On - Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 2:03pm (EDT+5) ThomasAndrews@nospam.com
(Thomas*Andrews)
wrote:

> There are 2000+ plus gods that have been
> worshiped all with conflicting attributes. They
> CANNOT all exist. Even the most fundamental
> theists concede that.

"They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have
been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and
charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively
religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then,
using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of
their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the
disease is sacred...

For, if they imitate a goat, or grind their teeth, or if their right
side be convulsed, they say that the mother of the gods is the cause.
But if they speak in a sharper and more intense tone, they resemble this
state to a horse, and say that Poseidon is the cause. Or if any
excrement be passed, which is often the case, owing to the violence of
the disease, the appellation of Enodia is adhibited; or, if it be passed
in smaller and denser masses, like bird's, it is said to be from Apollo
Nomius. But if foam be emitted by the mouth, and the patient kick with
his feet, Ares then gets the blame. But terrors which happen during the
night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful
apparitions, and fleeing away,-all these they hold to be the plots of
Hecate, and the invasions the and use purifications and incantations,
and, as appears to me, make the divinity to be most wicked and most
impious."
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html

>>There are 2000+ plus gods that have been
>>worshiped all with conflicting attributes. They
>>CANNOT all exist. Even the most fundamental
>>theists concede that.
>
>
> "They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have
> been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and
> charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively
> religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then,
> using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of
> their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the
> disease is sacred...
>
> For, if they imitate a goat, or grind their teeth, or if their right
> side be convulsed, they say that the mother of the gods is the cause.
> But if they speak in a sharper and more intense tone, they resemble this
> state to a horse, and say that Poseidon is the cause. Or if any
> excrement be passed, which is often the case, owing to the violence of
> the disease, the appellation of Enodia is adhibited; or, if it be passed
> in smaller and denser masses, like bird's, it is said to be from Apollo
> Nomius. But if foam be emitted by the mouth, and the patient kick with
> his feet, Ares then gets the blame. But terrors which happen during the
> night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful
> apparitions, and fleeing away,-all these they hold to be the plots of
> Hecate, and the invasions the and use purifications and incantations,
> and, as appears to me, make the divinity to be most wicked and most
> impious."
> http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html
>

I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any
idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand
what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that
it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
- Hippocrates

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cedodm$src$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.
>
> "People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any
> idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand
> what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that
> it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
> - Hippocrates

Many people are much slower in coming to that conclusion. Perhaps one key
is simply changing our understanding of what accounts for "divine."

On - Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 4:10pm (EDT+5) ThomasAndrews@nospam.com
(Thomas*Andrews) wrote:

> I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.

"And in this disease as in all others, he must strive not to feed the
disease, but endeavor to wear it out by administering whatever is most
opposed to each disease, and not that which favors and is allied to it.
For by that which is allied to it, it gains vigor and increase, but it
wears out and disappears under the use of that which is opposed to it."

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cedgv8$hrc$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I
> >
> > demonstrated?
> >
> > You demonstrated faith in your conjecture as to what babies
believe,
>
> Well now. It's an opinion.


>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
> KNOW this as a fact.

You presented it as fact


>However it is logical to presume that one does not
> believe something until they have been introduced to that concept.

That's an expression of your faith.

>
> I'm sure you would agree babies are not born with a knowledge of
> Shakespeare, it's just common sense and it's absurd to suggest
> otherwise. Not faith.

I did not realise Shakespeare is believed to be a supreme living
being.

>
> In fact I am amused at the concept of a 2 day old Christian or
Muslim or
> Hindu or whatever.
>
> > also demonstrated faith that man invented Gods prior to God/s
> > inventing man.
> >
>
> There are 2000+ plus gods that have been worshiped all with
conflicting
> attributes.

>They CANNOT all exist.

Another demonstration of your faith

>Even the most fundamental theists
> concede that.

Another demonstration of your faith


>
> It's not faith to say that man invented god because it's not my
> unwaivering belief. My opinion on these matters are subject to
change
> pending further evidence.

Your "Before man invented gods" was presented as fact.

