The Absurdity of Atheism
Words of Truth
Fred Klett (a former atheist)
So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a
former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists
think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really
don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I
hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to
say and see if it makes sense.
No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist
the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter
what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or
atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if
reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken
philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made
up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to
change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?
You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to
our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to
believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your
problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps
you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist,
despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate
irrational leap!
THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM
Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
unprovable is hardly rational! You might reply: But I can t disprove a
giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one
can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is
not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll
get to that later.) The atheistic position, on the other hand, is
logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One
would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if
one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So,
logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God
would be God himself! Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The
evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we
refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there
is no God.1 In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God
there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's
simply consider ethics.
NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are
more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is
not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless
God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai,
thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are
merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to
create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options
to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3)
personal preference.
IS COLLECTIVE TRADITION AN ETHICAL BASE?
Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a
whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral
another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good
and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the
Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes
God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any
society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond?
Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard?
Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or
were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn't just what a
few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human
societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has
given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one
time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than
on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some
places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the
whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human
society does not provide an adequate answer.
WHAT ABOUT HUMAN SURVIVAL
What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that
whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be
appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic
assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference
does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival
itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an
atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely
on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have
less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary
eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by
them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those
deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its
moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the
atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we
have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious
people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen
horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god
doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is
still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall
not murder, horror results.
FEELINGS, NOTHING MORE THAN FEELINGS...
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just
saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a
dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and
cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the
ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of
personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
I've met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have
committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any
sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that
morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal
preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate
disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much
sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly.
Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal
preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I
challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere
personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do
it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is
no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic
presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many
atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the
irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!
Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent.
Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of
mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who
don't want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty
program for rebels and atheists! (More on that later.)
SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH
A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:
The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became
futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed
to be wise they became fools2...
God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate
brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely
intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or
a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.
Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though
corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and
a God who has a perfect moral standard. The truth is, if you are an
atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't
want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you
are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.
You need not feel this way. God has provided a way back for you.
How do we know God exists? Unless we begin with the assumption that he
does, we can't know anything else exists! Unless we presuppose that
God created us with the ability to know things through sensory
experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting
either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us
our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? As for
reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason! We
must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All
human reasoning is circular, but when we leave God out of the circle
we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching
it! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God
who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles
with no way of knowing how to discern truth.
As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind.
Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles
witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall
of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the
prophecies of the Jewish Bible.3 His resurrection is historically
documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish
believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for
what they knew to be true.4
Many have asked: Does life have meaning? Why do I exist? There is
abundant meaning to life when we know the Living God. Frankly, atheism
is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose
and excitement. On what basis does human life have value? Each of us
was created in God's image and therefore each individual is of great
value.
AMNESTY FOR ATHEISTS
Good news! There is hope for atheists! After the Vietnam War there
were many expatriate Americans living in Canada and other places. An
amnesty program was established to welcome these people home. The
message was: Come back home. All is forgiven. You will be received
back with open arms. God also has an amnesty program. The true God is
both just and loving. His justice demands that our rebellion be
punished. His love provided a means to fulfill this justice and
restore us to a right relationship with him. This is where the Messiah
comes in. Out of love for us, God took on a human nature and visited
earth to take upon himself the punishment we deserve for our
lawbreaking. Jesus died as a substitute for rebels to pay the penalty
of those who deserve it, whether religious or atheistic. There is a
judgement day coming, and God has proven this to us by raising Jesus
from the dead. You have this choice: let the Messiah take your
punishment or take it yourself. The choice seems obvious to me! Why
turn down a free gift? What a great amnesty program! God wants each of
us to admit we are wrong, receive the payment He has provided, and
come in with our hands up letting Him rule over our lives. He promises
to renew us, to enable us to live a new life in His service, and to
let us experience His presence forever. God calls atheists to come
back home, spiritually speaking. All can be forgiven, even atheism.
God calls atheists to turn from their rebellion and to trust the
Living God through his Messiah, Jesus.
STILL NOT CONVINCED?
If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and
you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His
awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won't want
to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information?
Maybe you'd like to get together with someone for a friendly and
relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish
some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.
Notes:
Ps. 14:1
Rom. 1:18-22
Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34
enki
This whole god thing is not realy important to me, it is so bronze age.
For real, I am not anit religon or god athough I am not a big
believer. My consern is that those who abandon god have created the
most brutal regiems on the face of the earth. I agree with Nietzsche
when said that religon is based on false premices and when we realize
that it will lead to nilhism. Tha is what happened in the first part
of the last century. I believe that our religon is a good idea but was
corrpted when it became an organ of the Roman Empire.
I can't wait unit the real rabbid repsonders come out of the woodwork.
John Baker
Truth) wrote:
>THE ABSURDITY OF RAYTARD AMBROSINI
John Baker
>Did you write all this yourslef or is it cut and paste?
It's Ray Ambrosini. Everything he posts is copy and paste. He's never
had an original thought in his life, nor, I believe, is he capable of
having one.
>
>This whole god thing is not realy important to me, it is so bronze age.
>For real, I am not anit religon or god athough I am not a big
>believer. My consern is that those who abandon god have created the
>most brutal regiems on the face of the earth. I agree with Nietzsche
>when said that religon is based on false premices and when we realize
>that it will lead to nilhism. Tha is what happened in the first part
>of the last century. I believe that our religon is a good idea but was
>corrpted when it became an organ of the Roman Empire.
It's one thing to hold that opinion. It's quite another to be
insulting and condescending about it, ala Ambrosini.
>
>I can't wait unit the real rabbid repsonders come out of the woodwork.
Well, just sit back and enjoy the show. <G>
raven1
Truth) wrote:
>Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>unprovable is hardly rational!
Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
"own goal" there.
>You might reply: But I can't disprove a
>giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one
>can never disprove any given thing exists,
Sometimes, one can, (especially in mathematics), but that's beside the
point.
>but the existence of God is
>not only logically possible
Which, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of its
existence.
>, it is philosophically essential.
Which, again, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of
its existence.
Seriously, what do you hope to gain by posting this sort of drivel? Do
you really think anyone with a modicum of intelligence is going to be
impressed by a screed containing four egregious mistakes in less than
half a paragraph, or are you a troll trying to portray theists as
invincibly stupid?
Alan Ferris
Truth) wrote:
> but could it be that they really
>don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there?
Yeah, just as all Christians cant bear the fact that all the other
gods are really there too.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Pastor Ized
"Words of Truth" <wordsof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com...
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
Blah! Blah! Blah!......
> Fred Klett (a former atheist)
>
> STILL NOT CONVINCED?
>
> If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and
> you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence.
The god of athiest is immensly more powerfull than your puny sheep god, he
has mighty arm's with which he weilds his awsome weapons, therby defending
puny hoomans from the sheep god's lust for burned hooman flesh. Not
convinced? find out more about this powerful god and his friends at,
http://www.foxhome.com/mmpr/index_frames.html.
> His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won't want
> to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information?
> Maybe you'd like to get together with someone for a friendly and
> relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish
> some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.
>
Yawns! rolls over and falls asleep to later dream of a world inhabited soley
by oxymorons.
LW
Angela E
god. The examples you use, for instance, to back-up your argument
against the possibility of morality being based on survival -
The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary
eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by
them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those
deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its
moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the
atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we
have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.
Or
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just
saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a
dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and
cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the
ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of
personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
Humankind's ability to think and reason evolved slowly, as did our
bodies. Kurt Vonnegut opines that our brains are just too darn big,
and therein lies the basis of my non-belief. Learning to reason while
being bombarded with emotion is something we still struggle with today,
and I can easily imagine early man creating all kinds of mythical
powers just to make them feel better.
The brain is still largely unconquered territory. To use the above
examples of obviously insane or at least psychopathic people as an
argument that none of us can trust our brains and so therefore god must
exist because morality exists is insulting at best..
Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that
morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal
preference.
But above, you suggest survival could be a basis for morality, which
has nothing to do with preference except that we all pretty much prefer
to be alive. However, you fail to completely consider this argument.
