the god exists crowd
Mani Deli
Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
their take on religion, Christianity etc.
Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists but it is
obvious that anyone who claims to know anything about god is as they
say, full of crap.
"So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of
evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is
likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or
dishonest charlatans." Bertrand Russell
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Randy Story
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1ui18053i8sm45e2g...@4ax.com...
The person that claims that there can be no knowledge of God is the most
arrogant
of all as he must be absolutely know that no evidence can serve to talk
about God.
In other words he would have to be omnisceint.
torch
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:1081k0a...@corp.supernews.com...
Denis Loubet
Dude, it's the THEISTS that say god is unknowable.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Maverick
@corp.supernews.com:
Describe your god, then show me evidence.
Richard Smol
> Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
> Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
> evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
> The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
> their take on religion, Christianity etc.
>
> Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists but it is
> obvious that anyone who claims to know anything about god is as they
> say, full of crap.
Some Jewish sects have the take that Jehova is nothing but
a demiurg, a lower god appointed by the real one. Jehova
went mad though and regarded himself to be the only true
god, causing lots of mayhem as a result.
The Bible somehow makes a bit more sense now I learned this,
even though I don't believe in either the existence of a "true"
god or any demiurg.
RS
David V.
> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of
>> the doubt. Anything else they say about it is utter
>> nonsense as there is no evidence. Theology is pure
>> baloney. Nobody can study god.
>>
>> The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists
>> and they start their take on religion, Christianity
>> etc.
>>
>> Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists
>> but it is obvious that anyone who claims to know
>> anything about god is as they say, full of crap.
>>
>> "So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in
>> the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by
>> cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders
>> will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest
>> charlatans." Bertrand Russell
>
> The person that claims that there can be no knowledge of
> God is the most arrogant...
No, the claim you are about to make is the most arrogant.
You need to prove the god exists before you can make any
claims about anything having to do with knowledge of it.
And I quote; "No skill no art!"
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
Dixit
Actually the crowd in question are those true believers who argue from
ignorance, "A magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there
is no god spoor we true believers can point out, and this hypothesis
even a genius like Galileo could not prove false!"
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Randy Story
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:4oGdnYbVgME...@io.com...
Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood to some degree by
his effects, creation.
Denis Loubet
You're a finite human, and as such can only be infinitely ignorant of a
supposedly infinite being.
Why should we listen to someone who's infinitely ignorant?
Thomas P.
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
>"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:4oGdnYbVgME...@io.com...
>>
>> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
>> news:1081k0a...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:1ui18053i8sm45e2g...@4ax.com...
snip
>> > The person that claims that there can be no knowledge of God is the most
>> > arrogant
>> > of all as he must be absolutely know that no evidence can serve to talk
>> > about God.
>> > In other words he would have to be omnisceint.
>>
>> Dude, it's the THEISTS that say god is unknowable.
>>
>> --
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlo...@io.com
>> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>>
>
>
>
>Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood to some degree by
>his effects, creation.
When and how did you establish that there was a creation?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Vic Sagerquist
>
>"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:4oGdnYbVgME...@io.com...
>>
>> Dude, it's the THEISTS that say god is unknowable.
>>
>> --
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlo...@io.com
>> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>>
>
>
>
>Only a dumb theist!
>
Is there some other kind?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
Weatherwax
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:Mc8gc.219023$_z4.2...@amsnews05.chello.com...
>
> Some Jewish sects have the take that Jehova is nothing but
> a demiurg, a lower god appointed by the real one. Jehova
> went mad though and regarded himself to be the only true
> god, causing lots of mayhem as a result.
>
> The Bible somehow makes a bit more sense now I
> learned this, even though I don't believe in either the
> existence of a "true" god or any demiurg.
>
In the Canaanite pantheon, the highest god was called "El", "El
Elyon" or "Elyon". In the English Bible, this is usually
translated as "God", "God Most High" or "Most High" respectively.
In Genesis 14 El Elyon is the deity worshipped by the Canaanite
priest/king Melchizedek, but in verse 22, an editor identifies El
Elyon with Yahweh.
The individuality of Yahweh from El Elyon can be seen in several
passages. In psalms 82, God passes judgment against the sons of
Elyon.:
Psalms 82:1
Elohim stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the elohim he renders judgment.
