Given the evidence, which view fits ; atheism or theism ?
ilbe...@gmail.com
out of nothing when it didnt have to .2. We have a Universe with over
250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
called Earth (which are ALL required to exist simultaneously since
each depends on the others) .3. LIfe that has been observed to arise
only from
existing life and not arise spontaneously.4. LIfe consists of
thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5.
LIfe
which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life
which
cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that
appear
suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if
atheism
is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
Creator to even exist (?)
JohnN
No evidence of any personal Theistic Creator presented, why was that?
JohnN
raven1
>.2. We have a Universe with over
>250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
>called Earth (which are ALL required to exist simultaneously since
>each depends on the others)
For about the dozenth time, bullshit. List them. Put up or shut up,
already.
Christopher A. Lee
The morons who use this "argument" imagine that the universe was
created specifically for us.
If things were different, maybe some other life form would be saying
that - I have visions of Chlorine breathing, silicon based beings on
Monistat III saying just that.
Or maybe nobody would be around to say it.
Ken
The same stupid creatioNUT shit, just on a different stupid day!
Larry
4fc0-be16-e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
>
>
>
Sure! There's absolutely ZERO evidence in millions of years PLUS noone can
tell us where the "creator" came from. Who made him/it/her?
....and, lastly but not least, it doesn't make any difference, whatsoever.
If we're going to expend energy/money/time on something, let's do it more
productively trying to figure out how to feed the hundreds of thousands of
tiny children that starved to death since yesterday. Compared to that,
noone gives a shit about aliens and universes.
You sit in your Crystal Cathedral wearing a $4000 Armani and Rolex Oyster
talking bullshit into the $4M PA system while 387 innocent little kids
living in squalor on a garbage dump somewhere gave up and died during the
sermon. How wonderful it was behind the beautiful flowers the florist
delivered for $1273.26 Saturday afternoon that adorn the stage by the $8M
pipe organ you just paid a crew $1288 to tune perfectly to satisfy Diane
Bish, our esteemed, yet snobbish bitch, organist.
What would "Jesus" think? Maybe he'll be waiting out by your Lexus at 2PM
on your way to the golf course and you can talk to "him/it" about it.
Delusional is far too tame a word to describe you.
--
-----
Larry
Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.
Christopher A. Lee
>"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4c33d737-c1ba-
>4fc0-be16-e...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
>> Creator to even exist (?)
>
>Sure! There's absolutely ZERO evidence in millions of years PLUS noone can
>tell us where the "creator" came from. Who made him/it/her?
Which is nothing to do with wanting.
There's a reason these dishonest shits use loaded language - you have
tacitly "admitted" you don't want one to exist even if that's not what
you meant.
Brian E. Clark
e2530c...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
ilbe...@gmail.com says...
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to .
Wow, you can't even get past the first sentence without
begging at least two extremely important questions. If
you're going to assume so much, save time and write
outright, "We have a universe that came into being by God's
creative hand." That approach would, at least, be more
forthright than what you're attempting to do in this
thread.
> [...] Is there a personal reason why people dont want
> a personal Theistic Creator to even exist (?)
Is there a personal reason you refuse to deal with these
issues honestly?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
L.Roberts
Hey stupid, reason to suspect the existence of a 'creator', still
falls short of reason to believe in the existence of a 'creator'.
Simple as that. I don't know what the fuck happened and neither do
you.
L.Roberts
aa #2258
Syd
Is there a personal reason why you insist one has to, Dummy Dave?
PDW
Nomen Publicus
As gods/devils/santaclaus don't exist it doesn't really matter. But I am
impressed by your claim of mind reading.
--
2001 Census: 1 in 7 people in the UK is a declared atheist.
Great Dayne
wrote:
> As gods/devils/santaclaus don't exist it doesn't really matter. But I am
> impressed by your claim of mind reading.
I don't know why you are.
The brain sends out signals.
Dr Lilly did the foundational work on dolphins.
The govt is quite capable of that and has been for years.
Christopher A. Lee
What "claim of mind reading"? It's imply how language works.
panam...@hotmail.com
"god of the gaps" crapsnip
He really *is* in love with himself. I thought it was just a summer
fling...
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
David H.
I don't know why you are.
The brain sends out signals.
Dr Lilly did the foundational work on dolphins.
The govt is quite capable of that and has been for years.
</snip>
Ooops!
Looks like you snagged a loonie!
Uncle Vic
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
Yes. It makes things unnecessarily complicated.
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
raven1
I think it's more due to the fact that he's unusually dumb even for a
fundie, rather than some kind of dishonesty.
Christopher A. Lee
Both. Loaded questions like his are deliberately dishonest because any
answer gives tacit agreement that we don't want a personal creator
even to exist.
He probably thinks it's clever.
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> Is there a personal reason why
I've told you to fuck off, and yet you're still here. Why is that?
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
should not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Smiler
Is there a personal reason why you dont want leprechauns to even exist (?)
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Larry
9ec3-be6...@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> The brain sends out signals.
>
Well, that's not EXACTLY correct, either.
"Sending out", infers that the signal it creates can be picked up at some
distance. Having repaired and calibrated electroencephlographs, I can
assure you it's very hard to get a good signal right on the surface of the
skull because the "signals", more of an electrical noise created by the
various infintesimally tiny electrical signals in the brain.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/how-brain-waves-can-fly-a-
plane.html
"The very faint electromagnetic emissions of the living brain are detected
by several electrodes in contact with the scalp."
The keywords are very and faint.
As for 8 Baptists linking hands at a Waffle House to "increase power"
saying the same prayer to the imaginary god, their total combined "output"
can barely be detected 2mm above their scalp, even with the "POWER PLUG" of
holding hands.
Just like the rest of religion, anything else is a delusion.
--
-----
Larry
http://tinyurl.com/lwk6g6
If they'll kill people for body parts, who else will they kill?
chibiabos
<4c33d737-c1ba-4fc0...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
<"IlBe...@gmail.com"> wrote:
Hint: Incredulity is not the same thing as evidence.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
spiritual matter
existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
Religious people who believe in God really have many questions to
answer because their God doesn't appear to be as powerful, loving and
knowing as they claim to be.
The god believers claim that god created the world and everything in
it. He is all loving, all knowing and all-powerful creator of man in
his image.
Because the world is so magnificent and complex it had to have a
creator. By this same logic, god has to be even more powerful and
complex and would have to have a creator. Complexity in no way is
proof or evidence of a god creator. It is only evidence that the
Universe is very complex by our standards.
Supposedly man after he dies lives on in gods eternal heaven in
eternal happiness.
If this is true, why did he create sin and punishment on Earth? Why
did he create Hell? Why not create a world with men that are motivated
to be all caring and loving beings, just like him, with no desire to
be selfish, greedy and mean?
Religious fanatics claim that man has chosen to be evil because of his
'free will'. This is totally specious. 'Free will' does no imply or
require evil conduct.
free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice:
chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power, attributed
especially to human beings, of making free choices that are
unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate
or divine will.
A good benevolent god could have created man as a loving caring
creature with free will but without any desire or ability to commit
evil. Some people would reply that good and evil are relative and
don't have any absolute and objective meaning. But they are certainly
absolute and objective in the eyes of God.
He already created other limitations on man's 'free will'.
He created hunger pains to force man to eat and drink. He created
suffocation panic to force man to breathe. And a powerful sex drive to
force man to procreate, frequently in excess of mans ability to feed
and care for his creations!
Then why create greed and selfishness which encourages man to steal,
lie, subjugate and even kill other men?
This is supposedly to keep man in line and force him to follow god's
wishes and commands. This is characteristic of a dictator and slave
master not the characteristics of an all loving and caring god.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create plagues, droughts, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanic
eruptions, wars, cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions? Why does he permit millions of both young
and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish
millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
There is a parasitic worm in West Africa that bores through the eyes
of children and causes total blindness for the rest of their lives.
This is the work of an all caring and loving god???
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent
children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully
developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born
stupid and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into
wealth and others pauper poor? Why are his human creations designed to
deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like
sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous
snakes, stinging and poisonous insects like scorpions, hornets and
other wasps, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring benevolent god
create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill and eat
other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious
faiths.