People living in a group shouldn't kill each other; the population
would decline, the gene pool would shrink, and eventually that group
would die out. It probably took early man a while to get that one, but
this must be how it started. As we grew more logical, we learned to
REASON -
In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
wants us to be be rational,
And we also learned to LOVE, which is really just a certain blend of
neurochemicals and electrical impulses which in it's beginning was a
survival tool to keep us from killing our babies and thus ourselves.
But again, our brains our huge and unwieldy, and they do not always
work correctly. Things go wrong, and we get Stalin, or Hitler, or
Dahmer. Broken brains that do strange things. Society as a whole
recognizes this, even when the person is sometimes able to use their
clever, misfiring brain to seduce some of us into believing their brand
of craziness.
Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent.
Is this logical?
Again, an argument for the complexity of the human brain.
The truth is, if you are an
atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't
want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you
are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.
When I was young, I was quite devout in my belief in the Catholic God.
I attended Sunday school, got my first communion, and began studying
for my confirmation before I became a heathen. But more than that, I
felt a connection to God, I spoke to him and I believed he spoke to me,
not in the crazy "voices in your head" way, but more like having an
imaginary friend. It was nice to never be alone, to know someone was
watching out for you, that there was a grand plan which included me.
It was nice to think that I would never really die, and that someone
was watching and would appreciate what a good person I was. And there
have been times when I wanted so much to believe again, I began praying
and attended church, and spent a lot of time trying to convince myself
it could be true. But I couldn't. I have no faith.
If you think this makes it easier for me, wrongo buddy. I am a good
and moral person, and not because I am expecting a reward or because I
fear divine retribution. Does this not make me a MORE moral person? I
am accountable; to myself, my kids, my family, my community. The world
is a big and scary place, and it would be so much easier to believe in
god. But, as a wise man once said, for those who have faith no proof
is necessary, and for those who don't, no proof is enough. I still
hope for proof that god is real, the same way a tiny part of me still
hopes Santa lives at the North Pole. It would be so nice.....
However, I also believe that religion has been and is still necessary
for most of humankind. Some people need to have the invisible leash of
god's existence to keep them from getting too emotional and doing
something immoral. For those who are insane, this does not count
because they are insane and can therefore reason anything to fit their
distorted views.
Lars Eighner
<3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com>, the lovely
and talented Words of Truth broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
> cannot disprove God exists.
It depends upon the god claim. Yes, it is difficult or
impossible to disprove the existence of the Deist god. But it
is a simple matter to disprove gods like those of christians,
jews, and muslims, because those gods are claimed to have
attributes which cannot all be true.
> To dogmatically assert something
> unprovable is hardly rational! You might reply: But I can t disprove a
> giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one
> can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is
> not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll
> get to that later.)
You'll get to that never, of course.
> The atheistic position, on the other hand, is
> logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
> assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
> reality.
That's right, it is impossible to disprove the existence of all
gods according to all possible definitions. However, it is not
necessary to search the universe to determine whether a square
circle exists. We know a square circle does not exist because
the properties of squares and cirles imply that nothing can be
both at once. Likewise, we do not have to search the universe
to tell whether the christian/jew/muslim god exists. We know he
cannot exist because the properties ascribed to him are
contradictory.
> Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One
> would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if
> one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So,
> logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God
> would be God himself! Atheism is inherently self-contradictory.
Of course it isn't. Atheists do not undertake to prove that no
god exists. You could worship a rock and claim it is a god, and
clearly the rock would exist. So long as you didn't make any
claims about your rock god's qualities and powers, no one could
argue that god - as a rock - did not exist. However, when you
begin to claim that everyone must act in accord with your rock's
wishes, you will have to expect certain questions to be raised.
If your claims for your rock become wild enough, they will
become self-contradictory, and then we can prove that your rock
is not a god according to your claims.
> The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see,
> only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in
> his heart there is no God.1 In other words, Atheism is
> irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or
> ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's simply consider ethics.
Of course you produced no evidence at all.
> NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
> Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are
> more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is
> not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
> for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless
> God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> and wrong.
It doesn't follow. How do you know you are worshipping the good
god and not the bad god (aka Satan)? Clearly you have to have
standards of right and wrong that come before god. Otherwise,
you could never tell which thing that you think is a deity is
good and which is bad.
> If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai,
> thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are
> merely left with humanly devised scruples.
About half of the 10 commandments are purely of the "support
your local deity" sort. The parts that have anything to do with
relationships between human beings were parts of human laws long
before your god was invented.
> If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we
> are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1)
> collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal
> preference.
You left out the possibility that human ethics are based in
human biology.
> SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH
> A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:
> The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
> Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
> wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
> because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
> world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature,
> have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
> that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
> glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became
> futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed
> to be wise they became fools2...
Blah, blah, blah. You are begging the question.
> God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate
> brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely
> intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or
> a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.
Then it follows that god must have had an even more intelligent
designer and that designer must have a more intelligent designer
yet, and it's turtle all the way down.
> Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though
> corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and
> a God who has a perfect moral standard.
No. It tells us only that our notion of justice and of right
and wrong comes before and is superior to beliefs in the various
gods.
> The truth is, if you are an
> atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't
> want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you
> are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.
> You need not feel this way. God has provided a way back for you.
Go fuck yourself, liar.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC, Atheist #1965 eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by
a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
--Chapman Cohen
Richard Smol
> You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
> wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
> scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God!
So what? According to your myth, your god is all-mighty, so it would
be easy for him to not be god for a while so he could submit himself to
human questioning. Not that I see a reason why he wouldn' be able to
do that
while being a god. Then again, nothing in your religion makes any
sense,
really.
<- snip rest of idiocy ->
RS
The Terminologist
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
> Fred Klett (a former atheist)
>
>
>
> So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a
> former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists
> think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really
> don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I
> hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to
> say and see if it makes sense.
>
> No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
> contrary to what he wants to believe.
There are still those who insist
> the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter
> what the evidence.
There are always folks, no matter if religious or
> atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if
> reason and fact show otherwise.
Someone like this has the unspoken
> philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made
> up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to
> change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?
>
> You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
> wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
> scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God!
He will not bow to
> our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to
> believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your
> problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps
> you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist,
> despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate
> irrational leap!
>
What about science?
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
news:slrncrqoac....@goodwill.io.com...
> In our last episode,
> <3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com>, the lovely
> and talented Words of Truth broadcast on alt.atheism:
> > Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are
> > more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is
> > not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
> > for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless
> > God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> > and wrong.
>
> It doesn't follow. How do you know you are worshipping the good
> god and not the bad god (aka Satan)? Clearly you have to have
> standards of right and wrong that come before god. Otherwise,
> you could never tell which thing that you think is a deity is
> good and which is bad.
and if you read the official platform of the Church of Satan, you'd note
that their "belief system" is far less violent, hateful and judgmental than
that of the Yahwehists.
personally, if i absolutely had to choose between the two of them, i'd be
far more likely to worship satan, but then, satan doesn't demand worship,
now does he?
oh sure, we've all heard the stories about satan eating babies and cutting
chicken heads off and all that nonsense, but as al pacino once said,
"consider the source!"
> > If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai,
> > thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are
> > merely left with humanly devised scruples.
>
> About half of the 10 commandments are purely of the "support
> your local deity" sort. The parts that have anything to do with
> relationships between human beings were parts of human laws long
> before your god was invented.
> <snipped>
carlin does a nice routine where he analyzes the sensibility (or lack
thereof) of the "ten commandments"
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
Christopher A. Lee
What "rabid responders", liar?
We have a deliberately nasty individual posting a mixture of stupidity
and outright lies to atheists, about atheists.
Why pretend that the natural human response to this is "rabid"?, liar
rcma...@excite.com
raven1 wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
> Truth) wrote:
>
> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>
> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
> "own goal" there.
Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
seeing all the evidence.
Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
=====
RC
Enkidu
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> raven1 wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
>> Truth) wrote:
>>
>> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>>
>> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
>> "own goal" there.
>
> Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
> seeing all the evidence.
All what evidence? You have some we haven't seen?
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Words of Truth poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
> Fred Klett (a former atheist)
Yawwnnn.
...
> Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
> cannot disprove God exists.
That does not make atheism irrational.
> To dogmatically assert something
> unprovable is hardly rational!
If so, then theism is irrational.
...
> Granted, one
> can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is
> not only logically possible, ...