82:6
I thought, 'You are elohim;
all of you are sons of Elyon'
And in Deuteronomy 32:8 it is clear that Elyon has to do with the
nations in general whereas in verse 9, Yahweh relates
specifically to Israel.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided up mankind,
He set the boundaries of the peoples,
according to the number of Israelites.
For Yahweh's allotment is his people,
Jacob is the portion of his inheritance.
Eventually, the name became equivalent with "God", and in the New
Testament, "Most High" is often used in place of God's name.
David V.
>
> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood
> to some degree by his effects, creation.
Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would make. You
need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can claim it
created anything.
Jos Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> enlightened
alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
of his "wisdom":
>The person that claims that there can be no knowledge of God is the most
>arrogant of all as he must be absolutely know that no evidence can serve to talk
>about God.
Quite so. Even more because he doesn't mention WHICH god...
>In other words he would have to be omnisceint.
Well, you are, aren't you? Or you are merely sexually aroused, Story?
Jos Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood to some degree by
>his effects, creation.
Absolutely! That is why how know that Wodan exits!
OneKing
Randy, why do this? Pearls before swine, my friend; pearls before swine.
2 Tim. 2:23,24; Isaiah 6:9,10; Luke 16:15; Romans 1:18-32
Randy Story
"OneKing" <s.wi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:60e66f3f.04041...@posting.google.com...
Because not *all* are swine, if only one and more then one has writteen me
on the side. We are to also give a reason, 1st Peter, to destroy arguments,
colosians, etc. The angels will rejoice if even one atheist truly comes to
Christ. Swine love the muck they live in, others may want a way out of the
muck.
Thomas P.
After all we have Wednesdays. What more proof do we need?
Thomas P.
wrote:
That was essentially my reaction. There is, however, something else
to be said about Randy's statement. Let us assume that there is some
kind of god and that the universe is his creation. What could we
learn about this god by (following Randy's advice) looking at his
creation? Would one, for example, conclude that this god is
all-loving and merciful?
Denis Loubet
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1h8480l4k1rn74vm1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:23:06 -0700, "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Randy Story wrote:
> >>
> >> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood
> >> to some degree by his effects, creation.
> >
> >Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would make. You
> >need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can claim it
> >created anything.
>
> That was essentially my reaction. There is, however, something else
> to be said about Randy's statement. Let us assume that there is some
> kind of god and that the universe is his creation. What could we
> learn about this god by (following Randy's advice) looking at his
> creation? Would one, for example, conclude that this god is
> all-loving and merciful?
No. Hell, I'm more loving and merciful than the god-monster described in the
bible, OR the one that would be implied by the current state of the
universe.
Bob Crowley
Downunder
My dear Wormwood,
I see that you have run into the Galilean argument against the church.
You will therefore be on the lookout for more major blunders by the
Church. I know of one right now, which is the business of the
Contraceptive Pill. Personally I wholeheartedly agree with the church
on this issue, because we hate humans, and the Pill guarantees fewer
of them. And of course with 6 billion of them, the resources of Hell
are getting stretched trying to tempt them all individually.
It is this last fact which is behind our move to build our structures
into society. Thus we have almost succeeded in making abortion on
demand a given right, to be guaranteed by law. We have succeeded in
making Western society more in tune with what used to be regarded as a
perversion than the Enemy's real plan for sex. And greed is now
institutionalised as a high platform for which to aim.
Now the Galilean episode should have taught that heinous organisation,
the Church, that the Enemy gave them brains to think. But rather than
do that, they reverted to the old method of fear, in order that their
cosy world view might not be shaken.
Mind you we do the same to the atheists. We don't want them shaken
out of their cosy world view either, to the realisation of the Enemy's
reality, or we are going to lose millions who would otherwise be ours.
We have never been better fed since the human race came into
existence, and daily we add to the larder.
So what we don't want, Wormwood, and I hope you're listening, is any
hint to atheists, that the order they see all around them in
everything that exists, is in fact due to a planning intelligence. We
want them to continue to equate order with chaos, intelligence with
dice, beauty with pure probabilities.
