> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:08:24 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Al Klein wrote:

>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:15:48 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> Al Klein wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:18:54 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> The_Sage wrote:

>>>>>>> There is nothing to disprove where nothing have been proven to exist in the
>>>>>>> first place.

>>>>>> What do you mean nothing has been proved?

>>>>> No one has ever presented any objective evidence of the objective
>>>>> existence of any god.
>>>>>

>>>>>> What is the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, and what could it possibly mean?

>>>>> Nothing.

>>>> Explain exactly what you mean by nothing and how come you use that
>>>> particular word for your answer. ...

> Al Klein wrote:

>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:08:24 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Al Klein wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:15:48 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Al Klein wrote:

>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:18:54 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The_Sage wrote:

>>>>>>>> There is nothing to disprove where nothing have been proven to
>>>>>>>> exist in the
>>>>>>>> first place.

>>>>>>> What do you mean nothing has been proved?

>>>>>> No one has ever presented any objective evidence of the objective
>>>>>> existence of any god.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What is the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, and what could it possibly ...

>Al Klein wrote:

>>> Ah I see. You are mistaking an allegorical map for the actual territory.
>>> For example, this is the United States:
>>> http://www.state.gov/www/publications/great_seal.pdf

>> No one claims that a picture is the actual land. Christians claim
>> that God is an actual god.

>Yes, that God may be "merely" an entity is a difficult concept for some
>of them to accept.

>>> Sorry, but your ignorance is showing here. Because of our freedom and
>>> availability of this information leads 7you to believe that it was
>>> always so. Well, these things were originally the secret knowledge of a
>>> few extremely well educated elite men. Did I say well educated? Yes I
>>> think I did.

>> Educated as far as knowledge available 3,500 years ago. We've
>> advanced a little since then. You haven't.

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Al Klein wrote:

>

>>>> Ah I see. You are mistaking an allegorical map for the actual territory.
>>>> For example, this is the United States:
>>>> http://www.state.gov/www/publications/great_seal.pdf

>

>>> No one claims that a picture is the actual land. Christians claim
>>> that God is an actual god.

>

>> Yes, that God may be "merely" an entity is a difficult concept for some
>> of them to accept.

>
> What's even more difficult for them to accept is that gods are merely
> ideas.
>

>Al Klein wrote:

>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:

>>> Al Klein wrote:

>>>>> Ah I see. You are mistaking an allegorical map for the actual territory.
>>>>> For example, this is the United States:
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/www/publications/great_seal.pdf

>>>> No one claims that a picture is the actual land. Christians claim
>>>> that God is an actual god.

>>> Yes, that God may be "merely" an entity is a difficult concept for some
>>> of them to accept.

>> What's even more difficult for them to accept is that gods are merely
>> ideas.

>I notice that you have a deep seated need to keep referring to "gods" in
>you arguments and have yet to allow the readers to consider that the
>larger Cosmos may simply be a larger body.

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:42:44 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:
>

>> Al Klein wrote:

>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:07:47 GMT, Meltdarok aol.com> wrote:

>>>> Al Klein wrote:

>

>>>>>> Ah I see. You are mistaking an allegorical map for the actual territory.
>>>>>> For example, this is the United States:
>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/www/publications/great_seal.pdf

>

>>>>> No one claims that a picture is the actual land. Christians claim
>>>>> that God is an actual god.

>

>>>> Yes, that God may be "merely" an entity is a difficult concept for some
>>>> of them to accept.

>

>>> What's even more difficult for them to accept is that gods are merely
>>> ideas.

> ...

>Al Klein wrote:

>> The monastic devout aren't people? Were you referring to the rodents
>> that usually frequent such quarters? Or were you asserting, with no
>> evidence, that there are other things living there?

>You act no different than any other Christian fundie.

>Yes I'm asserting that other "things" are living there.