As is the non-existence of any god.
> ... it is philosophically essential.
Baloney. This has never been demonstrated.
...
> The atheistic position, on the other hand, is
> logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
> assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
> reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One
> would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if
> one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So,
> logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God
> would be God himself!
Baloney. Logical proofs do not require omniscience, and this is evident
in any math or logic class. Further, omniscience precludes proofs and
disproofs, since proofs and disproofs are only required by those who
need information about reality. An omniscient being, by definition,
already has that information.
> Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The
> evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we
> refuse to see it.
Naturalistic Fallacy.
> King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there
> is no God.1 In other words, Atheism is irrational.
ROTFL!!
Argument from Scripture.
> Apart from God
> there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's
> simply consider ethics.
Translation: It's the only argument I can dredge up on short notice.
...
> Can an adequate basis
> for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless
> God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> and wrong.
Translation: I want everyone to adhere to MY standards.
...
> The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
> Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
> wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
> because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
> world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature,
> have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
> that men are without excuse.
Naturalistic Fallacy.
...
> God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate
> brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely
> intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or
> a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.
Naturalistic Fallacy.
...
> All
> human reasoning is circular, ...
Got a non-circular argument to show this to be true?
> ... but when we leave God out of the circle
> we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching
> it!
ROTFL!! Sure, you can't produce a circular argument for your deity
unless you include your deity in the argument. That still leaves the
question of why your deity should be assumed.
> Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God
> who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles
> with no way of knowing how to discern truth.
And if you begin with "... the philosophical presupposition that a God
who has spoken to mankind exists ...", then you are also reasoning in
circles.
> As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind.
> Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles
> witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall
> of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the
> prophecies of the Jewish Bible.3 His resurrection is historically
> documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish
> believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for
> what they knew to be true.4
You obviously have no idea what the word "proof" implies.
> Many have asked: Does life have meaning? Why do I exist? There is
> abundant meaning to life when we know the Living God. Frankly, atheism
> is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose
> and excitement. On what basis does human life have value? Each of us
> was created in God's image and therefore each individual is of great
> value.
ROTFL!!
Argument from Vanity.
...
> Good news!
You're almost finished with this nonsense!
...
> If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and
> you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His
> awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won't want
> to believe it!
Couldn't resist the obligatory threat, I see.
...
Regards,
Josef
Many men would have arrived at wisdom had they not believed themselves
to have arrived there already.
-- Seneca the Younger
The Terminologist
> Turds of Wrath summoned forth a vast army of straw men and wrote:
>
>> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM etc. Blahdeblah......
What is absurd is asking people to believe in something just because
nobody can prove it *does* exist. *You* cannot prove the falsity of the
great green arklesiezure theory just because Douglas Adams made it up.
That would invalidate your position on G*d.
Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
So who is in a position to have created whom?
Bill
other than a confused mind.
--
Bill
"Words of Truth" <wordsof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com...
jwk
Wait a minute; he'll scrape some off the bottom of his shoe.
jwk
BAAWA
rent@mob
>
> Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
> Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
> So who is in a position to have created whom?
I do so hope you are able to answer him without spamming a gazillion
newsgroups.
Much obliged
rent@mob
Hlafordlaes
>Think about it. Unless
>God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
>and wrong.
This single concern kept me sort of in the believer camp for quite a
while. In fact, I required myself to build up an ethical stance before
I truly let go. But the fear of chaos or nihilism is not a
justification for faith.
In a post had hoped you might read (Is It Possible to Be Dogma-Free?),
I attempted (and failed) to get a dialogue going that would lead to the
first principles that might underlie a system of ethics that is not
based on religion.
In his recent work "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New
Millennium," Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) tries to lay out just such
an inter-faith framework, I think rather bravely. His take starts with
a universal capacity for empathy. Recognizing Other as equally
legitimate as Self certainly does seem like one good starting point,
and appears to be supported as an innate human trait by recent brain
research (tho still in progress). But I was left with a need for a more
formal approach, which in my case is in its infancy.
The temptation when using aspects of the natural world to shape ethics,
however, lies in replacing *is* with *should be*, transforming
descriptive arguments into normative ones. Secondly, a limited
appreciation of a given theory or interpretive framework, such as
misunderstanding natural selection as "survival of the strongest" can
lead to disastrous consequences such as notions of superior races
(which BTW required redefining "stronger" to suit ad-hoc criteria).
With that caveat, I do believe that, by carefully sticking to *is*, we
can take some steps toward ethics, or answers to some questions. Take,
for example, evolution, chance environment and a sentient species such
as ours. Each individual of a species faces a sort of blind genetic
lottery at conception which may result in a total match or mismatch
with contemporary preferences (beauty, intelligence, functionality).
There is another, albeit interactive lottery in the environment,
wherein there is some freedom of choice within boundaries. Now, the
*is* of this is that the lottery deals each of us a single hand at
birth, which we may parlay and bluff into something somewhat better
than the actual cards, but which does provide boundary conditions on
our potential.
Further, and more importantly, it is the lottery, the system, which to
function as it *is" produces a normal distribution, much like the old
carnival bet of betting on which bottom slot a marble will land in
after falling through a matrix of evenly spaced pegs. Now, if we accept
the marbles defined as winners by the system, we must needs also accept
the losers, understanding that by accepting the lottery as a valid
system for some, we are accepting all of it, the whole system. As the
old American baseball adage goes, "where would the winners be without
the losers?"
Rather than leading me to wish for people to be dealt only Aces, or for
marbles only to drop in the winning centre, this gives me deep symapthy
for people who are dealt a high 7 (lowest hand in poker). The system
*is*, I accept it *as is*, and yes empathy leads me to root a bit more
loudly for underdogs.
This post is getting too long, and I certainly have not laid out a
framework for ethics, but my intention was mostly to say, there can be
an ethical way forward even without reference to faith. Given your
Christian faith, which certainly does not advocate eliminating those of
other faiths, you have a need to co-exist in peace with those others.
Rather than lecture, my point is, would you not join us in this forum
in helping to construct an inter-faith and non-faith-based approach to
ethics and applied philosophy? Today's war torn world would benefit
from this, even if in some small way.
yid...@hotmail.com
so there's not much point in debunking it, but I found this passage
rather interesting:
>So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a
>former atheist myself, I won't condemn you.
Ironically enough, this passage could be either a truth or a lie,
because personal beliefs are unconfirmable. I've known many insecure
people pretend that they've held certain beliefs in the past, even
though its obvious that they don't even comprehend the values of the
ideology that the supposedly held.
You'll notice that none of these so-called "conversion" stories have
any actual anecdotal or argumentive information that would make it seem
it even remotely believable. The article above follows this pretty
formulaicly in that the actual talk about conversion is just a
afterthought that's glossed over; even though anyone knows that a
religious conversion of any sort would actually be a pretty big deal,
and the author would in fact lots to talk about.
The reason why there are no details is because the story is written for
a propaganda purposes and is a fabrication. Religious zealots don't
take chances, you see, because they take comfort primarily from the
fact that they've avoided certain paths and avoid taking risks just to
dogmatically follow a certain faith. Something like a religious
conversion would be definitely out of the question.
But, these are personal feelings and all, so there's really no way to
prove or disprove that the author was an atheist or not. Even if the
author's ignorance of his own former beliefs were to be shown, there's
really no way to generate an absolute proof. Taking comfort in the
unconfirmable seems to be a trend among the zealots.
Ryan
rent@mob
> It proves nothing other than a confused mind.
That, and an irritating belief in the universal importance of one's own
voice. Enough with the crossposting, already.
rent@mob
enki
that I pointed that out. Cut and paste realy defeats the purpose of a
discussion board. If you find an intersting article like in grade
school, tell us in your own words. That will make you smater.
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up
a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
You know, despite the title I thought I would give this a fair reading. He
gently asks whether I, an atheist, might be blinding myself to the
evidence, and begs me to read what he says and see if it "makes sense".
Well, just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's true. QM and
the ToR don't "make sense". A flat earth "makes sense". But in any case,
I can set that aside and read what he has to say, right?
As I read on, I couldn't help but wonder, "Does every theist live in a
bubble? Do they really imagine that these are new arguments, or that we're
just atheists because we haven't heard these yet?"
