Does Katrina prove the non-existence of God?
dun...@yahoo.com
It looks like the human toll from Hurricane Katrina will rise above
even Hurricane Camille (from 1969). The current confirmed number of
human casualties numbers 135, with that number expected to rise sharply
in the coming days as more corpses are recovered from the flooded
areas.
As for the economic impact, Katrina will eventually reach above $25
billion in both insured and uninsured damage claims, making it the
costliest hurricane on record.
Katrina made landfall as an extremely strong Category 4 storm, with
maximum sustained winds of 145 mph. Storm surges were in excess of 22
feet in some places along the Gulf Coast.
Paul
Dale
news:1125465938.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Okay, I'm only going to tell you this once, so get it straight.
God sent the hurricane as a test for the faithful and a warning to the
wicked.
People died? God took them home to his bosom. It was their time to go.
They're in a better place now.
People survived? God was looking out for them. It wasn't their time to go.
God has a further purpose for their lives.
And finally, if there's a storm a-comin', and if you want change in your
life, you step out into that storm, and if you make it to the other side,
you will have change in your life. Hallelujah!
Got that? Now memorize it, and don't be asking me again!
Now, my OTHER answer would be, nothing can prove or disprove the existence
of God, but natural disasters prove that in the physical world it doesn't
matter whether there is a God or not.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Good question.
No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
who would not have let it happen.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good question.
>
>
> No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
> who would not have let it happen.
>
other disasters that if a moral agent had allowed them to happen would count
as "atrocities").
I suspect I don't, thank God.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Good question.
>>
>> No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>> who would not have let it happen.
>
> I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
vague.
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Good question.
>>>
>>>No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>>>who would not have let it happen.
>>
>>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
>
>
> I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
> vague.
>
Bobby D. Bryant
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Good question.
>>>>
>>>>No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>>>>who would not have let it happen.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
>>
>> I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
>> vague.
>>
> So you're saying you have no preconceived ideas?
I don't have any idea when my ideas were conceived.
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Good question.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>>>>>who would not have let it happen.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
>>>
>>>I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
>>>vague.
>>>
>>
>>So you're saying you have no preconceived ideas?
>
>
> I don't have any idea when my ideas were conceived.
>
Greywolf
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:_MbRe.124$XY7...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
God-and-hurricanes
stuff. I was just sitting here being befuddled by it all - until you
enlightened me. Thank
you. And, Oh, 'Thank you Lord for not having that hurricane hit us here in
Wisconsin.'
Praise Jesus.
Greywolf
jcon
Pat Robertson has claimed the power to pray hurricanes away:
http://asmallvictory.net/archives/004673.html
but only seems to exercise the power when his own property is
threatened. Maybe if he had some beachfront property on
the Gulf Coast, none of this would have happened...
Maybe God doesn't like Red states (my own theory). Maybe he's got
a new bet going, like Job, to see how much he can piss on people
and still have them lining up to worship Him.
Who knows? If a manager of a McDonalds runs out of fries after
a big rock concert, he'll get reprimanded, maybe even lose his job.
God's landed the only gig in the universe where you get all the credit
and none of the blame. Nice work if you can get it!
-jc
Paul J Gans
>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Good question.
>>
>>
>> No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>> who would not have let it happen.
>>
>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this (and
>other disasters that if a moral agent had allowed them to happen would count
>as "atrocities").
>I suspect I don't, thank God.
Amen brother, Amen!
---- Paul J. Gans
Googler
> Good question.
>
Not really all that good a question - but you are entitled to your
beliefs.
Bob Pease
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1125503943.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
the sinners there,
RJ P
jcon
I've noticed that all the smug religious pundits who were so
giddy about the tsunami are strangely silent now.
-jc
TomS
<1125506869.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, jcon stated..."
I heard a caller to Art Bell over the weekend (before the
hurricane hit) who was strongly suggesting that this was a
warning from God. (I say "strongly suggesting", because this
was too much for Art Bell, who didn't let him finish.)
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"a man who is not sometimes a fool, is always one."
Archdeacon William Paley
AC
As much as my evil atheististic nature would love to say this, I'm afraid it
doesn't. The way that most True Believers view God, he's as distant or as
remote from the real world as belief in Him requires. Just because He's
All-Powerful(tm) doesn't mean he has to do anything with his power other
than save the odd person in a burning tower in New York.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Good question.
>>
>>
>> No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
>> who would not have let it happen.
>>
> I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this (and
> other disasters that if a moral agent had allowed them to happen would count
> as "atrocities").
>
> I suspect I don't, thank God.
Yes, I'm afraid I agree. The Problem of Evil (and its corollary in the
Problem of Heartless, Destructive Nature) is too great a hill for me to
climb. I cannot imagine a God as so many Christians, even those very close
to me, describe, allegedly loving, permitting this kind of destruction. I'm
afraid, despite a sincere desire not to push my own lack of belief around,
that my unfaith is greatly strengthened by this event.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
AC
> "On 31 Aug 2005 09:47:49 -0700, in article
><1125506869.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, jcon stated..."