So do be on the lookout, won't you, my boy! If you see your man
wondering where the sunset came from, or the beauty of the waves
drifting over his head if he is a diver, then make sure that you point
out that it is merely a mechanical device, of electromagnetic waves
dispersed by air or moving water. Never let him think for a minute
that the beauty he sees is the hint of another world, where beauty is
not mechanical, but real.
In the meantime, do keep a sharp eye out for startling news in the
human sphere. Many will be frightened by it, and the first thing a
good number of them will do is to go seeking solace. Naturally the
Enemy will be active in such times, so make sure you resolve to give
your man a stiff upper lip, and to stick it out with grim
determination, even if he's got to go to hell and back to do so.
Yours,
Taipanus, B. Sin. Dip. Ter., Spec. Sub.
Thomas P.
wrote:
Exactly, and I fully expect Randy to answer by explaining that we
cannot understand god without any sense of contradicting himself.
Thomas P.
Having trouble with all that debris in your eyebrow. Not agreeing
with you or your religion does not equal being evil.
Thomas P.
Listen up everybody! Everyone who does not accept the holy words of
Randy is a swine.
>We are to also give a reason, 1st Peter, to destroy arguments,
>colosians, etc. The angels will rejoice if even one atheist truly comes to
>Christ.
Your Christ could try providing evidence for his existence. Otherwise
you are, as usual, babbling.
>Swine love the muck they live in, others may want a way out of the
>muck.
Your arrogance and smugness are beyond belief. Imagine believing that
disagreeing with you equals being a swine.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
> Because not *all* are swine, ...
How very Christian of you, Randy.
> ... if only one and more then one has writteen me
> on the side. We are to also give a reason, 1st Peter, to destroy arguments,
> colosians, etc.
Looks like you cannot hold up your end of the bargain.
Jesus weeps.
...
Regards,
Josef
Where there is doubt there is freedom.
-- Latin proverb
David V.
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:23:06 -0700, "David V."
> <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Randy Story wrote:
>>
>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be
>>> understood to some degree by his effects, creation.
>>
>> Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would
>> make. You need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can
>> claim it created anything.
>
> That was essentially my reaction. There is, however,
> something else to be said about Randy's statement. Let
> us assume that there is some kind of god and that the
> universe is his creation.
On what basis should such a silly assumption be made? One
can come up with all kinds of assumptions that prove nothing
and do nothing to advance the topic.
> What could we learn about this god by (following Randy's
> advice) looking at his creation?
Nothing at all since there is no reason to assume the god
exists.
> Would one, for example, conclude that this god is
> all-loving and merciful?
No. That would be a non sequitur to an ad hoc argument.
Vic Sagerquist
>
Just as christers love the ignorance and fantasy they live in. I'd rather
reason in muck than wallow in false promises.
duke
>
>Actually the crowd in question are those true believers who argue from
>ignorance, "A magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there
>is no god spoor we true believers can point out, and this hypothesis
>even a genius like Galileo could not prove false!"
So what, besides nothing, does the atheist offer as evidence for no God?
Mani Deli
Santa Claus.
duke
>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
>The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
>their take on religion, Christianity etc.
You own position is defenseless.
>Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists but it is
>obvious that anyone who claims to know anything about god is as they
>say, full of crap.
Why?
>"So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of
>evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is
>likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or
>dishonest charlatans." Bertrand Russell
He was talking about you.
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Organization: Cox Communications
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:17:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>> Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>> evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
> Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
It is not my job to disprove god. It is the job of those who put forth the
theory that there is a god to prove it.
The world exists of atoms, mountains, trees, stars, streams, oceans etc.
Nowhere is there a god.
If, in addition to our verifiably observed world (biosphere, planet,
universe),
you propose the existence of a god, you must prove it. Further,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs in the form of replicable
under controlled circumstances evidence submitted to a peer review
committee.
>> The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
>> their take on religion, Christianity etc.
>
> You own position is defenseless.
>
>> Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists
I do give a damn. It will be only when people stop pretending that god
loves them and instead take the responsibility to learn to actually warmth
love each other that there will be world peace, social justice etc.
Mombasha
wbarwell
You ignored me before, lets go again and expose your ignorance.
Can god do the inpossible, create a 4 sided triangle, make a square circle?
That is, does god make the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe?
If he doez make the rules and laws, he can then do the impossible, he could
make a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral
good, never moral evil.