You know, science keeps up because when old thinking is falsified, it
adapts and changes theories to fit new evidence. Religion does not, since
it is based on faith; so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised when the same
arguments that were tried and falsified hundreds of years ago are still
being used today.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
enki
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
> Fred Klett (a former atheist)
>
>
>
> think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really
> don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I
> hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to
> say and see if it makes sense.
>
> No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
> contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist
> the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter
> what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or
> atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if
> reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken
> philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made
> up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to
> change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?
>
> You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> come let us reason together.
No he doesn't:
17: And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of
men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
18: And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
19: And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of
the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when
he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
20: In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of
gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and
to the bats;
21: To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged
rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he
ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
22: Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is
he to be accounted of?
The phrase "reason together" does not appear in the KJV.
Larry Heath
"Enkidu" <enk...@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95BE438BFDE82...@68.6.19.6...
But unfortunately "Bring it on!" is.
Larry
John Baker
>I don't believe that I was insulting. I was a little flipint.
I didn't say you were. Ambrosini, on the other hand......
> i hope
>that I pointed that out. Cut and paste realy defeats the purpose of a
>discussion board. If you find an intersting article like in grade
>school, tell us in your own words. That will make you smater.
Tell that to Ray. <G>
John Baker
>
>raven1 wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
>> Truth) wrote:
>>
>> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>>
>> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
>> "own goal" there.
>
>Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
>seeing all the evidence.
Unlike theism, which asserts that a god exists without *any* evidence.
<G>
Mani Deli
Truth) wrote:
>You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
>to take an irrational leap of faith.
The usual Bible babble follows.
>Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
>come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
>wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
>scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God!
If he doesn't "submit himself to human scrutiny," it means you know as
much about him as anyone, which amounts to absolutely nothing. In fact
that's the basic reason I'm an atheist.
>He will not bow to
>our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to
>believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your
>problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart.
Religious nuts are such patronizing twits! My religious problems are
as much in my heart as yours are in your asshole.
>Perhaps
>you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist,
>despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate
>irrational leap!
Have you " already taken a leap of faith to assert that Santa Clause
doesn't exist?.
>. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
>assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
>reality.
SAme with Santa by your cockeyed reasoning.
>NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
>
>Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are
>more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is
>not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
>for morality be found given atheistic premises?
The atheistic premise is that there are no gods.
>Think about it. Unless
>God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
>and wrong.
Right and wrong can be determined without any reference to mystical
bullshit.
>IS COLLECTIVE TRADITION AN ETHICAL BASE?
>
>Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a
>whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral
>another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good
>and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people.
And most believed in god and were religious.
>How do we know God exists?
We don't!
> Frankly, atheism is boring,
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists. We just refuse to
believe the assertions of the religious, since there is no evidence to
support them.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
raven1
>
>raven1 wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
>> Truth) wrote:
>>
>> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>>
>> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
>> "own goal" there.
>
>Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
>seeing all the evidence.
I've yet to see *any* evidence to support theistic claims. In the
absence of such evidence, there's no rational reason to accept them.
Thus, I am without theism: an atheist.
>Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
No one rational claims to be "agnostic" about the existence of
unicorns or elves. Why should god/s get a free pass?
Don Kresch
us all know that:
>
>raven1 wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
>> Truth) wrote:
>>
>> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>>
>> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
>> "own goal" there.
>
>Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
>seeing all the evidence.
There is no evidence.
>Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
Ah, another idiot who thinks that agnosticism is a 3rd position.
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"
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
>seeing all the evidence.
And religion is irrational because it asserts a position without
seeing any evidence.
>Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
Al Klein
>That, and an irritating belief in the universal importance of one's own
>voice. Enough with the crossposting, already.
Which you seem to do so well. Clean up your own act first.
rcma...@excite.com
> On 13 Dec 2004 05:24:04 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
without
> >seeing all the evidence.
>
> And religion is irrational because it asserts a position without
> seeing any evidence.
Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
doesn't mean there's no evidence.
> >Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>
> Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
I assume you're are talking about "weak atheists"?
=====
RC
Al Klein
>Think about it. Unless
>God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
>and wrong.
Since "right" and "wrong" are merely opinions, there *is no* "eternal
and transcendent standard" for them. (Is eating meat right or wrong?
Kind of depends on whether you're a deer or a wolf.)
rcma...@excite.com
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
> on 13 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
> shouted:
>
> >
> > raven1 wrote:
> >> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words
of
> >> Truth) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
> >> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
> >> >unprovable is hardly rational!
> >>
> >> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard.
Nice
> >> "own goal" there.
> >
> > Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
without
> > seeing all the evidence.
> > Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
> >
>
> Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists. We just refuse to
> believe the assertions of the religious, since there is no evidence
to
> support them.
You assert that God does not exist even though you have yet to see all
the evidence.
That's irrational.
=====
RC
rcma...@excite.com
raven1 wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2004 05:24:04 -0800, rcma...@excite.com wrote:
>
> >
> >raven1 wrote:
> >> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words
of
> >> Truth) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
> >> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
> >> >unprovable is hardly rational!
> >>
> >> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard.
Nice
> >> "own goal" there.
> >
> >Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
without
> >seeing all the evidence.
>
> I've yet to see *any* evidence to support theistic claims. In the
> absence of such evidence, there's no rational reason to accept them.
> Thus, I am without theism: an atheist.
=====
RC
raven1
Why don't you provide what you consider to be the evidence for a deity
existing, and we can discuss it?
raven1
>You assert that God does not exist
Atheism qua atheism is not the assertion that god/s do not exist; it's
the absence of belief in them. These are not the same thing.
>even though you have yet to see all
>the evidence.
What evidence?
>That's irrational.
It's irrational to believe in the existence of something for which
there is no supporting evidence. If you have any to provide, now's the
time.
raven1
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2004 05:24:04 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
>without
>> >seeing all the evidence.
>>
>> And religion is irrational because it asserts a position without
>> seeing any evidence.
>
>Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
>doesn't mean there's no evidence.
Well then, put up or shut up: what's the evidence already?
>
>> >Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>>
>> Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
>I assume you're are talking about "weak atheists"?
You really seem to have a knack for missing the point: theism and
atheism are statements about what one believes, gnosticism and
agnosticism, one about what one claims to know. The two are not
synonymous: for example, one can easily be an agnostic theist ("I
personally believe there's a God, but I don't know for sure"), among
other combinations.
Enkidu
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Wrong, of befuddled one. Atheists say they are unconvinced by the
evidence that any god does exist. Not the same thing at all.
Enkidu
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Well, what evidence would convince you that the tooth fairy exists?
Something along those lines would be a start.
Vic Sagerquist
Oh. What gave you that idea?
Colin Day
Words of Truth wrote:
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
>
> NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS
>
> Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are
> more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is
> not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis
> for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless
> God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai,
> thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are
> merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to
> create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options
> to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3)
> personal preference.
If there are no natural (humanly cognizable) facts of ethics, then
there is no basis for ethics.
>
> IS COLLECTIVE TRADITION AN ETHICAL BASE?
>
> Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a
> whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral
Actually, they might say what is good for society, rather than what society
wants. They would answer that Nazism was destructive of society, and
therefore deserved to be destroyed.
Also, what is religion besides a collective tradition?
> WHAT ABOUT HUMAN SURVIVAL
>
> What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that
> whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be
> appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic
> assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference
> does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival
It's not so much that life is valuable, but that life is a precondition
of value.
> itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an
> atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely
Why would such an assumption be nonatheistic?
> on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have
> less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary
> eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by
> them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those
> deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its
> moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the
> atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we
> have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious
> people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen
> horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god
> doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is
> still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall
> not murder, horror results.
>
> FEELINGS, NOTHING MORE THAN FEELINGS...
>
> What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just
> saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a
> dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and
> cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the
> ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of
> personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
>
And what is the justification of religion besides socially indoctrinated
feelings?
> I've met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have
> committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any
> sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that
> morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal
> preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate
> disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much
> sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly.
> Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal
> preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I
> challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere
> personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do
And atheists challenge theists to come up a basis of ethics
that doesn't rely on alleged revelation/faith.
> it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is
> no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic
> presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many
> atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the
> irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!
>
> Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent.
> Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of
> mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who
> don't want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty
> program for rebels and atheists! (More on that later.)
>
> STILL NOT CONVINCED?
>
> If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and
No, we won't.
> you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His
> awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won't want
> to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information?
> Maybe you'd like to get together with someone for a friendly and
> relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish
> some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.
>
> Notes:
>
> Ps. 14:1
> Rom. 1:18-22
> Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34
>
>
>
> http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm
Colin Day
aa #1500
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2004 05:24:04 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
>without
>> >seeing all the evidence.
>>
>> And religion is irrational because it asserts a position without
>> seeing any evidence.
>
>Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
>doesn't mean there's no evidence.
You have objective evidence of a god? Post it. You'll be the first
person in the history of religion to do so.
>> >Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>> Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
>I assume you're are talking about "weak atheists"?
I prefer the term "agnostic atheist" since "weak atheist" could refer
to any of a number of things.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
bob young
Alan Ferris wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
> Truth) wrote:
>
> > but could it be that they really
> >don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there?
>
> Yeah, just as all Christians cant bear the fact that all the other
> gods are really there too.
I reckon with every bible they issue a set of blinkers!
>
>
> --
> Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
Tron
"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns95BE7879...@199.45.49.11...
....
> You know, science keeps up because when old thinking is falsified, it
> adapts and changes theories to fit new evidence. Religion does not, since
> it is based on faith;
The Funny thing is that the Church, at least, adapts, albeit at a glacial
rate of movement (e.g. The Vatican acquitting Galilei after 400 years).
There is little of the "burn the Heathen" religion of the bronze age.
Foreigners are not to be slaughtered on sight to please god. Poor people are
no longer doomed to slavery. Women are a little less inferior than they used
to be (female priests, etc.). One shouldn't automatically obey authority.
In 1200 years, the Church will be communist again. A few more centuries, and
they will even be darwinists, although science will have moved on.
T
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
<rcma...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1102983165.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
the fact that nobody has ever seen god is pretty good circumstantial
evidence it doesn't exist.
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
news:ocbsr09t9fuehq7p3...@4ax.com...
speaking of rationality..... hypothetical situation: two guys are sitting on
a park bench.. the first guy says "hey, did you know purple cats are falling
out of the sky while singing 'oh danny boy' at this very moment?"
the other guy replies, "oh? where?"
and guy one replies, "right here!"
and the second guy says, "well i sure dont see any!"
and the first guy says, "i dont see them either but if you keep denying
they're there, i'll cut your throat, and then you'll spend a week in the
timeout room!"
ok folks, now you tell me - which one of these guys is a fucking psychopath?
Tron
"Words of Truth" <wordsof...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com...
> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
>
>
The sad part is that of all people concerned, christians know _least_ what
the true contents and implications of christianity are about. Theological
dogma is one enormous exercise of scrutinizing the finger that points to the
moon, taking the garment of fable around the hard to convey philosophical
insight to be litteral truth and commandment.
You christians should open your heart and read with faith; faith being the
opposite of fear. Christian "piety" is the sum of all fears, projected; onto
the word, and onto the meaning of e.g. the words accredited to Jesus. You
might discover creation.
/
Personally, I believe that the Jewish faith is closest to the truth.
Religion is a vast drama of the relation between God and his chosen people.
Us others are the heathen masses, cheering from the orchestra seats, but not
otherwise concerned./
The funny part is this controversy over God's exsistence. For the sake of
argument, let's grant that God exists. Then what? Does that solve any
problems? Nay, I say unto thee, for nothing follows from that. Consider:
Step one: A man points a gun at you (and your family, and the rest of
humanity).
Step two: The man commands you to do praise him for sparing your life, which
will protect you from being shot.
Step three: If you do not obey the command to do praise him for sparing your
life, he will pull the trigger.
How does that differ from:
God creates, a lot; e.g. Hell.
God offers belief in himself as protection against going to hell.
If you do not obey the command to believe, he will send you to hell.
We need God to protect us from hell, which is something he created?
In truth, the only thing we need God for, is to protect us against God.
And God is the only thing we need God to protect us from.
Surely we would be better off without God in the first place.
In the words of some french poet. If God exists, we must oppose him.
Atheism is only half the fun of anti-theism.
T
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
news:1102983032.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
actually, atheism isnt so much about declaring outright that there's no god,
its about recognizing that anybody who claims to have a clue about whether
this god exists and what this alleged god is like, is completely full of
shit and should be locked in the timeout room for a week.
religious nut: there's a god!
atheist: you dont know jack shit, you jive ass motherfucker!
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
"j w @yahoo.com>" <j_w<no> wrote in message
news:re7tr09bjulk9hmef...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:23:40 +0000, The Terminologist
> <bu...@chinanet.cn> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
> >The Terminologist wrote:
> >> Turds of Wrath summoned forth a vast army of straw men and wrote:
> >>
> >>> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM etc. Blahdeblah......
> >What is absurd is asking people to believe in something just because
> >nobody can prove it *does* exist. *You* cannot prove the falsity of the
> >great green arklesiezure theory just because Douglas Adams made it up.
> >That would invalidate your position on G*d.
> >
> >Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
> >Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
> >So who is in a position to have created whom?
>
> Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
>
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
> exist.
you dont know jack shit, you jive ass motherfucker.
to hell with this evidence shit, you tell me, have YOU ever seen this "god"
fucker? do you really know anything about him other than what mommy and
daddy and father chester "the molester" o'leary told you in sunday school
while he was fingering your asshole?
"oh yes, laddy! jesus loves us, yes i know, cause i got me finger in ye
hiney-hole!"
aside from people pulling your dick, what reason do you have for believing
this fuckin horseshit?
>
>
> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
i looked. i didnt find shit.
>
>
> jw
>
how's THAT for intelligent comment, chrissy?!
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
"Hlafordlaes" <w_j_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102953563.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Words of Truth wrote:
>
> >Think about it. Unless
> >God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> >and wrong.
>
> while. In fact, I required myself to build up an ethical stance before
> I truly let go. But the fear of chaos or nihilism is not a
> justification for faith.
>
> In a post had hoped you might read (Is It Possible to Be Dogma-Free?),
> I attempted (and failed) to get a dialogue going that would lead to the
> first principles that might underlie a system of ethics that is not
> based on religion.
>
> In his recent work "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New
> Millennium," Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) tries to lay out just such
> an inter-faith framework, I think rather bravely. His take starts with
> a universal capacity for empathy. Recognizing Other as equally
> legitimate as Self certainly does seem like one good starting point,
> and appears to be supported as an innate human trait by recent brain
> research (tho still in progress). But I was left with a need for a more
> formal approach, which in my case is in its infancy.
> <snipped>
as an evolutionary trait, empathy does have its benefits...
and lest we forget, the dalai lama doesn't believe in god either.
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
<ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com> wrote in message
news:%Qkvd.2185$Ny6....@mencken.net.nih.gov...
> Words of Truth wrote:
> > THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a
> > former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists
> > think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really
> > don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I
> > hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to
> > say and see if it makes sense.
> >
> > No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
> > contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist
> > the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter
> > what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or
> > atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if
> > reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken
> > philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made
> > up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to
> > change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?
> >
> > You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> > to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> > come let us reason together.
>
> No he doesn't:
>
> 17: And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of
> men shall be made low: and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
> 18: And the idols he shall utterly abolish.
> 19: And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of
> the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when
> he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
> 20: In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of
> gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and
> to the bats;
> 21: To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged
> rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he
> ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
> 22: Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is
> he to be accounted of?
>
> The phrase "reason together" does not appear in the KJV.
he lied! the christian fucking LIED!!!!! can you believe it? ha! of COURSE
you can! that's what they do! that's all they do! THEY LIE!!!! THEY
FUCKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING LIE! LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
and still more fucking LIES!!!!! goddammit, there's so many lies, i thought
nixon had just walked in carrying an iraqi made suitcase nuke!
a nickel's worth of free advice? KJV is protestant shit. if you want
accurate translations of the original rolls of charmin, use a WJC english
translated tenakh for the "old testament" and a roman catholic "new
testament".
btw.. have you noticed how i dont seem to mind catholics but i absolutely
despise protestants? maybe it has something to do with the fact that
catholics keep their bullshit TO THEIR FUCKING SELVES!
its times like this i almost wish the bible was true just so i could watch
you goddamn evangelical protestant cocksuckers burn in the very hell you
love so much! then you'd smell what the rock is cookin', motherfucker!