World War II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people
of all ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property
and more millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 250,000 men, women
and children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were
totally innocent children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th,
14th. and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men,
women and totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.
These afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all
religious
persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds
of serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and
cooling, purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and
transportation systems including flying through the air.
Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless,
mean and torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why
do you think he will let us enjoy peace and happiness eternally in his
Heaven after death? And why does he keep all this a secret by
preventing communication with our dead parents, siblings and friends?
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer".
The objective evidence is that, if there is a god creator, he has NO
concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
I'm a firm believer that evolution is true and evidence really
suggests that humanity evolved just like other species.
Theists claim that the earth and universe are perfect but the sane
among us know that the earth is everything but perfect.
I mean do they even really know what you are talking about? I mean
just think about it for a second. Take earth as the prime example.
There is nothing perfect about earth. Disease, war, filth, poverty,
tyranny I mean cmon. Then there is the universe if it were perfect
then every star would be the same exact size with the same number of
planets the universe would not be expanding stars would not die there
would be no black holes or radation, there would be no deadly gasses
on most of the planets there would be no rouge asteroids or comets.
There would be no viruses or bacteria, there would be no nova or
supernova, no cosmic rays which cause extinctions and there would be
no darkness and destruction.
The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
is in fact WHAT WE SEE.
Michael
That was very long tough to get through. I agree with your argument. Of
course there is the other possibility, given your argument, that there
is a god and that god does not care about us. Of course there is no
evidence for a god. If that god did not care, there would be no evidence.
When you try to grock the size of our universe, it seems very likely
that a race of beings has developed somewhere over the eons and that
race might have what we would perceive as god like powers.
Just as a stone age man would probably consider our western civilization
one that was populated by gods.
Our earth may well be simply an experiment that failed and the race that
made us left to try again somewhere else.
spiritual matter
> That was very long tough to get through. I agree with your argument. Of
> course there is the other possibility, given your argument, that there
> is a god and that god does not care about us.
But if that God doesn't really care then why even call him a loving
God?
> When you try to grock the size of our universe, it seems very likely
> that a race of beings has developed somewhere over the eons and that
> race might have what we would perceive as god like powers.
> Just as a stone age man would probably consider our western civilization
> one that was populated by gods.
>
> Our earth may well be simply an experiment that failed and the race that
> made us left to try again somewhere else.- Hide quoted text -
You do realize that this is all wishfull thinking? Personally I don't
see evidence for any of this but that's me.
tadchem
<snip repost>
> That was very long tough to get through. I agree with your argument. Of
> course there is the other possibility, given your argument, that there
> is a god and that god does not care about us. Of course there is no
> evidence for a god. If that god did not care, there would be no evidence.
Whether there is no god, or there is an uncaring god, the notion of a
god is irrelevant to the human condition.
> When you try to grock
The word as Heinlein spelled it in "Stranger in a Strange Land" is
'grok.' He did invent the word, after all.
> the size of our universe, it seems very likely
> that a race of beings has developed somewhere over the eons and that
> race might have what we would perceive as god like powers.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic." Clarke's Third Law.
> Just as a stone age man would probably consider our western civilization
> one that was populated by gods.
>
> Our earth may well be simply an experiment that failed and the race that
> made us left to try again somewhere else.-
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -
Edison
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Benj
wrote:
> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance? Did you EVER even
hear of, let alone actually observe yourself a case of all the air
being found in the corner of a room? And you won't either. To atheists
worshiping chance, it is satisfying but to worship chance one must
close one's eyes to the actual inability of random acts to produce
synergistic results.
The bottom line is that the existence of everything that is SO
organized calls for creation not random bouncings of atoms. The random
theory is crap. The organization of nature is obvious for all to see.
But now here's the important catch. The creator it it alleged by
various religions is ALIVE. That means self-aware as you are. And
since this creator has made a "body" that is in essence everything,
thus like you and I, it is aware of all aspects of it. Hence from our
viewpoint God is omniscient. But it also goes the other way. If God
knows all about us, just as we know about our own bodies, we now ask
is communications can flow the other way. In other words is it
possible if God is a living being, for God to communicate with us?
Obviously it is not a common occurrence. But oddly enough there are
some who claim such communications. Often they are founders of what
later become religions. So whatever they heard obviously impressed at
least a few humans enough to believe it.
Of course, you'll say, but hey, until *I* hear a communication from
"God" I"m not going to believe that "God" is alive. Well, that is up
to you, but in science, it only takes ONE exception to kill a whole
theory. And there are exceptions out there enough to kill yours.
> The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
> properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
> purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
> is in fact WHAT WE SEE.
No it doesn't. You have no idea what "random" really is. The laws of
nature are exceptionally orderly. You idea that if "God" exists
therefore he wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist it naive in
the extreme. Hey, if evil and suffering exit then God created them
too. They obviously also have a purpose. If for no other than to teach
you which choices are fun and which one are not so much fun. What you
don't get is God the creator not only created suffering but also has a
great sense of humor! That is why the creator created you so "he"
could sit back and watch what you (and the rest of us) actually try to
"do" with all the toys he left us here to play with. As for the choice
between advancing human civilization or killing each other, that isn't
"God's" choice, "he" left that up to you. "He" doesn't have any more
idea what in hell humans will do to each other than we do. But "he" is
interested in finding out!
walksalone
e3a3b8...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Flame bait trimmed, followups set. AVR training session in progress.
iwaynet.net
primary name server = ns1.iwaynet.net
responsible mail addr = hostmaster.iwaynet.net
serial = 2007062037
refresh = 1800 (30 mins)
retry = 21600 (6 hours)
expire = 604800 (7 days)
default TTL = 300 (5 mins)
iwaynet.net internet address = 69.36.10.135
iwaynet.net nameserver = ns2.iwaynet.net
iwaynet.net nameserver = ns1.iwaynet.net
iwaynet.net MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = smtp.iwaynet.net
ns2.iwaynet.net internet address = 96.11.188.210
ns1.iwaynet.net internet address = 69.36.11.22
smtp.iwaynet.net internet address = 69.36.11.22
iwaynet.net text = "v=spf1 ip4:69.36.11.22 ip4:69.36.10.135 a mx
a:smtp.iwaynet.net a:venice.iwaynet.net a:circumvent.iwaynet.net ?all"
WELCOME!! IwayNet Communications Inc. is your one-stop-shop for Internet
Services. We provide Dial-up and Dedicated Access, Web Hosting, Multimedia
Streaming, and various Internet, Network, and Computer-related Consulting
services.
Our continued efforts to provide the best service has resulted in many
partnerships with thousands of Columbus-area businesses, schools,
individuals and organizations.
The Columbus Public School system awarded IwayNet with their highest honor,
the Golden Ruler for IwayNet's contributions and continued support. Today,
IwayNet is proud to continue working on projects and providing support for
the Columbus Public Schools, and other public and private schools
throughout central-Ohio area.
Google groups? Why?
> On Jul 25, 1:52�pm, spiritual matter <solidst...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
No, I can verify that.
> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance? Did you EVER even
I must presume you believe you are serious, but random chance if you are
using it is not involved at all. It is random up to up to those points
where certain conditions are met. After that, the outcome is almost as
certain as the attraction a 13-year-old male deals for a 13-year-old
female. The results may vary because of outside interference, but the basic
reaction is inevitable.
> hear of, let alone actually observe yourself a case of all the air
> being found in the corner of a room? And you won't either. To atheists
Nor have you. Nor will you. That violates several different so-called laws,
so-called because at the time they were proposed, they were considered
immutable. Among them, conservation of energy, the law of gravity, and
surprisingly enough, natures abhors a perfect vacuum, or at least so it
seems.
> worshiping chance, it is satisfying but to worship chance one must
Worship chance, my worship anything. Either a thing is true, or it is not.