>>
>>
>>Bob Pease wrote:
>>> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125503943.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Good question.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Not really all that good a question - but you are entitled to your
>>> > beliefs.
>>>
>>> It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
>>> the sinners there,
>>>
>>> RJ P
>>
>>I've noticed that all the smug religious pundits who were so
>>giddy about the tsunami are strangely silent now.
>
> I heard a caller to Art Bell over the weekend (before the
> hurricane hit) who was strongly suggesting that this was a
> warning from God. (I say "strongly suggesting", because this
> was too much for Art Bell, who didn't let him finish.)
You know, that level of self-righteousness really does make me gnash my
teeth. How someone can sit there and watch millions of people lose their
property, livelihoods and in some cases, their lives or the lives of their
loved ones, and then say "God's warning us" really makes me glad I'm not
standing in front of them, because despite myself, I might just reach out
and give them a warning of a particularly vigorous kind.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Googler
AC wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005 08:59:03 -0700,
> Googler <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Good question.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not really all that good a question - but you are entitled to your
> > beliefs.
>
> Why isn't a good question?
>
For starters?
(a) It has nothing to do with science
(b) It has nothing to do with evolution
(c) It is a complex question fallacy
(d) It can be answered by ç„¡
esw...@yahoo.com
> Good question.
I would caution you before you do away with God so quickly. If he
doesn't exist, who else would you blame for the disaster? The people
that are causing global warming? The ones that chose to live below sea
level? The ones that didn't evacuate when given ample warning? Better
leave God in. If nothing else, he's a convenient whipping boy.
Bob Pease
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrndhbr9d.5hf....@nobody.here...
that would prove that Satan was usung you to try to punish the
TROOTHSPEAKERS
RJ P
Bob Pease
<esw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125516178.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Good question.
>
> I would caution you before you do away with God so quickly. If he
> doesn't exist, who else would you blame for the disaster? The people
> that are causing global warming? The ones that chose to live below sea
> level? The ones that didn't evacuate when given ample warning? Better
> leave God in. If nothing else, he's a convenient whipping boy.
"Stuff" happens.
RJ P
AC
> dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Good question.
>
> I would caution you before you do away with God so quickly. If he
> doesn't exist, who else would you blame for the disaster? The people
> that are causing global warming? The ones that chose to live below sea
> level? The ones that didn't evacuate when given ample warning? Better
> leave God in. If nothing else, he's a convenient whipping boy.
What an interesting theology. Perhaps someone should distribute inflatable
Jesus dolls that victims can hit with sticks.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
It's a reasonable philosophy, but the problem is that those that insist that
there is this Personal Sky Guy looking out for us, when 140mph winds knock
your house down, it begs certain obvious questions.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Bobby D. Bryant
Or use for life rafts...
Bobby D. Bryant
"this" happens.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Who knows? If a manager of a McDonalds runs out of fries after a
> big rock concert, he'll get reprimanded, maybe even lose his job.
> God's landed the only gig in the universe where you get all the
> credit and none of the blame.
No, I've had a lot of co-workers who had that arrangement as well.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Good question.
>
> It looks like the human toll from Hurricane Katrina will rise above
> even Hurricane Camille (from 1969). The current confirmed number of
> human casualties numbers 135, with that number expected to rise sharply
> in the coming days as more corpses are recovered from the flooded
> areas.
>
> As for the economic impact, Katrina will eventually reach above $25
> billion in both insured and uninsured damage claims, making it the
> costliest hurricane on record.
>
> Katrina made landfall as an extremely strong Category 4 storm, with
> maximum sustained winds of 145 mph. Storm surges were in excess of 22
> feet in some places along the Gulf Coast.
Apparently it was all for the good; GuuB just told us that "America
will be stronger for it".
Think how strong we'd be if Katrina hadn't slowed down and taken a
last-minute jog to the right!
Mark Isaak
<robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net> wrote:
>It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
>the sinners there,
Just so. One anti-Christian group (which thinks it is Christian) is
already blaming Katrina on God, saying He used it to prevent an annual
gathering of homosexuals in New Orleans. "Girls Gone Wild" was part
of the problem, too.
http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html
I wonder how many Christian churches there were in New Orleans? If
God hates gays, he must really, really hate Christians.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Frank J
dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Good question.
>
> It looks like the human toll from Hurricane Katrina will rise above
> even Hurricane Camille (from 1969). The current confirmed number of
> human casualties numbers 135, with that number expected to rise sharply
> in the coming days as more corpses are recovered from the flooded
> areas.
>
> As for the economic impact, Katrina will eventually reach above $25
> billion in both insured and uninsured damage claims, making it the
> costliest hurricane on record.
>
> Katrina made landfall as an extremely strong Category 4 storm, with
> maximum sustained winds of 145 mph. Storm surges were in excess of 22
> feet in some places along the Gulf Coast.