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
i'm not even going to waste my bandwidth repeating.
> <circumcised>
AND..... like every evangelical protestant asshole, you make the typical
MISTAKE of assuming that IF there's a god, your load of kindling, A.K.A.,
"the bible", is somehow a goddamn authority on it!
your bible dont know SHIT, turkey!
duke
>The Terminologist wrote:
>> Turds of Wrath summoned forth a vast army of straw men and wrote:
>>
>>> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM etc. Blahdeblah..
...
>What is absurd is asking people to believe in something just because
>nobody can prove it *does* exist.
Nobody is asking you to do anything. There is no other answer available.
> *You* cannot prove the falsity of the
>great green arklesiezure theory just because Douglas Adams made it up.
>That would invalidate your position on G*d.
>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>So who is in a position to have created whom?
Actually God created the heavens and the earth over 14.5 billion years ago.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
The Terminologist
The Terminologist
> Nobody is asking you to do anything. There is no other answer available.
.. that is not too arcane for you to get your shrivelled brain around.
Vic Sagerquist
>>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>>So who is in a position to have created whom?
>
> Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
Looks more like debunking to me.
>
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
> exist.
Where? In your emotions?
> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
I couldn't even find him when I *was* looking.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
Vic Sagerquist
> What is your definition of "objective evidence"?
How about something you can sense with human senses? No, RCA Man, emotion
and spirituality are not senses.
[snip]
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2004 16:10:32 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
>> alt.atheism:
>> >Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
>> >doesn't mean there's no evidence.
>> You have objective evidence of a god? Post it. You'll be the first
>> person in the history of religion to do so.
>What is your definition of "objective evidence"?
Evidence that exists somewhere other than solely in your mind. ("We
exist, therefore a creator created us" is neither objective nor
evidence.)
>> >> >Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>> >> Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
>> >I assume you're are talking about "weak atheists"?
>> I prefer the term "agnostic atheist" since "weak atheist" could refer
>> to any of a number of things.
>Why not simply say agnostic and be done with it? It's a common enough
>term and widely used and understood.
I do when discussing knowledge. I say "atheist" when discussing
belief. They're both common enough words, and widely used and easily
understood by educated people.
Solomon "You Dirty Mother" Kozanski
all semantics aside, 'atheist' is better for people like myself.
'agnostic' implies "ohhhh... i dont know... maybe, maybe not", and just
sounds all around wishy washy
atheist, on the other hand, implies "i dont care, you fucking homo!" and
immediately tells these aforementioned homos what you think of their
psychosis.
atheist is a good word and a strong word. use it, heh heh, liberally!
Jos Flachs
alt.atheism:
>Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
>doesn't mean there's no evidence.
-----------------------------------------
| Attention: |
| |
| TROLL ALERT!! |
-----------------------------------------
walksalone
left its midden heap out od the headers, it has been reinserted.
& yes, the follow up is set to the troll's midden heap.
To bad it can not keep its offal in its own group, like it demands others
do.
Path:
be1.texas.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: j w <"j_w<no">
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The absurdity of believing in God just because there can be no
possible proof that he exists
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:51:06 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <ff2vr0tshvvlon2kd...@4ax.com>
References: <3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com>
<pK-dnT55iaB...@brightview.com>
<UqCdnWS5j8U...@brightview.com>
<re7tr09bjulk9hmef...@4ax.com>
<Xns95BF61DD...@204.127.199.17>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 49
Xref: be1.texas.rr.com alt.atheism:3280787
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:35:52 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>On 14 Dec 2004, j w <j_w dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>>
>>>>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>>>>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>>>>So who is in a position to have created whom?
>>>
>>> Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
>>Looks more like debunking to me.
>>> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
>>> exist.
> Pardon. I meant to say,
You meant to say after you thought it over & had your first claim to be
shown to be as phony as you are you mean.
>>> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", there IS evidence of the likelihood of God's existence.
> Now that THAT's straight.
Not that you can provide it, even though you pretend you can.
>>Where? In your emotions?
> No, proving God's existence is called "cause and effect," the same way
> I heard "scientist" prove the existence of the atom.
Yet, you can not show a logical claim of events that relate to your version
of cause & effect. But then, Cliff notes are not real strong on phony
science claims.
>>> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
>>
>>I couldn't even find him when I *was* looking.
> "You will find me if you seek me with all your heart."
Not really, one can find Elves, Dwarves of the Nordic sagas, Alfs & other
figments of the imagination like your gods with the mind, but the heart has
nothing to do with it.
> I'll believe God, thanks.
But then, you believe nothing & have established that for all to see, After
all, you can not even define your gods in an intelligent manner that is not
contradictory, & then pretend that even though they are ineffable™, you
know what they think & want.
> jw
walksalone who noticed that jw had posted this to aa only, & knowing full
well that its midden heap is in the Baptist group. One can only suspect
[know actually based on past posting history] that we were about to see the
usual jw xian honesty & integrity.
--
The Hadith Qudsi 6
The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of
Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah
will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them.
The Almighty will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I
fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied - you did
but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was
said.
Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast
into Hell-fire.
Vic Sagerquist
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:35:52 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>On 14 Dec 2004, j w <j_w dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>>
>>>>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>>>>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>>>>So who is in a position to have created whom?
>>>
>>> Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
>>
>>Looks more like debunking to me.
>>
>>>
>>> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
>>> exist.
>>
>
> Pardon. I meant to say,
>
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", there IS evidence of the likelihood of God's existence.
>
> Now that THAT's straight.
No, actually that's a lie, since there is no evidence of any god's
existence, whether it be Zeus, Odin, Allah, Thor, or Yahweh. Or any of
the other thousand or so.
>
>
>>Where? In your emotions?
>
> No, proving God's existence is called "cause and effect," the same way
> I heard "scientist" prove the existence of the atom.
Yeah. We observe the effect and imagine the cause. If that's your idea
of reality, I'll have no part in it.
>
>>
>>
>>> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
>>
>>I couldn't even find him when I *was* looking.
>
> "You will find me if you seek me with all your heart."
Circular reference. The bible does not prove the bible any more than
Harry Potter is proof of wizards.
>
> I'll believe God, thanks.
>
Please keep your insanity to yourself, then.
Vic Sagerquist
Piggybacking in reply to Dishonest John W, reposted to the baptist
group...
You thought you could end it here, did ya?
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:35:52 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>On 14 Dec 2004, j w <j_w dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>>
>>>>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>>>>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>>>>So who is in a position to have created whom?
>>>
>>> Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
>>
>>Looks more like debunking to me.
>>
>>>
>>> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
>>> exist.
>>
>
> Pardon. I meant to say,
>
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", there IS evidence of the likelihood of God's existence.
>
> Now that THAT's straight.
No, actually that's a lie, since there is no evidence of any god's
existence, whether it be Zeus, Odin, Allah, Thor, or Yahweh. Or any of
the other thousand or so.
>
>
>>Where? In your emotions?
>
> No, proving God's existence is called "cause and effect," the same way
> I heard "scientist" prove the existence of the atom.
Yeah. We observe the effect and imagine the cause. If that's your idea
of reality, I'll have no part in it.
>
>>
>>
>>> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
>>
>>I couldn't even find him when I *was* looking.
>
> "You will find me if you seek me with all your heart."
Circular reference. The bible does not prove the bible any more than
Harry Potter is proof of wizards.
>
> I'll believe God, thanks.
>
Please keep your insanity to yourself, then.
walksalone
floor reset the header to the atheist group only, knowing full well he
would never see the response. But he will, for the group he hides his
midden heap in has been added back to the headers.
> Path: be1.texas.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!cyclone.socal.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!odin.oar.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.glorb.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: j w <"j_w<no">
> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: The Absurdity of Atheism
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:22:52 -0800
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <lh70s0dpoemek8la6...@4ax.com>
> References: <3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com> <uaeqr095e8481bghc...@4ax.com> <1102944244.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <Xns95BE7C8F...@127.0.0.1>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
> Lines: 43
> Xref: be1.texas.rr.com alt.atheism:3281302
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:13:43 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>on 13 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
>>shouted:
>>
>>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words of
>>>> Truth) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>>>> >cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>>>> >unprovable is hardly rational!
