Why no one can prove or disprove god.
EyesAreOpen91
"Where is your proof!" really is off the mark. There is a reason why
no evidence can ever be asserted validating or discrediting a god,
most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context. The
very premise of a god is the reason for this. The idea is that all
existence is under the direct and complete control of the concept we
are attempting to validate. All empirical evidence is a segment of
that existence. Due to this any empirical evidence, since it is also
supposedly under direct control, is easily removable if willed by that
concept. God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be countered
by "God doesn't want any evidence." Its a loophole necessitated by
the premise, and as such there is no way around it. Its all just bad
logic, nothing more. However even if you cant disprove a god's
existence, this does not mean you cant show its irrelevance
considerably more effectively. But that is another debate, regardless
I am curious if anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT method to get
around this?
~atheist
news:54eda8cb.0306...@posting.google.com:
Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against its
existence.
That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to produce
evidence for either position.
David
> All this debate with individuals yelling at
> each other in regards to "Where is your proof!"
The above is usually made up by someone trying to
shift the burden of proof, or making up excuses on
why they have no proof at all for any kind of god.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Chris Devol
news:54eda8cb.0306...@posting.google.com...
> All this debate with individuals yelling at each other in regards to
> "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark. There is a reason why
> no evidence can ever be asserted validating or discrediting a god,
> most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context.
I understand what you are getting at. But consider that in a court of law,
eyewitness testimony is considered evidence. And many people have personally
met the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have testified
to his existence under oath. We also have the records of many eyewitnesses
from the past. Therefore, the evidence is in favor of the existence of God.
So God can be positively observed, but his non-existence could not be
observed. The positive observations, corroborated by many witnesses, will
easily win the case.
>The
> very premise of a god is the reason for this. The idea is that all
> existence is under the direct and complete control of the concept we
> are attempting to validate.
Yes. "In him we live and move and have our being". That's true.
> All empirical evidence is a segment of
> that existence. Due to this any empirical evidence, since it is also
> supposedly under direct control, is easily removable if willed by that
> concept. God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
> claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be countered
> by "God doesn't want any evidence."
But that is not the usual agrument made by theists against atheism. Theists
say, on the contrary, that God has not hidden any evidence of his existence,
but that the evidence is all over the place.
The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons. In
other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than toward God.
They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
> Its a loophole necessitated by
> the premise, and as such there is no way around it. Its all just bad
> logic, nothing more.
> However even if you cant disprove a god's
> existence, this does not mean you cant show its irrelevance
> considerably more effectively. But that is another debate, regardless
> I am curious if anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT method to get
> around this?
We are all going to die. Nobody wants to die, no matter what Dr. Kevorkian
says. Death is bad for the one who is dying. Nothing that is not-God can
stop us from dying. Only a God, who himself cannot die, and who has the
power to create and bestow life, can save us from death.
That is supremely relevant.
Chris Devol
> "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark. There is a reason why
> no evidence can ever be asserted validating or discrediting a god,
> most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context.
I understand what you are getting at. But consider that in a court of law,
eyewitness testimony is considered evidence. And many people have personally
met the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have testified
to his existence under oath. We also have the records of many eyewitnesses
from the past. Therefore, the evidence is in favor of the existence of God.
So God can be positively observed, but his non-existence could not be
observed. The positive observations, corroborated by many witnesses, will
easily win the case.
>The
> very premise of a god is the reason for this. The idea is that all
> existence is under the direct and complete control of the concept we
> are attempting to validate.
Yes. "In him we live and move and have our being". That's true.
> All empirical evidence is a segment of
> that existence. Due to this any empirical evidence, since it is also
> supposedly under direct control, is easily removable if willed by that
> concept. God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
> claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be countered
> by "God doesn't want any evidence."
But that is not the usual agrument made by theists against atheism. Theists
say, on the contrary, that God has not hidden any evidence of his existence,
but that the evidence is all over the place.
The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons. In
other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than toward God.
They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
> Its a loophole necessitated by
> the premise, and as such there is no way around it. Its all just bad
> logic, nothing more.
> However even if you cant disprove a god's
> existence, this does not mean you cant show its irrelevance
> considerably more effectively. But that is another debate, regardless
> I am curious if anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT method to get
> around this?
We are all going to die. Nobody wants to die, no matter what Dr. Kevorkian
David
> I understand what you are getting at. But
> consider that in a court of law, eyewitness
> testimony is considered evidence. And many
> people have personally met the Lord Jesus
> Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have
> testified to his existence under oath. We also
> have the records of many eyewitnesses from the
> past.
Which is a complete lie. Nothing in the bible
would be admitted in a court of law. There are no
eye witnesses for anything mentioned in the bible.
The book is complete here say. None of the
"historians" that mention jesus are writing eye
witness accounts.
> Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
> the existence of God.
Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
jesus character does not prove that anything that
is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
god exists.
> So God can be positively observed....
That is a claim not supported by facts.
> But that is not the usual agrument made by
> theists against atheism. Theists say, on the
> contrary, that God has not hidden any evidence
> of his existence, but that the evidence is all
> over the place.
That "evidence" is completely subjective and
doesn't count as proof. Before you can make any
claims about what a god did or didn't hide, you
need to prove the god exists first.
> The problem is prejudice on the part of the
> atheists, who reject the existence of God for
> psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
the Kraken.
> In other words, atheists deliberately look away
> from rather than toward God. They know full
> well what they are ignoring, too.
Since there is a complete lack of evidence that
even hints that a god exists, there is nothing to
look away from.
> We are all going to die. Nobody wants to die,
> no matter what Dr. Kevorkian says. Death is bad
> for the one who is dying. Nothing that is
> not-God can stop us from dying. Only a God, who
> himself cannot die, and who has the power to
> create and bestow life, can save us from death.
>
> That is supremely relevant.
Since that god is an anthropomorphic fantasy, it
is completely irrelevant.
EyesAreOpen91
likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
All evidence we have is based on empirical experience, all
experience is based on our immediate perception of our environment.
To say there is nothing that can control our experience BASED on those
same experiences is impossible. We presuppose our own experience of
negation as being valid when we deny a god, even though the main point
being debated is that the concept in question controls those
experiences of negation. While the idea sounds absurd that there is
something controlling our perceptions, we can never give EVIDENCE to
the contrary. The premise of a god invalidates empirical evidence,
mind you the only evidence we as good old carbon bags can ever attain,
and as such no evidence will ever be solidly grounded as disproof. It
is impossible to move it from the realm of hypotheticals to undeniable
proofs.
> Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against its
> existence.
>
> That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to produce
> evidence for either position.
Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does not
necessarily mean that is the case.
David
> Yes, obviously no evidence can be given for the
> nonexistent. However, likewise the other side
> of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
No, it isn't. If they have no evidence, there is
nothing to argue about.
> All evidence we have is based on empirical
> experience, all experience is based on our
> immediate perception of our environment. To say
> there is nothing that can control our
> experience BASED on those same experiences is
> impossible.
To make the claim there is, is impossible.
Chris Devol
news:3ede...@news.sti.net...
> Chris Devol wrote:
> > I understand what you are getting at. But
> > consider that in a court of law, eyewitness
> > testimony is considered evidence. And many
> > people have personally met the Lord Jesus
> > Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have
> > testified to his existence under oath. We also
> > have the records of many eyewitnesses from the
> > past.
>
> Which is a complete lie. Nothing in the bible
> would be admitted in a court of law. There are no
> eye witnesses for anything mentioned in the bible.
> The book is complete here say. None of the
> "historians" that mention jesus are writing eye
> witness accounts.
You are mistaken. Actually, the Bible has been admitted for hundreds of
years in courts of law as a witness of oaths.
> > Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
> > the existence of God.
>
> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
> jesus character does not prove that anything that
> is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
> god exists.
This sentence doesn't address anything that was said. You need to re-read
the posts carefully.
<snip...more impertinent comments>
> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the
> > atheists, who reject the existence of God for
> > psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
>
> Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
> the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
> the Kraken.
When did I say that I rejected their existence? Please show me the quote. We
wouldn't want to think that your bold accusations of "lying" are
hypocritical!
> > In other words, atheists deliberately look away
> > from rather than toward God. They know full
> > well what they are ignoring, too.
>
> Since there is a complete lack of evidence that
> even hints that a god exists, there is nothing to
> look away from.
You have turned away from him. But you are going to meet him soon.
> > We are all going to die. Nobody wants to die,
> > no matter what Dr. Kevorkian says. Death is bad
> > for the one who is dying. Nothing that is
> > not-God can stop us from dying. Only a God, who
> > himself cannot die, and who has the power to
> > create and bestow life, can save us from death.
> >
> > That is supremely relevant.
>
> Since that god is an anthropomorphic fantasy, it
> is completely irrelevant.
You are, of course, invited to show us you own plan for eternal life.
EyesAreOpen91
judgment is shot and as such I surely wont stop myself... Anyway, the
claim that there is ample proof for god based on eye witness testimony
is not really as sound as most Christians make it out to be. There
are people willing to testify to the relevance of every religion, this
is not an exception with the Christian theological viewpoint. Human
cognitive abilities grant us the ability to full heartily believe in
any idea and interpret situation in line with those beliefs, that
however does not mean those beliefs are correct. Also, if I really
wanted to get picky no court of law would accept testimonies presented
by current individuals claiming to have seen some apparition, image,
whatever of Jesus/God/etc. They would probably be diagnosed as
mentally disturbed by today's technical standards (im not implying I
agree with many of today's standards in those regards though....)
Aside from that, textual references to Jesus/God are at best over
dramatized and inconsistent (such as the various versions of the
events around the crucifixion presented in the Bible itself), or
simply relate to population census's or other such government
documents which make no claim in regards to the capabilities we
associate with God/Jesus today. Even more than this, if you push the
claims of "looking at the wonders in the world" etc. as evidence of a
god, this however by no means justifies one particular theology as
being correct over any other. Even if we had direct evidence of
"scientifically" impossible events occurring, this would just as
likely be due to Allah, Ywah, Zoro Astreinism, Hindu, etc. I am not
saying that God is impossible by all of this, my main issue is that
too many people are running around screaming about proof on both sides
while they are forgetting that the word FAITH was chosen for a very
intelligent reason, that is all you really can have WITHOUT PROOF. If
more people would start actually following their beliefs instead of
nitpicking and trying to get around their duties as if they were legal
clauses in a binding document, I wouldn't even be writing this.
Oh, as for the supreme relevance of death being bad, I will to some
degree concur with that statement. True, most people do not want to
die. And true, in the sense most claim it would probably require
something that would fall under the label of "god" to actively stop
such an event. However this also does not mean there is a god, just
that to some it would be more convenient if there was one. However
regrettably convenience does not determine existence so the claim that
there should be a god has nothing at all to do with whether there
actually is one.
Dave Oldridge
news:3iADa.31508$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3ede...@news.sti.net...
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>> > I understand what you are getting at. But
>> > consider that in a court of law, eyewitness
>> > testimony is considered evidence. And many
>> > people have personally met the Lord Jesus
>> > Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have
>> > testified to his existence under oath. We also
>> > have the records of many eyewitnesses from the
>> > past.
>>
>> Which is a complete lie. Nothing in the bible
>> would be admitted in a court of law. There are no
>> eye witnesses for anything mentioned in the bible.
>> The book is complete here say. None of the
>> "historians" that mention jesus are writing eye
>> witness accounts.
>
> You are mistaken. Actually, the Bible has been admitted for hundreds
> of years in courts of law as a witness of oaths.
This is irrelevant. The "eyewitness" reports in the Bible are worthless
(as court testimony) unless one accepts their traditional provenance and
there is no substantial evidence backing up that provenance. I guess
it's a good thing that we don't have to have a court of law pass on the
truth of these documents. :-)
>> > Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
>> > the existence of God.
>> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
>> jesus character does not prove that anything that
>> is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
>> god exists.
>
> This sentence doesn't address anything that was said. You need to
> re-read the posts carefully.
Whenever I see someone who claims to have "proven" the existence of God,
I tend to suspect overconfidence. I have personal evidence of God's
existence that is satisfying to ME. But I doubt that I could use it to
convince anyone else who is determined to disbelieve. You see, the real
problem here is than anything that God has created is, by definition,
natural. So there is no way to point to something and say, "We know God
created this because it is different from that in such and such a way."
Because there is no "that" to point to. As the ancient creed so aptly
puts it, "God, creator of all things, visible and invisible."
> <snip...more impertinent comments>
>> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the
>> > atheists, who reject the existence of God for
>> > psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
>>
>> Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
>> the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
>> the Kraken.
>
> When did I say that I rejected their existence? Please show me the
> quote. We wouldn't want to think that your bold accusations of "lying"
> are hypocritical!
>
>> > In other words, atheists deliberately look away
>> > from rather than toward God. They know full
>> > well what they are ignoring, too.
>>
>> Since there is a complete lack of evidence that
>> even hints that a god exists, there is nothing to
>> look away from.
>
> You have turned away from him. But you are going to meet him soon.
This is a particularly distasteful form of argumentum ad baculum.
And you are hardly likely to frighten an atheist with threats of divine
punishment from a deity he doesn't believe to exist.
Such a one cannot be won by words. Sometimes deeds will do it; sometimes
only the Holy Spirit can do it.
Besides, salvation does not come from accepting some logical argument.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Blake Brown
> All this debate with individuals yelling at each other in regards to
> "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark.
When a doubtful person speaks his mind and requests proof of the
existence of God, I feel we should try to supply the testimony and
witness that could possibly ease someone's doubts and give them a
chance to find faith and follow God. Freedom of speech is poorly used
in haggling, confrontational disagreements, but this right is
well-used when thoughtful people communicate freely and honestly
according to their conscience.
> There is a reason why
> no evidence can ever be asserted validating or discrediting a god,
> most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context. The
> very premise of a god is the reason for this.
I disagree that the subject of the diety is a concept, or premise,
that invalidates any further logical discussion. The Scholastic
philosophers during the Middle Ages were supremely skilled in logic
and zealous in their faith. Some paradoxical questions were given to
students to test their theological beliefs, such as the famous
question about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. (I think
the proper answer to this riddle is that a God who could do anything
could put as many angels on the head of a pin as he wanted, but the
Medieveal view of a finite universe made contemplation of an
"infinite" number of angels quite a troublesome thing to imagine).
> All
> existence is under the direct and complete control of the concept we
> are attempting to validate. All empirical evidence is a segment of
> that existence. Due to this any empirical evidence, since it is also
> supposedly under direct control, is easily removable if willed by that
> concept.
The paraphrase I'm making of the above line of reasoning is the claim
that God has used divine power to remove empirical signs of his
existence. I would cite the multitudes of believers in the church and
around the world as expert authorities on the truth of Gods's
existence. Yielding to expert authority is an empirical method we
could not do modern science without. Plus, miracles happen all around
the world every day.
> God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
> claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be countered
> by "God doesn't want any evidence."
There is a giant conceptual leap between contemplation of whether or
not God exists to making conclusions about what God really wants. And
if God can use his powers to conceal himself, we are bringing a lot of
attributes into our working concept of God to satisfy the idea we are
trying to defend.
> Its a loophole necessitated by
> the premise, and as such there is no way around it. Its all just bad
> logic, nothing more.
I thought the ideas quoted above were very fresh and interesting.
> However even if you cant disprove a god's
> existence, this does not mean you cant show its irrelevance
> considerably more effectively.