>
Good question, but unanswerble. While it is tempting to think that "no
God would allow that," and I was like that for years, for every one of
those, there's one with the opposite conclusion. E.g. a caller today on
the Michael Medved show was convinced that Katrina was God's punishment
to Bush for his support of Ariel Sharon. MM seemed to want to say
"you're nuts!" but since he is into pseudoscience (anti-evolution in
particular) his reaction was tempered by the "pseudoscience code of
silence."
Paul J Gans
That's why He's God!
But really, with a disaster of this magnitude one must
conclude that if God was active, either He meant nothing
special by this storm or, if He was acting on a political
level, He surely is peeved at Haley Barbour, GWB, and the
rest of the Republicans.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
And carelessly whacking a ton of children, sincere believers,
and just plain folks in the process.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"On 31 Aug 2005 09:47:49 -0700, in article
><1125506869.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, jcon stated..."
>>
>>
>>Bob Pease wrote:
>>> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125503943.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Good question.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Not really all that good a question - but you are entitled to your
>>> > beliefs.
>>>
>>> It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
>>> the sinners there,
>>>
>>> RJ P
>>
>>I've noticed that all the smug religious pundits who were so
>>giddy about the tsunami are strangely silent now.
> I heard a caller to Art Bell over the weekend (before the
>hurricane hit) who was strongly suggesting that this was a
>warning from God. (I say "strongly suggesting", because this
>was too much for Art Bell, who didn't let him finish.)
We can all agree that it was a warning, but to whom?
Certainly not the oil companies...
---- Paul J. Gans, who wonders if God is a major Exxon
stock holder...
Paul J Gans
>I would caution you before you do away with God so quickly. If he
>doesn't exist, who else would you blame for the disaster? The people
>that are causing global warming? The ones that chose to live below sea
>level? The ones that didn't evacuate when given ample warning? Better
>leave God in. If nothing else, he's a convenient whipping boy.
Except that the believers then interpret the evidence to
say that it is the godless immoral corrupt lecherous evil
<insert name of political party here> who are to blame.
---- Paul J. Gans
Ray Martinez
Your theory says the dead was not fit to survive.
The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
unjust alike.
Ray Martinez
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But really, with a disaster of this magnitude one must
> conclude that if God was active, either He meant nothing
> special by this storm or, if He was acting on a political
> level, He surely is peeved at Haley Barbour, GWB, and the
> rest of the Republicans.
Did the choice of several hundred thousand people to live in a bowel
have anything to do with what happened. The fact that N.O. exists at all
where it does (between lake Ponchitraine and the Miss. River) is proof
that man is not a rational animal. The same thing can be said for people
who willingly live in L.A. which is right on top of a convoluted system
of faults. And they build tall buildings there too. Go figure.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> We can all agree that it was a warning, but to whom?
>
> Certainly not the oil companies...
I will tell you what the warning is: Do not live in a bowl.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And carelessly whacking a ton of children, sincere believers,
> and just plain folks in the process.
The same thing happened with Sodom and Gemorrah. All the little babies
died there too.
Bob Kolker
Paul J Gans
>On 31 Aug 2005 12:26:18 EDT, "Bob Pease"
><robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net> wrote:
>>It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
>>the sinners there,
>Just so. One anti-Christian group (which thinks it is Christian) is
>already blaming Katrina on God, saying He used it to prevent an annual
>gathering of homosexuals in New Orleans. "Girls Gone Wild" was part
>of the problem, too.
>http://www.repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html
>I wonder how many Christian churches there were in New Orleans? If
>God hates gays, he must really, really hate Christians.
Interesting calculus. He prevents a gathering of gays and
the only cost is a thousand or so dead kids, women, men,
and even a couple of local politicians.
---- Paul J. Gans
Alan Morgan
Mark Isaak <eciton...@earthlink.nest> wrote:
>On 31 Aug 2005 12:26:18 EDT, "Bob Pease"
><robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net> wrote:
>
>>It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
>>the sinners there,
>
>Just so. One anti-Christian group (which thinks it is Christian) is
>already blaming Katrina on God, saying He used it to prevent an annual
>gathering of homosexuals in New Orleans. "Girls Gone Wild" was part
>of the problem, too.
We have daily gatherings of homosexuals in San Francisco. We have our
own version of "Girls Gone Wild" too, but the girls don't.... uh....
they aren't.... they have non-girly bits (if you get my drift). How
come that place is still standing?
I used to believe that Pat Robertson was the gold standard for bat-shit
lunacy. I'm distressed to discover that he's not even in the running.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125535954.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> MarK:
>
> Your theory says the dead was not fit to survive.
>
of all, the point is that the "fittest" in a particular environment leave
more descendants. Second, this is a statistical generalization. Having
"fitter" genes is no guarantee against being struck by lightning or drowned
by a storm before reproducing. (or against having the same thing happen to
your children). But, *on average*, the "fitter" tend to have more offspring
who survive than do the less fit. Just as saying that, on average, men are
taller than women doesn't mean that some women are not taller than some men,
so saying that, on average, some genes predispose their bearers to leave
more descendants does not mean that every bearer of those genes will have
more grandchildren than average, or indeed have grandchildren at all.