But there is moral evil in the world. If god makes the rules, the laws of
the Universe, then god is responsible for all evil in the world. Evil
exists solely because he allows it to, he is then the creator of evil and
the sustaining cause of all evil.
According to theological dogma, god is omnibenevolent, so if god
makes the rules, he is evil, omnimalevolent, this contradicts dogmatic
claims.
So we are forced to answer, no, god does not make the rules and cannot do
the impossible.
But dogmatic claims are, god is omnipotent, all powerful.
Well that god obviously does not exist. Omnipotence menas
without limits and we now know god is limited by the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe.
But that means the Universe with its rules and laws is beyong
and outside of god. And he cannot have created it. If he had created it,
he'd have created it so he controlled its laws. After all, by
failing to do so, he gave up the ability to control the Universe and thus
knowingly allowed evil to exist, again he is evil, omnimalicious.
So now we know god did not create the Universe.
Dogmatic claims are god created the Universe, we now know that cannot be so.
So much for Aquinas's 2 and 5th ways and all other forms of cosmological
proofs of god's existance.
Dogmatic claims are, god is the most powerful thing that we can imagine.
But now we know, the Universe at large is more powerful still, that
Universe with its laws, its rules, its logic preceeds god, is greater than
any imaginable god, and its rules and laws are so powerful, even the most
powerful god we could imagine falls sway to those rules, the logic, the
laws of the Universe.
Since god is the most powerful thing we can imagine is the starting
statement for Anslem's ontological proof, so much for that 'proof' and all
variations of ontological proofs.
The god you claim, is supposedly, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
the creator of all, greater than anything else we can imagine, but we see
that god cannot exist. The claims are not sustainable.
Now we know, and have proven god is not the creator of the Universe and
is subject to all rules, laws and logic of the Universe.
The question is, exactly what are these rules, laws and logic?
For one, it seems that matter and energy are prevalent building blocks
of everything worth mentioning, and it is impossible for a thinking,
active, intelligent being to exist that is not made up of matter and energy.
And if you deny this, the burden has now shifted very much on you to prove,
with rather hard evidence, that such a god can exist that is not made of
matter and energy. That the rules and laws of the Universe
allow such things and what laws and rules, what physics is there that can
be proven to allow such things as disemboddied entities to live and act.
So, your god is now rather dead. Its a concept whose basic internal
contradictions show us that that god as stated cannot exist.
The bible idea of a grand god creating the enire Universe in 6 days
is a farce.
At the end, all you have left is the task of proving physics allows the
possibility of such things as a god and good luck proving the rules and
laws and logic of this Universe, which its proven now god did not create,
allow for such entities.
And if you could, and you cannot, we would know that possible entity
is NOT the god of Genesis nor the god of the Greek Philosophers, the omni
everything god theologicans babble dogmatically about endlessly.
That god is dead and gone forever, killed off by a simple
little question, "Can god to the impossible?".
There no longer is a god, theology has to start from scratch,
and the burden is on theology to create a god within the confines of a
Universe that god cannot have created and is subject to that Universe's
laws, rules, logic. Unless you want to accept that god is not good,
but omnimalevolent, all evil, fount and sustaining cause of all evil.
A god subject to the laws of allowable physics in a Universe where we see
not the slightest possibility of physics allowing supernatural entities of
any sort, much less god.
There. No. god.
No god part 2
100 years ago, American archaeologist founded bible archaeology,
archaeological activities designed to prove the bible is true.
10 years later, such archaeology has now disproven that claim.
Near Eastern archaeologist now know that much of the OT is not
history in any way.
There were no patriarchs, not Joseph, no Egyptian captivity.
Isreal was not enslave in Egypt and starting with 70 people did
not grow over 430 years into a people numbering approximately
2 1/2 millions There was no exodus, no wandering, no camping out
at Kadesh-Barnea as the OT claims.
No Moses leading them to Canaan, no battles, no Joshua.
No Genocidal assault and ethnic cleansing in Canaan.
No mighty cities destroy as per Joshua.
Archaeology has debunked all of that and its widely known and
accepted by working archaeologists and historians.
And so swept away are the myths of god imbedded here.