Atheists attack the existence of God because that is where they feel
religion is weakest. If atheists postulated a universe with an
irrelevant diety, they would have an awfully hard to convince people
that the diety is irrelevant.
> But that is another debate, regardless
> I am curious if anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT method to get
> around this?
I think that a formal, "official" inquiry into the controversy
surrounding the eistence of God would be best accomplished by a team
of philosophers who worked out the terms of the debate first before
proceeding to introduce the first point. The theory of argument, the
common epistemological framework, and the terms of a satisfactory
proof would have to be worked out and agreed to by everyone. I
imagine such a gathering would follow parlimentary procedure, operate
in smaller committees, and I think it would resemble religious
councils of the past.
~atheist
news:54eda8cb.03060...@posting.google.com:
> Yes, obviously no evidence can be given for the nonexistent. However,
> likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the moon. If
by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
> All evidence we have is based on empirical experience, all
> experience is based on our immediate perception of our environment.
> To say there is nothing that can control our experience BASED on those
> same experiences is impossible.
If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
(otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That would
mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can not
interact with this universe.
It's a basic paradox. If it interacts it is dectable, else it can't, or
wont, interact.
> We presuppose our own experience of
> negation as being valid when we deny a god, even though the main point
> being debated is that the concept in question controls those
> experiences of negation.
So if leprachauns do live on the moon, and by the definition I give them,
can not be dectable, we should entertain that possibility over the fact
that the moon is a barren desert?
Your entire definition of god is based on mythological stories and the
oppinions of religious teachers. The fact that no two christians can come
up with a consistent definition of god IS proof that none of you know.
> While the idea sounds absurd that there is
> something controlling our perceptions, we can never give EVIDENCE to
> the contrary.
Please note the paradox I pointed out above.
> The premise of a god invalidates empirical evidence,
> mind you the only evidence we as good old carbon bags can ever attain,
> and as such no evidence will ever be solidly grounded as disproof.
Again, this is based on the "logic" you presented in the paradox above.
> It
> is impossible to move it from the realm of hypotheticals to undeniable
> proofs.
It is impossible because there is NO PROOF or evidence of any kind!!
And until someone finds a single shred of evidence, direct or indirect, it
will NEVER be considered a possibility by science.
>
>> Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against its
>> existence.
>>
>> That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to produce
>> evidence for either position.
>
> Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does not
> necessarily mean that is the case.
No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
Chris Devol
news:Xns939127D7186B0...@142.77.1.194...
Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by using it (and only it) as a
symbol of calling on God to be witness to sworn testimony. It is the fear of
God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon someone who may be
contemplating perjury. It is the truth of God, the God of the Bible, that is
supposed to be the standard by which testimony is measured. It is the
omniscience of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the
detector of perjury.
The de facto use of the Bible (and only the Bible) in this way by courts of
law throughout the history of western civilization is an implicit admission
by those courts and their governing authorities that the Bible is truth.
There is no way around this. The Bible has been accepted and approved as
truth by the courts of the land.
> >> > Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
> >> > the existence of God.
>
> >> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
> >> jesus character does not prove that anything that
> >> is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
> >> god exists.
> >
> > This sentence doesn't address anything that was said. You need to
> > re-read the posts carefully.
>
> Whenever I see someone who claims to have "proven" the existence of God,
> I tend to suspect overconfidence. I have personal evidence of God's
> existence that is satisfying to ME. But I doubt that I could use it to
> convince anyone else who is determined to disbelieve. You see, the real
> problem here is than anything that God has created is, by definition,
> natural. So there is no way to point to something and say, "We know God
> created this because it is different from that in such and such a way."
That is the most reasonable statement I have heard you make. I'm impressed.
Actually, though, God created spirits, which are not, strictly speaking,
"natural". It's very hard to point to a spirit. But I'm being a little
pedantic. Your point is right.
> Because there is no "that" to point to. As the ancient creed so aptly
> puts it, "God, creator of all things, visible and invisible."
> > <snip...more impertinent comments>
>
> >> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the
> >> > atheists, who reject the existence of God for
> >> > psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
> >>
> >> Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
> >> the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
> >> the Kraken.
> >
> > When did I say that I rejected their existence? Please show me the
> > quote. We wouldn't want to think that your bold accusations of "lying"
> > are hypocritical!
> >
> >> > In other words, atheists deliberately look away
> >> > from rather than toward God. They know full
> >> > well what they are ignoring, too.
> >>
> >> Since there is a complete lack of evidence that
> >> even hints that a god exists, there is nothing to
> >> look away from.
> >
> > You have turned away from him. But you are going to meet him soon.
>
> This is a particularly distasteful form of argumentum ad baculum.
> And you are hardly likely to frighten an atheist with threats of divine
> punishment from a deity he doesn't believe to exist.
It is no threat. I have no personal grudge against these atheists. But he,
and everyone alive, is going to meet God very soon. There is no doubt about
it.
> Such a one cannot be won by words. Sometimes deeds will do it; sometimes
> only the Holy Spirit can do it.
Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone, it is true. But Christians are
commanded to speak the truth of the Bible, because God uses the words of the
Bible to convert people!. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
> Besides, salvation does not come from accepting some logical argument.
Right. But if in trying to refute me, someone looks in the Bible for
ammunition, then at least he is reading the Bible. That cannot be a bad
thing!
~atheist
HAHAH... you mean the christian american courts use it. Hardly proof.
See if somone in Iraq would care about swearing on the bible.
> It is
> the fear of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon
> someone who may be contemplating perjury. It is the truth of God, the
> God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the standard by which
> testimony is measured. It is the omniscience of God, the God of the
> Bible, that is supposed to be the detector of perjury.
That is why that custom was created. To ensure a truthful testimony.
>
> The de facto use of the Bible (and only the Bible) in this way by
> courts of law throughout the history of western civilization is an
> implicit admission by those courts and their governing authorities
> that the Bible is truth. There is no way around this. The Bible has
> been accepted and approved as truth by the courts of the land.
It is a cultural hangup since the roman era. It is only applicable in
christian nations. Your proof is completely biased and is mirrored in every
society that does and has existed.
It seems you have very strong confidence in government. You should consider
reveiwing some political history.
~atheist
[SNIP]
> The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
> existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
> In other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than
> toward God. They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive in god?
Your statement is a contradiction on itself. Therefore your conclusion,
that atheists are enemies of god, is false.
(I consider god the same way I consider the easter bunny or the tooth fairy
i.e. completely indifferent, since it is a fairy tale.)
John Ings
<cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > You are mistaken. Actually, the Bible has been admitted for hundreds
>> > of years in courts of law as a witness of oaths.
>>
>> This is irrelevant. The "eyewitness" reports in the Bible are worthless
>> (as court testimony) unless one accepts their traditional provenance and
>> there is no substantial evidence backing up that provenance. I guess
>> it's a good thing that we don't have to have a court of law pass on the
>> truth of these documents. :-)
>
>Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by using it (and only it) as a
>symbol of calling on God to be witness to sworn testimony.
Use as a symbol is an affirmation of truth of content? No, it's an
affirmation of superstitious belief.
>It is the fear of
>God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon someone who may be
>contemplating perjury.
Exactly. Their superstitious fear.
> It is the truth of God, the God of the Bible, that is
>supposed to be the standard by which testimony is measured.
I sure hope not! If the truth of testimony in our courts is no better
than the tissue of lies spun out in the Bible there is a lot of
injustice!
>t is the
>omniscience of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the
>detector of perjury.
The preventer of purjury. And in some cases the superstitious
apprehensionsof the witness work to thateffect. But more in past
centuries than today.
>The de facto use of the Bible (and only the Bible) in this way by courts of
>law throughout the history of western civilization is an implicit admission
>by those courts and their governing authorities that the Bible is truth.
Nonsense! Such usage takes advantage of the fact that many THINK it is
the truth. If I as an atheist swear upon the Bible it means nothing,
and the courts know that perfectly well.
>There is no way around this. The Bible has been accepted and approved as
>truth by the courts of the land.
No, it has been accepted as a tool to encourage truthfulness. That
says nothing about the truth of its contents, only about many people's
superstitions on the subject.
>> >> > Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
>> >> > the existence of God.
>>
>> >> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
>> >> jesus character does not prove that anything that
>> >> is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
>> >> god exists.
>> >
>> > This sentence doesn't address anything that was said.
Of course it does! You stated "And many people have personally met the
Lord Jesus Christ,"
True, many have claimed to, but not one of them can prove it!
>> > You have turned away from him. But you are going to meet him soon.
>>
>> This is a particularly distasteful form of argumentum ad baculum.
>> And you are hardly likely to frighten an atheist with threats of divine
>> punishment from a deity he doesn't believe to exist.
>
>It is no threat.
I know a threat when I see one! That was a threat.
> I have no personal grudge against these atheists. But he,
>and everyone alive, is going to meet God very soon. There is no doubt about
>it.
In your mind. Not in mine. I don't believe that if God exists, he is
anything even remotely like the monster the Bible describes, or the
reified version you believe in..
>Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone, it is true.
And have you not noticed how those converts hate one another and
dispute what said Holy Spirit told them? Doesn't that hint more at
self-delusion than real inspiration?
> But if in trying to refute me, someone looks in the Bible for
>ammunition, then at least he is reading the Bible.
And finding lots and lots of ammo...
>That cannot be a bad thing!
Indeed!
## There is no better cure for Christianity
## than a thorough perusal of the Bible.
MARK TWAIN
Dave Oldridge
This is a classic non sequitur fallacy.
> the fear of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon
> someone who may be contemplating perjury. It is the truth of God, the
> God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the standard by which
> testimony is measured. It is the omniscience of God, the God of the
> Bible, that is supposed to be the detector of perjury.
Certainly the Bible teaches that perjury is not only a crime, but a sin
against man and against God. But that doesn't mean we can infer from our
cultural use of it that it is actually true. Only that a lot of people
think so. (Doesn't make it untrue either).
> The de facto use of the Bible (and only the Bible) in this way by
> courts of law throughout the history of western civilization is an
> implicit admission by those courts and their governing authorities
> that the Bible is truth. There is no way around this. The Bible has
> been accepted and approved as truth by the courts of the land.
No, it's simply an expression of their opinion that it is. The Bible
says to stone Sabbath-breakers. But I would not suggest you actually do
this. And I GUARANTEE that you won't beat the murder charge by citing
the book.
>> >> > Therefore, the evidence is in favor of
>> >> > the existence of God.
>> >> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen a
>> >> jesus character does not prove that anything that
>> >> is claimed he said is true, nor is it proof that a
>> >> god exists.
>> >
>> > This sentence doesn't address anything that was said. You need to
>> > re-read the posts carefully.
>> Whenever I see someone who claims to have "proven" the existence of
>> God, I tend to suspect overconfidence. I have personal evidence of
>> God's existence that is satisfying to ME. But I doubt that I could
>> use it to convince anyone else who is determined to disbelieve. You
>> see, the real problem here is than anything that God has created is,
>> by definition, natural. So there is no way to point to something and
>> say, "We know God created this because it is different from that in
>> such and such a way."
>
> That is the most reasonable statement I have heard you make. I'm
> impressed.
> Actually, though, God created spirits, which are not, strictly
> speaking, "natural". It's very hard to point to a spirit. But I'm
> being a little pedantic. Your point is right.
Heh heh. When I point to spirits, people run screaming into the woods.
I'm deadly serious about that. And if the spirits are not the nice kind,
they flee too. The bishop did not lie when he laid hands on me and asked
God to give me the Holy Spirit for the office of Exorcist.
>> > <snip...more impertinent comments>
You were on a roll up to "very soon." Then you fell right off the rails.
Their is a great deal of doubt about it, in the person of the atheist
you're arguing with.
>> Such a one cannot be won by words. Sometimes deeds will do it;
>> sometimes only the Holy Spirit can do it.
>
> Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone, it is true. But
> Christians are commanded to speak the truth of the Bible, because God
> uses the words of the Bible to convert people!. Faith comes by
> hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Yes, but speaking truth does not have to take the form of uttering
threats on behalf of the almighty. I do issue warnings, strong ones, to
believers. They should know better.
>> Besides, salvation does not come from accepting some logical
>> argument.
> Right. But if in trying to refute me, someone looks in the Bible for
> ammunition, then at least he is reading the Bible. That cannot be a
> bad thing!
No, not a bad thing at all, but the Bible is a bit like the phone book.
It tells you how to get in touch, not what to do once you have done so.
And there's no point dialling me up on the phone and then reading the
instructions for dialling in the front of the phone book. *I* already
know them and besides, we probably have more important things to talk
about!
There is a tendency in US Protestant circles to do with the Bible what
the RCC has done with their hierarchy--to make it into an idol. We
should not ignore the Bible, but we should not make it into a stone
around our necks either. It is GOD we seek to know, not the Bible and to
know Him it is necessary to not only read the Bible, but to put its
teachings into practice. All of them, not just the parts we like.
David
> When a doubtful person speaks his mind and
> requests proof of the existence of God, I feel
> we should try to supply the testimony and
> witness that could possibly ease someone's
> doubts and give them a chance to find faith and
What a crock.... Not once has anyone ever
presented any proof that a god exists.
> I disagree that the subject of the diety is a
> concept, or premise, that invalidates any
> further logical discussion. The Scholastic
> philosophers during the Middle Ages were
> supremely skilled in logic and zealous in their
> faith....
It was that zealousness, then as now, that clouds
the minds of the theists.
> The paraphrase I'm making of the above line of
> reasoning is the claim that God has used divine
> power to remove empirical signs of his
> existence....
Before you can make that claim, you need to prove
the god exists.
> Atheists attack the existence of God....
We don't attack anything. We just don't believe in
your gods. It is the theists that feel the need to
attack the Atheists. They do so mostly out of fear.
> I think that a formal, "official" inquiry into
> the controversy surrounding the eistence of God
> would be best accomplished by a team of
> philosophers who worked out the terms of the
> debate first before proceeding to introduce the
> first point.
They already have. It's called the Burden of
Proof. It rests squarely on the shoulders of the
theists.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
>
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>
>>> I understand what you are getting at. But
>>> consider that in a court of law, eyewitness
>>> testimony is considered evidence. And many
>>> people have personally met the Lord Jesus
>>> Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and
>>> have testified to his existence under oath.
>>> We also have the records of many
>>> eyewitnesses from the past.
>>
>> Which is a complete lie. Nothing in the bible
>> would be admitted in a court of law. There
>> are no eye witnesses for anything mentioned
>> in the bible. The book is complete here say.
>> None of the "historians" that mention jesus
>> are writing eye witness accounts.
>
> You are mistaken. Actually, the Bible has been
> admitted for hundreds of years in courts of law
> as a witness of oaths.
Non sequitur. Being accepted, by other theists, as
a "witness of oaths" has nothing to do with the
veracity of what is written inside the book.
>>> Therefore, the evidence is in favor of the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>> Another lie. Because some claim to have seen
>> a jesus character does not prove that
>> anything that is claimed he said is true, nor
>> is it proof that a god exists.
>
> This sentence doesn't address anything that was
> said.
It addresses your lies. Couldn't you defend them?
>>> The problem is prejudice on the part of the
>>> atheists, who reject the existence of God
>>> for psychological, rather than scientific,
>>> reasons.
>>
>> Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your
>> god the same way you reject the existence of
>> Thor, or the Kraken.
>
> When did I say that I rejected their existence?
>
Your silence of their existence and the existence
of millions of other, completely different, gods
that humans have invented over the centuries.