Note that mathematical models of natural selection generally assign small
values to greater "fitness." For example, a "fitter" individual might be
10%, or even 1% more likely than average to survive and reproduce. Other
factors ("time and chance" as the Preacher had it) usually play a larger
role in deciding who survives and reproduces, but these don't tend to change
a population in any particular direction, and the effects of natural
selection pile up over time.
By the way, in case you had not noticed, "fitness," in evolutionary theory,
is not a synonym for "better" (except from the standpoint of making a living
and leaving descendants in a particular environment), or "morally superior,"
or "deserving," or more desirable." The theory makes no judgment that any
traits *ought* to be favored or encouraged, or constitute a "goal" of
evolution or are more "valuable" in any global or ethical sense.
>
> The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
> cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
>
> The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
>
It should be noted, perhaps, that the Jews traditionally arrange the books
of the Hebrew scriptures in a different order, so that Malachi falls before
the book of Psalms and the other "writings." The order of the canon is not,
itself, specified in the Bible (neither, come to think of it, are the
contents of the canon).
>
> Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
>
According to Norse mythology, earthquakes are caused because Loki is
writhing in torment as a monster serpent drips venom on him. Why do
earthquakes not prove the Elder Edda? According to Greek mythology, all the
troubles of the world escaped Pandora's Box when Pandora, in a fit of
curiousity, opened it. Why do category-4 hurricanes not prove the Pandora
myth? For that matter, the curse in Genesis mentions thorns and weeds and
the sweat of our brows, not hurricanes. Shouldn't you be citing kudzu
rather than Katrina as proof of the Bible?
In general, you do not "prove" an explanation merely by noting that the
phenomenon it was devised to explain in fact exists. Otherwise, you would
simultaneously prove every explanation ever offered for that phenomenon.
You need to show, at least, that the explanation accounts for the details of
the phenomenon better than any other explanation.
>
> As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
> unjust alike.
>
Indeed. Jesus also notes (Luke 13) the tower of Siloam and the men killed
in its collapse, arguing that these men were not worse than other sinners
and did not deserve death more than other men who escaped such accidents.
The book of Job, likewise, implies that humans should not presume to
understand all God's purposes, nor be confident in declaring that the
misfortunes of others are God's punishments. Yet the tendency to do just
that is recurrent in Christian history.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Bruce
> > Good question.
>
> I would caution you before you do away with God so quickly. If he
> doesn't exist, who else would you blame for the disaster? The people
> that are causing global warming? The ones that chose to live below sea
> level? The ones that didn't evacuate when given ample warning? Better
> leave God in. If nothing else, he's a convenient whipping boy.
>
jcon
Because this is America, and there's always got to be someone to blame,
and preferably sue. If you get fat from eating McDonald's hamburgers,
sue McDonalds. If you fall off a ladder, sue the ladder company. I
personally
think the reason for this is that the last *really* bad thing to happen
on American soil was the Civil War (don't even mention 9/11; far more
Americans kill each other EVERY year than were killed by terrorists in
2001). This has led to an attitude that whenever anything goes wrong,
someone's got to pay, and if you're a fundamentalist, you've got to
figure out why God caused it to happen, or at least let it happen.
It's hard for a lot of people to grasp how infantile some of the
religious
attitudes are in this country. If something good happens, it's because
you prayed for it; thank God. If something bad happens, either:
- you did something to deserve it; ask forgiveness
- it's part of some master plan that will make things better in
the end; thank God anyway.
-jc
AC
It's pretty amazing that you stick around here, and yet seem so incapable of
absorbing information.
>
> The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
> cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
No, it's because we live on a dynamic planet where such storms are purely
naturalistic effects of water, wind and temperature.
>
> The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
You have such a nice religion.
>
> Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
Whatever that precisely is supposed to mean.
>
> As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
> unjust alike.
And destroys their property and kills many of them too, apparently.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>MarK:
>
>Your theory says the dead was not fit to survive.
You bear false witness. The theory of evolution says simply that the
dead are dead.
>The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
>cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
Like you anti-Christians say, it's God's fault.
>The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
Yes, that word nicely sums up your god.
>Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
>
>As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
>unjust alike.
What would you know about Christianity and understing the Bible?
Judging from your posts, you devote your life to avoiding them as much
as possible.
Ray Martinez
> >
> > The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
> > cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
> >
> > The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
> >
> It should be noted, perhaps, that the Jews traditionally arrange the books
> of the Hebrew scriptures in a different order, so that Malachi falls before
> the book of Psalms and the other "writings." The order of the canon is not,
> itself, specified in the Bible (neither, come to think of it, are the
> contents of the canon).
> >
Atheists do not believe God exists, so they are certainly ineligible to
understand anything about the canon as is seen in your reply.