If it is true, there are reasons for that. If it is false, there's reasons
for that as well. Unfortunately you, the concepts elude you. But that can
be cured, if you dare. A very basic course in basic science will establish
a reason and provide you with a potential reading list for doubting your
claims. Actually it does more than that but this is USENET and therefore I
will refrain and use doubting.
> close one's eyes to the actual inability of random acts to produce
> synergistic results.
But there are not random, can you explain to the audience, to where it's
simple to understand, why sodium and chlorine installation, both deadly
poisons in their natural state what human body is concerned, end up with
salt, ordinary table salt. Sodium chloride, which nature provides an
abundance in humans add to prolifically because, it enhances flavors. Net
in over abundance, it's bad for the body, is immaterial. It helps the
product sell. If you cannot do a simple explanation for something as basic
as that, why are you in this conversation?
> The bottom line is that the existence of everything that is SO
> organized calls for creation not random bouncings of atoms. The random
Only to you, to me when I encounter something new that I do not understand
and wish to understand, I reach for the library's Bible. If ever a text
deserved the title of holy, that would be it.
> theory is crap. The organization of nature is obvious for all to see.
As you see, random theory is crap. This understanding is not shared by the
majority of thinking people who have bothered to read the literature, or
actually, dare I say this, work in the fields where theory is a mainstay.
> But now here's the important catch. The creator it it alleged by
> various religions is ALIVE. That means self-aware as you are. And
Not a catch, a claim. There is a difference. Until you can establish any
reason for me to believe that such a creator exists, you are whistling in
the dark. And you can't using standard theistic arguments. What that means
to you and me, but unless you can satisfy my standards for evidence, I can
and will call bullshit every time you trot your little dog and pony show
out and it comes to my attention. I call bullshit.
> since this creator has made a "body" that is in essence everything,
> thus like you and I, it is aware of all aspects of it. Hence from our
> viewpoint God is omniscient. But it also goes the other way. If God
Apparently, this excludes the revealed gods of the desert. For omni-city
and they are not. Or else they are very vicious and evil bastards.
> knows all about us, just as we know about our own bodies, we now ask
> is communications can flow the other way. In other words is it
> possible if God is a living being, for God to communicate with us?
> Obviously it is not a common occurrence. But oddly enough there are
> some who claim such communications. Often they are founders of what
> later become religions. So whatever they heard obviously impressed at
> least a few humans enough to believe it.
You realize, even as an exercise in tail chasing, your performance does not
even call for a 1. No one, including you, is responsible for human
gullibility and a desire for a better life for nothing. Some are even
willing to die so they can have this better life, as claimed. Yet, in the
ancient text, particularly prior to the Babylonian vacation, this life is
already. And the rewards for being pious, they were dispensed during your
lifetime. After that, it was off to the underworld for you no matter where
in the Mediterranean basin you were.
> Of course, you'll say, but hey, until *I* hear a communication from
> "God" I"m not going to believe that "God" is alive. Well, that is up
> to you, but in science, it only takes ONE exception to kill a whole
I'm going to make it even easier than that, until I see well thought out
logical reason to assume a god might exist, I'm not going to bother.
> theory. And there are exceptions out there enough to kill yours.
And that's one of the beauties of science. A theory stance on evidence, and
when it does not work, it's wrong. Therefore, one must take the others in
attempt to come up with another theory that best fit the circumstances that
are under investigation. It is not for those that require things written in
stone in order for them to live a full life. Nor is it always for the
adventurous because some things, well, some things we would just as soon
not know. That does not make them false, just something we would just as
soon not be aware of. Such as not all human conceptions will deliver a
healthy child after nine months of which, in some cases, women are in pure
D. misery. Some to the point where death would be preferable, and some take
that route. Sad, certainly. Definitely not the work of a loving god.
>> The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
>> properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
>> purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
>> is in fact WHAT WE SEE.
>
> No it doesn't. You have no idea what "random" really is. The laws of
It certainly does not need your revision. Random is exactly that random.
Like salt and chlorine in solution, if they do not get close enough
together, in this case the ions, they will not combine to make salt which
will add a given level, precipitate out of the solution and be ready for a
veneration and grinding in order to increase your blood pressure. And yet,
it is an essential salt for human life. Indeed, the body is one hell of a
chemical factory and I for one am glad it is. Without it, I would have
missed meeting the seven most important people in my life, my children.
Without the cooperation of their mothers, I would have missed them. Random
chance, hardly. They were planned and wanted. By both parents.
> nature are exceptionally orderly. You idea that if "God" exists
> therefore he wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist it naive in
> the extreme. Hey, if evil and suffering exit then God created them
There is no reason for evil to exist, philosophically or ethically. And in
the real world, called nature, it does not exist. However, that does not
mean consequences for actions do not exist, for they do. The gazelle does
not walk up to the lion and plop down for a nap resting his head on the
lion's body. Inhumanity, we would call this suicidal. In religion, its gods
will. In either case, it's not evil, the lion has just had a warm meal
provided for it.
> too. They obviously also have a purpose. If for no other than to teach
> you which choices are fun and which one are not so much fun. What you
Why should it be the choices are required? After all, if you're doing good
for society, as well as intermediate French as well as a circle of
associates, then you are a benefit to society and no action needs to be
taken against you. On the other hand, if you insist on walking into the
middle of the street during rush hour, flopping out your limber member and
leaving little puddles on the street, society will react and not in your
favor. Of course, you're not required to believe that and you are free to
try it. No gods required.
> don't get is God the creator not only created suffering but also has a
> great sense of humor! That is why the creator created you so "he"
Which creator god, there are just so damn many of them. If you're going to
try for some special pleading in based on your understanding of ancient
writings that have been transcribed beyond belief as well as beyond
recognition, then you get to establish that the creator exists as a real
tasty and not a concept. Something xianity if taken as they claim to be
able to do for close to 2000 years, and yet, no one has seen that. Of
course, that may well have to do with the human psyche being the way it is,
the ignorant do not believe they are ignorant, and people with low IQs
taking IQ tests believe they have scored highly. If it was otherwise, they
would try to improve themselves, possibly, or in your case, drag others
down to their level.
> could sit back and watch what you (and the rest of us) actually try to
> "do" with all the toys he left us here to play with. As for the choice
> between advancing human civilization or killing each other, that isn't
> "God's" choice, "he" left that up to you. "He" doesn't have any more
It absolutely is, or else he's evil. And according to the Hebrew Bible
prior to the Babylonian vacation, evil is the word used to describe Yahweh.
�l wasn't quite that bad even though some of his actions were able as well.
Or maybe those worthy actions attributed to Yahweh to demonstrate his
power? I do not have enough of linguistic discipline to establish that
beyond uncertainty in my own mind, but I do have enough to understand the
problem of evil in a god that will not prevent it.
> idea what in hell humans will do to each other than we do. But "he" is
> interested in finding out!
If he already knows everything, why would he be doing this? The question
rapidly avoided by those they claim to know his mind. And if he's a god,
how would you know his mind, the humanistic claim to have spoken on his
behalf are known to be false prophets. But of course, that requires reading
skills which may be beyond what you are accustomed to. & a range of
literature which no doubt, you are not accustomed to reading. Literature
that will not always agree with you, and therefore would not be acceptable
to you. This is not your fault, if you happen to be a believer. It comes
with the territory and, as far as I know, can't be overcame but only a
great personal effort or one of those rare moments of total personal
honesty with oneself.
Now that you are temporarily through with prancing and dancing, do you have
anything to offer beyond speculation? If so, would you be so kind as to
shared with the audience that you are trying to impress. You see, I don't
believe your god has a bigger dick than anybody else god. But one thing I
do realize, you might believe that. And that belief of yours, is valid only
in your little corner of the universe. There are no doubt others who hold
similar beliefs, but identical, unlikely given the human ability to read
what it wants to in spite of what the text says. Why should you be
excluded, aren't you special? Well, no more than I am, or anyone else. Yes,
you are being laughed at, for you have learned it. And it is not a workman
worthy of his pay, you're getting your pay in full at this time.
walksalone who used to wonder why the ignorant were so proud of their
ignorance. And then one day, totally out of a clear blue and without
warning the answer arrived, because they do not know they are ignorant.