>
>
> >
> >
> >>The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
> >>particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space
pixies'
> >
> > or
> >
> >>gods you choose believe in.
> >
> >
> > You have clearly proselytised your faith regarding what you
believe
> > babies don't believe.
> >
> >
> >>The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist
literally
> >
> > means
> >
> >>'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief
(including
> >>babies) is by definition an atheist.
> >
> >
> > In the Oxford dictionary, the Greek prefix "A" translates as
> > "without," while Atheism is defined as a belief or theory. In at
> > least one online dictionary, atheist is defined as "One who
> > disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods." Do you
> > speculate that all babies are into disbelief and denial, or
merely
> > pre-occupied with theory?
> >
>
> I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to
religion
> that they are 'without theism' - atheists.

Nevertheless, you presented your speculation as fact.

>
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods."
certainly
> encompasses a particular type of atheist but not all atheists.
>
> How many atheists have you spoken to?

That's an absurd question. If God is everywhere, no one is without
God.

However, may God still bless you, regardless.

Bob

>>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
>>KNOW this as a fact.
>
>
> You presented it as fact
>

No I did not. I stated an opinion.

>
>
>>However it is logical to presume that one does not
>>believe something until they have been introduced to that concept.
>
>
> That's an expression of your faith.
>

It's NOT faith because I will change my opinion given evidence to the
contrary... Got any?

>>I'm sure you would agree babies are not born with a knowledge of
>>Shakespeare, it's just common sense and it's absurd to suggest
>>otherwise. Not faith.
>
>
> I did not realise Shakespeare is believed to be a supreme living
> being.

We are talking about knowledge and belief.

What is your definition of supreme being anyway?

And can you give me evidence that babies know/believe in said being
before being taught about it in Sunday school?

Didn't think so.

>
>
>>In fact I am amused at the concept of a 2 day old Christian or
>
> Muslim or
>
>>Hindu or whatever.
>>
>>
>>There are 2000+ plus gods that have been worshiped all with
conflicting attributes.
>>They CANNOT all exist.
>
>
> Another demonstration of your faith

It's not faith. Christianity precludes the existence of Allah Etc Etc.
If one so called Gawd/Supreme Being exists the other cannot. It's a
fact. You might as well argue for the existence of a square circle!

>
>
>>Even the most fundamental theists
>>concede that.
>
>
> Another demonstration of your faith
>

See above.

>
>
>>It's not faith to say that man invented god because it's not my
>>unwaivering belief. My opinion on these matters are subject to
>
> change
>
>>pending further evidence.
>
>
> Your "Before man invented gods" was presented as fact.

1. We KNOW man exists.
2. We do NOT know that god(s) exist(s).

If you cannot prove that god(s) exist then no faith is required to make
the above statement.

>>I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to
>
> religion
>
>>that they are 'without theism' - atheists.
>
>
> Nevertheless, you presented your speculation as fact.
>

See above... Atheism is default until theism is proved.

>>"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods."
>
> certainly
>
>>encompasses a particular type of atheist but not all atheists.
>>
>>How many atheists have you spoken to?
>
>
> That's an absurd question. If God is everywhere, no one is without
> God.

That is a big IF. A declaration of FAITH on your part perhaps?

>
> However, may God still bless you, regardless.
>

Which god?

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ceequ9$avi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
> >>KNOW this as a fact.
> >
> >
> > You presented it as fact
> >
>
> No I did not. I stated an opinion.
>

I agree you stated opinion. Nevertheless, you did present you opinion
as fact.

However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time time
and effort with, what you claim to be without.

Bob

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:55 +0100, Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com>
wrote:

> >>Even the most fundamental theists
> >>concede that.
> >
> >
> > Another demonstration of your faith
> >
>
>See above.

Thomas, you are arguing with a demagog. It's
pointless. From now on he will simply call
EVERY word you say "faith" and that will be it.

Not much use of trying to talk logic to such
people.

HP-G

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:47:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> However it is logical to presume that one does not believe something
>> until they have been introduced to that concept.

> That's an expression of your faith.

That's an example of how easy it is to reduce the english language to
absurdities.

--
AB5DB9CC

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:gsDOc.218745$XM6.197265@attbi_s53...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:47:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> However it is logical to presume that one does not believe
something
> >> until they have been introduced to that concept.
>
> > That's an expression of your faith.
>
> That's an example of how easy it is to reduce the english language
to
> absurdities.
>
> --

I guess the poor fellow would have trouble with concepts, if has
never had an original thought!

Bob;-)