>>> In other words, atheists deliberately look
>>> away from rather than toward God. They know
>>> full well what they are ignoring, too.
>>
>> Since there is a complete lack of evidence
>> that even hints that a god exists, there is
>> nothing to look away from.
>
> You have turned away from him.
You just don't get it, do you? I have turned away
from no god - THEY DON'T EXIST!
>>> We are all going to die. Nobody wants to
>>> die, no matter what Dr. Kevorkian says.
>>> Death is bad for the one who is dying.
>>> Nothing that is not-God can stop us from
>>> dying. Only a God, who himself cannot die,
>>> and who has the power to create and bestow
>>> life, can save us from death.
>>>
>>> That is supremely relevant.
>>
>> Since that god is an anthropomorphic fantasy,
>> it is completely irrelevant.
>
> You are, of course, invited to show us you own
> plan for eternal life.
This "eternal life" fantasy of yours is just that,
a fantasy.
David
> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> You have turned away from him. But you are
>> going to meet him soon.
>
> This is a particularly distasteful form of
> argumentum ad baculum. And you are hardly
> likely to frighten an atheist with threats of
> divine punishment from a deity he doesn't
> believe to exist.
Finally, a theist that understands just how silly
statements like that are.
David
> Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by
> using it (and only it) as a symbol of calling
Wishful thinking.
> Actually, though, God created spirits...
Prove it.
> It is no threat. I have no personal grudge
> against these atheists. But he, and everyone
> alive, is going to meet God very soon. There is
> no doubt about it.
Since you have no proof this god exists, you have
no proof that anyone is going to meet it.
> Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone...
No, only someone that makes an irrational leap of
faith will convince themselves that a god exists.
Andrew
> EyesA...@email.com (EyesAreOpen91) wrote in
> news:54eda8cb.03060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Yes, obviously no evidence can be given for the nonexistent. However,
> > likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
>
> Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
>
> So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the moon. If
> by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
Agreed, shifting the burden of proof is a classic logical fallacy.
However, I point out further down this post that you are indulging in
a bit of dice loading as well.
> > All evidence we have is based on empirical experience, all
> > experience is based on our immediate perception of our environment.
> > To say there is nothing that can control our experience BASED on those
> > same experiences is impossible.
>
> If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
> completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
> (otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That would
> mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can not
> interact with this universe.
>
> It's a basic paradox. If it interacts it is dectable, else it can't, or
> wont, interact.
No paradox exists here. You are assuming that if the supernatural
interaction was detectable it would automatically be recognised as a
supernatural event. Seeing as science is only concerned with the
natural, it can't be used to detect the supernatural. Any supernatural
influence detected by science would be considered natural by default.
Are you seeing the problem here?
> > We presuppose our own experience of
> > negation as being valid when we deny a god, even though the main point
> > being debated is that the concept in question controls those
> > experiences of negation.
>
> So if leprachauns do live on the moon, and by the definition I give them,
> can not be dectable, we should entertain that possibility over the fact
> that the moon is a barren desert?
>
> Your entire definition of god is based on mythological stories and the
> oppinions of religious teachers. The fact that no two christians can come
> up with a consistent definition of god IS proof that none of you know.
That's because it's impossible to limit a supremely powerful being to
sit easily within the confines of human reason and language. We can
approximate, and with approximations come disagreements.
> > While the idea sounds absurd that there is
> > something controlling our perceptions, we can never give EVIDENCE to
> > the contrary.
>
> Please note the paradox I pointed out above.
>
> > The premise of a god invalidates empirical evidence,
> > mind you the only evidence we as good old carbon bags can ever attain,
> > and as such no evidence will ever be solidly grounded as disproof.
>
> Again, this is based on the "logic" you presented in the paradox above.
>
> > It
> > is impossible to move it from the realm of hypotheticals to undeniable
> > proofs.
>
> It is impossible because there is NO PROOF or evidence of any kind!!
> And until someone finds a single shred of evidence, direct or indirect, it
> will NEVER be considered a possibility by science.
Firstly, there *is* evidence for the existence of God of a subjective
and usually personal nature. None of that you'll accept. That's fine,
just thought I'd point that out.
Now if we take evidence that you *will* accept to mean evidence that
would also be accepted by the scientific method, then that's
meaningless. Why? Because science is only concerned with the natural
world. It automatically excludes the intervention of supernatural
beings. If we assume that God is a supernatural being, and that
"divine intervention" is also inherently supernatural, then science
*must* exclude it. Anything that does fall into scientific knowledge
is assumed to be naturalistic by default. God could intervene in a
naturalistic way in order to be detected, but then science could not
determine that as evidence for His existence.
This is why the excuse, "I'll believe in God if scientific evidence is
shown for His existence," is essentially a sham. Science will *never*
provide evidence for God for the reasons mentioned previously. Your
stance is just an alternative way of saying, "You'll never convince me
that God exists."
> >> Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against its
> >> existence.
> >>
> >> That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to produce
> >> evidence for either position.
> >
> > Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does not
> > necessarily mean that is the case.
>
> No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
Define what "more plausible" is? You've already set out your stall
that you will only accept scientific evidence. I've shown that
scientific evidence of the supernatural will not be forthcoming. Thus,
any evidence presented to you, either now or in the future, will
automatically fall outside of the goalposts you have created and be
rejected.
None of this is meant as a personal attack. I'm just highlighting the
basic differences that mean that theist vs atheist debates will
probably rage on forever.
Regards
Andrew
Pope Dilbert
"God doesn't want any evidence", give you the exact same result as "there is
no god".
To ASSUME, and assert, there is a god, while "god doesn't want any
evidence" is ludicrous.
To conclude "there is no god" from the fact that there is no evidence is
more reasonable, and logical.
To assert there is no reason to believe in any god, because "there is no
evidence" is ...... atheism.
Kaye
tangible in the regard that He can be "seen" as you or I can be seen.
The human condition longs for Him. We were made for Him. Ergo: we
have a deep abiding desire to KNOW Him, seek Him. Even writing about
Him as done in this medium, proves a desire to Find Him.
And once that happens deep down inside of us, we know He's real.
It's just that simple. Remarkably, once we acknowledge Him, He gives
a gift to those who wish to stay close to Him. It's called faith.
Chris Devol
> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:XyDDa.31652$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> > message news:Xns939127D7186B0...@142.77.1.194...
> >
> > Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by using it (and only it)
> > as a symbol of calling on God to be witness to sworn testimony. It is
> This is a classic non sequitur fallacy.
> > the fear of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon
> > someone who may be contemplating perjury. It is the truth of God, the
> > God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the standard by which
> > testimony is measured. It is the omniscience of God, the God of the
> > Bible, that is supposed to be the detector of perjury.
> Certainly the Bible teaches that perjury is not only a crime, but a sin
> against man and against God. But that doesn't mean we can infer from our
> cultural use of it that it is actually true. Only that a lot of people
> think so. (Doesn't make it untrue either).
Where's the non sequiter? I didn't say that the courts' use of the Bible
proved that the Bible is true, but only that courts have accepted it as
true, thus giving it evidentiary status. "Evidence" was what the original
post was about.
> > The de facto use of the Bible (and only the Bible) in this way by
> > courts of law throughout the history of western civilization is an
> > implicit admission by those courts and their governing authorities
> > that the Bible is truth. There is no way around this. The Bible has
> > been accepted and approved as truth by the courts of the land.
>
> No, it's simply an expression of their opinion that it is. The Bible
> says to stone Sabbath-breakers. But I would not suggest you actually do
> this. And I GUARANTEE that you won't beat the murder charge by citing
> the book.
This is a classic "citing a law without mentioning its subequent amendments
and qualifying circumstances" fallacy.. Anyone who would stone a sabbath
breaker to death is violating, not obeying, the Bible. They are violating
John 8:7, Matthew 5:38-39, Romans 2:3, 12:19 etc.
A person's doubt isn't able to banish reality. We are all going to meet God
very soon. It is absolutely certain, and there is nothing that can stop it.
It is going to happen.
> >> Such a one cannot be won by words. Sometimes deeds will do it;
> >> sometimes only the Holy Spirit can do it.
> >
> > Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone, it is true. But
> > Christians are commanded to speak the truth of the Bible, because God
> > uses the words of the Bible to convert people!. Faith comes by
> > hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
>
> Yes, but speaking truth does not have to take the form of uttering
> threats on behalf of the almighty. I do issue warnings, strong ones, to
> believers. They should know better.
As I said, it is no threat. It is statement of a fact that all need to hear,
though many don't want to hear it. I'm not hounding anyone with it, nor
personally threatening anyone with violence, nor trying to use God as my
personal hit man. I have no personal grudge against atheists. God says to
preach his whole counsel, and future judgment is very much a part of that
counsel.
Jonah did not say to the people of Nineveh that God loves them and has a
wonderful plan for their life. He told them that they were about to be
destroyed! And they heard and repented, and were spared, though they were
great sinners.
> >> Besides, salvation does not come from accepting some logical
> >> argument.
>
> > Right. But if in trying to refute me, someone looks in the Bible for
> > ammunition, then at least he is reading the Bible. That cannot be a
> > bad thing!
>
> No, not a bad thing at all, but the Bible is a bit like the phone book.
> It tells you how to get in touch, not what to do once you have done so.
Don't you think it's more like a tour guide, that tells you how to get
there, and also what you will find when you do? :-)
> And there's no point dialling me up on the phone and then reading the
> instructions for dialling in the front of the phone book. *I* already
> know them and besides, we probably have more important things to talk
> about!
Yes, yes, everybody hates annoying telemarketers. But this is, after all, a
public forum where the whole principle is "free speech".
If someone is absolutely confident in his belief that there is no God, my
remarks should not have any negative effect on him. But if there is a grain
of truth left in him, then maybe my "fire and brimstone" will be an
instrument that God uses to get him to think a little more about the
unspeakably horrible consequences of sin, and the only one who can save him
from them: the Lord Jesus Christ.
> There is a tendency in US Protestant circles to do with the Bible what
> the RCC has done with their hierarchy--to make it into an idol. We
> should not ignore the Bible, but we should not make it into a stone
> around our necks either. It is GOD we seek to know, not the Bible and to
> know Him it is necessary to not only read the Bible, but to put its
> teachings into practice. All of them, not just the parts we like.
An idol is a creature, by definition. The Bible is the eternal word of God.
God and his word are from everlasting to everlasting. They are not
creatures. They are one. The Bible is not ink and paper. It is spirit, it is
life.
Joh.6.63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Joh.6.68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
the words of eternal life.
Joh.12.48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day.
Chris Devol
> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:B7yDa.34602$Io.29...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
> > existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
> > In other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than
> > toward God. They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
>
> How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive in god?
By being in denial. It's a common trait.
Pope Dilbert
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oaMDa.1141$qd3....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns939176CB5A483...@142.77.1.194...
> > "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > news:XyDDa.31652$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> > > message news:Xns939127D7186B0...@142.77.1.194...
> > >
> > > Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by using it (and only it)
> > > as a symbol of calling on God to be witness to sworn testimony. It is
>
> > This is a classic non sequitur fallacy.
>
> > > the fear of God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed to come upon
> > > someone who may be contemplating perjury. It is the truth of God, the
> > > God of the Bible, that is supposed to be the standard by which
> > > testimony is measured. It is the omniscience of God, the God of the
> > > Bible, that is supposed to be the detector of perjury.
>
> > Certainly the Bible teaches that perjury is not only a crime, but a sin
> > against man and against God. But that doesn't mean we can infer from
our
> > cultural use of it that it is actually true. Only that a lot of people
> > think so. (Doesn't make it untrue either).
>
> Where's the non sequiter? I didn't say that the courts' use of the Bible
> proved that the Bible is true, but only that courts have accepted it as
> true, thus giving it evidentiary status. "Evidence" was what the original
> post was about.
Bull Shit!
The people in the courts have assumed a belief.
That does not make it more evidentiary.
Science determines evidence, in this case, not human belief systems even if
in a court room!
and a persons BELIEF does not banish reality either - even when that belief
is about god.
It is NOT absolutely certain, because, just like all the other times idiots
make claims like this ...there is NO evidence to support your claims, your
bible or your god!
>
> > >> Such a one cannot be won by words. Sometimes deeds will do it;
> > >> sometimes only the Holy Spirit can do it.
> > >
> > > Only God the Holy Spirit can convert someone, it is true. But
> > > Christians are commanded to speak the truth of the Bible, because God
> > > uses the words of the Bible to convert people!. Faith comes by
> > > hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
> >
> > Yes, but speaking truth does not have to take the form of uttering
> > threats on behalf of the almighty. I do issue warnings, strong ones, to
> > believers. They should know better.
>
> As I said, it is no threat. It is statement of a fact that all need to
hear,
> though many don't want to hear it.
It is not a statement of fact. because you have no facts to support your
bellowing.
It is only a fraudulent delusion to even claim it is a fact!
I'm not hounding anyone with it, nor
> personally threatening anyone with violence, nor trying to use God as my
> personal hit man. I have no personal grudge against atheists. God says to
> preach his whole counsel, and future judgment is very much a part of that
> counsel.
You are not hounding anyone ... but your god says (in effect) to hound
people!
>
> Jonah did not say to the people of Nineveh that God loves them and has a
> wonderful plan for their life. He told them that they were about to be
> destroyed! And they heard and repented, and were spared, though they were
> great sinners.
Who gives a flying f* about what the fables and fantasies in your own
religion bellow?!
>
> > >> Besides, salvation does not come from accepting some logical
> > >> argument.
> >
> > > Right. But if in trying to refute me, someone looks in the Bible for
> > > ammunition, then at least he is reading the Bible. That cannot be a
> > > bad thing!
> >
> > No, not a bad thing at all, but the Bible is a bit like the phone book.
> > It tells you how to get in touch, not what to do once you have done so.
>
> Don't you think it's more like a tour guide, that tells you how to get
> there, and also what you will find when you do? :-)
A tour guide to fantasyland. You STILL have no facts or evidence to support
it!
>
> > And there's no point dialling me up on the phone and then reading the
> > instructions for dialling in the front of the phone book. *I* already
> > know them and besides, we probably have more important things to talk
> > about!
>
> Yes, yes, everybody hates annoying telemarketers. But this is, after all,
a
> public forum where the whole principle is "free speech".
In truth ... I believe .. it is about the discussion of religion; not a
place to bellow conversions and holier than th arrogaqnce!
>
> If someone is absolutely confident in his belief that there is no God, my
> remarks should not have any negative effect on him. But if there is a
grain
> of truth left in him, then maybe my "fire and brimstone" will be an
> instrument that God uses to get him to think a little more about the
> unspeakably horrible consequences of sin, and the only one who can save
him
> from them: the Lord Jesus Christ.
Bwahahhaaaaaa......if there is a grain of truth in YOU - you cannot help but
admit that you have no evidence or facts to support your superstitiious
beliefs.
>
> > There is a tendency in US Protestant circles to do with the Bible what
> > the RCC has done with their hierarchy--to make it into an idol.
There is a tendency, in many christians, to make themselves or their beliefs
into an idol.
That's EXACTLY whayou are arrogantly doing when you claim truth, fact,
evidence and "reality" about your fairy tales, fables and fantasies!
You have a belief system unsupported by any facts or evidence; not any
different than any other of the other thousnads of religions and belief
systems mankind has invented.
We
> > should not ignore the Bible, but we should not make it into a stone
> > around our necks either.
Why not ignore the bible? It's main context is nothing more than fables and
fairy tales!