Stick to evading observations about the meaningless, "survival of the
fittest"
> > Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
> >
> According to Norse mythology, earthquakes are caused because Loki is
> writhing in torment as a monster serpent drips venom on him. Why do
> earthquakes not prove the Elder Edda? According to Greek mythology, all the
> troubles of the world escaped Pandora's Box when Pandora, in a fit of
> curiousity, opened it. Why do category-4 hurricanes not prove the Pandora
> myth? For that matter, the curse in Genesis mentions thorns and weeds and
> the sweat of our brows, not hurricanes. Shouldn't you be citing kudzu
> rather than Katrina as proof of the Bible?
>
Nobody has a problem with attempting to NOT confuse mythology with
truth/non-fiction.
Deliberately associating myths with God's word is best summed up by
saying: look at what a person must do to falsify truth - compare it
with what everyone knows is not true/myths.
When Adam/Eve sinned the Earth and all its future inhabitants were
cursed and placed under the custody of Satan.
The effects of the curse (evil, disasters, etc.etc.) is intended to
constantly remind mankind that he is cursed because of his sins and
unless you receive the only way of escape - the gospel/way of faith to
relate to God, then you will be destroyed like what we see rouitinely
on this Earth.
Calamities are intended to show us everything is not alright, the
judgement of hell is looming.
But Satan loving assholes like Dana Tweedy who assert Genesis does not
mean what it says = Satan's bidding by saying God does not mean what He
says about sudden creation, then the judgement of hell is also not
taken seriously, God does not mean what He says = Satan's goal. All to
preserve atheist face and philosophy and rage against God via their
creation myth that has no evidence.
> In general, you do not "prove" an explanation merely by noting that the
> phenomenon it was devised to explain in fact exists. Otherwise, you would
> simultaneously prove every explanation ever offered for that phenomenon.
> You need to show, at least, that the explanation accounts for the details of
> the phenomenon better than any other explanation.
I have, and the explanation explains the others just as well.
All I have done is RELAY what the Bible says.
Reality corroborates.
> >
> > As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
> > unjust alike.
> >
> Indeed. Jesus also notes (Luke 13) the tower of Siloam and the men killed
> in its collapse, arguing that these men were not worse than other sinners
> and did not deserve death more than other men who escaped such accidents.
> The book of Job, likewise, implies that humans should not presume to
> understand all God's purposes, nor be confident in declaring that the
> misfortunes of others are God's punishments. Yet the tendency to do just
> that is recurrent in Christian history.
> >
> > Ray Martinez
> >
> -- Steven J.
I always said you had a very good Bible aptitude as is seen in the
paragraph above.
I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
The tendency you speak of is sinning human nature, Pharisaical,
Fundamentalist.
We all tend to slip into thinking misfortune is God's punishment.
All faiths believe that evil is a punishment of a higher power.
Decent God-conscious persons fight this urge and thank Him that He
spared them.
Ray Martinez
Frank J
Update: In all fairness to MM, today he did criticize that caller and
others who attributed Katrina to God's punishment. Nevertheless, he was
clear that his objection was philosophical, not because of "no
evidence." Furthermore, he rationalized it with of Sodom & Gomorrah,
with no mention of whether he considers that an allegory or a
historical event. IOW, the PCOS still stands.
Dana Tweedy
> [snip]
>
>> >
>> > The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
>> > cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
>> >
>> > The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
>> >
>> It should be noted, perhaps, that the Jews traditionally arrange the
>> books
>> of the Hebrew scriptures in a different order, so that Malachi falls
>> before
>> the book of Psalms and the other "writings." The order of the canon is
>> not,
>> itself, specified in the Bible (neither, come to think of it, are the
>> contents of the canon).
>> >
>
> Atheists do not believe God exists, so they are certainly ineligible to
> understand anything about the canon as is seen in your reply.
Ray, just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean they aren't
capable of reading or understanding what has been written.
>
> Stick to evading observations about the meaningless, "survival of the
> fittest"
What observations do you think are being 'evaded'? Survival of the
fittest is the observation that those individuals who survive to reproduce
are better adapted to their enviroment, on the average, than those who died.
>
>
>> > Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
>> >
>> According to Norse mythology, earthquakes are caused because Loki is
>> writhing in torment as a monster serpent drips venom on him. Why do
>> earthquakes not prove the Elder Edda? According to Greek mythology, all
>> the
>> troubles of the world escaped Pandora's Box when Pandora, in a fit of
>> curiousity, opened it. Why do category-4 hurricanes not prove the
>> Pandora
>> myth? For that matter, the curse in Genesis mentions thorns and weeds
>> and
>> the sweat of our brows, not hurricanes. Shouldn't you be citing kudzu
>> rather than Katrina as proof of the Bible?
>>
>
> Nobody has a problem with attempting to NOT confuse mythology with
> truth/non-fiction.
Except Ray.
>
> Deliberately associating myths with God's word is best summed up by
> saying: look at what a person must do to falsify truth - compare it
> with what everyone knows is not true/myths.
Often what "everybody knows" is wrong. For example, many people think
that Grant and Lee fought each other at Gettysburg. Many people think
that being hit by a bullet makes you fly backwards. Many people think that
human males have one less rib than females.