They actually believe what they believe is true for everyone, it must be,
because they believe it. Circular reasoning at its best, but really, that's
all they have to offer and it's over and done with. When the dust settles,
there's not even a mud puddle to show where they have been.
A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
We can easily represent things as we wish them to be.
Budikka
Here's why you're a fundamental IDIOT, Chicken Baulked. Instead of
providing positive scientific evidence for a creator, all you do is
make juvenile statements born of wishful thinking and then dishonestly
*pretend* that those statements actually make your case. Clue: THEY
DON'T and only a professional moron would imagine that they do.
You;re not making a case and you're not fooling anyone but your
ignorant, clueless self.
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing
Where's your evidence that it came out of nothing? You have offered
none, so the first few words of your very first claim are shown to be
flawed from the outset. You lose.
> when it didn't have to
Even if your entire sentence is true, this demonstrates a creator
how? Or are you so fundamentally stupid that you think simply making
a random unsupported statement establishes a creator?
.2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth (which are ALL required to exist simultaneously since
> each depends on the others) .
250? Why don't you list them and show that they couldn't have come
about naturally? You don't list even one of them, so why should
anyone believe a demonstrated LIAR like you?
Even if there were 250, how does this establish a creator? You don;t
make any effort to show this- you expect us to be as stupid as oyu and
blindly swallow your claims!
If there are infinite universes, then we should not be surprised to
find at least one in which our kind of life can exist. Until and
unless you prove that this is the only universe, you have no basis for
your claim.
Your next fallacy is your blind assumption that our kind of life is
the only kind there is and the only kind there can be, Where's the
scientific basis for that leap of faith? Nowhere. You're make the
gullible leap from the fact of our existence to your unsupported claim
that the universe was designed that we could live, yet you haven't
actually established any of this. All you've done is post juvenile
wishful thinking. Again.
3. LIfe that has been observed to arise
> only from
> existing life and not arise spontaneously.
Another blind and stupid assertion. Where is your evidence that life
has never and could never arise form organic chemicals? Nowhere. You
failed again.
4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).
Prove it. Prove that life is too complex to have arisen and evolved
naturally. Just making that childish claim isn't the same as proving
it, and it sure as hell doesn't establish a creator. You're a moron.
5.
> LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
Prove it. Prove that there's no such thing as repeated speciation
which would inevitably lead to what you morons called different
"kinds". Prove it. Or do you think a proven LIAR like you simply
making this idiotic and unsupported claim is the same thing as proving
your case?
6. Life
> which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that
> appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
>
> ... An honest look at the facts
Let us know when you're ready to actually take an honest look at the
facts.
Meanwhile you've prevented no facts. All you've done is make puerile
claims and offered not a shred of support for even one of them.
You lose. Loser.
> suggests creation, not
> macroevolution,is true.
Macroevolution is a demonstrated fact. End of story. Thanks for
advertising your profound ignorance yet again, but we already knew of
it.
>And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work
When you can actually demonstrate this instead of just blindly
chanting it, you won't be a LIAR, will you?
>, not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
> purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
> Humankind ;
Why is this a requirement? Again, you make asinine claims with no
support whatsoever. You're a knee-jerk idiot.
> yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
> portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if
> atheism
> is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
"Atheism is true"? Only a complete imbecile would even post a
meaningless statement like that. This has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with atheism. it has to do with what is demonstrable
scientifically, and as you've proven repeatedly, you can't bring an
iota of science to the table. You lose. Again. Loser.
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
It has nothing to do with what people want. it has to do with what
the evidence shows, and all the available evidence shows a natural
universe and a natural world, and natural evolution with no
intelligent design or creation whatsoever.
You lose. Loser.
Budikka
zzbu...@netscape.net
Idiot theists have claimed so much nonsense about perfection
over the centuries, that's mostly why people with brains pretty
much told them to stick to calculus. And let the people who can
think, breath,
and things other than bells work on the AI, lasers, computers,
satellites, knots,
robots. magnets, and unleaded glass.
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or even equivalenty for the idiot US Government you could say it
as:
Theism was made for idiots whose idiot ideas about gravity
stopped with Euclid.
Whose idiot ideas about light stopped with Genghis Khan.
Whose idiot ideas about engineering stopped with Solomon.
Whose idiot ideas about magnets stopped with Zeno.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I mean do they even really know what you are talking about? I mean
> > just think about it for a second. Take earth as the prime example.
> > There is nothing perfect about earth. Disease, war, filth, poverty,
> > tyranny I mean cmon. Then there is the universe if it were perfect
> > then every star would be the same exact size with the same number of
> > planets the universe would not be expanding stars would not die there
> > would be no black holes or radation, there would be no deadly gasses
> > on most of the planets there would be no rouge asteroids or comets.
> > There would be no viruses or bacteria, there would be no nova or
> > supernova, no cosmic rays which cause extinctions and there would be
> > no darkness and destruction.
>
> > The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
> > properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
> > purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
> > is in fact WHAT WE SEE.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fred
spiritual matter <solid...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
> existence.
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.
Faith is belief without evidence, or even the possibility of evidence.
Asking for evidence is a sin.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Benj wrote:
>>spiritual matter wrote:
>
>>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>
>And yet you can conceive of a creator for all that randomly popping into
>existence. How do you explain that?
It's always a false dichotomy between their religious belief and some
straw man.
Why do they do this?
Do they honestly imagine telling us we believe a caricature is going
to convince us?
Jim Austin
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
The phrase, "didn't have to", is not backed by evidence.
> 2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth (which are ALL required to exist simultaneously since
> each depends on the others) .3. LIfe that has been observed to arise
> only from existing life and not arise spontaneously.
Science conclusions are not confined only to that which is immediately
observable.
> 4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5.
> LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life
> which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that
> appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
>
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
> macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work ,...
An honest look at the facts does not suggest a primacy of
consciousness in the universe.
If complexity suggests a Creator, the existence of a super-complex,
all powerful Creator suggest the existence of a super-creator who
created the Creator.
> ...not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
> purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
> Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
> portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if
> atheism is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
The existence of an all-powerful is not required for ultimate meaning,
dignity, and self-worth, particularly a Creator who reportedly cannot
withstand the sight of his sinful creations.
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
Nobody has figured out who created the Creator.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 25, 1:52�pm, spiritual matter <solidst...@rocketmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>>
>>Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>>the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>>it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance? Did you EVER even
>>hear of, let alone actually observe yourself a case of all the air
>>being found in the corner of a room? And you won't either. To atheists
>>worshiping chance, it is satisfying but to worship chance one must
>>close one's eyes to the actual inability of random acts to produce
>>synergistic results.
In other words the moron has none.
It takes a mindless retard to imagine "Look around you" is somehow
evidence.
Especially when they all they do is offer a stupid false dichotomy
between their deluded fantasy and a straw man of their own invention.
>>The bottom line is that the existence of everything that is SO
>>organized calls for creation not random bouncings of atoms. The random
Another stupid straw man.
>>theory is crap. The organization of nature is obvious for all to see.
And a lie this time.
>>But now here's the important catch. The creator it it alleged by
>>various religions is ALIVE. That means self-aware as you are. And
>>since this creator has made a "body" that is in essence everything,
>>thus like you and I, it is aware of all aspects of it. Hence from our
>>viewpoint God is omniscient. But it also goes the other way. If God
Now the moron rudely and stupidly presumes it to people who don't
share his deluded fantasy.
>>knows all about us, just as we know about our own bodies, we now ask
Look up "begging the question".
>>is communications can flow the other way. In other words is it
>>possible if God is a living being, for God to communicate with us?
It isn't anything until you demonstrate it in the real world outside
your religion, imbecile.
>>Obviously it is not a common occurrence. But oddly enough there are
>>some who claim such communications. Often they are founders of what
>>later become religions. So whatever they heard obviously impressed at
>>least a few humans enough to believe it.
>>
>>Of course, you'll say, but hey, until *I* hear a communication from
>>"God" I"m not going to believe that "God" is alive. Well, that is up
>>to you, but in science, it only takes ONE exception to kill a whole
>>theory. And there are exceptions out there enough to kill yours.