It is GOD we seek to know, not the Bible and to
> > know Him it is necessary to not only read the Bible, but to put its
> > teachings into practice. All of them, not just the parts we like.
>
> An idol is a creature, by definition. The Bible is the eternal word of
God.
> God and his word are from everlasting to everlasting. They are not
> creatures. They are one. The Bible is not ink and paper. It is spirit, it
is
> life.
> Joh.6.63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the
> words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
>
> Joh.6.68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou
hast
> the words of eternal life.
>
> Joh.12.48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
> judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
> last day.
That is merely the B.S. you believe in - it is NOT fact!
BTW .. an idol can be anything you damned well please. The most common idol
is "self"....as proven by many pretend christians - like you.
Pope Dilbert
"Kaye" <ny...@eliteral.com> wrote in message
news:8e463b73.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Knowing God exists certainly isn't scientific. Nor is it something
> tangible in the regard that He can be "seen" as you or I can be seen.
Then you cannot "know" god exists!
>
> The human condition longs for Him. We were made for Him. Ergo: we
> have a deep abiding desire to KNOW Him, seek Him. Even writing about
> Him as done in this medium, proves a desire to Find Him.
>
The human condition longs for him ... so humans created him!
> And once that happens deep down inside of us, we know He's real.
> It's just that simple. Remarkably, once we acknowledge Him, He gives
> a gift to those who wish to stay close to Him. It's called faith.
and the maniac that kidnapped the "Smart" girl "knew" too ....
and the Heaven's Gate maniacs KNEW a space ship was coming for them....
and the people in Jonestown KNEW they had to commit suicide ... and murder
their own children....
and people "knew" David Koresh was an anointed person....
and Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW their religion is the one and only "true
religion"....
And Roman Catholics KNOW their religion is the one and only "true
religion"...
and Jews KNOW their religion is the one and only true religion - because
they are the "chosen ones"....
and the people who assassinate abortion doctors (and the maniacs that
endorse them) KNOW they are doing "god's work"......
What you know seems to have a unique parallel to arrogant and delusional
insanity!
EyesAreOpen91
> > likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
>
> Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
>
> So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the moon. If
> by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
>
The previous statements do not equal validity, just possibility.
There is a huge difference, yes leprechauns could be running around on
the moon but pragmatically speaking that is absolutely absurd. So is
a God. I never said since you cant disprove god then there is one,
just that you can not disprove it. Also, the statements that a god
can not interact with reality or else we could detect the influence is
based on faulty logic. The idea asserts a duality of body/soul where
the soul is confined to a level out of a god's control. The problem
is a god would also have control over consciousness as well since it
is also just a segment of existence, nothing more. Selective amnesia,
visual blind spots, whatever could then be maintained. I'm not saying
that it is happening, just that we have no way in our perceptual
abilities to transcend to a level where we could collect evidence one
way or another. Evidence is based on our perception, the premise to a
god is it control perception so it would then control all evidence.
It is all absurd, but not impossible.
> > Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does not
> > necessarily mean that is the case.
>
> No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
Apparently you missed that this last statement you made agrees
completely with the whole point of my posting. One thing though, our
assessments of likelihood are based on our perception of existence but
then that runs into the same problem since it again relies on the very
existence in question.
Chris Devol
news:MPG.1949616c...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
> > cvd...@earthlink.net says...
> > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> > news:Xns939176CB5A483...@142.77.1.194...
> > > "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>
soon.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a particularly distasteful form of argumentum ad baculum.
> > > >> And you are hardly likely to frighten an atheist with threats of
> > > >> divine punishment from a deity he doesn't believe to exist.
> > > >
> > > > It is no threat. I have no personal grudge against these atheists.
But
> > > > he, and everyone alive, is going to meet God very soon. There is no
> > > > doubt about it.
>
> Your proof is just to assert that the contentious
> statement is true. First, you have to prove there is a
> "God" to meet. Obviously, there is a great deal of
> doubt.
Actually, all anyone has to do is wait.
Here's a helpful thing:
Assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong, that there is no God and no
Judgment Day. OK. Then I'm living a fantasy, because we'll all just cease to
exist when we die. There won't be any consequences to my fantasy. There
won't be anything at all! Why should anyone get upset?
Now (since you are a sincere, open-minded, and objective seeker after truth)
assume for the sake of argument that I'm right, and that God is the God of
the Bible, and that we are going to meet him soon and that he really is
going to judge and sentence us based on whether or not we strictly obeyed
his law, and that the sentence either will be eternal damnation (because no
one has obeyed the Bible and are thus guilty of rebellion against their
Creator) or eternal bliss (because some have had their sins paid for by the
Lord Jesus, and are thus not guilty).
Can you "prove" either possiblilty right now with some "scientific"
experiment? Of course not. Both possibilities are mere "assertions" about
God. But which one has more serious consequences if it is true? Which one
bears more serious consideration?
Maybe you've heard this type of argument before. What is your solution to
this very grave dilemma?
> > A person's doubt isn't able to banish reality. We are all going to meet
God
> > very soon. It is absolutely certain, and there is nothing that can stop
it.
> > It is going to happen.
>
> As it is "absolutely certain", perhaps you can bless
> us with some objective and credible evidence - hey,
> even one piece thereof.
All you have to do is wait.
> > If someone is absolutely confident in his belief that there is no God,
my
> > remarks should not have any negative effect on him. But if there is a
grain
> > of truth left in him,
>
> Did you really mean to say that people who don't
> believe in your "God" do not have a "grain of truth
> left in [them]?"
People who hate God are followers of Satan, in whom is no truth whatsoever.
Their conscience is seared, their spirit is dead. Romans 1 and 3.
Weatherwax
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "EyesAreOpen91" <EyesA...@email.com> wrote:
> > All this debate with individuals yelling at each other in
> > regards to "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark.
> > There is a reason why no evidence can ever be asserted
> > validating or discrediting a god, most commonly that god
> > being the Christian deity in this context.
>
> court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered evidence.
> And many people have personally met the Lord Jesus Christ,
> who is the "Christian deity", and have testified to his
existence
> under oath. We also have the records of many eyewitnesses
> existence of God.
You once claimed that there were some 500 witnesses to the
resurrection of Jesus. You were then asked to name one writer in
the New Testament who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus.
I'm still waiting for your answer.
--
Wax
of those witnesses. I am still waiting for your answer.
--
Wax
Chris Devol
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
news:bLMDa.1139581$S_4.1171001@rwcrnsc53...
Nope. "Science" is a human belief system. It is not the "determiner" of
anything. It is only the naming and classifying of observed physical
sensory phenomena. Science is an effect, not a cause.
God, on the other hand, is the cause of all causes except himself, and is
not an effect of anything.
~atheist
news:27eaec6.03060...@posting.google.com:
>
>> > All evidence we have is based on empirical experience, all
>> > experience is based on our immediate perception of our environment.
>> > To say there is nothing that can control our experience BASED on
>> > those same experiences is impossible.
>>
>> If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
>> completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
>> (otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That
>> would mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can
>> not interact with this universe.
>>
>> It's a basic paradox. If it interacts it is dectable, else it can't,
>> or wont, interact.
>
> No paradox exists here. You are assuming that if the supernatural
> interaction was detectable it would automatically be recognised as a
> supernatural event. Seeing as science is only concerned with the
> natural, it can't be used to detect the supernatural. Any supernatural
> influence detected by science would be considered natural by default.
> Are you seeing the problem here?
By the defintion of supernatural yes there could be a "problem". But as I
pointed out above you have no reason to believe supernatural events can and
have occured. "Supernatural" events without any scientific evidence should
not demand the same amount of time as an event based on facts.
Besides, if we are controled, then a supernatural even must still interact
with the natural world. That interaction can then be measured. If we can
not find a natural source for the interaction then it must be supernatural.
i.e. a supernatural event can be detected though only indirectly.
>
>> > We presuppose our own experience of
>> > negation as being valid when we deny a god, even though the main
>> > point being debated is that the concept in question controls those
>> > experiences of negation.
>>
>> So if leprachauns do live on the moon, and by the definition I give
>> them, can not be dectable, we should entertain that possibility over
>> the fact that the moon is a barren desert?
>>
>> Your entire definition of god is based on mythological stories and
>> the oppinions of religious teachers. The fact that no two christians
>> can come up with a consistent definition of god IS proof that none of
>> you know.
>
> That's because it's impossible to limit a supremely powerful being to
> sit easily within the confines of human reason and language. We can
> approximate, and with approximations come disagreements.
It is because anyone can come up with any defintion they want, and can get
away with it, since there is NO grounding in natural reality. I can make up
any sort of stories I want relating to invisible leprachauns and they would
be just as applicable as god.
Theists not being able to provide a consistent definition also makes it
impossible for science to test.
>>
>> > It
>> > is impossible to move it from the realm of hypotheticals to
>> > undeniable proofs.
>>
>> It is impossible because there is NO PROOF or evidence of any kind!!
>> And until someone finds a single shred of evidence, direct or
>> indirect, it will NEVER be considered a possibility by science.
>
> Firstly, there *is* evidence for the existence of God of a subjective
> and usually personal nature. None of that you'll accept. That's fine,
> just thought I'd point that out.
Yes, subjective evidence - Hearsay in a legal environment.
>
> Now if we take evidence that you *will* accept to mean evidence that
> would also be accepted by the scientific method, then that's
> meaningless. Why? Because science is only concerned with the natural
> world. It automatically excludes the intervention of supernatural
> beings.
Which you are assuming to exist.
> If we assume that God is a supernatural being, and that
> "divine intervention" is also inherently supernatural, then science
> *must* exclude it.
Just an assumption. Just like my leprachauns which are undectable by
science.
> Anything that does fall into scientific knowledge
> is assumed to be naturalistic by default. God could intervene in a
> naturalistic way in order to be detected, but then science could not
> determine that as evidence for His existence.
So that means there is something god can not do. I guess god is not
omnipotent.
Again this is just an assumption based on the ever changing subjective
definition of a myth.
>
> This is why the excuse, "I'll believe in God if scientific evidence is
> shown for His existence," is essentially a sham. Science will *never*
> provide evidence for God for the reasons mentioned previously.
Because by the definition it can't be found.
> Your
> stance is just an alternative way of saying, "You'll never convince me
> that God exists."
Maybe. But I would LOVE for someone to prove that god exists. It would be a
completely life changing event. I am not resistent to god, I am resistant
to myths and stories.
>
>> >> Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against
>> >> its existence.
>> >>
>> >> That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to
>> >> produce evidence for either position.
>> >
>> > Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does
>> > not necessarily mean that is the case.
>>
>> No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
>
> Define what "more plausible" is? You've already set out your stall
> that you will only accept scientific evidence. I've shown that
> scientific evidence of the supernatural will not be forthcoming. Thus,
> any evidence presented to you, either now or in the future, will
> automatically fall outside of the goalposts you have created and be
> rejected.
Plausible: the simplest explanation is the most likely.
My explanation, that it does not exist, is more likely then yours which
requires a half dozen assumptions and circular support using the subjective
definitions you have assigned to the matters in question.
>
> None of this is meant as a personal attack. I'm just highlighting the
> basic differences that mean that theist vs atheist debates will
> probably rage on forever.
I am not making a personal attack either. And I enjoyed this discussion.
You are able to believe things before evidence is found. I require evidence
before I believe.
Weatherwax
regards
> to "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark. There is a
> reason why no evidence can ever be asserted validating or
> discrediting a god, most commonly that god being the Christian
> for this. The idea is that all existence is under the direct
and
> complete control of the concept we are attempting to validate.
> All empirical evidence is a segment of that existence. Due to
> this any empirical evidence, since it is also supposedly under
> direct control, is easily removable if willed by that concept.
> God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
> claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be
> countered by "God doesn't want any evidence." Its a
> loophole necessitated by the premise, and as such there is
> no way around it. Its all just bad logic, nothing more.
> However even if you cant disprove a god's existence, this
> does not mean you cant show its irrelevance considerably
> more effectively. But that is another debate, regardless
> I am curious if anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT
> method to get around this?
You appear to be contradicting yourself. You said, "There is a
reason why no evidence can ever be asserted validating or
discrediting a god," but then you limited the context to "the
Christian deity." How can you possibly do this? The argument is
just as legitimate (or illegitimate) for any god whether it be
Ahura Mazda, Zeus or an as yet unenvisioned god.
It has often been pointed out that the person making the claim is
required to present the proof. In some form of twisted logic,
Christians have tried to turn that around and say that the
atheist has to present evidence that God does not exist.
Let's look at that from a personal level: Somebody tells you
that there are several millions of dollars kept in a secret
account. Then you are told that you can legally claim that money
for yourself, it won't cost you much. No proof is given
establishing the existence of the money. There is no way that
you can prove or disprove that the money is there. Should you
take the offer?
Normally the failure to provide proof that the money exists would
in itself be evidence that there is no money. Yet you want to
turn it around and claim that the lack of proof that there is no
god is evidence that God exists. That is insane.
--
Wax
~atheist
news:8e463b73.03060...@posting.google.com:
Ehh, I always considered faith a handicap.
~atheist
LOL.
Chris, you don't really beleive in god. You are just saying you do so you
can pretend to be a christian. You really know that god doesn't exist and
that reality is tough, but you are in denial since you are to weak to cope
with it. It's a common trait.
Weatherwax
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3iADa.31508$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
< CLIP >
> >
> > Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
> > the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
> > the Kraken.
>
> When did I say that I rejected their existence? Please show
> me the quote. We wouldn't want to think that your bold
> accusations of "lying" are hypocritical!
Where did David state that you said you rejected their existence?
I can only find where he said that you rejected their existence,
nowhere does he claim that you stated you rejected their
existence.
Do you reject their existence?
--
Wax
~atheist
news:54eda8cb.0306...@posting.google.com:
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Yes, obviously no evidence can be given for the nonexistent.
>> > However, likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just
>> > as viable.
>>
>> Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
>>
>> So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the
>> moon. If by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
>>
>
> The previous statements do not equal validity, just possibility.
> There is a huge difference, yes leprechauns could be running around on
> the moon but pragmatically speaking that is absolutely absurd. So is
> a God. I never said since you cant disprove god then there is one,
> just that you can not disprove it. Also, the statements that a god
> can not interact with reality or else we could detect the influence is
> based on faulty logic. The idea asserts a duality of body/soul where
> the soul is confined to a level out of a god's control. The problem
> is a god would also have control over consciousness as well since it
> is also just a segment of existence, nothing more. Selective amnesia,
> visual blind spots, whatever could then be maintained. I'm not saying
> that it is happening, just that we have no way in our perceptual
> abilities to transcend to a level where we could collect evidence one
> way or another. Evidence is based on our perception, the premise to a
> god is it control perception so it would then control all evidence.
> It is all absurd, but not impossible.
>
We both know leprachauns do not live on the moon. But since there is a
possibility should we waste our time entertaining that possibility in
scientific circles or even in casual discussion? No.
If you require a baseless subjective definition of something to support
itself, you create a circular argument. Though in no place did you assert
god exists, you can not use a completely subjective characteristic of the
definition of god to prove god exists.
>
>
>> > Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does
>> > not necessarily mean that is the case.
>>
>> No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
>
> Apparently you missed that this last statement you made agrees
> completely with the whole point of my posting.
So a mystical, invisible, undectable being that manipulates matter and the
unvierse for the intention of keeping itself hidden, who's entire defintion
is based on purely subjective, varying, and baseless oppinions is more
likely then that being simply not existing?
