires, what kind of god is that?
>
> "God said to Abraham, kill me a son ..."
>
>
> Alias
>
I hate straying off topic, but what the hell:
> Fact is, all gods were created by men to control other men and women.
Actually, I would say that they were initially created to explain what man
(generic, encompassing both sexes) could not understand. This dates back
beyond the written word when early homo sapiens believed that powerful
beings controlled the winds, the seas, the stars, the moon, volcanic
actions, etc. As man came to understand the natural forces behind them, the
need for that "god" was diminished and eventually forgotten or the god's
role was downplayed, or the responsibilities of that deity replaced by
something different. A similar set of beliefs was espoused by the Egyptians,
Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans, and other early "civilized" nation-states who saw
these represented by celestial beings (hence many of the names we now have
for heavenly objects).
As these civilizations grew, some among them realized just how powerful
these beliefs could be, and used or abused them in the form of controlling
the populations. Some good, some bad. Eventually, the systems of multiple
gods became impractical as the roots of Christianity and other single-god
systems took hold. They made more sense, as it would be impossible to
disprove the existence of an all-powerful being, thus making it easier for
those in control to stay there. This would be in contrast to showing that
the winds were actually just a product of a combination of events (earth's
rotation, the sun, and the seas), which could easily explain away any one
particular god as man's knowledge of the natural world around him grew.
Plus, just to supplement it, many of these newer belief systems encompassed
a tenet that no other god or gods should be believed in.
We have now only a few major religions left, all of whom encompass the
single-god beliefs. There are many that use (or abuse) this to control the
faithful, but there is no way to prove or disprove existence based on
science or logical argument. It takes the 'leap of faith' to entrust oneself
into the arms of belief, or to become comfortable with the knowledge within
oneself that no god exists. The fact that some abuse the faith of others
does not prove that the religion is false, but rather just the person
abusing it.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:Op8bsv8qFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Not being able to prove something doesn't exist could apply to
>>> anything. The xtians say god exists but can't prove it. Even they say
>>> you have to take a "leap in faith" to believe it.
>>
>> And it also takes a leap in faith to know that no god/creator exists. A
>> truly wise man would say "I don't know" whether a god/creator exists or
>> not, and would keep an open mind, as the possibility remains that the
>> existence or non-existence of a god/creator may one day be known.
>>
>> But as I said, on the scale of foolishness knowing a specific "God" is
>> the most foolish of all, as no one has yet to prove that a god/creator,
>> in general, even exists. To know a very specific "God" is like knowing
>> that Peter Pan exists.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>
> So a truly wise man would say "I don't know" to Bush being a god? Or a
> pineapple? How about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Would a truly wise man
> say "I don't know" if she is a god?
>
> Besides, if humankind was created in god's image, that doesn't say much
> for god.
>
> Also, if god created man with all his earthly desires and then says one
> cannot give in to those desires, what kind of god is that?
>
> "God said to Abraham, kill me a son ..."
>
>
> Alias
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram