Some Atheists & evil
Randy Story
I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
There are OBJECTS in this world, things like the elements, animals,
plants, people,fish, bugs, etc. What we call entities or real things.
When we use language we call these things nouns. These items have what we
call ontological existence,( from the greek word Ontos) they are real things
that are made of matter.
There are other things that are not objects, they are conditions or actions,
these we call verbs. What is interesting is that verbs that decribe
conditions have no reality of there OWN. They dont actually exist as an
object. They are not entities.
Example: Tom threw the ball to Bill. There are 3 objects and one action,
the
three objects define real things. The one action decribes a relationship
between the ball and the persons, but throwing is not an object, throwing
has no real existence of its own. It only describes an action.
I think the some atheists believe that things like evil, sin, hate, etc
are
real objects and therefore have some reality as objects in this world. But
they dont, they are decriptive words that show a condition or action between
two objects.
Evil, sin, hate have no reality of its own, it simply describes a lack,
privation or a disminished condition or relationship between two or more
good things. Evil exists only in relationships. I do understand that if evil
were an object and God created ALL objects then God would of had to create
evil. BUT God only created the good objects and in doing so created objects
that could interact with each other and God. You might say that God created
the possibility of evil when he created objects that could relate to each
other, but not the actuality of evil, the creatures brought the possible to
actual.
Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created good
BEING, therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
hate, etc in any way. The gift of freedom to the creature brought about the
bad relationship.
As long as someone believes that evil has existence or being in itself,
there
will be a wall between viewpoints. Evil is only describing a condition
between two objects. EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
relationships that came from the creatures.
John Hattan
[John crosses out Isiah 45:7 from his Randy Story Edition Study Bible]
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
CoffeeFiend
> Evil is only describing a condition
> between two objects. EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
> God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
> relationships that came from the creatures.
As far as I know (and mind you, english is not my first language) evil can
be a noun or an adjective, depending on the context. For example, " there is
great evil out there"(noun) or "He is evil"(adjective). But a verb, how
can it be verb ? As for the rest of your post, I really can't say much.
Trying to rationalise things inside a belief system that makes no sense to
me whatsoever is not one of my strongpoints, a debate would lead us
nowhere.
Therion Ware
-0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
text written about "Some Atheists & evil" to 51. I decided to observe
the following about them:
[snip]
>God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>relationships that came from the creatures.
Nicely done. The off the cuff response would be that an Omniscient
entity would hardly be unaware of the relationship between objects and
in that way becomes responsible for evil: if I give someone a
detonator and a block of C4, in the certain knowledge he's going to
blow someone up, do I have any responsibility when he does?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts the this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
CoffeeFiend
> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
> text written about "Some Atheists & evil" to 51. I decided to observe
> the following about them:
>
> [snip]
>
>>God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>>relationships that came from the creatures.
>
> Nicely done. The off the cuff response would be that an Omniscient
> entity would hardly be unaware of the relationship between objects and
> in that way becomes responsible for evil: if I give someone a
> detonator and a block of C4, in the certain knowledge he's going to
> blow someone up, do I have any responsibility when he does?
I thought about giving the same awnser, but it would lead nowhere, because
Randy Story would say that we have free will and God has no control over
our free will, and then we would enter the realm of nonsense. Then this
thread could derail into a debate about the illusion of free will and
predetermination and such... well, I think most of know the dance and
have preformed it to ad nausem ;-)
Elroy Willis
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
> God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do.
> God can not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
> believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
I see "evil" as just some human construct that some people use to
gauge the "bad" things that they consider going on around them.
Absolute evil to some people might be a parent encouraging one of
their children to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves
and others up for some reason. Those parents however, see their
children as heroes and martyrs, fighting for a good cause, and there
are no evil thoughts involved at all, at least in their minds, is
there?
> There are OBJECTS in this world, things like the elements, animals,
> plants, people,fish, bugs, etc. What we call entities or real things.
Yes, it's called the food chain. I challenge any god-believer to jump
into an alligator and piranhas infested body of water, with only their
faith to protect them. I might even let 'em carry a Bible or their
favorite tomb of drivel so they can shake it at the alligators or beat
'em over the head with it as they get eaten up.
> When we use language we call these things nouns. These items have
> what we call ontological existence,( from the greek word Ontos) they
> are real things that are made of matter.
It doesn't matter which words we use for those things, or even if we
call them nouns. They still exist outside of our human minds. Birds
would still eat fish and bugs even if there were no humans left to
observe them or to define what "eat" or "fish" or "bug" means.
> There are other things that are not objects, they are conditions or actions,
> these we call verbs. What is interesting is that verbs that decribe
> conditions have no reality of there OWN. They dont actually exist as an
> object. They are not entities.
I don't see what's so interesting or fascinating about it. It's
basically just a description of some type of movement or change.
Whether a clock hand moves a position to the right, or the sun moves
across the sky, or a lion moves across some field to pounce on a
gazelle, they all describe some type of movement which affects
other things.
> Example: Tom threw the ball to Bill. There are 3 objects and one action,
> the three objects define real things. The one action decribes a relationship
> between the ball and the persons, but throwing is not an object, throwing
> has no real existence of its own. It only describes an action.
The observation of something changing or moving is still real,
whatever we choose to name it or call it or how we measure it.
> I think the some atheists believe that things like evil, sin, hate, etc
> are real objects and therefore have some reality as objects in this world.
Weird. I've thought the exact same thing about theists who claim
those things really exist or speak of them as though they exist.
> But they dont, they are decriptive words that show a condition or action
> between two objects.
> Evil, sin, hate have no reality of its own, it simply describes a lack,
> privation or a disminished condition or relationship between two or more
> good things. Evil exists only in relationships. I do understand that if evil
> were an object and God created ALL objects then God would of had to create
> evil. BUT God only created the good objects and in doing so created objects
> that could interact with each other and God. You might say that God created
> the possibility of evil when he created objects that could relate to each
> other, but not the actuality of evil, the creatures brought the possible to
> actual.
You pretty much said that you think evil is just a human construct,
right? If so, I agree. Now then, you need to deal with the "good"
construct. You seem to have taken one "o" out of Good and
you call it God, without really defining it.
> Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
> good BEING,
Wait a minute... Aren't you leaving out "good" from the list of
"evil, sin, hate?" Why doesn't "good" belong in that same list since
you seem to agree that they're all just human constructs?
> therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
> hate, etc in any way.
Ah, he's only responsible for the good things as you see them and
determine what's "good" or not, even though you can't seem to define
"good" in some absolute way which will never change in the future. Is
that right?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Therion Ware
+0300, "CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> brought the
total lines of text written about "Re: Some Atheists & evil" to 25. I
decided to observe the following about them:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:58:40 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
>> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
>> text written about "Some Atheists & evil" to 51. I decided to observe
>> the following about them:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>>>relationships that came from the creatures.
>>
>> Nicely done. The off the cuff response would be that an Omniscient
>> entity would hardly be unaware of the relationship between objects and
>> in that way becomes responsible for evil: if I give someone a
>> detonator and a block of C4, in the certain knowledge he's going to
>> blow someone up, do I have any responsibility when he does?
>
>I thought about giving the same awnser, but it would lead nowhere, because
>Randy Story would say that we have free will and God has no control over
>our free will, and then we would enter the realm of nonsense. Then this
>thread could derail into a debate about the illusion of free will and
>predetermination and such... well, I think most of know the dance and
>have preformed it to ad nausem ;-)
I take the point, but free will, or not an omniscient God knows what's
going to happen.
Mind you, that said, the existence of human specific parasites - some
of which cause considerable suffering and death arguably put a bit of
a dent in his argument, I would have thought.
And then there's the final imposition of suffering, for some we are
told...
CoffeeFiend
> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:57:24
> +0300, "CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> brought the total
> lines of text written about "Re: Some Atheists & evil" to 25. I decided
> to observe the following about them:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:58:40 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
>>> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
> I take the point, but free will, or not an omniscient God knows what's
> going to happen.
But if the outcome, is by definition, knowable, then it is predetermined
and free will is just an illusion IOW - there is no free will. That is the
only way I can see that the "omniscient God" theory would make sense,
otherwise we would face some nasty paradoxes.
For the record, I think that the universe is undeterministic.
> Mind you, that said, the existence of human specific parasites - some of
> which cause considerable suffering and death arguably put a bit of a
> dent in his argument, I would have thought.
True, but I think he might have a way to blame the creation of such
creatures on the sins of man and explain them as the punishment by God for
our bad choices and such.... but I guess I should let the man speak for
himself.
Wbarwell
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say
> with
> God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
> not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
> believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
>
> There are OBJECTS in this world, things like the elements, animals,
> plants, people,fish, bugs, etc. What we call entities or real things.
> When we use language we call these things nouns. These items have what we
> call ontological existence,( from the greek word Ontos) they are real
> things that are made of matter.
Well, here we have the problem of idealism vs realism.....
> There are other things that are not objects, they are conditions or
> actions, these we call verbs. What is interesting is that verbs that
> decribe conditions have no reality of there OWN. They dont actually exist
> as an object. They are not entities.
Uhmmm.... Qualia. Qualities. Objects have qualities, they have size,
volume, colors and others. Now, are qualia like good and evil
inherint in an object? We have problems here that philosophers have been
arguing for millenia and you haven't really got ot right. You are trying
to reinvent the wheel all over again and will inevitably, make the same
errors 2500 years of philosphy has made and argued over.
> Example: Tom threw the ball to Bill. There are 3 objects and one action,
> the
> three objects define real things. The one action decribes a relationship
> between the ball and the persons, but throwing is not an object, throwing
> has no real existence of its own. It only describes an action.
Objects in and of themselves have no interest, it is their interactions
that are of interest, that is the world. The world is not objects
> I think the some atheists believe that things like evil, sin, hate,
> etc
> are
> real objects and therefore have some reality as objects in this world.
No, I know of few that do, but it is the bible and theology that
reifies evil and good. And this is where the Atheist counter-arguments
come from, we attack the theological strawmen and theological
hair splitting that is used to dodge certain conclusions theologians don't
want.
> But they dont, they are decriptive words that show a condition or action
> between two objects.
> Evil, sin, hate have no reality of its own, it simply describes a
> lack,
But here is where you are wrong. Evil does exist, it does have a reality.
It is a very real relationship between objects. Moral evil is what happens
when a man or a group of men or a nation decide to persue certain actions.
Evil (actions) ensues from mens' thoughts, from their proclivities, their
ideologies, the ideas they hold, what they think is factual or not, and
other things besides.
When evil happens, we don't say, "Well, evil has no reality so this does
not matter". Atheists don't at least.
Some theologians do. "Murder is immoral". Atheist - "Well,
in the Bible god commands Moses and Joshua to kill the Canaanites. So I
guess by commanding genocide, god is evil, hunh?"
Theologian - "Well no, god is not evil by definition, he is omnibenevolent.
Therefore these massacres and genocids are by definition good, because god
commands them. Afert all god created us so he may do with us as he
pleases, we are his property"
Atheist - "So since my child is my property, since I created her, I can
choose to kill her if I choose? That is moral?".
Theologian, Well, err, no, because errr, god commanded us not to
kill and stuff"
Atheist - "Except when he does do that. So I see, you are a moral
relativist, despite all your bluster about absolute morality from god.
What if god changes his mind about morality, today its "Thou shalt not
kill" then its off to Canaan to kill, "Leave none that breathe."".
"The ultimate relativism, only from theology and god".
> privation or a disminished condition or relationship between two or more
> good things. Evil exists only in relationships.
Uhmmmm, how about god's relationship with man then.
"Thou shalt not kill" or "leave none that breathe"?
Now consider this relationship, I have a bad, vicious dog.
If I know it is a vidicous dog, and I let it roam freely, am I
responsible if that dog savages an innocent child in her own
yard?
Legally, yes.
Now, god, who is omnipotent, and omniscient, allows this creature
he created, Satan, and all his imps, demons and devils
to roam freely, leaving behind them a trail of evil doings.
That is if we can believe 2000 years of Christian dogmas.
Is god not responsible for that as I am responsible for my dog?
What you are trying to do is split hairs to get god off the hook for evil,
which isn't really working here.
God creates a world where men are born. Some, like Hitler,
or Stalin are incredibly evil. God does nothing.
I have a dog. One day it bites somebody, then a few weeks
later again. Now I know my dog is a savage biter. Morally,
and legally I am now mandated to get rid of this beast or keep it very well
locked up and chained up and fenced in so innocents will
not be attacked.
Why then is god not responsible for his creation and is
not held to be responsible likewise for tegh saftey of those around people
like Hitler, who's evil, which stems from his ideas, his proclivities,
his mental condition, his inner qualia which creates his outer
qualia, evil or good?
Either god can do this or he cannot.
And don't give me free will, Hitler or my dog
have free will, constraining them simply denies the the
ability to do evil based on their free will proclivities.
Besides, Romans 8 & 9 deny that there is free will in this world,
or does the Bible now mean nothing
I do understand that if
> evil were an object and God created ALL objects then God would of had to
> create
> evil.
Is god responsible for the inner ideas, the inner qualia
of Hitler and Stalin? Where does that all come from if god is not
so responsible? Genetics?
Whence psychopaths, homocidal maniacs?
Ever read Stanley Milgram? His Obedience to Authority experimental
psychology tests? It is so easy to get people to torture another person
based on little or no prodding.
Is god responsible for the inner qualia that man has that so easily
can be perverted into evil as Milgram's tests show?
Look up the tests of Solomon Aash also.
People are so easily manipulated into claiming things that are not so
in the name of being one of the herd.
Where does god fit into creation when he creates man wioth these
inner qualia, these proclivities that so easily become evil actions?
> BUT God only created the good objects
See above. Read Ash and Milgram and get back to me.
and in doing so created
> objects that could interact with each other and God. You might say that
> God created the possibility of evil when he created objects that could
> relate to each other, but not the actuality of evil, the creatures brought
> the possible to actual.
Not even close to correct as I point out above.
In the real world, if a vicious criiminal is allowed to run
free and kill and rape and maim, and the police do nothing, we are
ourtraged at their incompetence, their callous uncaring.
We demand the resignation of top police officials and reform.
yet we do not hold god up to the low levels we hold
our local police departments to?
God creates men with evil proclivities and allows them free reign
to run amuck and spread evil freely on innocent victimes?
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Bin Laden, Guatamala, El Salvador,
Chle and Pinochet, so many monsters, so many prayers for
help.so little help despite promises inthe Bible that such prayers will be
answered.
Sorry, god is like the owner of the bad dog that savages small
children, yet does not bother to retsrain his animal.
God's inner qualia, his lack of morality, mercy, or caring results
in evil in this world, if this god exists and does create all.
Trying to abstract evil away so god is not responsible fails on many
levels.
> Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
> good
> BEING, therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
> hate, etc in any way. The gift of freedom to the creature brought about
> the bad relationship.
> As long as someone believes that evil has existence or being in
> itself,
> there
> will be a wall between viewpoints. Evil is only describing a condition
> between two objects. EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
> God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
> relationships that came from the creatures.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
George Ricker
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
<SNIP> delete (My synopsis) discussion about how atheists misunderstand
the nature of "EVIL" and thus are confused about the nature of the
cosmic super critter called "God" that is worshipped by "Randy Story."
The post ends with the following
> As long as someone believes that evil has existence or being in itself,
> there
> will be a wall between viewpoints. Evil is only describing a condition
> between two objects. EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
> God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
> relationships that came from the creatures.
Nope. The word "Evil" is usually used as an adjective - a modifier. It
could be used as a noun in some contexts. It is never used as a verb.
It is no more difficult to conceive of "EVIL" as an object or thing,
than it is to conceive of "GOOD" as an object or thing. Both words are
most commonly used to characterize or modify other words.
If it is accurate to say that "God created good things," then it also
must be accurate to say that "God created evil things."
Since I don't believe in gods at all, I don't believe they are
responsible for creating anything.
However, whether or not the "God" you worship is responsible for "Good"
and "Evil" depends largely on how you define the "God" you worship and
how you define "Good" and "Evil."
Calling "evil" a verb, though, is not a matter of definition. It is a
matter of improper grammar. "Evil" is not a verb. You cannot "evil" a
ball or "evil" a man. You can't "evil" fast or "evil" slow.
The bottom line on all of this is that, IMHO, the "God" you worship,
like all gods, only exists in the land of make believe between your
ears. If that isn't true, then you should be able to produce some
convincing evidence that supports the proposition that the "God" you
worship actually does exist. In order to do that you'll need to begin
with a description of that entity which is comprehensive,
comprehensible, and non-contradictory. Once you've described your "God,"
we can proceed to consider the evidence for its existence. Until you've
done that, it's just plain silly to talk about what the "God" you
worship did or didn't do.
--
George Ricker
The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.
Nyarlathotep
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:va5g1ri...@corp.supernews.com...
Let me see. Evil is a verb. Does this sound right "I am going to go evil
now. I eviled yeserday and and it was so fun that I plan on eviling
tomorrow"?
Doesn't sound right to me. I'm no expert on grammar but I don't think it is
a verb. I am too lazy to go downstairs and find my Websters but
dictionary.com shows it as either an adjective or a noun depending on usage.
Lastly I don't think the whether evil is a verb, noun, adjective,
conjunction or anything else is really relevant. I thnk your point is that
youa re trying to refute the argument that is sometimes used against
religion of "how can there be a God who claims to be all powerful and all
good but permits (or even creates) so much suffering in the world?". If I
understand your point you are basicly saying "God doesn't make the evil,
humans do and any suffering that comes about is the result of peoples own
actions"
There are two flaws that I see in this reasoning. The first is that if
there is an all-powerful all knowing God, then had the option of setting up
the system and of knowing exactly what the consequences would be of whatever
system he chose to set up. If he exists and he set the system up to allow
for evil then he would be responsible for that evil as surely as if I wrote
a computer program with a bug, I would be responsible for the bug. If God
exists the he would have KNOWN people would do evil to each other. This
becomes worse if one also accepts the concept of eternal punishment in hell
because that would mean God, knowing full well that nearly every human who
would ever lived would fall short of the expectations and commit what he
defined as evil in the first place and be tortured forever for it. This
would make God a downright evil bastard. What would you think of a human
who bred kittens by the dozen for the sole purpose of torturing them to
death, possibly sparing a handful if they meowed pitifully enough?
The second flaw in the reasoning is much simpler. Even if you sucessfully
proved that God was in no way responsible for the evil of the world, it
would not matter because it wouldn't answer the more important question (to
myself and most atheists I know) of whether God exists. Proving that God
did not create something and was in no way responsible for it is, to my
eyes, one more bit of evidence on the "God doesn't exist" side of the board.
In fact if you could prove that God DID in fact create evil, then you would
ahve gone a long way to proving he exists.
Therion Ware
decided to observe the following about them:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:16:09 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:57:24
>> +0300, "CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> brought the total
>> lines of text written about "Re: Some Atheists & evil" to 25. I decided
>> to observe the following about them:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:58:40 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
>>>> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
>
>> I take the point, but free will, or not an omniscient God knows what's
>> going to happen.
>
>But if the outcome, is by definition, knowable, then it is predetermined
>and free will is just an illusion IOW - there is no free will. That is the
>only way I can see that the "omniscient God" theory would make sense,
>otherwise we would face some nasty paradoxes.
Tricky. As we see a lot around here! But I think with respect to the
point at issue, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
>For the record, I think that the universe is undeterministic.
Just to be a smartass, I think it might be deterministic but
unpredictable in principle!
>> Mind you, that said, the existence of human specific parasites - some of
>> which cause considerable suffering and death arguably put a bit of a
>> dent in his argument, I would have thought.
>
>True, but I think he might have a way to blame the creation of such
>creatures on the sins of man and explain them as the punishment by God for
>our bad choices and such.... but I guess I should let the man speak for
>himself.
I suppose, though I think one'd be hard put to argue that the Justice
of God is best served through the shotgun of say Bilharzia.
Denis Loubet
with
> God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
> not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
> believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
No. I know of no one on alt atheism that would think such a stupid thing.
If we sometimes argue as if evil was a real thing, it's only because that's
how the theists present it, and so we're forced to argue at their level.
> There are OBJECTS in this world, things like the elements, animals,
> plants, people,fish, bugs, etc. (snip)
Oh please. Don't presume to instruct us about reality. You wouldn't know
reality if it crawled up your ass and died.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Christopher A. Lee
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
>God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
>not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
Only in the same sense that Odin, Orisris, Mithras, Zeus and even
Santa Claus can: ie within the virtual reality of the mythology.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
>believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
No. Those are theists.
[rest of this tripe deleted because the poster still hasn't realised
he;s talking about a character out of the mythology of somebody else's
religion]
CoffeeFiend
> Just to be a smartass, I think it might be deterministic but
> unpredictable in principle!
Hehe. How would that work ? Of-course we can't simulate the whole of the
universe, but considering our current observations, the universe is
indeterministic by nature, unless there is some underlying order to the
randomness of quantum mechanics, which is highly unlikely. Or were you
getting at something else ?
Apostate
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:16:12 -0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
<snip the foreplay>
>>EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
To evil: (define.)
I evil, you evil, he/she/it evils. We evil, you (all) evil, they evil.
They eviled.
We will evil.
Eviling, we became thirsty.
We must evil. We shall have eviled before then.
Strange thing: for a verb, it doesn't parse in any tense, mood, number, or combination
thereof.
I (that's a pronoun) think (THAT'S a verb) that you cut and paste (that's a compound verb)
a lot better than you comprehend (another verb) English grammar and construction.
Whatever merits your argument MIGHT (aux. verb ) have (verb) when laid out by
someone who understands it, it is plain wrong as you pronounce it, at least in this
grammatical analysis branch of the plea.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Randy Story
"CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.19.23.07.19.918527@if_you_want_to_know.org...
Evil describes a condition or action taken by someone. When someone says he
is evil, thaey are decribing there there thought process or immoral action.
but the same person that is evil, has good being, good intellect, good
emotion meaning that they have these good actual capacities even thougn they
use them for evil. So again Evil is a not an object, it is describing a
condition or action.
Randy Story
evil exists in the world. He definitely set up the conditions that made evil
possible, in giving us freewill, in allowing us to go our own way , in
allowing us to interact with others. In this sense God could say that he
created evil or calamity, but as I said evil is not a real thing, God only
made real things, OBJECTS. Many times we use the same idea when we say I
created this mess, but many times our good intensions were just taken
incorrectly, so it is with Gods good creation, God created only the good,
man used the good incorrectly.
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:vsh5avoko6rugeb52...@4ax.com...
CoffeeFiend
> Evil describes a condition or action taken by someone. When someone says
> he is evil, thaey are decribing there there thought process or immoral
> action. but the same person that is evil, has good being, good
> intellect, good emotion meaning that they have these good actual
> capacities even thougn they use them for evil. So again Evil is a not an
> object, it is describing a condition or action.
I agree that evil can describe a condition or an action, but it is not a
verb by itself. By that logic, if I say that I am green (just like I would
say "I am evil" or "doing evil things", or in the case of green "I am
being green"), green can also be verb, which is clearly not so. You can
also say that this person has evil tendencies, like a person can have
good intension.
Randy Story
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:47k5avcuveojb5l0o...@4ax.com...
Thank you, I know your joking of course, you are absolutley correct he does
knows exactly what was going to happen but only he can bring eternal good
out of our temporal evil. If you know Christian theology, you know that
history is not over. Eventually everyone will be give their ultimate
freedom, those who wish to be with God and those who which to apart from
God. For one it will be heaven because of knowing the fullness of God, for
the other it will be hell because he chose to not know the fullness of God.
Right now we only get the smallest glimpse of his goodness, if he revealed
himself fully you and I would not be able to resist an infinite good, so we
could not freely choose. God only desires to be known to those who want to
freely know, all the others can live forever in the ignorance that they have
freely chosen.
Randy Story
I am being green is a category mistake like " How does the green taste"
I am the color green is correct, but here green is only a description of the
color.
I am evil is describing my actions or thought process it is not describng my
existence or attributes of existence such as reason, will, emotions. Even a
so called evil person has good attributes of humanity, that is why we
believe that all persons have intrinsic value even though there actions are
sickening.
So again evil has no reality of its own. It is not a created thing
CoffeeFiend
> Thank you, I know your joking of course, you are absolutley correct he
> does knows exactly what was going to happen but only he can bring
> eternal good out of our temporal evil. If you know Christian theology,
> you know that history is not over. Eventually everyone will be give
> their ultimate freedom, those who wish to be with God and those who
> which to apart from God. For one it will be heaven because of knowing
> the fullness of God, for the other it will be hell because he chose to
> not know the fullness of God. Right now we only get the smallest glimpse
> of his goodness, if he revealed himself fully you and I would not be
> able to resist an infinite good, so we could not freely choose. God only
> desires to be known to those who want to freely know, all the others can
> live forever in the ignorance that they have freely chosen.
Thats very nice, but it would be interesting to know how you have tackled
the nasty issue of free will and determinism coexisting ?
*Nemo*
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
> God anything is possible.
yeah - I seem to recall seeing *that* in the book-o-blood.
> God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
> not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
Fair enough. I agree. However, I'll point out that the way *GAWD!* is
described in the xian bible, he *is* the equivalent of a square circle.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
> believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
The problem you must address first off is convincing us that *GAWD!*
exists at all. So far, I've not seen a single thing that comes clse to
convincing me of this. Talk of Christianity versus Islam, Hinduism,
$cientology, New Age or whatever -- that's purely secondary stuff until
the primary problem is addressed.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
CoffeeFiend
>I am being green is a category mistake like " How does the green taste"
>I am the color green is correct, but here green is only a description of the
>color.
Hmm, you can't say in english that a person is green (as in covered with
green paint) ?
> I am evil is describing my actions or thought process it is not describng my
> existence or attributes of existence such as reason, will, emotions.
The key word beeing DESCRIBING. Just like you are descibing a color with
the word green. And what restrics me from using the word evil to describe
attributes of existence such as reason, will, emotions, if I can describe
them as beeing good ?
Randy Story
> > Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
> > good BEING,
>
> Wait a minute... Aren't you leaving out "good" from the list of
> "evil, sin, hate?" Why doesn't "good" belong in that same list since
> you seem to agree that they're all just human constructs?
>
> > therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
> > hate, etc in any way.
>
> Ah, he's only responsible for the good things as you see them and
> determine what's "good" or not, even though you can't seem to define
> "good" in some absolute way which will never change in the future. Is
> that right?
>
not. Example: Take any object, lets say a car and take all the flaws or bad
qualities and imperfections out of the car, scratches, bad paint, poor
tires, shocks, rust and what do you get, A BETTER Car. Good is the tendency
toward perfection or completeness. Now, take all the good qualities out of
any object, what do you get NOTHING. Evil is the tendency toward destruction
or nothingness.
So again, Good has real existence, real qualities, evil is just a
descripion of a lack in those qualities.
Dr. Smartass
news:q236avobhq1ti1cv3...@4ax.com:
> piggybacking
>
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:16:12 -0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> <snip the foreplay>
>
>>>EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
>
> To evil: (define.)
> I evil, you evil, he/she/it evils. We evil, you (all) evil,
> they evil. They eviled.
> We will evil.
> Eviling, we became thirsty.
> We must evil. We shall have eviled before then.
>
> Strange thing: for a verb, it doesn't parse in any tense, mood,
> number, or combination thereof.
>
> I (that's a pronoun) think (THAT'S a verb) that you cut and paste
> (that's a compound verb) a lot better than you comprehend
> (another verb) English grammar and construction. Whatever merits
> your argument MIGHT (aux. verb ) have (verb) when laid out by
> someone who understands it, it is plain wrong as you pronounce
> it, at least in this grammatical analysis branch of the plea.
VERB!!!
That's what's happening!
--
Dr. Smartass
Jello is a Dish Best Served Cold.
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott, during Kosovo
Zeplerfer
>"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>news:47k5avcuveojb5l0o...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
>> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
>> text written about "Some Atheists & evil" to 51. I decided to observe
>> the following about them:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>> >relationships that came from the creatures.
>>
>> Nicely done. The off the cuff response would be that an Omniscient
>> entity would hardly be unaware of the relationship between objects and
>> in that way becomes responsible for evil: if I give someone a
>> detonator and a block of C4, in the certain knowledge he's going to
>> blow someone up, do I have any responsibility when he does?
>
>knows exactly what was going to happen but only he can bring eternal good
>out of our temporal evil.
That would have to take some pretty fucked up way of doing things to bring good
out of children being born blind, deaf, mute, etc. Or people going insane. I
must say that for an all-knowing, all-powerful, not to mention perfect god your
god is doing a pretty piss poor job. I mean *I* could do better if I was even
half as powerful as he's purported to be.
>If you know Christian theology, you know that
>history is not over. Eventually everyone will be give their ultimate
>freedom, those who wish to be with God and those who which to apart from
>God. For one it will be heaven because of knowing the fullness of God, for
>the other it will be hell because he chose to not know the fullness of God.
>Right now we only get the smallest glimpse of his goodness, if he revealed
>himself fully you and I would not be able to resist an infinite good, so we
>could not freely choose. God only desires to be known to those who want to
>freely know, all the others can live forever in the ignorance that they have
>freely chosen.
Ah, I see you're going for the free will argument. There are a few problems
though, first off there is the carrot (heaven) and the stick (hell). How the
hell are we supposed to choose freely with those hanging over our heads? It's
like a man pointing a gun at you and asking you to hand over your money. You
hand him the money, but are you freely choosing to give him your money? Hell
no! (To borrow an analogy from ebonmusings.com).
Second, we have not been given all the info, just "the smallest glimpse" and I
refuse to make a decision with the puny amount you claim he's given us (one
contradictory "holy" book).
Third, do you think your god has free will? Of course an omnipotent god would!
But according to you he choose good (I think any who have read your holy book
might dispute this assumption, but we will ignore that). Would a perfect being
always choose to do good? Again, yes. So why did your god not make humans
perfect? There is no reason why humans could not have had free will and still
chosen good. Hell, if your god was perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc than
he would have known he made humans flawed, and he would have known they would
choose evil.
Lastly, there is the problem of an omniscient god and free will. If your god
knows what will happen *before* it happens than how could anything have free
will?
~Zeplerfer #423
I am *not* the leader of the EAC Denial Dept.
Denial: There is no such river in Egypt.
Randy Story
You said I am being green not I am green, Since green is onl;y descriptive
are you the color green or are you a green recruit. Green must describe
something real.
>
Russell Turpin
> Evil is only describing a condition between
You have a poor understanding of grammar. Let
me give you a hint: relationship is a noun.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up in a
dictionary.
> God only created the good objects and in
> doing so created objects that could interact
> with each other and God. You might say that
> God created the possibility of evil.
This is one of the flimsiest rejoinders to
the problem of evil. Assuming your god exists
and created the world, he did not create just
good things, but also things that can do
nothing but evil (rabies virus, yersinia
pestis, etc.) More, he created good things
with flawed design, as anyone familiar with
spina bifida or a variety of other congenital
conditions can explain.
You cannot argue that this was necessary,
because in some cases, mere mortals are able
to fix the problem. Note that variola no
longer exists in the wild, and rabies no
longer exists in England.
Dr. Smartass
Evil is only describing a condition
> between two objects. EVIL IS A VERB, NOT A NOUN
> God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
> relationships that came from the creatures.
Someone needs to go back and watch "Schoolhouse ROCK!!"--they'll tell you
the parts of speech.
http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/gilly/Schoolhouse_Rock/HTML/grammar/grammar
.html
Mind that wordwrap.
Randy Story
subject.
"CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.20.05.23.38.608081@if_you_want_to_know.org...
Randy Story
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:9ACoa.122910$rd4.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Don Kresch
<rsto...@olypen.com> let us all know that:
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
>God anything is possible.
Is this the christian god? If so, then the bible says that with
god, all things are possible.
[snip]
> Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created good
>BEING, therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
>hate, etc in any way.
Is this the christian god? Is so, then the bible says (Is 45:7
being one of the place) that god created evil.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
CoffeeFiend
> You said I am being green not I am green, Since green is onl;y
> descriptive are you the color green or are you a green recruit. Green
> must describe something real.
Ah, I didn't mean it like "I am green" but more like "he is green", "the
light is green" or "I am green". Damn, language can be quite ambiguous.
Anyway... I must get some spleep now... ;-) Maybe I'll come back to this
sometimes tomorrow.
Randy Story
issues.
1. Yes evil is descriptive and better would be called an adjective. I was
looking at it more as describing evil actions, but the point is it is
descriptive and not substansive. It is describing a condition or action. So
I will say sorry to the english majors here.
2. No one is goes to heaven because they are good and no one goes to hell
because they are evil. Each goes that way because they either choose to know
the good one or to not know the good one. God at the end gives them there
freewill.
3. God can let some die if he has a good purpose and he can renew their
life.
At the end of this age all peoples from all times will be ressurected to
life again with bodies that will never die. Those that chose to be with God
will with God be in heaven. Those that chose not to be with God will be in
hell, HELL is simply a place that all that dont want anything to do with God
can have their freedom forever away from the one who they despise. ISNT THAT
WHAT YOU WANT. I will add a post on heaven & hell
4. Parasites, viruses and the like are not evil in themselves, they are
called evil because when they get into the human body they cause a bad
condition as I said before.
5. Freedom & Determinism, I will try and be short.
Freedom and determinism are no more contradictory then it is to say "today I
freely wore a blue shirt and that is determined for all the rest of time".
If God sees all of time as an ever present now then he can determine all
things thru the creatures freedom. God can use the creatures freewill as the
MEANS to the predetermined END. To conclude that just because GOD knows the
predestined end means that we are not free is simply false. God can
predestine either thru our freedom or in spite of it, but if he did it in
spite of our freedom he could not be infinitely good, so since he is
infinitely good he predestined thru our freedom.
Randy Story
can not do contradictions. I posted above on the creating evil issue. Read
thru, this post has been so warmly recieved. LOL
"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:d4b6av4fi4k1defg5...@4ax.com...
John Hattan
>VERB!!!
>That's what's happening!
Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
John Hattan
>`To John: God many times in scripture takes responsibilty for the fact that
>evil exists in the world. He definitely set up the conditions that made evil
>possible, in giving us freewill, in allowing us to go our own way , in
>allowing us to interact with others. In this sense God could say that he
>created evil or calamity, but as I said evil is not a real thing, God only
>made real things, OBJECTS. Many times we use the same idea when we say I
>created this mess, but many times our good intensions were just taken
>incorrectly, so it is with Gods good creation, God created only the good,
>man used the good incorrectly.
So when, in Isiah 45:7, he very matter-of-factly states that he creates
evil, he was lying. Correct?
Randy Story
> evil, he was lying. Correct?
>
Whe I said I created a mess I was not lying, but it does not mean
necessarily that I was responsible for the evil. I may of been responsible
because of my good intensions in creating the condition for evil to come
about, but that is all.
The bible is like a large beautiful mosiac or painting, you must stand
back and see the whole before you can say that the parts are flawed. If you
stand to close, it like the mosaic or painting may appear ugly and of little
value. The structure and sayings in the bible must be understood in the
light of the whole.
You would at least give that much consideration to the artist before you
condemmed his work. So stand back and see the beauty of Gods plan.
Wbarwell
> All realities( things ) are possible, contradictions are not realities.
> God can not do contradictions. I posted above on the creating evil issue.
> Read thru, this post has been so warmly recieved. LOL
>
If there are things god cannot do, create square circles, etc,
then where does reality and logic that is so powerful even god must
obey its rules come from?
And could it be that this universe that obviously exists and is more
powerful than god, exists but god does not at all.
Is it even possible for a disemboddied intelligence not
made of matter, atoms and molecules to exist?
Where do these logical and physical limits that make it impossible
for four sided triangles to exist and such things come from, what are their
limits, is theology so incurious it has nothing to say about any of this?
--
Cheerful Charlie
>
> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
> news:d4b6av4fi4k1defg5...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.atheism on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50 -0700, "Randy Story"
>> <rsto...@olypen.com> let us all know that:
>> >
>> > I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say
> with
>> >God anything is possible.
>>
>> Is this the christian god? If so, then the bible says that with
>> god, all things are possible.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
> good
>> >BEING, therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil,
>> >sin, hate, etc in any way.
>>
>> Is this the christian god? Is so, then the bible says (Is 45:7
>> being one of the place) that god created evil.
>>
>>
>> Don
>> ---
>> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
>> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
>>
>> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
>> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Wbarwell
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:26:08 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> Just to be a smartass, I think it might be deterministic but
>> unpredictable in principle!
>
> Hehe. How would that work ? Of-course we can't simulate the whole of the
> universe, but considering our current observations, the universe is
> indeterministic by nature, unless there is some underlying order to the
> randomness of quantum mechanics, which is highly unlikely. Or were you
> getting at something else ?
Easy, there are whole families of mathematical functions that are perfectly
deterministic, but not predictable.
The only way to tell what they will yeild when plotted, except by plotting
them. There is no way to even guess what one of these functions will
yeild after say, the 30th reiteration, though they are perfectly
deterministic. The real world is intensely non-linear of course, but
even determinism is not necessarily predictable.
Jeremy Martin
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
too long, didn't read
--
Jeremy Martin
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
"The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving"
- Charles de Gaulle
John Hattan
>So when, in Isiah 45:7, he very matter-of-factly states that he creates
>> evil, he was lying. Correct?
>>
> You know as well as I that only context determines the use of words.
>Whe I said I created a mess I was not lying, but it does not mean
>necessarily that I was responsible for the evil. I may of been responsible
>because of my good intensions in creating the condition for evil to come
>about, but that is all.
So basically anything, no matter how matter-of-fact, can mean anything
you want. If the Bible says "Jesus went to the shoe store to buy some
new sandals", you could interpret that as meaning "putting mustard on
french fries is wrong" as long as you first stated "context".
One question, Randy. Do words have meaning?
> The bible is like a large beautiful mosiac or painting, you must stand
>back and see the whole before you can say that the parts are flawed. If you
>stand to close, it like the mosaic or painting may appear ugly and of little
>value. The structure and sayings in the bible must be understood in the
>light of the whole.
Yes, I've heard that. It's the standard dodge.
>You would at least give that much consideration to the artist before you
>condemmed his work. So stand back and see the beauty of Gods plan.
Why do you assume I haven't? I was a Christian for 18 years.
Randy Story
"Wbarwell" <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:3ea3...@news3.mylinuxisp.com...
Gods nature is the source of logic just as assuredly as he is the source of
love.
God doesnt have logic, he is logic itself just as he is love itself. God is
also reality itself, we just participate in our version of reality, finite
reality God is infinite reality. The so called rules of logic and morality
flow from his perfect nature, their is nothing outside God that he is
subject too.
God is also intelligence itself, we only participate in it. The limits on
all logical, ontological, epistomological and natural existence is bound up
in Gods perfect knowledge and will.
Randy Story
Then you missed something, a pew sitter maybe, I am not trying to offend.
Yes, words have proper meaning but only in the structure of the whole.
This whole could be the paragraph, the chapter, the book or the entire
bible.
If I ask you to go get me the board, what am I saying. Do I want the 2x4 or
do I want the group of men in the next office. Their is a lot of difference
there.
Same exact word , totally diferent usage.
This is part of the problem, atheists take little pieces and I mean little
to show what we Christians believe is a contradiction, but most of the time
they dont have a clue when it comes to context. They find some little excuse
and then exclaim ,This is why I cant believe.
I can find a partial sentence in the bible that says There is no God. But
the beginning of the sentence says "The fool has said in his heart, there is
no God.
IN fact I could probrably find enough some pieces to conclude the bible
teaches. Atheism, Theism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Agnosticism an just about
any other ism that you care to name. When I look at the whole it is another
story all together.
Come back to Christ, he is waiting.
Al Klein
<rsto...@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> So again, Good has real existence, real qualities, evil is just a
>descripion of a lack in those qualities.
No, you got it backwards. Good is define as absence of evil.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
Al Klein
<rsto...@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>You might say that God created the possibility of evil
Or I might just quote your god and say that he created evil. Or
should I believe that you know more than your god does?
Don Kresch
<rsto...@olypen.com> let us all know that:
>
>"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>news:d4b6av4fi4k1defg5...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.atheism on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50 -0700, "Randy Story"
>> <rsto...@olypen.com> let us all know that:
>> >
>> > I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say
>with
>> >God anything is possible.
>>
>> Is this the christian god? If so, then the bible says that with
>> god, all things are possible.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
>good
>> >BEING, therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
>> >hate, etc in any way.
>>
>> Is this the christian god? Is so, then the bible says (Is 45:7
>> being one of the place) that god created evil.
>All realities( things ) are possible, contradictions are not realities.
I would say that creating the universe is not possible.
>God
>can not do contradictions. I posted above on the creating evil issue. Read
>thru, this post has been so warmly recieved. LOL
That's nice, but tells me nothing.
Douglas Berry
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>relationships that came from the creatures.
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe,
I am the Lord, who do all these things.
Isiah 45:7
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>"Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>VERB!!!
>>That's what's happening!
>
>Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
"I'm just a Biil, yes I'm only a Bill,
and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.."
Dr. Smartass
> "Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>VERB!!!
>>That's what's happening!
>
> Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
:) Could be worse. New Kia commercial on the radio uses "Pop! Goes the
Weasel" with different lyrics...took me hours to cleanse my grey matter of
that filthy jingle.
I use Pantera's "Cowboys From Hell" for most cleanups, these days. Nice and
corrosive.
Jeremy Martin
>I use Pantera's "Cowboys From Hell" for most cleanups, these days. Nice and
>corrosive.
Anal Cunt's "Hitler was a Sensitive Man" is a good one.
--
Jeremy Martin
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
"I'd like to give myself and others like me a pat on the back
for never watching a single episode of this giant television
abortion of entertainment."
- Altivec, on "American Idol," SA Forums
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
> Gods nature is the source of logic just as assuredly as he is the source of
> love.
> God doesnt have logic, he is logic itself just as he is love itself. God is
> also reality itself, we just participate in our version of reality, finite
> reality God is infinite reality.
Nope.
Logic rests upon the Law of Identity, so it presupposes identity. It
presupposes that things have a unique, unchanging identity. Something
described as infinite reality can have no unique identity for it has no
limits that define what it is. Any attempt at definition would impose
some limit, thus contradicting the description of being infinite. An
entity which has no limits has no identity, so it cannot be associated
with the Law of Identity.
Furthermore, there is no proportion between the finite and the infinite,
as the finite and the infinite differ in kind rather than degree. We
therefore cannot participate in some portion of the infinite reality.
Our reality is an entirely different reality, with no comparison between
the two. As a result, we cannot extrapolate our experiences in this
reality to a being in an infinite reality.
> The so called rules of logic and morality
> flow from his perfect nature, their is nothing outside God that he is
> subject too.
You will have to show that logic applies in an infinite reality, and
that this same logic would then be recognizable in a finite reality.
G E Moore showed that concepts of morality cannot be reduced to more
fundamental concepts, so your attempt to define morality as part of the
nature of some being fails, as it commits a metaphysical fallacy. And
once again, there is no assurance that the morality from an infinite
realm could even be recognizable in a finite realm.
Regards,
Josef
Doubt is not a pleasant state, but certainty is a ridiculous one.
-- Voltaire
Therion Ware
-0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: Some Atheists & evil" to 44. I decided to
observe the following about them:
>
>"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>news:47k5avcuveojb5l0o...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:43:50
>> -0700, "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> brought the total lines of
>> text written about "Some Atheists & evil" to 51. I decided to observe
>> the following about them:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>> >relationships that came from the creatures.
>>
>> Nicely done. The off the cuff response would be that an Omniscient
>> entity would hardly be unaware of the relationship between objects and
>> in that way becomes responsible for evil: if I give someone a
>> detonator and a block of C4, in the certain knowledge he's going to
>> blow someone up, do I have any responsibility when he does?
>
>Thank you, I know your joking of course, you are absolutley correct he does
>knows exactly what was going to happen but only he can bring eternal good
>out of our temporal evil. If you know Christian theology, you know that
>history is not over. Eventually everyone will be give their ultimate
>freedom, those who wish to be with God and those who which to apart from
>God. For one it will be heaven because of knowing the fullness of God, for
>the other it will be hell because he chose to not know the fullness of God.
>Right now we only get the smallest glimpse of his goodness, if he revealed
>himself fully you and I would not be able to resist an infinite good, so we
>could not freely choose. God only desires to be known to those who want to
>freely know, all the others can live forever in the ignorance that they have
>freely chosen.
Which is all very well. But with the best will in the world, what does
it have to do with the point at issue?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts the this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
Elroy Willis
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>> Randy Story <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>> One question, Randy. Do words have meaning?
> Yes, words have proper meaning but only in the structure of the whole.
> This whole could be the paragraph, the chapter, the book or the entire
> bible.
And you decide which is which, depending on your current beliefs,
is that right? You pick and choose which parts to believe or which
parts to write off as myths or allegories or pure fiction?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Randy Story
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.190d4f532...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
1. To Josef: Your post is one of the best I have seen. You are correct when
you say the we can not define an infinite reality but this is onl;y in a
epistomological sense. Our knowledge of God is finite. But God is also
identical to himself, so in a ontological sense he is the author of the law
of identity. God sees that he is who he is and he is not his creation, so in
the most pimary sense God is identity itself. God may not have a unigue
identity to us because we can not describe the infinite. Gods thoughts are
also indentical to himself and so in this sense the law of identity find it
source in God the source of all rationality.
2. We are totally different in kind but it is impossible for the infinite
not to communicate something of himself when he creates. Every effect is
similar to its primary efficient cause. God can communicate his properties
of rationality, knowledge, morality, love, mercy etc. to the creation but
we only participate in them in our mode of existence.
The properties exist in God infinitely, we participate in them finitely.
They exist eternally, we participate temporally etc. To say that there is no
comparison is to sya we do not even participate in existence, but we exist
and God exists so the creator and the creation are not equivocal in there
being or univocal, they are analogous or similar. We have simalarities in
the qualitites as to their meaning but not to the mode of existence.
>
>
Elroy Willis
> The real world is intensely non-linear of course, but
> even determinism is not necessarily predictable.
Especially considering mutations and the incorrect copying of DNA.
Elroy Willis
> Our knowledge of God is finite. But God is also identical to himself,
A perfect clone?
Thomas P.
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
>God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
>not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
>believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
Neo-platonic word games aside there are things that happen that do not
logically need to happen that cause suffering and hate. Assuming an
omnipotent, loving god none of these things should exist. Furthermore
sane people can be assumed to act in what they consider to be their
best interests. Therefore, if they had sufficient intelligence or
insight, they would not commit acts against those interests. If sin
results in evil and also infinite loss for the sinner, sin would not
exist if god had created more intelligent creatures. Even if they do
commit or try to commit sin, there is no logical need for others to
suffer; God could prevent it. Assuming your god he is responsible for
all evil.
snip
J. Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>`To John: God many times in scripture takes responsibilty for the fact that
>evil exists in the world. He definitely set up the conditions that made evil
>possible, in giving us freewill,
They (your three gods) didn't give anything. We (Eve, actually) took
it. They did their best to prevent it!
>in allowing us to go our own way , in
They did't allow it. They kicked us out.
>allowing us to interact with others. In this sense God could say that he
Wrong. Only after Adam complained that he didn't have a compatible
sexpartner* your gods created women.
*= I agree kissing a chimp or humping a gorilla doesn't seem much fun.
>created evil or calamity, but as I said evil is not a real thing, God only
>made real things, OBJECTS. Many times we use the same idea when we say I
Who created your gods?
>created this mess, but many times our good intensions were just taken
>incorrectly, so it is with Gods good creation, God created only the good,
>man used the good incorrectly.
Your gods created everything. Including evil. As well as hell. Didn't
you read your holy buy-bull? From the above, I don't the get
impression.
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivej Mahasathan Amornpiman Avatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
J. Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>So when, in Isiah 45:7, he very matter-of-factly states that he creates
>> evil, he was lying. Correct?
>>
> You know as well as I that only context determines the use of words.
Indeed it does, my good man. Do explain me why Leviticus 18.22 applies
to gays exclusively, while all other Lev commands don't apply to
straights.
>Whe I said I created a mess I was not lying, but it does not mean
>necessarily that I was responsible for the evil. I may of been responsible
Your gods are. They created it. Last time I read the buy bull your
gods claimed omnipotence/science/whatever.
>because of my good intensions in creating the condition for evil to come
>about, but that is all.
Hopefully, you aren't omniscient. Meaning that if you create a mess,
you probably didn't do it intentionally. That excuse doesn't work for
your omniscient gods.
> The bible is like a large beautiful mosiac or painting, you must stand
A begat B, B begat C, C begat D, D begat E.... I guess a phone book
shares some of the beauty of the buy bull... But then, I really don't
like abstract art or Dadaism.
>back and see the whole before you can say that the parts are flawed. If you
>stand to close, it like the mosaic or painting may appear ugly and of little
>value. The structure and sayings in the bible must be understood in the
>light of the whole.
To me abstract art & dadaism isn't beautiful close up or far away. Nor
is smashing babies into walls very beautiful.
>You would at least give that much consideration to the artist before you
>condemmed his work. So stand back and see the beauty of Gods plan.
Yup. Like smashing babies into walls. Treating your wife & children as
property (with less value than furniture or real estate), rejoicing in
genocide... Fucking beautiful! Read the bible first, dimwit!
J. Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>Then you missed something, a pew sitter maybe, I am not trying to offend.
Probably, godboy. (Trying to be equally non offensive.)
>Yes, words have proper meaning but only in the structure of the whole.
Lev. 18.22 ?? Applies to gays... while anything else there doesn't
apply to 'normal' people...
Monsieur would like some dressing, for his salad?
>This whole could be the paragraph, the chapter, the book or the entire
>bible.
Nah, the proper biblical meaning is what you need in the argument.
>If I ask you to go get me the board, what am I saying. Do I want the 2x4 or
>do I want the group of men in the next office. Their is a lot of difference
>there.
>Same exact word , totally diferent usage.
Pity that the exact same words in the buy bull are explained so
differently by the +20.000 different xtian groups...
>This is part of the problem, atheists take little pieces and I mean little
>to show what we Christians believe is a contradiction, but most of the time
>they dont have a clue when it comes to context. They find some little excuse
>and then exclaim ,This is why I cant believe.
Bullshit. If anyone takes little pieces to proof their pathetic points
it are xtians!
>I can find a partial sentence in the bible that says There is no God. But
>the beginning of the sentence says "The fool has said in his heart, there is
>no God.
>IN fact I could probrably find enough some pieces to conclude the bible
>teaches.
Which is exactly why the buy bull cannot be but wrong. If it truly is
the word of god there would be one meaning to each word. Not 20.000
versions. Or is your omniwhatever god dyslectic?
>Atheism, Theism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Agnosticism an just about
>any other ism that you care to name. When I look at the whole it is another
>story all together.
>Come back to Christ, he is waiting.
For what?
J. Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
>God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do.
Like forgiving tiny finite sins? Like picking up sticks on the
Sabbath?
>God can
>not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
Then they aren't omnipotent.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
>believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
Evil and good are both subjective.
>There are other things that are not objects, they are conditions or actions,
>these we call verbs. What is interesting is that verbs that decribe
>conditions have no reality of there OWN. They dont actually exist as an
>object. They are not entities.
>Example: Tom threw the ball to Bill. There are 3 objects and one action,
Like 'Tom eviled the ball to Bill'?
You know as much about grammar as about the buy bull [zip].
> Evil, sin, hate have no reality of its own, it simply describes a lack,
'Tom sinned the ball to Bill'?
>evil. BUT God only created the good objects and in doing so created objects
According the xtian buy bull, god created EVERYTHING. Which religion
do you prostelize for?
phobos
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:23:03 -0500, a wanderer, known to us only as
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >"Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>VERB!!!
> >>That's what's happening!
> >
> >Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
>
> "I'm just a Biil, yes I'm only a Bill,
> and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.."
I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me...
John Hattan
>Then you missed something, a pew sitter maybe, I am not trying to offend.
Please be specific about what I missed. You made the claim, so you back
it up.
>Yes, words have proper meaning but only in the structure of the whole.
>This whole could be the paragraph, the chapter, the book or the entire
>bible.
>
>If I ask you to go get me the board, what am I saying. Do I want the 2x4 or
>do I want the group of men in the next office. Their is a lot of difference
>there.
>Same exact word , totally diferent usage.
But "get me the board" never means "do not get me the board".
You're claiming that "I create evil" in IS 45:7 means "I do not create
evil".
>This is part of the problem, atheists take little pieces and I mean little
>to show what we Christians believe is a contradiction, but most of the time
>they dont have a clue when it comes to context. They find some little excuse
>and then exclaim ,This is why I cant believe.
IS 45:7 is not a contradiction. It's a Bible verse that is opposed to
your original statement. Unless you consider your own statements to be
part of the Canon, I don't see how you could consider it as such.
>I can find a partial sentence in the bible that says There is no God. But
>the beginning of the sentence says "The fool has said in his heart, there is
>no God.
Then please show me the verses bracketing IS 45:7 that show it to be
anything other than a matter-of-fact statement that YHWH creates evil.
So far, you have just stated that the context is there, but you are
loath to provide it.
>IN fact I could probrably find enough some pieces to conclude the bible
>teaches. Atheism, Theism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Agnosticism an just about
>any other ism that you care to name. When I look at the whole it is another
>story all together.
That's fascinating. Really it is. Now please address the point.
>Come back to Christ, he is waiting.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Russell Turpin
> Parasites, viruses and the like are not
> evil in themselves, they are called evil
> because when they get into the human body
> they cause a bad condition as I said before.
Your excuses don't work. The parasites I
named don't have any redeeming qualities. It
is NOT the case that these are species that
do some good outsdie their host, and only
muck things up when they're in the "wrong
place." They're pure parasites. Their hosts
are the only place they can survive, they do
no good at all, the world would be better off
without them, and in fact, MAN has managed to
rid the natural world of one, and rid large
geographic regions of others. More, it is NOT
the case that people suffer these parasites
because they do anything wrong. Their victims
are entirely innocent.
If these parasites were created by man, you
would consider that a great act of evil. The
ONLY reason you won't say the same of a god
who creates them is that it would cause so
much damage to your religious ideology. The
question you should ask yourself is whether
that ideology is worth so much self deceit,
so much dishonesty with yourself?
John Hattan
>Which is exactly why the buy bull cannot be but wrong. If it truly is
>the word of god there would be one meaning to each word. Not 20.000
>versions. Or is your omniwhatever god dyslectic?
A couple of years ago a priest put together a comprehensive list of the
number of Christian sects. IIRC, the number came to around 32,000.
Approximately one sect for every 21 words in the Bible.
But I'm sure Randy has it right :)
Robibnikoff
>
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:23:03 -0500, a wanderer, known to us only as
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> warmed at our fire and told this
>tale:
>
>>"Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>VERB!!!
>>>That's what's happening!
>>
>>Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
>
>"I'm just a Biil, yes I'm only a Bill,
>and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.."
"Conjunction Junction, what's your function?"
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Robibnikoff
>
>"Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>>VERB!!!
>>That's what's happening!
>
>Aww shit. Now I'm gonna have that song in my head all day.
"Three is a magic number. Yes it is"
(the witchling's personal favorite) :)
Douglas Berry
Jeremy Martin <mrbu...@pattonisgod.com> warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>("Dr. Smartass" <gekiski...@astroboyskivviesmail.com>):
>
>>I use Pantera's "Cowboys From Hell" for most cleanups, these days. Nice and
>>corrosive.
>
>Anal Cunt's "Hitler was a Sensitive Man" is a good one.
Metallica's "Merctful Fate" jam works.
Dead Kennedy's "Too Drunk To Fuck"
The Clash's "London Calling" It's another earworm, but at least its a
good one!
Apostate
alt.atheism:
"You can't pin me down, because when cornered, I resort to more make-believe stuff
to prove the make-believe that's under dispute."
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Robibnikoff
>
>
>"CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> wrote in message
>news:pan.2003.04.20.05.42.06.454227@if_you_want_to_know.org...
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:34:57 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
>>
>> >I am being green is a category mistake like " How does the green taste"
>> >I am the color green is correct, but here green is only a description of
>the
>> >color.
>>
>> Hmm, you can't say in english that a person is green (as in covered with
>> green paint) ?
>>
>> > I am evil is describing my actions or thought process it is not
>describng my
>> > existence or attributes of existence such as reason, will, emotions.
>>
>> The key word beeing DESCRIBING. Just like you are descibing a color with
>> the word green. And what restrics me from using the word evil to describe
>> attributes of existence such as reason, will, emotions, if I can describe
>> them as beeing good ?
>
>You said I am being green not I am green, Since green is onl;y descriptive
>are you the color green or are you a green recruit. Green must describe
>something real.
If I say that a goblin has green skin, am I describing something real?
Therion Ware
+0300, "CoffeeFiend" <ask_me@if_you_want_to_know.org> brought the
total lines of text written about "Re: Some Atheists & evil" to 10. I
decided to observe the following about them:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:26:08 +0100, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> Just to be a smartass, I think it might be deterministic but
>> unpredictable in principle!
>
>Hehe. How would that work ? Of-course we can't simulate the whole of the
>universe, but considering our current observations, the universe is
>indeterministic by nature, unless there is some underlying order to the
>randomness of quantum mechanics, which is highly unlikely. Or were you
>getting at something else ?
Not really - or at least I haven't fully thought it through. The train
of thought (more like a stream of consciousness at this point) goes
like this:
Either the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic.
Simultaneously it's either predictable or non-predictable. Which gives
us four possible universes:
deterministic and predictable
deterministic and non predictable
non deterministic and predictable
non deterministic and non predictable
or a mixture of the above depending on the scale you're looking at.
But then again, I'm not entirely sure what "Free Will" is supposed to
be anyway.
And I'm not happy with the not uncommon notion that "random" = "free,"
or at least the basis of "free".
I think I'd better stop now....
stranger
> Come back to Christ, he is waiting.
Is it a true story?
No! It's a Randy Story.
Worthless, proselytizing troll #3,438.
Your purpose here is illegitimate.
If you have any respect for humans who do not believe as you do, you
will cease your inane trolling campaign on alt.ATHEISM.
Come back when you can prove this great, supernatural thing you
believe in is real. At that time it will be reasonable to expect
others to follow it.
Christian
stoney
Message ID: <va5g1ri...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> I said God can do all things that are possible to do, I did not say with
>God anything is possible. God can not do what is impossible to do. God can
>not know or do contradictions, such as making square circles.
Then such a character is not omnipotent as is advertised by believers.
Further, you torpedo your own deity. The Bible indicates eternal
torture is *just.* Such is a hefty contradiction. What's also a
contradiction is the theist stance that everything requires a 'creator'
except their imaginary buddy.
> I am beginning to understand your views a little better, some of you
>believe EVIL is a thing or object and I see a problem that I must pursue.
Good and evil are concepts that are dependant upon point-of-view.
(snip)
>God only created good things or objects, he did not create the bad
>relationships that came from the creatures.
Once again a fundy demonstrates ignorance of his own 'holy tome' as well
as any hint of reasoning ability.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
stoney
Message ID: <MMSoa.1190$95....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
The fundy female says: "I'm a meat locker."
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.190d4f532...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
...
> 1. To Josef: Your post is one of the best I have seen. You are correct when
> you say the we can not define an infinite reality but this is onl;y in a
> epistomological sense. Our knowledge of God is finite. But God is also
> identical to himself, so in a ontological sense he is the author of the law
> of identity.
An apple is also identical to itself. In the absence of your deity an
apple could also serve in this role.
> God sees that he is who he is and he is not his creation, so in
> the most pimary sense God is identity itself.
An apple adequately instantiates identity.
> God may not have a unigue
> identity to us because we can not describe the infinite.
My point is that your infinite has no identity, .... period. Identity
implies limits.
> Gods thoughts are
> also indentical to himself and so in this sense the law of identity find it
> source in God the source of all rationality.
Given the concept of free will, your deity's thoughts are
without limit, beyond definition, and therefore cannot have an identity.
> 2. We are totally different in kind but it is impossible for the infinite
> not to communicate something of himself when he creates. Every effect is
> similar to its primary efficient cause. God can communicate his properties
> of rationality, knowledge, morality, love, mercy etc. to the creation but
> we only participate in them in our mode of existence.
Pure speculation.
As Hume pointed out, the effect is different from the cause and can not
be discovered in it.
> The properties exist in God infinitely, we participate in them finitely.
Pure speculation. Please demonstrate that this infinite has properties,
and that the finite can participate in the properties of the infinite.
> They exist eternally, we participate temporally etc. To say that there is no
> comparison is to sya we do not even participate in existence, but we exist
> and God exists so the creator and the creation are not equivocal in there
> being or univocal, they are analogous or similar.
You have yet to demonstrate that this deity of yours exists, or that the
finite can share in the properties of the infinite.
As I pointed out in my previous post, the finite and the infinite differ
in kind, not degree. As a result there is no analogy between the finite
and the infinite, contrary to your claim.
> We have simalarities in
> the qualitites as to their meaning but not to the mode of existence.
Please demonstrate that reality requires the existence of your deity.
Regards,
Josef
The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they
are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil.
-- Bertrand Russell
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Randy Story <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Evil, Sin, hate are not things that have BEING and God only created
>>> good BEING,
>> Wait a minute... Aren't you leaving out "good" from the list of
>> "evil, sin, hate?" Why doesn't "good" belong in that same list since
>> you seem to agree that they're all just human constructs?
>>> therefore he is not responsibility for the existence of evil, sin,
>>> hate, etc in any way.
>> Ah, he's only responsible for the good things as you see them and
>> determine what's "good" or not, even though you can't seem to define
>> "good" in some absolute way which will never change in the future. Is
>> that right?
> This is a great question Elroy. Good can be shown to be real where evil can
> not. Example: Take any object, lets say a car and take all the flaws or bad
> qualities and imperfections out of the car, scratches, bad paint, poor
> tires, shocks, rust and what do you get, A BETTER Car. Good is the tendency
> toward perfection or completeness. Now, take all the good qualities out of
> any object, what do you get NOTHING. Evil is the tendency toward destruction
> or nothingness.
> So again, Good has real existence, real qualities, evil is just a
> descripion of a lack in those qualities.
Are you saying you can't think of a single example to support the old
saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure? Somebody
just made that one up with no basis in reality?
John Hattan
>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Why do you assume I haven't? I was a Christian for 18 years.
>>
>>Then you missed something, a pew sitter maybe, I am not trying to offend.
>
>Please be specific about what I missed. You made the claim, so you back
>it up.
<John taps the screen>
You gonna address this, Randy?
fnord
<jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote:
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote:
>
> >"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> Why do you assume I haven't? I was a Christian for 18 years.
> >>
> >>Then you missed something, a pew sitter maybe, I am not trying to offend.
> >
> >Please be specific about what I missed. You made the claim, so you back
> >it up.
You obviously missed the mandatory brain-washing sessions.
> <John taps the screen>
>
> You gonna address this, Randy?
Gimme $5 on "no"
--
Destined to replace the mudshark in your mythology...