>
> When Adam/Eve sinned the Earth and all its future inhabitants were
> cursed and placed under the custody of Satan.
Well, that's one interpetation of the Bible... It's not evidence of
anything though.
>
> The effects of the curse (evil, disasters, etc.etc.) is intended to
> constantly remind mankind that he is cursed because of his sins and
> unless you receive the only way of escape - the gospel/way of faith to
> relate to God, then you will be destroyed like what we see rouitinely
> on this Earth.
Another interpetation, no more valid than any other one.
>
> Calamities are intended to show us everything is not alright, the
> judgement of hell is looming.
So, God is responsible for killing all those people.
>
> But Satan loving assholes like Dana Tweedy who assert Genesis does not
> mean what it says
Ah, Ray it makes me glad to know how much I irritate you. But for the
record, I don't love Satan, and I don't assert that Genesis doesn't mean
what it says. It's my opinion that the Bible's meaning is best understood
when you realize it was not meant to be a science text. The Bible does
mean what it says, but it doesn't say what you think it does.
>= Satan's bidding by saying God does not mean what He
> says about sudden creation,
Again, I never claimed that God does not mean what he said. I am saying
that the Bible is not a science text. God's word is misused if you think
it's supposed to be taken literally.
> then the judgement of hell is also not
> taken seriously, God does not mean what He says = Satan's goal.
It seems to me that Satan's goal is to decieve mankind, something he's done
quite well with Ray.
> All to
> preserve atheist face and philosophy and rage against God via their
> creation myth that has no evidence.
As I've pointed out many times already, I'm not interested in "saving face",
and I'm not an atheist. I'm not enraged at God, and the scientific theory
of evolution has a great deal of evidence to support it. Ray has
mis-represented me in his own rage against devout Christians who won't bow
to Ray's insults and temper tantrums.
>
>
>> In general, you do not "prove" an explanation merely by noting that the
>> phenomenon it was devised to explain in fact exists. Otherwise, you
>> would
>> simultaneously prove every explanation ever offered for that phenomenon.
>> You need to show, at least, that the explanation accounts for the details
>> of
>> the phenomenon better than any other explanation.
>
> I have, and the explanation explains the others just as well.
Then why does your explanation not match the physical or Biblical evidence?
>
> All I have done is RELAY what the Bible says.
Or more accurately, what you want the Bible to say. What it does say is
something else.
>
> Reality corroborates.
True, but not your fantasies.
>
>
>> >
>> > As for christians dying, the Bible says the rain falls on the just and
>> > unjust alike.
>> >
>> Indeed. Jesus also notes (Luke 13) the tower of Siloam and the men
>> killed
>> in its collapse, arguing that these men were not worse than other sinners
>> and did not deserve death more than other men who escaped such accidents.
>> The book of Job, likewise, implies that humans should not presume to
>> understand all God's purposes, nor be confident in declaring that the
>> misfortunes of others are God's punishments. Yet the tendency to do just
>> that is recurrent in Christian history.
>> >
>> > Ray Martinez
>> >
>> -- Steven J.
>
> I always said you had a very good Bible aptitude as is seen in the
> paragraph above.
In other words, he hasn't pointed out where Ray has misinterpeted the Bible.
>
> I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
Which must mean that Ray is wrong...
>
> The tendency you speak of is sinning human nature, Pharisaical,
> Fundamentalist.
Creationist too.
>
> We all tend to slip into thinking misfortune is God's punishment.
And thinking that God curses people for using their intellect.
>
> All faiths believe that evil is a punishment of a higher power.
Not all of them. Perhaps you should learn something about other faiths.
>
> Decent God-conscious persons fight this urge and thank Him that He
> spared them.
So, what do YOU do then Ray?
DJT
Bobby D. Bryant
> [snip]
>
>> > The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
>> > cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
>> >
>> > The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
>> >
>> It should be noted, perhaps, that the Jews traditionally arrange
>> the books of the Hebrew scriptures in a different order, so that
>> Malachi falls before the book of Psalms and the other "writings."
>> The order of the canon is not, itself, specified in the Bible
>> (neither, come to think of it, are the contents of the canon).
>
> Atheists do not believe God exists, so they are certainly ineligible
> to understand anything about the canon as is seen in your reply.
That's an idiotic claim even for you, Ray.
> Nobody has a problem with attempting to NOT confuse mythology with
> truth/non-fiction.
Except for biblical literalists.
Bobby D. Bryant
> On 31 Aug 2005 17:52:34 -0700,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> MarK:
>>
>> Your theory says the dead was not fit to survive.
>
> It's pretty amazing that you stick around here, and yet seem so
> incapable of absorbing information.
It's that conservation law, you know.
Ken Rode
Conservation of density?
Earle Jones
"dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good question.
>
> It looks like the human toll from Hurricane Katrina will rise above
> even Hurricane Camille (from 1969). The current confirmed number of
> human casualties numbers 135, with that number expected to rise sharply
> in the coming days as more corpses are recovered from the flooded
> areas.
>
> As for the economic impact, Katrina will eventually reach above $25
> billion in both insured and uninsured damage claims, making it the
> costliest hurricane on record.
>
> Katrina made landfall as an extremely strong Category 4 storm, with
> maximum sustained winds of 145 mph. Storm surges were in excess of 22
> feet in some places along the Gulf Coast.
>
> Paul
*
Last evening, God appeared to me and said that the hurricane Katrina
is his punishment for Pat Robertson's comments advocating the
assassination of an elected head-of-state.
earle
*
"Christians in America are being treated
just like the Jews were in Nazi Germany."
--Pat Robertson
I believe it was John Stewart, on "The Daily Show"
who acknowledged the persecution of Christians
in America...hoping one day they might overcome
it...maybe even elect a Christian President someday...
or like 43 of them...in a row...
ej
*
Earle Jones
"Bruce" <bec...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
*
Because finding someone to blame is the American/Christian way of
life. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson found someone to blame for
the events of 9/11:
"The World Trade Center destruction was caused by Pagans,
Abortionists, Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, and the ACLU."
--Jerry Falwell
"I totally concur."
--Pat Robertson, Sept. 13, 2001
*
God came to me last night and told me that Hurricane Katrina was
caused by Pat Robertson's outburst that the Venezuelan President
(elected by the people) should be assassinated.
Robertson apologized, but by that time it was too late. Katrina was
already boring down on the innocent people of Louisiana and
Mississippi.
earle
*
BTW, have you noticed that the hundreds of people pictured as
victims of Katrina are all black? How did the white population of
New Orleans escape to higher ground and left the blacks to fend for
themselves?
ej
*
Earle Jones
"Bob Pease" <robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net> wrote:
> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1125503943.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Good question.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not really all that good a question - but you are entitled to your
> > beliefs.
>
> It might prove to those who accept such evidence that it is God punishing
> the sinners there,
>
> RJ P
*
Judging by the pictures in the newspapers, God is punishing the
black sinners quite a bit more than the white ones.
Gather up the last few days of newspapers. Start counting the
people appearing there who have lost their homes and have no food,
drink, or any type of accommodations.
Over 95% are black.
Why?
earle
*
Frank J
Earle Jones wrote:
> In article <1125465938.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Good question.
> >
> > It looks like the human toll from Hurricane Katrina will rise above
> > even Hurricane Camille (from 1969). The current confirmed number of
> > human casualties numbers 135, with that number expected to rise sharply
> > in the coming days as more corpses are recovered from the flooded
> > areas.
> >
> > As for the economic impact, Katrina will eventually reach above $25
> > billion in both insured and uninsured damage claims, making it the
> > costliest hurricane on record.
> >
> > Katrina made landfall as an extremely strong Category 4 storm, with
> > maximum sustained winds of 145 mph. Storm surges were in excess of 22
> > feet in some places along the Gulf Coast.
> >
> > Paul
>
> *
> Last evening, God appeared to me and said that the hurricane Katrina
> is his punishment for Pat Robertson's comments advocating the
> assassination of an elected head-of-state.
I don't know Hugo Chavez from Cesar Chavez (been dying to say that),
but I heard that HC donated to the relief effort. Not sure if he has a
sense of humor (even a sick one like mine), but if I were HC I'd say
"Hey Pat, dead people don't donate. Is that what you want?"
er...@swva.net
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > The existence of catastrophes is because the earth and all life was
> > > cursed when Adam and Eve sinned.
> > >
> > > The O.T. ends with the word "curse".
> > >
> > It should be noted, perhaps, that the Jews traditionally arrange the books
> > of the Hebrew scriptures in a different order, so that Malachi falls before
> > the book of Psalms and the other "writings." The order of the canon is not,
> > itself, specified in the Bible (neither, come to think of it, are the
> > contents of the canon).
> > >
>
> Atheists do not believe God exists, so they are certainly ineligible to
> understand anything about the canon as is seen in your reply.
>
You're wrong. In addition, it's ad hominem. In other words, who he is
doesn't say anything about the truth of what he said. You've been told
this before, and yet are still wrong. This proves you are a stooge of
the Devil. If not, try to spend one whole week without using the word
"atheist." I bet you can't do it.
> Stick to evading observations about the meaningless, "survival of the
> fittest"
>
Nobody has to do anything you say.
>
> > > Katrina/tsunami's/earthquakes prove the Bible.
> > >
> > According to Norse mythology, earthquakes are caused because Loki is
> > writhing in torment as a monster serpent drips venom on him. Why do
> > earthquakes not prove the Elder Edda? According to Greek mythology, all the
> > troubles of the world escaped Pandora's Box when Pandora, in a fit of
> > curiousity, opened it. Why do category-4 hurricanes not prove the Pandora
> > myth? For that matter, the curse in Genesis mentions thorns and weeds and
> > the sweat of our brows, not hurricanes. Shouldn't you be citing kudzu
> > rather than Katrina as proof of the Bible?
> >
>
> Nobody has a problem with attempting to NOT confuse mythology with
> truth/non-fiction.
In other words, Ray is wrong again.
>
> Deliberately associating myths with God's word is best summed up by
> saying: look at what a person must do to falsify truth - compare it
> with what everyone knows is not true/myths.
>
Prove that the Great Pyramid doesn't prove the truth of the Norse
myths. Can't do it can you? Typical Ray Martinez evasion.
> When Adam/Eve sinned the Earth and all its future inhabitants were
> cursed and placed under the custody of Satan.
Especially you.
>
> The effects of the curse (evil, disasters, etc.etc.) is intended to
> constantly remind mankind that he is cursed because of his sins and
> unless you receive the only way of escape - the gospel/way of faith to
> relate to God, then you will be destroyed like what we see rouitinely
> on this Earth.
So you better quit worshipping the Bible as an idol, before it's too
late.
>
> Calamities are intended to show us everything is not alright, the
> judgement of hell is looming.
>
So get your act together and knock off all that evil-doing.
> But Satan loving assholes
Quit cussing and describing yourself.
> like Dana Tweedy who assert Genesis does not
> mean what it says
Hey, God's God, he knows where scientists are coming from. He also
knows where raging, foaming-at -the-mouth science haters are coming
from.
> = Satan's bidding by saying God does not mean what He
> says about sudden creation,
So, how do _you_ know what God says about sudden creation? The Bible
was filtered through the knowledge and abilities of bronze-age
villagers, so don't pretend that it counts.
> then the judgement of hell is also not
> taken seriously, God does not mean what He says = Satan's goal.
And it worked with respect to you, since you've thrown your soul out
the window bowing before a book while blaspheming the evidence of the
real world.
> All to
> preserve atheist
blah blah blah atheist. You are a broken record.
> face and philosophy and rage against God
Imaginary rage against God. Satanists may have rage against God, but
atheists don't believe He exists, so you are showing what a moron (and
a particularly mean and deceitful one) you are.
> via their
> creation myth that has no evidence.
Lying about the evidence again, I see. Are you so blind because you
are being punished by God as it says in Romans, or are you just
naturally substandard morally?
>
>
> > In general, you do not "prove" an explanation merely by noting that the
> > phenomenon it was devised to explain in fact exists. Otherwise, you would
> > simultaneously prove every explanation ever offered for that phenomenon.
> > You need to show, at least, that the explanation accounts for the details of
> > the phenomenon better than any other explanation.
>
> I have, and the explanation explains the others just as well.
>
Nope, all you have done is babbled and frothed.
> All I have done is RELAY what the Bible says.
>
And lied about its significance.
> Reality corroborates.
That scientists are much less wrong than you.
>
(snip)
>
> I always said you had a very good Bible aptitude as is seen in the
> paragraph above.
>
> I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
>
> The tendency you speak of is sinning human nature, Pharisaical,
> Fundamentalist.
>
> We all tend to slip into thinking misfortune is God's punishment.
>
> All faiths believe that evil is a punishment of a higher power.
>
> Decent God-conscious persons fight this urge and thank Him that He
> spared them.
>
> Ray Martinez
Hmm, you managed to finish your post without mean-mouthing people for
five whole sentences. You still have a little human decency left.
Keep working on it.
Eric Root
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Good question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
> >>>>>who would not have let it happen.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
> >>>
> >>>I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
> >>>vague.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So you're saying you have no preconceived ideas?
> >
> >
> > I don't have any idea when my ideas were conceived.
> >
> I should hope after acquiring the evidence.
But one needs ideas to acquire evidence. Even more concepts such as
causality which seems to be hardwired. Not to mention structures like
space, past and future.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
John Wilkins
easy...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Richard Clayton
So your vicious little deity happily slaughters both the evil and the
righteous. Got it. So how do you know he won't toss the saints into Hell
to fry with the sinners?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Walter Bushell
<earle.jones-E655...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> BTW, have you noticed that the hundreds of people pictured as
> victims of Katrina are all black? How did the white population of
> New Orleans escape to higher ground and left the blacks to fend for
> themselves?
>
> ej
> *
They had resources like cars and places go to even if they had to pay
with credit cards.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <df3lfi$1oi0$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, "dun...@yahoo.com" <dun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Good question.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No, it only disproves the existence (or effectiveness) of any gods
> >>>>>>>who would not have let it happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I wouldn't want to live in a possible world where a god would allow this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't recall being asked, but my pre-conception memories are pretty
> >>>>>vague.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>So you're saying you have no preconceived ideas?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't have any idea when my ideas were conceived.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I should hope after acquiring the evidence.
> >
> >
> > But one needs ideas to acquire evidence. Even more concepts such as
> > causality which seems to be hardwired. Not to mention structures like
> > space, past and future.
> >
> Pah! Evolutionary a posterioria give us the needed Kantian a prioria. That's
> easy...
You pulled that one out of your posterior, and it stinks.