>>>>
>>>> Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard. Nice
>>>> "own goal" there.
>>>
>>> Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position without
>>> seeing all the evidence.
>>> Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>>>
>>
>>Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists.
> Lie. Atheists ( I have debated quite a few) say, "there is no God."
Indeed you do, you are rather famous for it. Above is a prime example.
Being atheist, I can safely say that I hold no belief in any gods claimed
by humanity.
That only equates to do not believe as an active principle in your demented
excuse of a mind.
Now, those gods that have claims made for them, claims that can be tested
by minds more capable than yours, those I do not believe in to the point I
would say they do not exist. Odd as it sounds, only the revealed gods of
the desert fall into that category.
Yes, that includes yours.
> THAT is a philosophical argument. And one for which there is no
> proof. You can not prove that God does not exist, and there is
What can be shown is the claims for the xian gods are false, Epicurus did
it by accident at least 300 years prior to the limpid excuse of xianity
arrived on the stage.
> rational reason to believe God does exist, as Supreme Being/Creator.
Wrong assumption.
There is no reason to believe that gods that can not meet the claims found
in their holy books exist, let alone are the supreme anything. But, that is
beyond your reasoning ability, & your appeal to your ignorance is useless.
> jw
Liar John, the scrambled one, jezebeth, spammer John, jw the troll, which
one are you hiding behind today prithee tell sirrah.
> We just refuse to
>>believe the assertions of the religious, since there is no evidence to
>>support them.
walksalone who has long since learned to expect neither honesty nor
conversation from jw, those are not among his attributes IAW his posting
history.
walksalone
hurt, really they were. You see, he can't be dishonest, he does not
apparently know what honesty is.
But then, he is a liar as well for as usual, he fails to keep it in the
group™.
> Path: news.netfront.net!HSNX.atgi.net!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: j w <"j_w<no">
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: jw was : The absurdity of believing in God just because there can be no possible proof that he exists
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:46:18 -0800
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <ld50s09qm6b89tv1n...@4ax.com>
> References: <3d02dea6.04121...@posting.google.com> <pK-dnT55iaB...@brightview.com> <UqCdnWS5j8U...@brightview.com> <re7tr09bjulk9hmef...@4ax.com> <Xns95BF61DD...@204.127.199.17> <ff2vr0tshvvlon2kd...@4ax.com> <1103075797.b0031a789f2397a88ccdd55df3e534cd@teranews> <Xns95BFCB6D...@216.148.227.77>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
> Lines: 23
> Xref: news.netfront.net alt.religion.christian.baptist:407690 alt.atheism:1532076
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:58:31 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>On 14 Dec 2004, walksalone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>>
>>Piggybacking in reply to Dishonest John W, reposted to the baptist
>>group...
>
> As I've repeatedly said, when you start your post to me with an
No, as you have repeatedly demanded, knowing full well your conduct is as
described & therefore, your due. You still think you are above the
standards you try to imply you can impose on others.
> insult, 'Dishonest John ", don't expect me to respond to anything
> below.
No one expecrts anything from you anymore jw, & that is the sad part.
having done it to yourself, you insist it is the fault of others for not
A: Treating you with kid gloves
B: Giving you respect you don't earn
C: buying your outright lies wholesale
D: Pretending you are the *scholar* you pretend to be.
> Approach me with some tolerance and respect, and we may continue.
> Maybe not.
You have yet to earn respect, & y don't like the tolerance you deserve,
yet, you will never shut up.
Seems to me you are getting what you try to do to others & don't like it at
all.
> jw
> snip
Of course you had to snip it jw, otherwise people would notice, again, that
you still can not rebut the atheists knowledge of your myth.
But everyone still knows.
Maybe Vic will put it back in, for now, I won't.
Maybe later when I am suffering terminal boredom from running out of books
to read.
walksalone who is no longer startled when jw whines about his conduct being
called what it actually is, other than infantile.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
> contrary to what he wants to believe.
That may be true. I don't know, as I haven't "prejudged" the issue.
Like many atheists, I used to be a theist.
> You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
> wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
> scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God!
So, when Jesus let Thomas check his wounds, he stopped being God?
< snip >
> The atheistic position, on the other hand, is
> logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
> assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
> reality.
I don't make that assertion.
< snip >
> King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there
> is no God.
I guess King David is burning in Hell, then.
< snip >
> Think about it. Unless
> God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> and wrong.
Then God doesn't exist, since what is "right" and what is "wrong" have
not only varied throughout history, but vary from place to place even today.
You've not only shown that you're writing about a form of atheism that I
don't share, you've also negated your own premise that God exists, so I
think we're done here.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> You assert that God does not exist even though you have yet to see all
> the evidence.
When do we get to see that?
Christopher A. Lee
<tukla...@tukla.net> wrote:
>rcma...@excite.com wrote:
>
>< snip >
>
>> You assert that God does not exist even though you have yet to see all
>> the evidence.
>
>When do we get to see that?
I've never understood this - who they think they're fooling. They're
either stupid or lying. It doesn't matter which the result is the
same.
>< snip >
Dubh Ghall
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>>> tube", there IS evidence of the likelihood of God's existence.
>
>Now that THAT's straight.
>
What evidence?
>
>No, proving God's existence is called "cause and effect," the same way
>I heard "scientist" prove the existence of the atom.
>
Go ahead then, but remember, the evidence for the atom, is not philosophical,
and it is not subjective.
The evidence for the atom is empirical, and predictions can be made based on
that evidence.
I/we, await your evidence.
>>
>>> You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
>>
>>I couldn't even find him when I *was* looking.
A seeming common problem. I also searched, but could not find it, and when my
search began, I already believed.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> Vic Sagerquist wrote:
>
>>on 13 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
>>shouted:
>>
>>
>>>raven1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12 Dec 2004 21:42:53 -0800, wordsof...@hotmail.com (Words
>
> of
>
>>>>Truth) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One
>>>>>cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something
>>>>>unprovable is hardly rational!
>>>>
>>>>Which makes theism inherently irrational by your own standard.
>
> Nice
>
>>>>"own goal" there.
>>>
>>>Actually, atheism is irrational because it asserts a position
>
> without
>
>>>seeing all the evidence.
>>>Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>>>
>>
>>believe the assertions of the religious, since there is no evidence
>
> to
>
>>support them.
>
>
> the evidence.
>
>
So I can assume then that since you have yet to see all the evidence as
well, that dragons are a factual creature, Santa is actually going to be
making his yearly trip in a couple of weeks, and in the spring, a large
rabbit with a basket of eggs will be leaving things in your yard.
It's your logic, you deal with it.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> The god of athiest is immensly more powerfull than your puny sheep god, he
> has mighty arm's with which he weilds his awsome weapons, therby defending
> puny hoomans from the sheep god's lust for burned hooman flesh. Not
> convinced? find out more about this powerful god and his friends at,
> http://www.foxhome.com/mmpr/index_frames.html.
Zordon's da god!
Vic Sagerquist
>>Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists.
>
> Lie. Atheists ( I have debated quite a few) say, "there is no God."
That is not an assertion. It's a negative conclusion based on the fact
that there is no evidence to support the positive claim.
Vic Sagerquist
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:58:31 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
>>On 14 Dec 2004, walksalone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>>
>>Piggybacking in reply to Dishonest John W, reposted to the baptist
>>group...
>
> As I've repeatedly said, when you start your post to me with an
> insult, 'Dishonest John ", don't expect me to respond to anything
> below.
>
> Approach me with some tolerance and respect, and we may continue.
> Maybe not.
>
Awww, poor baby.
Christopher A. Lee
<add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>On 15 Dec 2004, j w <j_w dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>
>>>Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists.
>>
>> Lie. Atheists ( I have debated quite a few) say, "there is no God."
>
>That is not an assertion. It's a negative conclusion based on the fact
>that there is no evidence to support the positive claim.
It's also falsifiable.
thomas p
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:23:40 +0000, The Terminologist
><bu...@chinanet.cn> wrote:
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
>group)
>>The Terminologist wrote:
>>> Turds of Wrath summoned forth a vast army of straw men and wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM etc. Blahdeblah......