> One thing though, our
> assessments of likelihood are based on our perception of existence but
> then that runs into the same problem since it again relies on the very
> existence in question.
We do not require perception to determine likelihood. Math, probablility,
and basic logic of assumption can be used to determine likelihood.
Comparing leprachauns and god would not result in an outcome since they are
too similar (both fairtales)
Comparing nature to a myth will result in a outcome. I require no
assumptions and no self reinforcing characteristics to believe god does not
exists. Theists on the other hand make dozens of baseless assumptions and
metaphysical and philosophical leaps in order to keep god viable.
It's a simple matter of requirements. I require none, you require many.
theballoon
johnmont...@hotmail.com (Blake Brown) wrote:
> The paraphrase I'm making of the above line of reasoning is the claim
> that God has used divine power to remove empirical signs of his
> existence. I would cite the multitudes of believers in the church
50000000 flies eat shit. Prior to some point most of the world
population believed the earth was flat.
> and
> around the world as expert authorities on the truth of Gods's
> existence.
Anyone can claim to be an 'expert' about anything. Quite why someone
would claim to be an 'expert' in something they have no proof even
exists is beyond me.
> Yielding to expert authority
I claim to be an expert authority on Unicorns.
> is an empirical method we
> could not do modern science without.
Yielding to authority is NOT empirical scientific method!
> Plus, miracles happen all around
> the world every day.
A lot of strange things happen every day. Some people attribute a
strange occurrence to the work of God. And call this work a 'miracle'.
> > God's premise then means all evidence is controlled, and all
> > claims saying there is no evidence from an agnostic can be countered
> > by "God doesn't want any evidence."
>
> There is a giant conceptual leap between contemplation of whether or
> not God exists to making conclusions about what God really wants. And
> if God can use his powers to conceal himself, we are bringing a lot of
> attributes into our working concept of God to satisfy the idea we are
> trying to defend.
I see no reason in trying to 'defend' your concept of God... unless you
are trying to impose 'his' will on others. You may well be able to feel
a power and call this God. You cannot expect others to feel the same as
you, we are all different. Some may try to deny what you feel 'exists',
yet they cannot experience what you feel. So, let them blather. Let it
'exist' for you. Neither 'side' can at this moment prove or disprove
anything. So whats the point?
Cheers
theballoon
"The essentials to happiness are something to love, something to do, and
something to hope for." Blake
theballoon
"~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
> completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
> (otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That would
> mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can not
> interact with this universe.
Alas that is pretty much the rationale behind the 'science' of 'dark
matter'.
~atheist
news:bbog18$bv033$2...@ID-144065.news.dfncis.de:
> In article <Xns9390DACAF51F8at...@66.75.162.198>,
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
>> completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
>> (otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That
>> would mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can
>> not interact with this universe.
>
> Alas that is pretty much the rationale behind the 'science' of 'dark
> matter'.
>
Actually, it is the opposite of the dark matter dilema.
Dark matter, which is primarily dust and subatomic particles, do not give
off light and are therefore visibly undectable. However, they exert a
strong gravitational effect on other matter in the solar system.
Since dark matter does interact with the universe it is dectable. We just
can't see it with visible light.
theballoon
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I understand what you are getting at. But consider that in a court of law,
> eyewitness testimony is considered evidence. And many people have personally
> met the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have testified
> to his existence under oath. We also have the records of many eyewitnesses
> from the past. Therefore, the evidence is in favor of the existence of God.
>
> So God can be positively observed, but his non-existence could not be
> observed. The positive observations, corroborated by many witnesses, will
> easily win the case.
In a population of some 6 billion people there will inevitably be a
large number whom have seen some very odd things... real or
hallucinated. Such observations *unless* they can be reproduced at will
repeatedly and under set circumstances have no scientific value.
> The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
> existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons. In
> other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than toward God.
> They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
You are inserting imagined motives, or 'mind-reading'. Quite unecessary.
~atheist
>> cvd...@earthlink.net says...
>> "jon jones" <jonj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1949616c...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
>
>> > Interesting, the thread is about evidence and "proof".
>> > Your proof is just to assert that the contentious
>> > statement is true. First, you have to prove there is a
>> > "God" to meet. Obviously, there is a great deal of
>> > doubt.
>>
>> Actually, all anyone has to do is wait.
>>
>> Here's a helpful thing:
>>
>> Assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong, that there is no God
>> and no Judgment Day. OK. Then I'm living a fantasy, because we'll all
>> just cease to exist when we die. There won't be any consequences to
>> my fantasy. There won't be anything at all! Why should anyone get
>> upset?
In the limited view of yourself there is nothing to get upset about. You
may be wrong and will meet the inevitable fate of nothingness. You may be
right and will meet god.
The upseting part is you do not realize that there is more than yourself.
You help perpetuate religion and the control it exerts over BILLIONS!. The
world has only known religion for the last 20,000 years, and look at all
the wars and death it has brought!
In the context of a single individual religion is fine. In the context of
societies it is a recepie for death, destruction and hate.
>>
>> Now (since you are a sincere, open-minded, and objective seeker after
>> truth) assume for the sake of argument that I'm right, and that God
>> is the God of the Bible, and that we are going to meet him soon and
>> that he really is going to judge and sentence us based on whether or
>> not we strictly obeyed his law, and that the sentence either will be
>> eternal damnation (because no one has obeyed the Bible and are thus
>> guilty of rebellion against their Creator) or eternal bliss (because
>> some have had their sins paid for by the Lord Jesus, and are thus not
>> guilty).
A god that would sentence someone to eternal damnation for not praising him
is a childish insecure deity not worthy or worship.
A god that judges based on actions alone is sincere and just.
Which god do you worship?
Chris Devol
> > cvd...@earthlink.net says...
> > "jon jones" <jonj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1949616c...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
>
> objective seeker after truth", assume that there is a
> "God", and he is Thor, and he is mightily angry
> because you didn't worship him - instead following the
> wimpy Christian god. What will you say then?
So, you don't want to answer the question?
Chris Devol
"Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:NHODa.111652$cO3.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Here:
> When did I say that I rejected their existence?
>
>>Your silence of their existence and the existence
>>of millions of other, completely different, gods
>>that humans have invented over the centuries.
This is the "argument from silence", the fallacy that silence about a thing
implies denial of the thing's existence.
Anyway, he is clearly mentally defective. He says I reject the existence of
other "gods",and in the same sentence notes that humans invented those
"gods". Hello? He says they don't exist, but criticizes me for (he claims)
not believing in their existence! He is suffering from brain damage due to
psychosis, probably in association with an anti-Christian cult of some kind.
> Do you reject their existence?
I have not been silent about this. You can look up some of my other posts.
There are many demons masquerading as "gods". They exist. They are evil
spirits. They are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with their
followers. As Scripture says:
Rev.21.8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
Chris Devol
My position is Biblical. Yours is not.
I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which to find the
truth about life. You do not.
Sorry you're so bitter and angry. But it's your own fault.
Pope Dilbert
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jwNDa.1146$qd3...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Because people like you want to convince (and some even demand) that your
beliefs be followed. As long as you kep your beliefs to yourselfr, then no
one else really has anything to argue about.
>
> Now (since you are a sincere, open-minded, and objective seeker after
truth)
> assume for the sake of argument that I'm right, and that God is the God of
> the Bible, and that we are going to meet him soon and that he really is
> going to judge and sentence us based on whether or not we strictly obeyed
> his law, and that the sentence either will be eternal damnation (because
no
> one has obeyed the Bible and are thus guilty of rebellion against their
> Creator) or eternal bliss (because some have had their sins paid for by
the
> Lord Jesus, and are thus not guilty).
OK .... since you are pretending to be rational ....
The reality is - there are trillions and trillions .... in fact, probably an
infinate number of things mankind can imagine.
What those things have in common with your bible, your god, and your claims
... none of them have ANY evidence.
Why, then, should anyone ASSUME your one out of all those other imaginary
things?
Why don't you assume there are pixies? Why don't you assume Pele exists? Why
don't you assusme Martians created life on this earth? Why don't you assume
Peter Pasn and Tinkerbell exist .... etc. etc. etc.?
>
> Can you "prove" either possiblilty right now with some "scientific"
> experiment? Of course not. Both possibilities are mere "assertions" about
> God. But which one has more serious consequences if it is true? Which one
> bears more serious consideration?
None. They are all the same!
If I tell you I believe in two gods .. "Tinkerbell,", and "Tinkerbitch".
If you follow Tinkerbell, you will lead a good life here and in the here
after.
If you follow Tinkerbitch, you will live a corrupt, horrible life now ..
.and turn into a republiocan in the hereafter.
There is JUST as much evidencfe for my claims as yours.
Now!
Give me ONE good reason why you are NOT following my scenario - to follow
Tinkerbell and not Tinkerbitch! Obviously, the consequences DEMAND you make
the right choice!
>
> Maybe you've heard this type of argument before. What is your solution to
> this very grave dilemma?
It is not a grave dilema just because YOU believe in one particular fairy
tale?
Since you apparently are not goiong to believe in my fairy tale .. then
you're going to have one hell of a problem when you die and meet
Tinkerbitch!
BTW ...taht argument is also a fraud because one does NOT believe in god
just to be safe.......just in case!
>
> > > A person's doubt isn't able to banish reality. We are all going to
meet
> God
> > > very soon. It is absolutely certain, and there is nothing that can
stop
> it.
> > > It is going to happen.
> >
> > As it is "absolutely certain", perhaps you can bless
> > us with some objective and credible evidence - hey,
> > even one piece thereof.
>
> All you have to do is wait.
Boy ... Tinkerbitch is going to have your ass in a sling!!!!!!!
>
> > > If someone is absolutely confident in his belief that there is no God,
> my
> > > remarks should not have any negative effect on him. But if there is a
> grain
> > > of truth left in him,
> >
> > Did you really mean to say that people who don't
> > believe in your "God" do not have a "grain of truth
> > left in [them]?"
>
> People who hate God are followers of Satan, in whom is no truth
whatsoever.
> Their conscience is seared, their spirit is dead. Romans 1 and 3.
There is just as much evidence for your fantasy Satan as their is for your
fantasy god: NONE!
theballoon
"~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope. What you are observing are unexpected galaxy rotation curves. You
are not detecting 'dark matter'. You are in effect guessing as to the
cause of this rotation... 'dark matter'... and then describing
properties of this 'substance' you have not detected... ie more
guessing. It would be just as well to postulate a new force, or a giant
cosmic toad! Scientists hate admitting they don't know almost as much as
they hate 'being' wrong. But we don't know is the best we can do at the
moment.
~atheist
He assumes based on the christian dogma that you do not believe in any
other gods but the christian god.
Therefore you do not beleive in Thor, Ra, etc...
Would you not admit that these gods were created by man?
If you would, then what seperates your god from all the rest?
The only thing that makes the christian god "real" over Zeus, Ahura Mazda
etc.. is that christianity is a currently practiced religion. In a few
hundred years the christian god will become as much as a myth as all of the
other old world gods.
~atheist
news:bbojkc$ame68$1...@ID-144065.news.dfncis.de:
At one time this was true, but since the new high energy space observatory
was put up we have a much better idea of what compromises dark matter. The
majority is hydrogen, dust and subatomic particles.
> It would be just as well to postulate a new force, or a
> giant cosmic toad! Scientists hate admitting they don't know almost as
> much as they hate 'being' wrong. But we don't know is the best we can
> do at the moment.
We do not understand the full implications of dark matter, but it is no
longer the mystery it was a decade ago.
~atheist
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9391742885F09at...@66.75.162.198...
>> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:jzMDa.32308$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns93917C60309ath...@66.75.162.198...
>> >> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> >> news:B7yDa.34602$Io.29...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >> [SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject
>> >> > the existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific,
>> >> > reasons. In other words, atheists deliberately look away from
>> >> > rather than toward God. They know full well what they are
>> >> > ignoring, too.
>> >>
>> >> How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive in god?
>> >
>> > By being in denial. It's a common trait.
>> >
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> Chris, you don't really beleive in god. You are just saying you do so
>> you can pretend to be a christian. You really know that god doesn't
>> exist and that reality is tough, but you are in denial since you are
>> to weak to cope with it. It's a common trait.
>
> My position is Biblical. Yours is not.
Ofcourse not, I choose rationality and logic many years ago.
> I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which to find
> the truth about life.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. You dumb shithead. You have a book of stories based on
ignorant power hungry theists that can not be corroborated or proved to be
the word of god, or of any other infallible source. The mere fact that so
many of the accounts in the different books contradict each other is proof
it is not infallible.
> You do not.
Because I have long ago realized that you can not make an intellgient
conclusion based on uncorroborated hearsay. One day I hope you can make
that connection.
>
> Sorry you're so bitter and angry. But it's your own fault.
You are arrogant and ignorant... it's your own fault.
The original problem I had is with your INCREDIBLE arrogance to assume that
you know why I am an athiest, or to presume you know what I believe.
"In other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than toward
God. They know full well what they are ignoring, too. "
I choose to look away from god as much as I choose to look away from the
tooth fairy. I HAVE NO MOTIVATION TO WASTE MY TIME WORSHIPING A
FAIRYTALE!!! It is not an embrace of things anti-god it is a non-belief in
the idea of an anthromorphic sky daddy that choose not to be seen.
theballoon
"~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The only thing that makes the christian god "real" over Zeus, Ahura Mazda
> etc.. is that christianity is a currently practiced religion. In a few
> hundred years the christian god will become as much as a myth as all of the
> other old world gods.
Well... I predict faiths with significant spiritual/silent aspects, ie
the personal solitary path to God, will survive, including Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism and possibly Judaism. Religious aspects will die
given we live in a civilised enough society, and have surpassed the old
law in terms of morality and psychological understanding.
~atheist
news:bbokr8$bj4kq$1...@ID-144065.news.dfncis.de:
> In article <Xns939189A29DDFEat...@66.75.162.201>,
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The only thing that makes the christian god "real" over Zeus, Ahura
>> Mazda etc.. is that christianity is a currently practiced religion.
>> In a few hundred years the christian god will become as much as a
>> myth as all of the other old world gods.
>
> Well... I predict faiths with significant spiritual/silent aspects, ie
> the personal solitary path to God, will survive, including
> Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and possibly Judaism. Religious
> aspects will die given we live in a civilised enough society, and have
> surpassed the old law in terms of morality and psychological
> understanding.
>
I agree in so much that religion itself is such an important part of life
that it will not die out entirely any time soon.
But just like all of the other countless gods that have existed the
christian one will die too. The time frame may take longer, but that is
only due to the number of people who believe.
One religion will evolve into another and the christian god will be
replaced by a more logical god that is even more difficult to dispute.
Weatherwax
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible by using it (and
> only it) as a symbol of calling on God to be witness to
> that is supposed to come upon someone who may be
> Bible, that is supposed to be the standard by which testimony
> is measured. It is the omniscience of God, the God of the
> Bible, that is supposed to be the detector of perjury.
>
> way by courts of law throughout the history of western
> civilization is an implicit admission by those courts and their
> governing authorities that the Bible is truth. There is no way
> around this. The Bible has been accepted and approved as
> truth by the courts of the land.
Acturally an oath on the Bible is not required. A simple
affirmation is sufficient. That is true in any court in the
United States. In a court of law, the testimony of an atheist
holds just as much legal weight as that of a Christian.