What is there in the real world to "believe is alive",
question-begging moron?
>>> The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
>>> properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
>>> purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
>>> is in fact WHAT WE SEE.
>>
>>No it doesn't. You have no idea what "random" really is. The laws of
A liar as well as an idiot.
>>nature are exceptionally orderly. You idea that if "God" exists
>>therefore he wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist it naive in
Nobody would give it a second thought if you morons kept it inside
your religion.
Let alone "if it exists".
It's merely an abstract logic exercise on what you idiots ram down our
throats.
>>the extreme. Hey, if evil and suffering exit then God created them
>>too. They obviously also have a purpose. If for no other than to teach
Prove it exists to create anything, moron.
Prove t5hat good and evil have a purpose as well.
>>you which choices are fun and which one are not so much fun. What you
>>don't get is God the creator not only created suffering but also has a
What YOU don't get, moron, is that it is merely somebody else's wacky
religious belief which has no basis in reality.
>>great sense of humor! That is why the creator created you so "he"
What "the" creator, question-begging moron?
>>could sit back and watch what you (and the rest of us) actually try to
>>"do" with all the toys he left us here to play with. As for the choice
Where did you demonstrate its existence to do anything outside your
deluded fantasies, imbecile?
>>between advancing human civilization or killing each other, that isn't
>>"God's" choice, "he" left that up to you. "He" doesn't have any more
Why do you rudely and stupidly keep talking as though your deluded
fantasies were universally granted in the real world?
>>idea what in hell humans will do to each other than we do. But "he" is
>>interested in finding out!
"He" is a figment of your deluded imagination until you demonstrate
its existence in the real world outside your religion, moron.
>Very well said! Thank you!
Only if you are as retarded as he is.
What do you imagine you achieve by this question-begging stupidity you
rudely wipe in our faces?
>To the unbeliever. Every thing we have,God had first!
What a fucking moron.
There is a real world outside your religion, where it is merely
somebody else's religious belief that you are both too stupid to keep
where it is appropriate.
Why do you idiotd imagine everybody else should take your deluded
fantasies seriously?
Robibnikoff
<no_...@void.nul> wrote
>
> Very well said! Thank you!
> To the unbeliever. Every thing we have,God had first!
What god?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Robibnikoff
<no_...@void.nul> wrote in message
news:6m3p6598jhsoj443e...@4ax.com...
> no faith!
What's your point, knucklehead?
spiritual matter
> No it doesn't. You have no idea what "random" really is. The laws of
> nature are exceptionally orderly. You idea that if "God" exists
> therefore he wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist it naive in
> the extreme. Hey, if evil and suffering exit then God created them
> too. They obviously also have a purpose. If for no other than to teach
> you which choices are fun and which one are not so much fun.
You seem to misunderstand the world "evil" here. Evil means that the
actions of someone are morally wrong or bad; immoral or wicked and
that these actions have bad consequences on someone else and hence
evil has nothing to do with your personal choices in life but with the
choices of others which effect YOU. This is what evil means in my
book.
Also why would I want to believe and worship a God which created evil
and suffering? Such a God is not a good and loving God in my book and
I have no reason to worship such a monster. Evolution makes much more
sense to me in explaining why evil actions really occur than any God
can explain.
Seems to me that you want to believe in a evil God over there being no
God. To you an evil God is still better than no God at all. For me
it's the contrary. I prefer there to be no God over an evil God which
doesn't really give a shit about me and let's bad things happen to me
despite his power to prevent it.
Christopher A. Lee
It takes a sociopathic, stupid cowardly wannabe bully to talk at us as
though we granted his religious beliefs while hiding behind a nym.
So he does it to tell us he is all of these.
And we wouldn't even have known it.
John Baker
>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:33:28 +0000 (UTC), Fred <nob...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>If evidence was given ever one would be a believer. And there would be
>no faith!
And.....?
You sound as though you think believing ridiculous bullshit without
the slightest shred of proof is a *good* thing.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It's a brainwashed god-bot who imagines his beliefs should apply to
everybody even though they are without foundation.
raven1
wrote:
>On Jul 25, 1:52�pm, spiritual matter <solidst...@rocketmail.com>
>wrote:
>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
>Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
Fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
> Did you EVER even
>hear of, let alone actually observe yourself a case of all the air
>being found in the corner of a room? And you won't either.
Finding such a thing would be suggestive of a paranormal event, rather
than vice versa.
> To atheists
>worshiping chance, it is satisfying but to worship chance one must
>close one's eyes to the actual inability of random acts to produce
>synergistic results.
Physics (above the quantum level) and chemistry are not random.
>organized calls for creation not random bouncings of atoms. The random
>theory is crap.
It's also a strawman. Physics (above the quantum level) and chemistry
are not random, and no one claims they are.
> The organization of nature is obvious for all to see.
Indeed. However, you fail to connect this to the rest of your post
alleging that some creator is responsible for this.
>But now here's the important catch. The creator it it alleged by
>various religions is ALIVE.
Objection: facts not in evidence.
> That means self-aware as you are. And
>since this creator has made a "body" that is in essence everything,
>thus like you and I, it is aware of all aspects of it. Hence from our
>viewpoint God is omniscient.
And your viewpoint should be taken more seriously than that of the kid
who delivers Lenny Flank's pizza why?
> But it also goes the other way. If God
>knows all about us, just as we know about our own bodies, we now ask
>is communications can flow the other way. In other words is it
>possible if God is a living being, for God to communicate with us?
Demonstrate that there's a God, and we can discuss your question.
>Obviously it is not a common occurrence. But oddly enough there are
>some who claim such communications. Often they are founders of what
>later become religions. So whatever they heard obviously impressed at
>least a few humans enough to believe it.
Fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum. Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and David
Koresh could claim the same thing. Your point was?
>Of course, you'll say, but hey, until *I* hear a communication from
>"God" I"m not going to believe that "God" is alive.
No, I'm going to say that until I hear one bit of evidence that any
sort of deity exists, I'm not going to believe in one. Got evidence?
> Well, that is up
>to you, but in science, it only takes ONE exception to kill a whole
>theory. And there are exceptions out there enough to kill yours.
Cite one that is empirically verifiable. People founding religions
based on supposed divine communication is decidedly not evidence, as
those supposed divine communications invariably wildly contradict each
other.
>> The point is that the universe that we observe has precisely the
>> properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no
>> purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference and that
>> is in fact WHAT WE SEE.
>
>No it doesn't. You have no idea what "random" really is.
Where is "random" mentioned in what you're responding to?
> The laws of
>nature are exceptionally orderly. You idea that if "God" exists
>therefore he wouldn't allow suffering and evil to exist it naive in
>the extreme.
The "Problem of Evil" has occupied philosophers since the dawn of
philosophy. For you to dismiss it out of hand is, shall we say, naive
in the extreme.
> Hey, if evil and suffering exit then God created them
>too. They obviously also have a purpose. If for no other than to teach
>you which choices are fun and which one are not so much fun. What you
>don't get is God the creator not only created suffering but also has a
>great sense of humor! That is why the creator created you so "he"
>could sit back and watch what you (and the rest of us) actually try to
>"do" with all the toys he left us here to play with. As for the choice
>between advancing human civilization or killing each other, that isn't
>"God's" choice, "he" left that up to you. "He" doesn't have any more
>idea what in hell humans will do to each other than we do. But "he" is
>interested in finding out!
And we should take any of your above personal speculations seriously
why?
raven1
>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:33:28 +0000 (UTC), Fred <nob...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>If evidence was given ever one would be a believer.
Why, in a hypothetical world where a God actually existed, would this
be a bad thing?
> And there would be
>no faith!
Faith without evidence is just what every con man wants in his mark.
P.T. Barnum and Bernard Madoff would love to make your acquaintance.
Smiler
Then he would have to be either dead or in prison.
Either way, he wouldn't be spewing his crap here.
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Enkidu
>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the fact
>> is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of evidence to
>> the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that the
> entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with it
> (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
Where did God come from? Random chance? Always existed?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally
Pagan; that is to say, human, natural."
- Robert G. Ingersoll
Smiler
> Benj wrote:
>
>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>
Are you new here?
Of course they can be that ignorant!
Smiler
> On 26 Jul 2009 23:30:57 GMT, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:21:22 -0700, Benj wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>>>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him,
>>>> then he or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see.
>>>> But the fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is
>>>> plenty of evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is
>>>> crap.
>>>
>>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go
>>> with it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>>
>> Where did God come from? Random chance? Always existed?
>
We don't know (yet) and may never know.
That is, however, no reason to conclude that there were any god(s) involved.
Surfer
<solid...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>Religious people who believe in God really have many questions to
>answer because their God doesn't appear to be as powerful, loving and
>knowing as they claim to be.
>
The contradictions are due to defects in scripture, which was written
by falliable human prophets.
I think its best to just take what is useful and ignore the rest.
There is also Pantheism, which seems midway between atheism and
theism:
Richo
> On Jul 25, 1:52 pm, spiritual matter <solidst...@rocketmail.com>
>
> > I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
> > existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
> > or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
> > fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
> > evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
No. I dont think everything is the result of random chance.
I still dont see any evidence of God.
>Did you EVER even
> hear of, let alone actually observe yourself a case of all the air
> being found in the corner of a room? And you won't either. To atheists
> worshiping chance, it is satisfying but to worship chance one must
> close one's eyes to the actual inability of random acts to produce
> synergistic results.
>
I dont worship chance.
I still dont see any evidence of God.
> The bottom line is that the existence of everything that is SO
> organized calls for creation not random bouncings of atoms. The random
> theory is crap.
Yes the random theory is crap.
I still dont see any evidence of God.
>The organization of nature is obvious for all to see.
Yes - especially to scientists who look at nature and discover how
things actually work.
> But now here's the important catch. The creator it it alleged by
> various religions is ALIVE.
The gods are imagined to be all sorts of things - there isnt any
evidence for them though.
> That means self-aware as you are. And
> since this creator has made a "body" that is in essence everything,
> thus like you and I, it is aware of all aspects of it. Hence from our
> viewpoint God is omniscient. But it also goes the other way. If God
> knows all about us, just as we know about our own bodies, we now ask
> is communications can flow the other way. In other words is it
> possible if God is a living being, for God to communicate with us?
> Obviously it is not a common occurrence. But oddly enough there are
> some who claim such communications. Often they are founders of what
> later become religions. So whatever they heard obviously impressed at
> least a few humans enough to believe it.
>
If Thor has a magic hammer then he may well use it to battle the ice
giants.
It is just stories - that is all you got.
Mark.
Richo
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:52:46 -0700 (PDT), spiritual matter
>
>
> >Religious people who believe in God really have many questions to
> >answer because their God doesn't appear to be as powerful, loving and
> >knowing as they claim to be.
>
> The contradictions are due to defects in scripture, which was written
> by falliable human prophets.
>
> I think its best to just take what is useful and ignore the rest.
>
There is something of value in almost every religious tradition.
The existence of deity (and the associated desire to worship great
power) is not one of the useful things to take from them.
> There is also Pantheism, which seems midway between atheism and
> theism:
>
Is that meant to make it (pantheism) more appealing?
Why?
> http://www.pantheist.nethttp://www.pantheism.net
Mark.
BURT
God doesn't need to prove He exists.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
But, if He did exist and actually cared about humans, He would show it
on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from using Him
for their own evil purposes.
There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I see no reason to let
other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
imagination.
Alex W
wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:53:58 -0500, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
> wrote:
>
>>Benj wrote:
>>>spiritual matter wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>>>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>>>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>>>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>>>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>>
>>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>>> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>>
>>And yet you can conceive of a creator for all that randomly popping into
>>existence. How do you explain that?
>
> It's always a false dichotomy between their religious belief and some
> straw man.
>
> Why do they do this?
>
> Do they honestly imagine telling us we believe a caricature is going
> to convince us?
Possible, but unlikely.
Rather, this is -- for them -- a natural and even reasonable
question, given the way they conceive of the way the
universe works.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>God doesn't need to prove He exists.
A standard stupid theist dishonesty.
>But, if He did exist and actually cared about humans, He would show it
>on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from using Him
>for their own evil purposes.
Nobody is demanding that what we don't believe exists in the first
place, show itself.
Theists who talk about it as though it were real have to do prove it.
Jim Burns
> God doesn't need to prove He exists.
I will take your word for that. You seem to hear
from God more than I do.
Of course, your claim is beside the point.
If God wants people to believe in Him, then
NOT proving He exists is very counter-productive.
Don't you agree, BURT?
How shall we make sense of this? All the religions
I'm even a little familiar with claim that God wants
us to believe in Him, and yet, here is God,
running around acting as though He does NOT want us
to believe in Him.
Could it be that God does not want us to believe in Him?
Sure, you have never answered any of my questions,
BURT, but maybe you will make an exception this time.
I'm curious: What would you do if you knew God did
NOT want you to believe in Him?
Jim Burns
Richo
Fine with me.
Thor doesnt need to show me his magic hammer either.
Mark.
The Chief Instigator
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> "L. Raymond" wrote:
>>>Benj wrote:
>>>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>>>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>>>> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>>>And yet you can conceive of a creator for all that randomly popping into
>>>existence. How do you explain that?
>
>> It's always a false dichotomy between their religious belief and some
>> straw man.
>
>> Why do they do this?
>When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all
>you have is fantasy, everything looks like magic.
>> Do they honestly imagine telling us we believe a caricature is going
>> to convince us?
>Every bigot in the history of the world has dealt in caricatures; it's
>how they manage to hate so many people they've never met.
Fortunately, those with that logical disconnect tend to be a bit obvious
about it. (When Dale and I head to Kentucky so she can visit her in-laws,
I'll try and arrange some time for a trip up to Jackson County to see if the
separation of church and state is still in place this summer.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
P. D. Wright
news:Xns9C54A63559AA5du...@nomail.afraid.org:
> Benj wrote:
>
>> Hardly "no evidence"! Look around you. Can you really imagine that
>> the entire universe complete with all the laws of nature that go with
>> it (seen and unseen) is some kind of random chance?
>
> Can you really be ignorant enough to simply conclude "God did it"?
>
He can be that ignorant, and more.
PDW
Christopher A. Lee
>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>You mis-understand. I'm not telling you that you have to do anything!
>You are free to worship what ever you want to. It may be a sports
>figure or team. May be it's a singer or a rock band! It may be that
>new car or that big house. Or you may live in a vacuum and not worship
>anything. No one has the right to tell you to worship anything at all!
>In this Country we have the freedom to worship or not to worship!
>Next time you are at the Supper Bowl just tell your self it's not
>worshipping to be there!
What a fucking moron.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>>God doesn't need to prove He exists.
>>
>>A standard stupid theist dishonesty.
>>
>>>But, if He did exist and actually cared about humans, He would show it
>>>on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from using Him
>>>for their own evil purposes.
>>
>>Nobody is demanding that what we don't believe exists in the first
>>place, show itself.
>>
>>Theists who talk about it as though it were real have to do prove it.
>
>No we don't!
It's "put up or shut up", imbecile.
Which word was too hard to understand?
>You have a free will to do as you please. And that is just what you
>are doing.
You're a mind reader now?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Any Christian who says "God did it" to a non-Christian is only telling
us just how stupid they are.
Because anbody with more than half a brain knows it's no different
than eg a Hindu expecting a Christian to believe Krishna did it.
Which is hardly rocket science.
>PDW
PD
wrote:
> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
Basically, your whole treatise boils down to these two points:
1. You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
believe something is true. You either presume that everyone else
shares the same knowledge-gathering strategies (that presumption in
itself being made without evidence), or make the value judgment that
everyone one else SHOULD share the same knowledge-gathering
strategies. Please know that no one is going to try to satisfy your
whim by trying to convince you of anything within your tightly railed
constraints, especially if that bit of knowledge is not well suited to
the methods you have chosen.