>>What is absurd is asking people to believe in something just because
>>nobody can prove it *does* exist. *You* cannot prove the falsity of the
>>great green arklesiezure theory just because Douglas Adams made it up.
>>That would invalidate your position on G*d.
>>
>>Fact: Mankind has been around for 3 million years
>>Fact: God has been around for a fraction of this time
>>So who is in a position to have created whom?
>
>Were you seeking intelligent comment, ore are you merely preaching?
>
>While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
>tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
>exist.
A strong likelihood based on a total lack of evidence?
>
>
>You will truly never find Him if you aren't looking.
Why does he have to be found? Why isn't he glaringly obvious to all?
rcma...@excite.com
Al Klein wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2004 16:10:32 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2004 05:24:04 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
> >> alt.atheism:
> >>
> >without
> >> >seeing all the evidence.
> >>
> >> seeing any evidence.
> >
> >Just because you have decided that the evidence doesn't convince you
> >doesn't mean there's no evidence.
>
> person in the history of religion to do so.
What is your definition of "objective evidence"?
> >> >Agnosticism is at least rational in that sense.
>
> >> Which is why most atheists are agnostic.
>
> >I assume you're are talking about "weak atheists"?
>
> I prefer the term "agnostic atheist" since "weak atheist" could refer
> to any of a number of things.
Why not simply say agnostic and be done with it? It's a common enough
term and widely used and understood.
=====
RC
Tukla Ratte
> On 13 Dec 2004 08:01:18 -0800, "rent@mob" <re...@mob.co.uk> said:
>
>
>>That, and an irritating belief in the universal importance of one's own
>>voice. Enough with the crossposting, already.
Tell your newsreader to kill the thread, dipwad. It's much faster than
whining about crossposting.
> Which you seem to do so well. Clean up your own act first.
Funny how they always tell *us* to stop crossposting instead of the
fundy who started the thread.
skyeyes
when my
> search began, I already believed.
Yo. <aol>Me too!</aol>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Chief Wrangler and Ramrod Emeritus
(and Professor of Feline Thermometrics)
EAC Equine Transportation Command/Carne Seca Division
in the Prefecture of Baja, Arizona
Smith Computer
> < snip >
>
> > No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
> > contrary to what he wants to believe.
>
> That may be true. I don't know, as I haven't "prejudged" the issue.
> Like many atheists, I used to be a theist.
Theist. As if the term was spat like some foul tasting substance, however
this one claims not to prejudge the issue now.
> > You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want
> > to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says:
> > come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly
> > wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human
> > scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God!
> So, when Jesus let Thomas check his wounds, he stopped being God?
When did the Christ become the one true God in order to stop?
> < snip >
>
> > The atheistic position, on the other hand, is
> > logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the
> > assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of
> > reality.
> I don't make that assertion.
Great. Now there is a small bit of common ground.
> < snip >
> > King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there
> > is no God.
> I guess King David is burning in Hell, then.
Why do you so assert?
> < snip >
> > Think about it. Unless
> > God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right
> > and wrong.
That which is self serving tends toward bad, that which serves others tends
toward good. What is so difficult about that?
> Then God doesn't exist, since what is "right" and what is "wrong" have
> not only varied throughout history, but vary from place to place even
today.
The scale of right and wrong changes as does the hardness of men's hearts,
but the truth never varies.
> You've not only shown that you're writing about a form of atheism that I
> don't share, you've also negated your own premise that God exists, so I
> think we're done here.
The preamble to a hasty and well timed exit?
Not so fast, and debate with accuracy and truth.
> < snip >
high officials have massed together as one against the Creator...
The Smitty
PharLap
<j_w<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While many Christians would agree that you "can't prove God in a test
> tube", to the contrary, the strong likelihood of God's existence DOES
> exist.
In this you are demonstrating two things. Firstly you indicate that your
faith is "chosen" rather than rationally based on overwhelming evidence.
Secondly you are demonstrating that all your theological claims are made
on a very insecure foundation.
You have not "found" God , John, with this world view.
All you have found is part of yourself and CALLED it "God"
That is why when you think you are being opposed - and most especially
when that opposition is valid and reasonable - you see that as an attack
on "God" - and the perpetrator as a "demon"
It is ALL manifestation of your illness (a paranoid and megalomaniac
manifestation) and will remain so until you seek rational spiritual
guidance from a progressive thinking mainstream church.
Al Klein
Kozanski" <nos...@gospamyourself.com> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:mnvur0t3utbbv1036...@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Dec 2004 04:15:35 -0800, rcma...@excite.com said in
>> alt.atheism:
>> >Why not simply say agnostic and be done with it? It's a common enough
>> >term and widely used and understood.
>> I do when discussing knowledge. I say "atheist" when discussing
>> belief. They're both common enough words, and widely used and easily
>> understood by educated people.
>all semantics aside, 'atheist' is better for people like myself.
>'agnostic' implies "ohhhh... i dont know... maybe, maybe not", and just
>sounds all around wishy washy
Atheism refers to belief; agnosticism refers to knowledge.
What you're saying, that you prefer "atheist" to "agnostic", is like
claiming that you're a man, not an American.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<tukla...@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2004 08:01:18 -0800, "rent@mob" <re...@mob.co.uk> said:
>>>That, and an irritating belief in the universal importance of one's own
>>>voice. Enough with the crossposting, already.
>Tell your newsreader to kill the thread, dipwad. It's much faster than
>whining about crossposting.
>> Which you seem to do so well. Clean up your own act first.
>Funny how they always tell *us* to stop crossposting instead of the
>fundy who started the thread.
Not funny at all. Religion is telling everyone else how to act, not
telling yourself how to act.
Christopher A. Lee
>Al Klein wrote:
>
>> On 13 Dec 2004 08:01:18 -0800, "rent@mob" <re...@mob.co.uk> said:
>>
>>
>>>That, and an irritating belief in the universal importance of one's own
>>>voice. Enough with the crossposting, already.
>
>Tell your newsreader to kill the thread, dipwad. It's much faster than
>whining about crossposting.
>
>> Which you seem to do so well. Clean up your own act first.
>
>Funny how they always tell *us* to stop crossposting instead of the
>fundy who started the thread.
Not really - "polite" society allows and even encourages their
in-your-face rudeness, slanders etc. It also expects us to put up with
it.
Jos Flachs
>>Atheism makes no assertions, neither do atheists.
>
>Lie. Atheists ( I have debated quite a few) say, "there is no God."
>
>THAT is a philosophical argument. And one for which there is no
>proof. You can not prove that God does not exist, and there is
>rational reason to believe God does exist, as Supreme Being/Creator.
So there is a god? Really? Care to share your evidence with us?
No? No evidence? Don't want to share with us? Why not?
William T. Goat
j w wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:35:52 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
> copyright 2004 John Weatherly all rights reserved (keep it in the
> group)
> >
> >
>
>
Do you also believe what God said in the book of Isaiah about dragons,
unicorns, and satyrs?
Isaiah 43:20 The beasts of the field shall honor me, the dragons and
the ostriches: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in
the desert, to give to drink to my people, my chosen.
Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the
bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and
their dust made fat with fatness.
Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their
houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there,
and satyrs shall dance there.
--Billy
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>
> j w wrote:
>> I'll believe God, thanks.
>
> Do you also believe what God said in the book of Isaiah about dragons,
> unicorns, and satyrs?
>
> Isaiah 43:20 The beasts of the field shall honor me, the dragons and
> the ostriches: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in
> the desert, to give to drink to my people, my chosen.
>
> Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the
> bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and
> their dust made fat with fatness.
>
> Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their
> houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there,
> and satyrs shall dance there.
>
> --Billy
>
>
<christer mode>
Give me eternal life and I'll believe anything you say.
</christer>
John Baker
"Do as I say, not as I do." :-)
John Baker
<smithc...@charter.com> wrote:
>
>> < snip >
>>
>> > No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything
>> > contrary to what he wants to believe.
>>
>> That may be true. I don't know, as I haven't "prejudged" the issue.
>> Like many atheists, I used to be a theist.
>
>Theist. As if the term was spat like some foul tasting substance, however
>this one claims not to prejudge the issue now.
Oh? By simply reading a line of plain text on Usenet, you can tell
that the term was being "spat out like some foul tasting substance?"
Now, what was that about prejudging the issue?