< CLIP >
> Actually, though, God created spirits, which are not,
> strictly speaking, "natural". It's very hard to point to a
> spirit. But I'm being a little pedantic. Your point is right.
Do you know what a spirit is?
The word "spirit" comes to us from the Latin word "spiritus"
which means "moving air" such as "wind" or "breath". The verb
form is "sparare" which means "to breath". In modern English the
word "inspire" means "inhale", and "expire" mean "exhale". Many
ancients cultures, including the Hebrew, felt that air had a
mystical and devine quality to it. After all, it is air which
gives a person life:
Genesis 2:7
The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the
ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and the man became a living being.
The Greek equivalen of "Spiritus" is "pneuma" (Strong's #4151.)
We see "pneuma" as the root for "pneumonia" which is a desease of
the lungs, and "pneumatic" which means "filled with air," or "air
powered."
The KJV often translates "pneuma" as "Ghost", which is really
horrible. Even the translation as "spirit" is misleading because
it has taken on meanings which it did not have to the writers of
the Bible.
In John 20 you can see that the "Holy Ghost" or "Holy Spirit" is
really nothing more than Jesus' breath:
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them,
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
In Acts 2:1-4, it is the wind from the sky which fills the
disciples with the Holy Ghost.
The Hebrew equivalent is "ruwach" (Strong's #07306). Like
"pneuma" and "spiritus", it also means "wind" or "breath". In
the KJV Genesis 1:2 says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face
of the waters." However, some translations such as the JPS
Tanach and the NRSV, will read "breath" or "wind".
--
Wax
theballoon
"~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or religious beliefs will become increasingly difficult to categorise,
the spiritual aspects of many current and past faith systems being
surprisingly similar, but that is a long way off, first dogmatism must
die.
> and the christian god will be
> replaced by a more logical god that is even more difficult to dispute.
:-)
Why bother?
~atheist
news:bboloh$bj4kq$2...@ID-144065.news.dfncis.de:
There will always be different categories and sects.
I wonder what it would be like with a single global religion?
>
>> and the christian god will be
>> replaced by a more logical god that is even more difficult to
>> dispute.
>
>:-)
> Why bother?
Just the way it is.
Pope Dilbert
Obviously you too WAY too much prozac!
It is not the "determiner" of
> anything. It is only the naming and classifying of observed physical
> sensory phenomena. Science is an effect, not a cause.
Science is neither an effect or cause; it is a field of study where facts
and evidence are collected - and conclusions made from those facts and
evidence.
>
> God, on the other hand, is the cause of all causes except himself, and is
> not an effect of anything.
God, without supportive evidence, is nothing!
David
> "Dave Oldridge"
> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote
>
>> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>> "Dave Oldridge"
>>> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca>
>>> wrote
>>>
>>> Courts have affirmed the truth of the Bible
>>> by using it (and only it) as a symbol of
>>> calling on God to be witness to sworn
>>> testimony. It is
>
>> This is a classic non sequitur fallacy.
>
>>> the fear of God, the God of the Bible, that
>>> is supposed to come upon someone who may be
>>> contemplating perjury. It is the truth of
>>> God, the God of the Bible, that is supposed
>>> to be the standard by which testimony is
>>> measured. It is the omniscience of God, the
>>> God of the Bible, that is supposed to be
>>> the detector of perjury.
>
>> Certainly the Bible teaches that perjury is
>> not only a crime, but a sin against man and
>> against God. But that doesn't mean we can
>> infer from our cultural use of it that it is
>> actually true. Only that a lot of people
>> think so. (Doesn't make it untrue either).
>
> the courts' use of the Bible proved that the
Your words; "Courts have affirmed the truth of the
Bible by using it..."...
Since you have to lie about your own words, I
doubt the rest was worth reading. Why do
christians like you have to lie so much?
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
David
> "jon jones" <jonj...@aol.com> wrote
>
>>> "Dave Oldridge" wrote
>>>
>>>> "Chris Devol" wrote in
>>
>>>>>>> You have turned away from him. But
>>>>>>> you are going to meet him soon.
>
>>>>>> This is a particularly distasteful
>>>>>> form of argumentum ad baculum. And
>>>>>> you are hardly likely to frighten an
>>>>>> atheist with threats of divine
>>>>>> punishment from a deity he doesn't
>>>>>> believe to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is no threat. I have no personal
>>>>> grudge against these atheists. But
>>>>> he, and everyone alive, is going to
>>>>> meet God very soon. There is no doubt
>>>>> about it.
>>
>> Interesting, the thread is about evidence and
>> "proof". Your proof is just to assert that
>> the contentious statement is true. First, you
>> have to prove there is a "God" to meet.
>> Obviously, there is a great deal of doubt.
>
Why wait when you can know the truth now? Your
gods are an anthropomorphic fantasy. They are
nothing more than characters in a book.
I snipped your version of Pascal's Wager since
it's a suckers bet.
David
> with some "scientific" experiment?
Yes. Shit in one hand, pray with the other, and
see which one fills up first.
David
>
> Nope. "Science" is a human belief system. It is
> not the "determiner" of anything. It is only
> the naming and classifying of observed
> physical sensory phenomena. Science is an
> effect, not a cause.
Science is none of the above. Science is a method
of inquiry.
> God, on the other hand, is the cause of all
> causes except himself, and is not an effect of
> anything.
Before you can make that claim, you need to prove
the god exists.
David
> "Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote
>
>> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>
>>> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in
>>> message Your silence of their existence and
>>> the existence of millions of other,
>>> completely different, gods that humans have
>>> invented over the centuries.
>
> This is the "argument from silence", the
> fallacy that silence about a thing implies
> denial of the thing's existence.
In your case, it does. It's not an "argument from
silence", whatever that is, since you've made
various claims about the christian gods to the
exclusion of other gods.
> I have not been silent about this....
Yes, you have. They are gods, not demons. Others
believed in their gods just as strongly as you
believe in yours. There is no difference since
they are all just human inventions.
Pope Dilbert
"Andrew" <ah_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27eaec6.03060...@posting.google.com...news:<Xns9390DACAF51F8at...@66.75.162.198>...
> > EyesA...@email.com (EyesAreOpen91) wrote in
> > news:54eda8cb.03060...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > Yes, obviously no evidence can be given for the nonexistent. However,
> > > likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
> >
> > Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
> >
> > So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the moon.
If
> > by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
>
> However, I point out further down this post that you are indulging in
> a bit of dice loading as well.
>
> > > All evidence we have is based on empirical experience, all
> > > experience is based on our immediate perception of our environment.
> > > To say there is nothing that can control our experience BASED on those
> > > same experiences is impossible.
> >
> > If whatever that force is, that could control us, does exist and is
> > completely undectable, then it does not interact with this universe
> > (otherwise it would effect the universe and could be measured). That
would
> > mean that the force is incapable of controling us, since it can not
> > interact with this universe.
> >
> > wont, interact.
>
> No paradox exists here. You are assuming that if the supernatural
> interaction was detectable it would automatically be recognised as a
> supernatural event. Seeing as science is only concerned with the
> natural, it can't be used to detect the supernatural. Any supernatural
> influence detected by science would be considered natural by default.
> Are you seeing the problem here?
>
> > > We presuppose our own experience of
> > > negation as being valid when we deny a god, even though the main point
> > > being debated is that the concept in question controls those
> > > experiences of negation.
> >
> > So if leprachauns do live on the moon, and by the definition I give
them,
> > can not be dectable, we should entertain that possibility over the fact
> > that the moon is a barren desert?
> >
> > Your entire definition of god is based on mythological stories and the
> > oppinions of religious teachers. The fact that no two christians can
come
> > up with a consistent definition of god IS proof that none of you know.
>
> That's because it's impossible to limit a supremely powerful being to
> sit easily within the confines of human reason and language. We can
> approximate, and with approximations come disagreements.
>
> > > While the idea sounds absurd that there is
> > > something controlling our perceptions, we can never give EVIDENCE to
> > > the contrary.
> >
> > Please note the paradox I pointed out above.
> >
> > > The premise of a god invalidates empirical evidence,
> > > mind you the only evidence we as good old carbon bags can ever attain,
> > > and as such no evidence will ever be solidly grounded as disproof.
> >
> > Again, this is based on the "logic" you presented in the paradox above.
> >
> > > It
> > > is impossible to move it from the realm of hypotheticals to undeniable
> > > proofs.
> >
> > It is impossible because there is NO PROOF or evidence of any kind!!
> > And until someone finds a single shred of evidence, direct or indirect,
it
> > will NEVER be considered a possibility by science.
>
> Firstly, there *is* evidence for the existence of God of a subjective
> and usually personal nature. None of that you'll accept. That's fine,
> just thought I'd point that out.
There is subjective evidence for Thor, Odin, Leprichans, and even flying
saucers.
That is NOT the same as having OBJECTIVE evidence .. such as the kind that
science uses.
>
> Now if we take evidence that you *will* accept to mean evidence that
> would also be accepted by the scientific method, then that's
> meaningless. Why? Because science is only concerned with the natural
> world. It automatically excludes the intervention of supernatural
> beings. If we assume that God is a supernatural being, and that
> "divine intervention" is also inherently supernatural, then science
> *must* exclude it. Anything that does fall into scientific knowledge
> is assumed to be naturalistic by default. God could intervene in a
> naturalistic way in order to be detected, but then science could not
> determine that as evidence for His existence.
Which, although it sounds like a "Catch-22" shell game is true.
The ONLY reason science doesn;t accept any ogd is, there is no evidence.
As soon as ANYONE comes up with valid, scientific, objective evidence FOR
any god ... it will be included as a scientific reality.
>
> This is why the excuse, "I'll believe in God if scientific evidence is
> shown for His existence," is essentially a sham.
No. It isn't.
It's a reality based concept that does not allow for fantasy speculation
about anything unproven.
The sham is to claim god's existence, then use shell game, fraudulent,
excuses as to why there is NO real and valaid evidence of a god!
It's equivalent to the ignorance that claims - in effect - the wrong type of
people cannot "see" god.
Science will *never*
> provide evidence for God for the reasons mentioned previously. Your
> stance is just an alternative way of saying, "You'll never convince me
> that God exists."
Wrong again.
It is another way of saying ...in spite of your claims and bellowing, you do
not have any valid evidence to support your claims about god...and it's very
unlikely you will ever have such evidence.
Again, if god is ever "proven" science will accept that as a scientific fact
.. and move on from there; just as science has incorporated all learning.
>
> > >> Something that does not exist can not have evidence for or against
its
> > >> existence.
> > >>
> > >> That explain why no theist or atheist has ever been able to produce
> > >> evidence for either position.
> > >
> > > Because of this, yes nonexistence would explain it but that does not
> > > necessarily mean that is the case.
> >
> > No, it does not. But it is more plausible, and therefore more likely.
>
> Define what "more plausible" is? You've already set out your stall
> that you will only accept scientific evidence. I've shown that
> scientific evidence of the supernatural will not be forthcoming.
Ahhh... but you stradle the line between supernatural, and natural, to make
a fraudulent argument.
IF god is, indeed, supernatural ... then you do not have the ability to know
.. speculate, or even GUESS that a god exists. (The same irrational logic
you use against scientific knowledge of the supernatural MUST be used
agasint any claims about what YOU know.)
Thus,
> any evidence presented to you, either now or in the future, will
> automatically fall outside of the goalposts you have created and be
> rejected.
No. God can be evidenced, and, if so, be accepted by science and those who
accept valid evidence.
Since there IS no valid scientific evidence, there is NO reason to assume
ANY god exists - since you cannot "know" such things without valid evidence!
>
> None of this is meant as a personal attack. I'm just highlighting the
> basic differences that mean that theist vs atheist debates will
> probably rage on forever.
Since it is reasonable to asume ... since no evidence was ever found for ANY
other god .. no evidence will be found for "this" god ... yet zealous
believers will still claim to know the unknowable!
David
> The human condition longs for Him.
No, it doesn't.
> We were made for Him.
No, we weren't.
> Ergo: we have a deep abiding desire to KNOW
> Him...
Why do you people invent such inane arguments?
Pope Dilbert
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > > The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject the
> > > existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific, reasons.
> > > In other words, atheists deliberately look away from rather than
> > > toward God. They know full well what they are ignoring, too.
> >
> > How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive in god?
>
> By being in denial. It's a common trait.
You cannot deny something that hasn't been supported by any evidence!
or ... by being a common trait .. I hope you include YOUR denial of the
thousands of other gods that have peppered mankind's history.
David
>
> My position is Biblical. Yours is not. I have
> an infallible, inerrant source of authority by
> which to find the truth about life. You do not.
The bible is not infallible, nor is it inerrant.
You BELIEVE it to be true, but you have nothing to
prove it is and much to prove it isn't.
Pope Dilbert
"EyesAreOpen91" <EyesA...@email.com> wrote in message
news:54eda8cb.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > > likewise the other side of the argument ultimately is just as viable.
> >
> > Because u can't disprove something automatically means it exists?
> >
> > So I guess by that logic, invisibile leprachauns could live on the moon.
If
> > by their own definition they can not be detected by humans.
> >
>
> There is a huge difference, yes leprechauns could be running around on
> the moon but pragmatically speaking that is absolutely absurd. So is
> a God. I never said since you cant disprove god then there is one,
> just that you can not disprove it. Also, the statements that a god
> can not interact with reality or else we could detect the influence is
> based on faulty logic. The idea asserts a duality of body/soul where
> the soul is confined to a level out of a god's control. The problem
> is a god would also have control over consciousness as well since it
> is also just a segment of existence, nothing more. Selective amnesia,
> visual blind spots, whatever could then be maintained. I'm not saying
> that it is happening, just that we have no way in our perceptual
> abilities to transcend to a level where we could collect evidence one
> way or another. Evidence is based on our perception, the premise to a
> god is it control perception so it would then control all evidence.
> It is all absurd, but not impossible.
So is the theoretical speculation that we are all nothing more than a dream
that some butterfly is having.
Weatherwax
"Blake Brown" <johnmont...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< CLIP >
>
> The paraphrase I'm making of the above line of reasoning
> is the claim that God has used divine power to remove
> empirical signs of his existence. I would cite the multitudes
> of believers in the church and around the world as expert
> authorities on the truth of Gods's existence. Yielding to
> expert authority is an empirical method we could not do
> modern science without. Plus, miracles happen all around
> the world every day.
"Argument by authority" (aka "argumentum ad verecundiam") is a
well known logical fallacy, particularly when authorities in the
field are not in agreement.
Modern science is not based upon authority. That went out with
scholasticism. Scientists base their claims upon experimental
data which is observable and repeatable.
--
Wax
Pope Dilbert
> > "EyesAreOpen91" <EyesA...@email.com> wrote:
> > > All this debate with individuals yelling at each other in
> > > regards to "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark.
> > > There is a reason why no evidence can ever be asserted
> > > validating or discrediting a god, most commonly that god
> > > being the Christian deity in this context.
> >
> > I understand what you are getting at. But consider that in a
> > court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered evidence.
> > And many people have personally met the Lord Jesus Christ,
> > who is the "Christian deity", and have testified to his
> existence
> > under oath. We also have the records of many eyewitnesses
> > from the past. Therefore, the evidence is in favor of the
> > existence of God.
In court, eyewitness testimony is the LEAST trustworthy.
In court, eyewitness testimony applies to things KNOWN to be or happen.
In history, eyewitness testimony follows the same standards.