No god preceeding non-existant Israelites as a pillar of fire by
night, a pillar of smoke by day. No God communing with Moses
on Mount Seir. No rules and laws of Moses from the hand of
god himself.
No stern commands to genocide "Leave none that breathe!".
All gone now. No more real than tales of Zeus or Hercules.
Its just a myth like all the other myths.
The OT is not a history, it is a faux history, a set of myths prettied up
much later and disguised as history.
God is just a character in a novel. No more real than
Winnie the Pooh. God is described as being at certain places
in history at certain times doing ceratin things, none of which
can have happened. God does not exist as described.
God does not exist as described and its factual and has been
accepted that these stories are not factual by 100 years
of scientific endeavor meant to show that these tales of
the Bible were true by some of the smartest and hardest
working and most sober men and women who ever walked
the face of the Earth.
So now I have destroyed your Greek philospher style
Grand God of Grand Theology, the creatro of the Universe,
Prime Mover, omni-everything god.
And I have shown you 100 years of hard nosed archeaology
has destroyed your bible character god.
God does not exist.
There. No god.
Now its time for you to rethink your life.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Thomas P. wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:23:06 -0700, "David V."
>> <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Story wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be
>>>> understood to some degree by his effects, creation.
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would
>>> make. You need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can
>>> claim it created anything.
>>
>> That was essentially my reaction. There is, however,
>> something else to be said about Randy's statement. Let
>> us assume that there is some kind of god and that the
>> universe is his creation.
>
>On what basis should such a silly assumption be made? One
>can come up with all kinds of assumptions that prove nothing
>and do nothing to advance the topic.
Assuming the opponent's claim to point out the resulting incoherency
or icontradictions is a fairly common and recognized practice in
discussions. It believe it does quite a bit to "advance the topic".
I also believe that I can live with your disapproval.
snip
Vic Sagerquist
>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
>Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
We don't have a need to since we are not the ones trying to convert the
masses. We just respond to your claims with the exclamation, "bullshit".
>
>>The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
>>their take on religion, Christianity etc.
>
>You own position is defenseless.
It also doesn't require defense.
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Organization: get2net Internet Kunde
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:47:07 +0200
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
> wrote:
>
>> Thomas P. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:23:06 -0700, "David V."
>>> <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Randy Story wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be
>>>>> understood to some degree by his effects, creation.
How did god make "Creation?"
Mani Deli
>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
>Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
>
When you provide evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I'll use
your evidence.
God is the mature man's Santa Claus.
Mani Deli
Arguments about the existence of god usually serve as a tangent for
theists to avoid questions pertaining to religious beliefs.
The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
the burden of proof is transferred to him. Any statement, god is, god
wants, god knows, god says, etc. requires the theist to prove what he
claims to know.
A pure belief, Deism, in the existence of god is relatively harmless.
Claims of knowing something about god, namely religious claims are
what lead to ignorance, harm and evil, not belief or non-belief in the
existence of god.
My argument with the theist starts with the statement, "Whether he
exists or not, I believe that you know as much about god as I do,
WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING." The idea here is to transfer the burden
of proof on the theist. Let him take it from there and try to defend
his theological theories.
Jos Flachs
<rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>Because not *all* are swine, if only one and more then one has writteen me
>on the side. We are to also give a reason, 1st Peter, to destroy arguments,
>colosians, etc. The angels will rejoice if even one atheist truly comes to
>Christ. Swine love the muck they live in, others may want a way out of the
>muck.
Why don't you go prostelize in a Hell's Angels joint? Too yellow for
that?
Jos Flachs
<tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:44:07 +0700, Jos Flachs
><'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:15:57 -0700, "Randy Story"
>><rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood to some degree by
>>>his effects, creation.
>>Absolutely! That is why how know that Wodan exits!
>
>After all we have Wednesdays. What more proof do we need?
Tuesdays? Thursdays? Fridays?
Plenty of proof, I'd say.
I wonder why those xtians never changed that to jesusday, maryday and
joeday. Even more proof!
Pangur Ban
> Arguments about the existence of god usually serve as a tangent for
> theists to avoid questions pertaining to religious beliefs.
>
> The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
> the burden of proof is transferred to him. Any statement, god is, god
> wants, god knows, god says, etc. requires the theist to prove what he
> claims to know.