2. Your second point is trying to constrain God into forced behavior
to meet YOUR expectations. The most common tool for this is to take
certain humanly-assigned attributes (infinite benevolence,
omnipotence, etc.) and to then *derive* a logical conclusion about
what God MUST do. This of course strips God of any free will or any
plan that is not understood by human minds. Another way of looking at
it is that you are saying, "Well, if *I* were God, then this is how I
would run things." Which of course is laughably presumptuous, don't
you think?
The problem of how God can tolerate evil is one of the oldest in the
recorded history of religious faith (of any extraction), and is called
"theodicy". You can look that up, and you'll find literally hundreds
and hundreds of books devoted to dealing with the problem on
considerably more depth than what you did. It's the sign of the naive
egomaniac that they think they've suddenly landed on the definitive
problem that breaks the back of religion.
PD
walksalone
news:h3or65pk4r520n1jo...@4ax.com:
Followup set to eliminate/curb flame b ait.
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:28:10 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch
>>>><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT), BURT
>>>>><macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
snip
>>>You have a free will to do as you please. And that is just what you
>>>are doing.
>>
>>You're a mind reader now?
>>
>>>>>There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I see no reason to let
>>>>>other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
>>>>>imagination.
>
> What you fear, you attack!
Now why would anyonme need to do that. Most fears, such as the boogy man
or the god with the penis envy problem, or a myrad of other invented
baseless fears invite ridicule, not fear. BTW, it is obvious that you
are running on emotional feedback, what I attack, I learn how to defeat
before I attack it.
Of course, you do not understand the concepts involved, so you are
excused from my screen henceforth.
walksalone who likes the Abyss, it is such an appropriate place for those
that fear life & need an invisible fiend to try & scare others with.
A waggoner was once driving a heavy load along a very muddy
way. At last he came to a part of the road where the wheels sank
half-way into the mire, and the more the horses pulled, the deeper
sank the wheels. So the waggoner threw down his whip, and knelt
down and prayed to Hercules the Strong. "O Hercules, help me in
this my hour of distress," quoth he. But Hercules appeared to
him, and said:
"Tut, man, don't sprawl there. Get up and put your shoulder
to the wheel."
The gods help them that help themselves.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:28:10 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>>God doesn't need to prove He exists.
>>>>
>>>>A standard stupid theist dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>>>But, if He did exist and actually cared about humans, He would show it
>>>>>on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from using Him
>>>>>for their own evil purposes.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody is demanding that what we don't believe exists in the first
>>>>place, show itself.
>>>>
>>>>Theists who talk about it as though it were real have to do prove it.
>>>
>>>No we don't!
>>
>>It's "put up or shut up", imbecile.
>>
>>Which word was too hard to understand?
Well, moron?
>>>You have a free will to do as you please. And that is just what you
>>>are doing.
>>
>>You're a mind reader now?
>>
>>>>>There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I see no reason to let
>>>>>other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
>>>>>imagination.
Well, moron?
>What you fear, you attack!
A liar as well as an idiot.
How the heck can I fear what you have yet to demonstrate is any more
than your deluded fantasy, moron?
What part of "put up or shut up" are you pretending you are too stupid
not to understand?
Christopher A. Lee
>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>It sure doesn't take much to pull your chain!
An admission you are a cowardly wannabe bully and a psychopath.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>Thank you, very well said.
>To those that believe no explanation is necessary! To the unbeliever
>no explanation will do!
A liar as well as an idiot. All it would take is the evidence you
lunatics are unable to provide.
PD
> no_...@void.nul wrote innews:h3or65pk4r520n1jo...@4ax.com:
>
> Followup set to eliminate/curb flame b ait.
>
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> > <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:28:10 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> >>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch
> >>>><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT), BURT
It is interesting that those who are atheists tend to be more
individualistic, more socially independent (or, if you like, less
socially dependent), more aligned with an ethos of personal
accomplishment, freedom, and responsibility.
Those who are more religious tend to be more interdependent and more
aligned with an ethos of collective effort, joint responsibility, and
social connection.
PD
PD
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:26:01 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:23:29 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> ><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:28:10 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:07:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> >>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>>>God doesn't need to prove He exists.
>
> >>>>A standard stupid theist dishonesty.
>
> >>>>>But, if He did exist and actually cared about humans, He would show it
> >>>>>on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from using Him
> >>>>>for their own evil purposes.
>
> >>>>Nobody is demanding that what we don't believe exists in the first
> >>>>place, show itself.
>
> >>>>Theists who talk about it as though it were real have to do prove it.
>
> >>>No we don't!
>
> >>It's "put up or shut up", imbecile.
>
> >>Which word was too hard to understand?
>
> >>>You have a free will to do as you please. And that is just what you
> >>>are doing.
>
> >>You're a mind reader now?
>
> >>>>>There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I see no reason to let
> >>>>>other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
> >>>>>imagination.
>
> >It sure doesn't take much to pull your chain!
>
> An admission you are a cowardly wannabe bully and a psychopath.
Well, I'd say that said quite a bit more about you than it did about
him!
raven1
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 25, 12:52 pm, spiritual matter <solidst...@rocketmail.com>
>wrote:
>> I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God's
>> existence. If God really wanted more people to believe in him, then he
>> or she would make that evidence obvious for anyone to see. But the
>> fact is that there is no evidence and in fact there is plenty of
>> evidence to the contrary so this to me means that God is crap.
>
>Basically, your whole treatise boils down to these two points:
>1. You have CHOSEN for YOURSELF the requirements by which you will
>believe something is true.
The OP apparently chooses to believe whether something is true or not
based on evidence. Did you have alternate methods to suggest?
> You either presume that everyone else
>shares the same knowledge-gathering strategies (that presumption in
>itself being made without evidence), or make the value judgment that
>everyone one else SHOULD share the same knowledge-gathering
>strategies.
What knowledge-gathering strategies would you suggest are valid in
this particular case?
> Please know that no one is going to try to satisfy your
>whim by trying to convince you of anything within your tightly railed
>constraints, especially if that bit of knowledge is not well suited to
>the methods you have chosen.
What methods would you suggest as appropriate for that "bit of
knowledge"?
>
>2. Your second point is trying to constrain God into forced behavior
>to meet YOUR expectations. The most common tool for this is to take
>certain humanly-assigned attributes (infinite benevolence,
>omnipotence, etc.) and to then *derive* a logical conclusion about
>what God MUST do. This of course strips God of any free will or any
>plan that is not understood by human minds. Another way of looking at
>it is that you are saying, "Well, if *I* were God, then this is how I
>would run things." Which of course is laughably presumptuous, don't
>you think?
>The problem of how God can tolerate evil is one of the oldest in the
>recorded history of religious faith (of any extraction), and is called
>"theodicy". You can look that up, and you'll find literally hundreds
>and hundreds of books devoted to dealing with the problem on
>considerably more depth than what you did. It's the sign of the naive
>egomaniac that they think they've suddenly landed on the definitive
>problem that breaks the back of religion.
*Yawn*.
Until you can offer a single shred of objective, verifiable evidence
that any "God" exists, discussions of its attributes would seem
premature.
raven1
>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:55:50 -0700 (PDT), PD
><TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Thank you, very well said.
>To those that believe no explanation is necessary! To the unbeliever
>no explanation will do!
Our word for the day is "gullible". Can you say "gullible"? Actually,
you just did.
PD
All it would take is a rationale in the form that you are willing to
accept, that is.
PD
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:55:50 -0700 (PDT), PD
>
Absolutely, there are other methods. People have knowledge about many
things for which there is no objective, scientifically verifiable
evidence. Cognitive psychologists have written extensively about the
many varieties. I suggest you start with Pinker, Dennett, and
Hoftstadter. Then you can move on to the philosophers, like
Kierkegaard.
Now, you may also take issue with their conclusions and say, "Well, as
for ME, I choose only to consider as knowledge that which is supported
by objective, scientifically verifiable evidence." That's fine. Just
as long as you realize that this is your *choice*, and is not
necessarily the constraint self-imposed by most people.