If an eyewitness wrote that he saw George Washington crossing the Delaware
in a boat ... that would be accepted as probable.
If a person wrote that he saw George Washington crossing the Delaware by
flapping his arms and flying . that would be considered ludicrous - and the
"eyewitness" laughed out of court!
Weatherwax
regards
> to "Where is your proof!" really is off the mark. There is a
> reason why no evidence can ever be asserted validating or
> discrediting a god, most commonly that god being the
> the reason for this. The idea is that all existence is under
> the direct and complete control of the concept we are
> attempting to validate. All empirical evidence is a segment
> of that existence. Due to this any empirical evidence, since
> it is also supposedly under direct control, is easily removable
> if willed by that concept. God's premise then means all
> evidence is controlled, and all claims saying there is no
> evidence from an agnostic can be countered by "God
> doesn't want any evidence." Its a loophole necessitated
> by the premise, and as such there is no way around it. Its
> all just bad logic, nothing more. However even if you
> cant disprove a god's existence, this does not mean you
> cant show its irrelevance considerably more effectively.
> But that is another debate, regardless I am curious if
> anyone thinks they have an INTELLIGENT method to
> get around this?
The philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew once told a story about
two explorers. I don't have a copy of the story, but it went
something like this:
Two explorers were traveling through the desert when they came
upon an oasis. It was exceptionally beautiful and the first
explorer commented on how remarkable it was that this oasis could
exist without anyone to care for it.
The second explorer said that it wasn't remarkable at all because
the beauty and design of the oasis was proof that there must be a
gardener who cares for it.
The two argued it out for hours, and then decided to wait where
they were until the gardener showed up. After several days of
this waiting the first explorer pointed out that the oasis was
just as beautiful as ever, yet there was no sign that a gardener
had been there, nor had they seen one.
The second explorer said that was because the gardener is
invisible and does not leave signs of his presence.
After several more hours of argument, they decided to bring in
listening and detection devices. They even brought in dogs to
sniff the gardener out. After several days of waiting the first
explorer pointed out that the oasis was just as beautiful as
ever, yet they have been unable to detect the presence of a
gardener.
The second explorer said that was because the gardener is of such
a nature that he cannot be detected by devices or by animals.
The two explorers argued it out for hours, and then decided to
place a fence around the oasis, thus preventing the gardener from
entering. After several days of waiting the first explorer
pointed out that the oasis was just as beautiful as ever, yet
there was no way that the gardener could have entered the oasis
because the fence would have stopped him.
The second explorer said that was because the gardener is of such
a nature that he can pass through the fence without harm to
himself or the fence.
Anthony Flew ended his story by having the first explorer ask the
second one how his gardener differs from no gardener at all. Of
course the real question is: How does God differ from the
gardener?
Flew's point was that theists invented a god whose existence
could not be proved because that was the only type of god whose
existence could not be disproved.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
> > > >
> > > > Another lie. I "reject the existence" of your god
> > > > the same way you reject the existence of Thor, or
> > > > the Kraken.
> > >
> > > When did I say that I rejected their existence? Please
> > > show me the quote. We wouldn't want to think that
> > > your bold accusations of "lying" are hypocritical!
> >
> > Where did David state that you said you rejected their
> > existence? I can only find where he said that you
> > rejected their existence, nowhere does he claim that
> > you stated you rejected their existence.
>
> Here:
>
> > When did I say that I rejected their existence?
> >
> >>of millions of other, completely different, gods
> >>that humans have invented over the centuries.
>
> This is the "argument from silence", the fallacy that silence
> about a thing implies denial of the thing's existence.
>
> the existence of other "gods",and in the same sentence
> notes that humans invented those "gods". Hello? He says
> they don't exist, but criticizes me for (he claims) not
> believing in their existence! He is suffering from brain
> damage due to psychosis, probably in association with
> an anti-Christian cult of some kind.
>
>
> I have not been silent about this. You can look up some
> of my other posts. There are many demons masquerading
> as "gods". They exist. They are evil spirits. They are going
> to end up in the Lake of Fire along with their followers.
> As Scripture says:
>
> Rev.21.8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
> abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
> sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part
> in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
> which is the second death.
You call David mentally defective when you are the one who lives
in a phantom world of demons, evil spirits and sorcerers. I bet
that when you were a kid you had trouble sleeping at night with
all those ghosts and bogey men around.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
> Chris Devol wrote:
> > "Weatherwax" <weath...@worldnet.net> wrote
> >
> >> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >>> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in
> >>> message Your silence of their existence and
> >>> the existence of millions of other,
> >>> completely different, gods that humans have
> >>> invented over the centuries.
> >
> > This is the "argument from silence", the
> > fallacy that silence about a thing implies
> > denial of the thing's existence.
>
> In your case, it does. It's not an "argument from
> silence", whatever that is, since you've made
> various claims about the christian gods to the
> exclusion of other gods.
>
> > I have not been silent about this....
>
> Yes, you have. They are gods, not demons. Others
> believed in their gods just as strongly as you
> believe in yours. There is no difference since
> they are all just human inventions.
Just think Chris: In somebody else's religion, your god could be
the demon. Imagine, you could end up spending an eternity of
torture because you ignorantly worshipped the wrong god.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
"Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > >>
> > >> [SNIP]
> > >>
> > >> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists,
> > >> > who reject the existence of God for psychological,
> > >> > rather than scientific, reasons. In other words,
> > >> > atheists deliberately look away from rather than
> > >> > toward God. They know full well what they are
> > >> > ignoring, too.
> > >>
> > >> How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive
> > >> in god?
> > >
> > > By being in denial. It's a common trait.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Chris, you don't really beleive in god. You are just saying
> > you do so you can pretend to be a christian. You really
> > know that god doesn't exist and that reality is tough, but
> > you are in denial since you are to weak to cope with it.
>
> I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which
> to find the truth about life. You do not.
>
How do we know that you really believe that? It could be that
you are just in denial.
--
Wax
Dave Oldridge
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9391742885F09at...@66.75.162.198...
>> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:jzMDa.32308$rO.29...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns93917C60309ath...@66.75.162.198...
>> >> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> >> news:B7yDa.34602$Io.29...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >> [SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> > The problem is prejudice on the part of the atheists, who reject
>> >> > the existence of God for psychological, rather than scientific,
>> >> > reasons. In other words, atheists deliberately look away from
>> >> > rather than toward God. They know full well what they are
>> >> > ignoring, too.
>> >>
>> >> How the fuck can someone be an atheist, yet beleive in god?
>> >
>> > By being in denial. It's a common trait.
>> >
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> Chris, you don't really beleive in god. You are just saying you do so
>> you can pretend to be a christian. You really know that god doesn't
>> exist and that reality is tough, but you are in denial since you are
>> to weak to cope with it. It's a common trait.
>
> My position is Biblical. Yours is not.
> I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which to find
> the truth about life. You do not.
That's pretty presumptive. I mean the Church does hold that the Bible is
inerrant with respect to the the doctrines she has derived from it, but
neither the Bible nor the Church claim the collection is inerrant about
absolutely everything. The most that can be said is that the New
Testament teaches that prophecy is inerrant but not subject to private
interpretation. Which a lot of latter-day Revelation addicts would pay
some heed.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Chris Devol
> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:o9QDa.1176$qd3...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9391742885F09at...@66.75.162.198...
> >>
> >> you can pretend to be a christian. You really know that god doesn't
> >> exist and that reality is tough, but you are in denial since you are
> >> to weak to cope with it. It's a common trait.
> >
> > My position is Biblical. Yours is not.
> > I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which to find
> > the truth about life. You do not.
>
> That's pretty presumptive. I mean the Church does hold that the Bible is
> inerrant with respect to the the doctrines she has derived from it, but
> neither the Bible nor the Church claim the collection is inerrant about
> absolutely everything. The most that can be said is that the New
> Testament teaches that prophecy is inerrant but not subject to private
> interpretation. Which a lot of latter-day Revelation addicts would pay
> some heed.
Everyone has an authority - a repository of words - that he puts his trust
in to provide him with opinions. Those who blindly doubt the truth of the
Bible still must have an authority to consult. It may be their verbalized
"feelings". It may be some cult leader. It may be Madeline O'Hare. It may be
the old-boy network of evolutionist pseudo-scientists. It may be Freud, or
Marx, or Nietzsche. Everyone has an authority from which he gets his
opinions. Mine is the Bible. I get my opinions from the Bible Thus, because
God wrote the Bible, my opinions are God's opinions. This makes them more
than "opinions" in the popular sense of the term. Because they come from the
word of God, they are absolutes. I know so and I say so and I really don't
care who is offended by that. I will accept no other authority, nor will I
"agree to disagree" with anyone who has a different authority from the
Bible.
"If this be presumption, make the most of it"
~atheist
This is pure christian arrogance... nothing more.
Chris Devol
So, what is your authority?
~atheist
Webster's Dictionary.
Dave Oldridge
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> message news:Xns93922A60CC06...@142.77.1.194...
>> "Chris Devol" <cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:o9QDa.1176$qd3...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9391742885F09at...@66.75.162.198...
>> >>
>> >> Chris, you don't really beleive in god. You are just saying you do
>> >> so you can pretend to be a christian. You really know that god
>> >> doesn't exist and that reality is tough, but you are in denial
>> >> since you are to weak to cope with it. It's a common trait.
>> >
>> > My position is Biblical. Yours is not.
>> > I have an infallible, inerrant source of authority by which to find
>> > the truth about life. You do not.
>>
>> That's pretty presumptive. I mean the Church does hold that the
>> Bible is inerrant with respect to the the doctrines she has derived
>> from it, but neither the Bible nor the Church claim the collection is
>> inerrant about absolutely everything. The most that can be said is
>> that the New Testament teaches that prophecy is inerrant but not
>> subject to private interpretation. Which a lot of latter-day
>> Revelation addicts would pay some heed.
>
> Everyone has an authority - a repository of words - that he puts his
> trust in to provide him with opinions. Those who blindly doubt the
> truth of the Bible still must have an authority to consult. It may be
Well, to be a valid doctrine, a proposition like "sola scriptura" needs
to meet its own test of authenticity. It does not. This was pointed out
in the 4th century by Damasus and Jerome when St. Augustine proposed sola
scriptura as a way of mitigating some of the conciliar disputes that were
so common in that day.
> their verbalized "feelings". It may be some cult leader. It may be
> Madeline O'Hare. It may be the old-boy network of evolutionist
> pseudo-scientists. It may be Freud, or Marx, or Nietzsche. Everyone
> has an authority from which he gets his opinions. Mine is the Bible. I
So, your deity is the Bible Almighty and no other gods need apply? I'm
trying to get a picture of your beliefs and praxis here. My own
authority is God, with the Church's traditions (one of which is
scripture) providing the access and some guidelines for understanding.
But ultimately, you know, we are alone with God and must, like Jacob,
wrestle our own angel.
> get my opinions from the Bible Thus, because God wrote the Bible, my
> opinions are God's opinions. This makes them more than "opinions" in
> the popular sense of the term. Because they come from the word of God,
> they are absolutes. I know so and I say so and I really don't care who
> is offended by that. I will accept no other authority, nor will I
> "agree to disagree" with anyone who has a different authority from the
> Bible.
The trouble with getting opinions from the Bible is that you can get just
about any old opinion you can think of from it. To read the Bible is to
interpret it and the thousands of differing sects of Christianity
claiming to follow "sola scriptura" are living proof that differences of
interpretation are not only easy to come by but practically impossible to
avoid.
> "If this be presumption, make the most of it"
The "presumption" arises when we place our own judgement over another's
to the point of being willing to use force to sustain our side. That's
what's wrong with America's "war on drugs." Essentially it's a resort to
force in an argument about what's good to eat, drink, smoke, inject. And
like all resorts to force, it breeds violence. Worse it feeds on the
violence it breeds because its advocates use the fear that accompanies
the violence as an argument to continue doing what's causing it in the
first place.
The RCC did the same thing with the Protestants who challenged her
authority, first by pointing out the immorality of extorting money for
prayers, then by actually changing the doctrines on which the extortion
was based.
Dick Duggan
Andrew wrote:
> No paradox exists here. You are assuming that if the supernatural
> interaction was detectable it would automatically be recognised as a
> supernatural event. Seeing as science is only concerned with the
> natural, it can't be used to detect the supernatural. Any supernatural
> influence detected by science would be considered natural by default.
> Are you seeing the problem here?
I think you've defined terms in such a way to create a false dichotomy. The
problem as I see it is with the word "nature" and its derivatives, so lets
drop them.
Rather than defining science as the effort to understand "nature" and then
limiting the applicability of science to what someone defines as natural, I
think it's more accurate to define science as the effort to understand what
exists. If something is detected then clearly the detected phenomenon
exists (though it may be misinterpreted).
Phonemena which can be detected include both physical & psychological
events.
I something can't be detected ... well ... how can it be distinguished from
fiction?
> Firstly, there *is* evidence for the existence of God of a subjective
> and usually personal nature. None of that you'll accept. That's fine,
> just thought I'd point that out.
I have to agree with you here. Too many atheists IMO are fond of saying
things like "there is absolutely not one iota of evidence for the existence
of any god ...". There is evidence for the existence of gods. I personally
find that all the evidence I've ever seen falls *well* short of being
convincing, but there is evidence.
> Now if we take evidence that you *will* accept to mean evidence that
> would also be accepted by the scientific method, then that's
> meaningless. Why? Because science is only concerned with the natural
> world. It automatically excludes the intervention of supernatural
> beings.
I don't agree with this for the reasons I mentioned above. Science is
concerned with what exists. Science is not concerned with the limits *you*
put on its applicability (no offense intended).
> If we assume that God is a supernatural being, and that
> "divine intervention" is also inherently supernatural, then science
> *must* exclude it.
Nope, disagree. Science *ought* not to exclude anything except bad logic
and bad science.
> Anything that does fall into scientific knowledge
> is assumed to be naturalistic by default.
Yes, but this is just shorthand for saying something was detected and needs
to be investigated, thought about, and (with luck) understood.
> God could intervene in a
> naturalistic way in order to be detected, but then science could not
> determine that as evidence for His existence.
Yup, I agree. This is one of the reasons I find belief in gods illogical!
:-)
> This is why the excuse, "I'll believe in God if scientific evidence is
> shown for His existence," is essentially a sham. Science will *never*
> provide evidence for God for the reasons mentioned previously. Your
> stance is just an alternative way of saying, "You'll never convince me
> that God exists."
Only if God cannot be detected at all by any means. Also, if your god is a
tri-omni god, then He ought to know what it would take to convince me and He
ought to have the power to accomplish it.
- Dick
David
>
> Everyone has an authority - a repository of
> words - that he puts his trust in to provide
Most Atheists would call that "authority";
reality. Which is obviously something you can't
deal with.
thers...@earthlink.net
come when we ALL will see that what we've heard all these years IS
true. Let's just hope you make he correct decision before it's too
late.
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns93922A60CC06...@142.77.1.194>...
Lawrence Seib
> > Chris Devol wrote:
> > > I understand what you are getting at. But
> > > consider that in a court of law, eyewitness
> > > testimony is considered evidence. And many
> > > people have personally met the Lord Jesus
> > > Christ, who is the "Christian deity", and have
> > > testified to his existence under oath. We also
> > > have the records of many eyewitnesses from the
> > > past.
> >
> > would be admitted in a court of law. There are no
> > eye witnesses for anything mentioned in the bible.