>
> A pure belief, Deism, in the existence of god is relatively harmless.
Oooooo - I am so relieved to know I am relatively harmless!! :-)
Pang
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thomas P. wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Randy Story wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be
>>>>> understood to some degree by his effects,
>>>>> creation.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would
>>>> make. You need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you
>>>> can claim it created anything.
>>>
>>> That was essentially my reaction. There is, however,
>>> something else to be said about Randy's statement.
>>> Let us assume that there is some kind of god and that
>>> the universe is his creation.
>
>> On what basis should such a silly assumption be made?
>> One can come up with all kinds of assumptions that
>> prove nothing and do nothing to advance the topic.
>
> Assuming the opponent's claim to point out the resulting
> incoherency or icontradictions is a fairly common and
> recognized practice in discussions. It believe it does
> quite a bit to "advance the topic".
So, I see... you have nothing to base your arguments upon
but assumptions.
Mani Deli
competing brand tries to use the best psychological advertising
techniques to sell consumers a set of gods which they claim will only
treat them well for an exclusive allegiance to their particular
products.
Successful branches of this oldest of business must be able to keep
you frightened and repressed by filling your mind with guilt, threats
of torture along with comforting fairy tales which you are expected to
accept as reality. Salesmen will also do their best to get your kids
to consume there products well before they reach an age of reason.
Any brand of the superstition business has to convince the consumer
that serious questioning of its origins, its instruction manuals,
past business transactions, or accounting practices will damage his
relationship with them.
All superstition corporations require brand loyalty from faithful
consumers who are lead to believe that they are part of a unique lot
chosen for unique favors from the imaginary CEO.
A loyal customer faithfully believes that life without allegiance to
his favorite brand is dangerous and that the products sold by other
superstition corporations are inferior because they aren't backed by
truly valid after-life insurance policies.
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:39:06 +0200, Thomas P.
><tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:44:07 +0700, Jos Flachs
>><'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:15:57 -0700, "Randy Story"
>>><rsto...@olypen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood to some degree by
>>>>his effects, creation.
>>>Absolutely! That is why how know that Wodan exits!
>>
>>After all we have Wednesdays. What more proof do we need?
>Tuesdays? Thursdays? Fridays?
>
>Plenty of proof, I'd say.
>
>I wonder why those xtians never changed that to jesusday, maryday and
>joeday. Even more proof!
They have just as good as admitted it.
Thomas P.
>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
>Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
What kind of defense does "I don't believe what you are saying" need?
duke
>Arguments about the existence of god usually serve as a tangent for
>theists to avoid questions pertaining to religious beliefs.
>The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
>the burden of proof is transferred to him.
Actually, that's not the case at all. This is not a matter of trying to get one's
politician elected. This is a case of inviting you to not commit spiritual suicide.
If you don't buy in, you lose, not me.
>My argument with the theist starts with the statement, "Whether he
>exists or not, I believe that you know as much about god as I do,
>WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."
Knowing "about" God is one thing. Knowing what he expects of us is entirely different,
and you can't hide from that. Remember, if you do try to hide, you are doing yourself in,
not anybody else.
> The idea here is to transfer the burden
>of proof on the theist. Let him take it from there and try to defend
>his theological theories.
You'll never get anywhere with that silly idea.
duke
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:17:38 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>>>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>>>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>>
>>Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
>
>What kind of defense does "I don't believe what you are saying" need?
All you're doing is just saying "no" to the existence of God. It's your decision, live
and die with it.
Fred Stone
news:e89780p3v3m2jjh81...@4ax.com:
We fully intend to do just that. Why won't you respect our decision and
quit asking us to reconsider?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
Thomas P.
That's okay Duke. Nobody actually expected you to answer my question,
and, of course, I never said no to any god; I said that I do not
believe you. If you were sane you would be able to see the
difference. As it is you totally failed to answer my question.
RainLover
>> <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:17:38 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:17:44 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>>>>>Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>>>>>evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>>>>
>>>>Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
>>>
>>>What kind of defense does "I don't believe what you are saying" need?
>>
>> All you're doing is just saying "no" to the existence of God. It's
>> your decision, live and die with it.
All athiests are saying is that no one has shown one shred of evidence of your god, so why should we
believe you?