PD
Do you believe that a single electron passes through two slits
simultaneously, and thereby interferes with itself? Quantum mechanics
says so, and just about any physicist will tell you this is true, and
that there is evidence that this happens.
Are you gullible? Have you laid eyes on this supposed evidence? Have
you challenged a physicist to cough up this evidence for you?
Dutch
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> There is no evidence that any gods exist, so I see no reason to let
>> other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
>> imagination.
>
> You mis-understand. I'm not telling you that you have to do anything!
> You are free to worship what ever you want to. It may be a sports
> figure or team. May be it's a singer or a rock band! It may be that
> new car or that big house. Or you may live in a vacuum and not worship
> anything. No one has the right to tell you to worship anything at all!
> In this Country we have the freedom to worship or not to worship!
> Next time you are at the Supper Bowl just tell your self it's not
> worshipping to be there!
It's not, being a sports fan is simply about identifying with a team
then experiencing exhilaration and disappointment as they win and lose.
It's also about drinking beer.
I believe that the focus on "worship" is one of the primary errors of
organized religions, and why they have fallen away from genuine
spiritual enlightenment.
The real message of the prophets is that the truth, redemption, whatever
you want to call it, is found deep within yourself, not by "worshiping"
some external figure.
raven1
It still produces an interference pattern, but there are different
interpretations as to why.
>Quantum mechanics
>says so, and just about any physicist will tell you this is true, and
>that there is evidence that this happens.
>Are you gullible? Have you laid eyes on this supposed evidence? Have
>you challenged a physicist to cough up this evidence for you?
I've seen the Double-slit experiment performed. What's your point?
raven1
Why not just present your case and find out what people are willing to
accept or not?
Claims, as Carl Sagan liked to put it, require evidence, and
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If, to use
Sagan's example, I claim I have a dragon in my garage, you're
absolutely justified in remaining skeptical of my claim unless I can
produce some pretty compelling evidence to back it up. Got evidence
for your claims of God?
PD
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:14:58 -0700 (PDT), PD
>
> >On Jul 27, 12:05 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:59:37 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>
> >> >Thank you, very well said.
> >> >To those that believe no explanation is necessary! To the unbeliever
> >> >no explanation will do!
>
> >> A liar as well as an idiot. All it would take is the evidence you
> >> lunatics are unable to provide.
>
> >All it would take is a rationale in the form that you are willing to
> >accept, that is.
>
> Why not just present your case and find out what people are willing to
> accept or not?
That's just it. I'm not interested in "presenting my case". I'm not
trying to win a case.
Now, if you were interested more in what rationale other people have,
including that beyond which you consider to be of merit, than in what
you are willing to accept or not, you may learn something. As it is,
you've just put yourself in a position where you gain no insight.
>
> Claims, as Carl Sagan liked to put it, require evidence, and
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And here's a case where I disagree with Sagan, though I certainly
respected him on other matters.
I understand that you like to cite Sagan because he is sympathetic to
your position and is a household name. But this is just choosing a
verbal warrior from your side of the valley and demonstrates nothing.
> If, to use
> Sagan's example, I claim I have a dragon in my garage, you're
> absolutely justified in remaining skeptical of my claim unless I can
> produce some pretty compelling evidence to back it up. Got evidence
> for your claims of God?
I've just been explaining to you that not everybody operates like you
and Sagan, requiring objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for
everything they consider knowledge. What part of that did you not
comprehend, and if you did comprehend it, why are you repeating your
request?
PD
PD
What do you believe is going on there, and what is the basis for your
belief?
Do you believe in quarks? Have you laid eyes on this supposed
evidence? Have you challenged a physicist to cough up this evidence
for you?
PD
P. D. Wright
news:91bs65lvc14vsc79e...@4ax.com:
> As an Atheist do you accept American money?
> You know, In God We Trust!
>
You mean that illigal phrase put there during the witch hunt of the
1950's? We use money. It's the only way to survive.
PDW
Smiler
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:19:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On Jul 26, 6:00 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 11:33 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:> On Sat, 25 Jul
>>>> 2009 10:52:46 -0700 (PDT), spiritual matter
>>>>
>>>>> <solidst...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Religious people who believe in God really have many questions to
>>>>>> answer because their God doesn't appear to be as powerful,
>>>>>> loving and knowing as they claim to be.
>>>>
>>>>> The contradictions are due to defects in scripture, which was
>>>>> written by falliable human prophets.
>>>>
>>>>> I think its best to just take what is useful and ignore the rest.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>> There is something of value in almost every religious tradition.
>>>> The existence of deity (and the associated desire to worship great
>>>> power) is not one of the useful things to take from them.
>>>>
>>>>> There is also Pantheism, which seems midway between atheism and
>>>>> theism:
>>>>
>>>> Is that meant to make it (pantheism) more appealing?
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pantheist.nethttp://www.pantheism.net
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> God doesn't need to prove He exists.
>>
>> it on a regular basis, if only to keep the religious zealots from
>> using Him for their own evil purposes.
>>
>> other people tell me that I have to worship the God of their
>> imagination.
>
> You mis-understand. I'm not telling you that you have to do anything!
> You are free to worship what ever you want to. It may be a sports
> figure or team. May be it's a singer or a rock band! It may be that
> new car or that big house. Or you may live in a vacuum and not worship
> anything. No one has the right to tell you to worship anything at all!
> In this Country we have the freedom to worship or not to worship!
> Next time you are at the Supper Bowl just tell your self it's not
> worshipping to be there!
I have my supper on a plate, not a bowl.
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Smiler
No need for a challenge, as that has already been done, by peer review,
before their results are published.
John Baker
>On 27 Jul 2009 22:02:37 GMT, "P. D. Wright" <pdwright4*2...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>Hypocrite!
Moron.
raven1
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 27, 3:27�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:14:58 -0700 (PDT), PD
>>
>> <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 27, 12:05�pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:59:37 -0500, no_...@void.nul wrote:
>>
>> >> >Thank you, very well said.
>> >> >To those that believe no explanation is necessary! To the unbeliever
>> >> >no explanation will do!
>>
>> >> A liar as well as an idiot. All it would take is the evidence you
>> >> lunatics are unable to provide.
>>
>> >All it would take is a rationale in the form that you are willing to
>> >accept, that is.
>>
>> Why not just present your case and find out what people are willing to
>> accept or not?
>
>That's just it. I'm not interested in "presenting my case".
Then I find it difficult to see what your point is.
> I'm not
>trying to win a case.
Then why are you here?
>Now, if you were interested more in what rationale other people have,
It would be helpful to state yours.
>including that beyond which you consider to be of merit, than in what
>you are willing to accept or not, you may learn something. As it is,
>you've just put yourself in a position where you gain no insight.
As you steadfastly refuse to say anything of substance, it's difficult
to see where insight might be gained on anyone's part.
>> Claims, as Carl Sagan liked to put it, require evidence, and
>> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
>And here's a case where I disagree with Sagan, though I certainly
>respected him on other matters.
With what, specifically, do you disagree? Are you advocating
uncritical credulity? Again, what is your point?
>I understand that you like to cite Sagan because he is sympathetic to
>your position and is a household name. But this is just choosing a
>verbal warrior from your side of the valley and demonstrates nothing.
Actually, I cite Sagan because he encapsulates the rational approach
to evaluating claims quite succinctly. If you want to argue for either
uncritical credulity, or irrationality, that's your choice, but
neither strikes me as a particularly productive means to an end.
>> If, to use
>> Sagan's example, I claim I have a dragon in my garage, you're
>> absolutely justified in remaining skeptical of my claim unless I can
>> produce some pretty compelling evidence to back it up. Got evidence
>> for your claims of God?
>
>I've just been explaining to you that not everybody operates like you
>and Sagan, requiring objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for
>everything they consider knowledge. What part of that did you not
>comprehend,
The part where you explain what alternatives you're suggesting for
evaluating the truth or falsity of existential claims, and why a
rational person would choose them. I must have missed that.
raven1
You may not be aware of this, but there are peer-reviewed journals
where scientists routinely publish their findings, and the evidence
for them. Again, what's your point?