> > The book is complete here say. None of the
> > "historians" that mention jesus are writing eye
> > witness accounts.
>
> You are mistaken. Actually, the Bible has been admitted for hundreds of
> years in courts of law as a witness of oaths.
But God causes people to lie just see below:
I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in
the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord
hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie."
Larry
Pope Dilbert
<thers...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:830e3aaf.03060...@posting.google.com...
> The this is, no one HAS to prove anything about God. The time will
> come when we ALL will see that what we've heard all these years IS
> true. Let's just hope you make he correct decision before it's too
> late.
No one can prove anything about god - so that makes your whole claim
meaningelss.
Weatherwax
"Lawrence Seib" <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message >
> > for hundreds of years in courts of law as a witness of oaths.
>
> But God causes people to lie just see below:
>
> I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in
> the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord
> hath spoken evil concerning thee."
>
> II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God
> shall send them strong delusion, that they should
> believe a lie."
>
A lie is considered acceptable if it is for God:
Job 13:7
Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk
deceitfully for him?
--
Wax
Libertarius
theists in general have no clear definition of what they mean by "GOD".
Libertarius
====================
Libertarius
===>The same is also the case with calling the collected works
of Hebrew and Christian authors the "Word of God".
There is NOTHING in "Scriptura" about such a collection having any
divinely ordered legitimacy, nor that such a collection should be
attributed to or called the word of "GOD".
Libertarius
=====================
David
> The this is, no one HAS to prove anything about
> God. The time will come when we ALL will see
> that what we've heard all these years IS true.
> Let's just hope you make he correct decision
> before it's too late.
I already made the correct decision. It seems to
be too late for you though.
EyesAreOpen91
> reason why no evidence can ever be asserted validating or
> Christian deity."
I did not say limited to the context of the Christian deity, i said
"most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context."
not mean that as a restrictive statment but only as a reference point
for those under christian ideas.
> Normally the failure to provide proof that the money exists would
> in itself be evidence that there is no money. Yet you want to
> turn it around and claim that the lack of proof that there is no
> god is evidence that God exists. That is insane.
Most atheists have the same level of belief in the non-existence of
god as religious individuals have in its existence. Just like the
claim of money given , even if they provided no evidence you could
never truly have undeniable proof that the money does not exist from
that alone, likewise no Atheist can ever have undeniable proof a god
does not exist. I personally do not believe god exists, but it is
impossible for me to be absolutely sure. To make that leap to
complete belief is as much of a leap of faith as Christians, or those
under any other religion, take in their own beliefs.
Pope Dilbert
> > reason why no evidence can ever be asserted validating or
> > discrediting a god," but then you limited the context to "the
> > Christian deity."
> I did not say limited to the context of the Christian deity, i said
> "most commonly that god being the Christian deity in this context."
> In other words, most people here refer to the Christian deity, i did
> not mean that as a restrictive statment but only as a reference point
> for those under christian ideas.
>
>
> > Normally the failure to provide proof that the money exists would
> > in itself be evidence that there is no money. Yet you want to
> > turn it around and claim that the lack of proof that there is no
> > god is evidence that God exists. That is insane.
>
> Most atheists have the same level of belief in the non-existence of
> god as religious individuals have in its existence.
No. Atheist lack the belief, since there is no evidence of any god
to"disbelieve" in.
Atheists have a level of understanding and comprehention that includes the
reality that if there is no evidence, there is nothing. That's called common
sense - not belief.
David
>
> Most atheists have the same level of belief in
> the non-existence of god as religious
Which is a fallacy invented only to sooth your own
internal contradictions. Atheism is a lack of
belief, not a belief.
Weatherwax
> > "There is a reason why no evidence can ever be asserted
> > validating or discrediting a god," but then you limited the
> > context to "the Christian deity."
>
> I did not say limited to the context of the Christian deity, i
> said "most commonly that god being the Christian deity in
> this context." In other words, most people here refer to
> the Christian deity, i did not mean that as a restrictive
> statment but only as a reference point for those under
> christian ideas.
The questions of whether there is a god, and whether God exists,
are not the same. It is easy to accept the existence of other
gods but still reject the Christian concept of God. And proving
that there is a god does nothing towards proving that
Christianity has any foundation of truth. When you accept the
Christian concept of God, or the god of any other religion, then
you are also accepting the baggage of beliefs and dogmas which
goes into that religion. Those beliefs and dogmas are equally
unprovable.
>
>
> > Normally the failure to provide proof that the money exists
> > would in itself be evidence that there is no money. Yet
> > you want to turn it around and claim that the lack of proof
> > that there is no god is evidence that God exists. That is
> > insane.
>
> Most atheists have the same level of belief in the
non-existence
> of god as religious individuals have in its existence. Just
like
> the claim of money given , even if they provided no evidence
> you could never truly have undeniable proof that the money
> does not exist from that alone, likewise no Atheist can ever
> have undeniable proof a god does not exist. I personally do
> not believe god exists, but it is impossible for me to be
> absolutely sure. To make that leap to complete belief is as
> much of a leap of faith as Christians, or those under any
> other religion, take in their own beliefs.
Of course you cannot be "absolutely sure". Do you want
mathematical certainty? Or proof through Aristotelian logic?
There is always that possible doubt. It is usually the
Christians who demand absolute proof that there is no God, while
themselves claiming certainty that there is.
The best we can ever hope for is convincing evidence. That does
not mean evidence which is beyond any doubt, but it does mean
evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you have had my experience, then you have received numerous
e-mail letters telling you about money sitting in a foreign bank
that can be yours. If you are like me, you have no doubt that
those letters are part of a con. There is the possibility that
one of them may be genuine, but it would be foolish for you to
accept their word for it. It is up to them to provide the proof.
Their failure to provide proof is all the evidence you need to
know that they are phony.
--
Wax
~atheist
news:MrqEa.190900$ja4.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
[SNIP]
> If you have had my experience, then you have received numerous
> e-mail letters telling you about money sitting in a foreign bank
> that can be yours. If you are like me, you have no doubt that
> those letters are part of a con. There is the possibility that
> one of them may be genuine, but it would be foolish for you to
> accept their word for it. It is up to them to provide the proof.
> Their failure to provide proof is all the evidence you need to
> know that they are phony.
Such a simple concept is lost on theists.
~atheist
news:MPG.194a9f72f...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>> thers...@earthlink.net stupidly op posts and says...
>
>> The this is, no one HAS to prove anything about God. The time will
>> come when we ALL will see that what we've heard all these years IS
>> true. Let's just hope you make he correct decision before it's too
>> late.
>
> I think the others here are right. You know that your
> god doesn't exist, but you are in denial because you
> are afraid to face reality, especially the looming
> reality of your death. And, of course, the more anyone
> points out the problems of your beliefs, the more
> bothered you become, and the more desperate your posts
> become.
>
>
That's what it seems like to me.
Reason
To deny the signs all around and within yourselves is blind faith in
disbelief, everything is running in perfect harmony and in a natural
order. The very example of Order coming forth from the big bang
instead of chaos points to external intervention and a superior being.
To deny is to accept that you yourself are god since you obey your own
laws that the self suggests as being the ultimate truth, your god then
is belief in Matter as an eternal substance.
The looming reality of death does not come as scary to a believer
nor make a man do desparate things, but the exact opposite Death is a
welcoming door openening to a better dimension. To a denier (an
athiest) lets say it is a source of worry is it or is it not the final
whistle, the illusionary thrill of the temporary glitter is the
stronger pull, bred through ignorance of ideas. The desire to worship
is in all mankind, but as to what he turns to is entirely his own
undertaking based on the knowledge he posseses.
~atheist
news:28825b3d.03060...@posting.google.com:
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9393B905...@66.75.162.201>...
>> jon jones <jonj...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.194a9f72f...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>> >> thers...@earthlink.net stupidly op posts and says...
>>
>> >> The this is, no one HAS to prove anything about God. The time will
>> >> come when we ALL will see that what we've heard all these years IS
>> >> true. Let's just hope you make he correct decision before it's too
>> >> late.
>> >
>> > I think the others here are right. You know that your
>> > god doesn't exist, but you are in denial because you
>> > are afraid to face reality, especially the looming
>> > reality of your death. And, of course, the more anyone
>> > points out the problems of your beliefs, the more
>> > bothered you become, and the more desperate your posts
>> > become.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That's what it seems like to me.
>
> To deny the signs all around and within yourselves is blind faith in
> disbelief,
That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in while.
> everything is running in perfect harmony and in a natural
> order.
On our little planet it is, but the majority of all the other know
planetary systems are inhospitable for life. This means that for every few
hospitable planets there should be hundreds of inhospitable ones. This is
the case, our planet was just one of the lucky ones.
> The very example of Order coming forth from the big bang
> instead of chaos points to external intervention and a superior being.
In your limited ability to comprehend physics it may be. But for those who
have actually taken the time to learn, it is not just logical but a fact
of nature that "order" and complexity can arrise from randomness.
> To deny is to accept that you yourself are god since you obey your own
> laws that the self suggests as being the ultimate truth, your god then
> is belief in Matter as an eternal substance.
To deny is to accpet sience and realize that we are not as important as
theists would make it out to be.
No atheist here believes that we are "gods" in a sort of way. Atheists have
more humility and clarity than those who need to pretend that they were
created with divine purpose.
> The looming reality of death does not come as scary to a believer
> nor make a man do desparate things, but the exact opposite Death is a
> welcoming door openening to a better dimension.
Death is the end. Believers had to create an after life to bring comfort to
themselves. Anyone who needs to believe in an afterlife is scared of death.
> To a denier (an
> athiest) lets say it is a source of worry is it or is it not the final
> whistle, the illusionary thrill of the temporary glitter is the
> stronger pull, bred through ignorance of ideas.
An atheist knows that it is, without doubt, the end of the line. I can not
speak for all atheists but I have long ago realized and accepted that death
is the end and it is inevitable. I do not fear death because it is a part
of life.
Theists on the other hand have no proof or logical reason to belive there
is an afterlife. On your death bed you will question wether there is
somethign after. On mine, I know it will be over.
> The desire to worship
> is in all mankind, but as to what he turns to is entirely his own
> undertaking based on the knowledge he posseses.
Which explains the motivation to invent gods. Humans have a desire to
explain the universe and overcome death. They created these fairytales to
comfort their fears and try to bring order to their lives. It's too bad so
many got sucked in.
EyesAreOpen91
alone as proof of its existence, meaning there is no attainable proof
without the presumption of existence. Likewise, there is no way to
collect evidence against a god. (Before more people go on about how I
am trying to back up my own beliefs, I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD) We are not
talking about an object restricted to the physical boundaries of an
invisible yard gnome though, the idea is one much more broad. I'm
guessing almost all atheists do not believe in duality of mind versus
body. The mind is capable of being altered, I would know. I was in a
wreck almost two years ago which caused a massive concussion and
following seizures. Not convulsive, but a hallucinogenic one and, for
lack of a better description, an experience of complete and pure pain.
Lets just say it sucked. After that, mental associations were lost,
phonetics had to be relearned (I could talk as well, but all written
words looked wrong), my memory span lasted about two seconds, and
numerous other problems. The human mind is not out of reach of
physical alteration (regardless of the source), as such no complete
faith can be given to its capabilities. By all of this, I do not mean
I believe in a, or any, god or that I think the theists have an upper
hand in the debate, just that it is a pointless debate. What I am
really getting at is an irritating pattern I've seen too many atheists
exhibiting. When I see atheists sheltering their own ears due to a
theist stating their beliefs the same way a theists shelters theirs to
an atheist, that is when I have a problem. When people shut out ideas
simply because they have the title of "theology" associated with them,
that is when things have gotten out of hand. The best example of this
is from the "Dao of Physics", there are concepts which are just now
coming to the forefront in quantum physics which were covered in that
book but for the longest time all information in that book was ignored
and dismissed simply because it had religious roots (which in truth
weren't even religious in nature at all). Regardless, when people
show prejudice against ideas because of petty titles they are
associated with, that is when a atheist is showing a blind faith in
their ideas simply because that is the theological title they claim
instead.
Pope Dilbert
"Reason" <som...@thehill.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:28825b3d.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "~atheist" <atheist0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9393B905...@66.75.162.201>...
> > jon jones <jonj...@aol.com> wrote in
> > news:MPG.194a9f72f...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com:
> >
> > >> thers...@earthlink.net stupidly op posts and says...
> >
> > >> The this is, no one HAS to prove anything about God. The time will
> > >> come when we ALL will see that what we've heard all these years IS
> > >> true. Let's just hope you make he correct decision before it's too
> > >> late.
> > >
> > > I think the others here are right. You know that your
> > > god doesn't exist, but you are in denial because you
> > > are afraid to face reality, especially the looming
> > > reality of your death. And, of course, the more anyone
> > > points out the problems of your beliefs, the more
> > > bothered you become, and the more desperate your posts
> > > become.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's what it seems like to me.
>
> To deny the signs all around and within yourselves is blind faith in
> disbelief, everything is running in perfect harmony and in a natural
> order.
Raison ... it's not the signs that are being ignored - it's the idiotic
religous claims about those signs!
The very example of Order coming forth from the big bang
> instead of chaos points to external intervention and a superior being.
So the universe tending toward chaos is an indication that there is no god.
BTW ... order and chaos have no real scientific meaning. Thre is no measure,
or meter, or agreed upon standard for either - it's just an opinion.
> To deny is to accept that you yourself are god since you obey your own
> laws that the self suggests as being the ultimate truth, your god then
> is belief in Matter as an eternal substance.
To deny something that has no supportive evidence is reality; to believe in
something that has no supportive evidence is faith - not fact.
> The looming reality of death does not come as scary to a believer
> nor make a man do desparate things, but the exact opposite Death is a
> welcoming door openening to a better dimension.
Speculitiie delusion and wishful thinking!
To a denier (an
> athiest) lets say it is a source of worry is it or is it not the final
> whistle, the illusionary thrill of the temporary glitter is the
> stronger pull, bred through ignorance of ideas.
An atheist does not deny anything, because nothing about god has been
proven.
The desire to worship
> is in all mankind, but as to what he turns to is entirely his own
> undertaking based on the knowledge he posseses.
The desire to worship is equal to the desire, in a child, to have a night
light on ... thinking it's light that actually gives security!
Jim Hutchison
<cvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Since that god is an anthropomorphic fantasy, it
>> is completely irrelevant.
>
>You are, of course, invited to show us you own plan for eternal life.
(Good thread. May I jump in?)
That's presuming there IS life after death. How do you know there is?
Ya, ya - I've read "Life After Life". Oxygen starvation does
strange things to a person's mind. The human imagination can do
amazing things; things that we don't fully understand. Our little
conscious pea-brains try to understand the unexplainable with mythical
entities like gods, angels, and places like heaven and hell. And
purgatory. Whatever happened to THAT place? Funny who fickle
religion can be.
So - it seem you're quite hung up on "eternal life". It's all about
saving your ass for eternity, right? I bet you're just hedging your
bets IN CASE there is a god.
I know. I've done it. I was a devout Christian.
I've since grown up.
What's wrong with just falling asleep for good and never waking up?
I'll tell you why: mankind has construed this myth of reward and
punishment in the after life because he simply can't stand the thought
of 1) not getting rewarded, and 2) someone getting away with murder.
It's a human attribute: a strong sense of justice.
So these religious concepts of eternal life, heaven and hell, reward
and punishment, are there just to make us feel better.
My $0.02.