If I said there was a 10' high white unicorn in my garage, would you believe me based on my saying
it? What if the homeowners before me wrote a book about how it came to be in there and I passed
that book onto you? THEN would you believe the unicorn was in my garage?
You believe as much in my unicorn in my garage as athiests do in your god. Can't you see that?
James, Seattle
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:23:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
>>
>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood
>> to some degree by his effects, creation.
Please explain:
How do you know that a supposed god created anything?
Mombasha
>
> Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would make. You
> need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can claim it
> created anything.
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Reply-To: wcr...@ksc15.th.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:23:31 +0700
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
> <rsto...@olypen.com> enlightened
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> of his "wisdom":
>
>> The person that claims that there can be no knowledge of God
I do *not* claim that there can be no knowledge of god.
I *have* reached the firm conclusion that there is no god of which to have
knowlege.
Mombasha
is the most
>> arrogant of all as he must be absolutely know that no evidence can serve to
>> talk
>> about God.
> Quite so. Even more because he doesn't mention WHICH god...
>
>> In other words he would have to be omnisceint.
> Well, you are, aren't you? Or you are merely sexually aroused, Story?
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:39:07 +0200
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
> wrote:
>
>> Randy Story wrote:
>>>
>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be understood
>>> to some degree by his effects, creation.
>>
>> need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you can claim it
>> created anything.
>
> to be said about Randy's statement. Let us assume that there is some
> learn about this god by (following Randy's advice) looking at his
> creation? Would one, for example, conclude that this god is
> all-loving and merciful?
Good point.
If we can know god by studying his/her creation, then we can know that god
is a mass murderer through wars, diseases etc, a mass rapist, a designer
of unsafe polluting cars, a designer of franken foods which cause
pre-mature death and truely enjoys destoying entire cities with volcanoes,
floods etc.
Mombasha
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:17:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
>
>> Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>> Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>> evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
> Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
My position is that there are mountains and trees and birds and hormones and
atoms and stars. There *is* massive observable evidence for these
things.
If you propose that there is something else, a supposed god, it is up to
you to present your evidence.
Mombasha
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Organization: Cox Communications
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:17:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
>
>> Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
>> Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
>> evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
>
> Yet why can't you atheists offer any evidence for your own position?
>
>> The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
>> their take on religion, Christianity etc.
>
> You own position is defenseless.
I disagree.
The human brain with its bloated cortex is capable of dreaming up all manner
of concepts, ideas, theories etc. The problem is, How do we find out if
any particular idea, concept of theory is valid?
There is only one way: Testing under controlled replicable circumstances in
the real world.
What theologians and other theists do is start with one idea of unknown
validity: That there is a god, and say if there is a god then this or that
wust be true, and then something else must also be true, ad infinitum.
This whole process takes place solely in the cortex of theists. Never once
is any of the whole house of cards tested for validity in the real world
under controlled replicable circumstances.
Mombasha
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Organization: Cox Communications
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
All live and die whether or not they believe in a make believe non-existent
god. But the way you say it makes it sound like a curse. Why do you
curse atheists? I thought Christians love people.
Mombasha
>
momb...@nyc.rr.com
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.bible,talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.atheism,talk.religion,alt.religion
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:05:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: the god exists crowd
>
The theist's belief in "god" is *not* based on facts or logic. It is
based on an intense emotional need to believe that there is a god that loves
them.
Mombasha
>
Mani Deli
and Santa Clause whom I'm sure you also believe in for the same
reason.
Mani Deli
>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:00:47 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Arguments about the existence of god usually serve as a tangent for
>>theists to avoid questions pertaining to religious beliefs.
>
>>The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
>>the burden of proof is transferred to him.
>
>Actually, that's not the case at all. This is not a matter of trying to get one's
>politician elected. This is a case of inviting you to not commit spiritual suicide.
>
>If you don't buy in, you lose, not me.
I'm sure you have to tell yourself this three times a day after meals
in order to reassure your insecure self. The Duke spends his life
worrying about death.
David V.
>> From: Thomas P.
>>
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Story wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only a dumb theist! As with all, God can be
>>>> understood to some degree by his effects, creation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be a statement a dumb theist would
>>> make. You need to prove the god exists *BEFORE* you
>>> can claim it created anything.
>>
>> That was essentially my reaction. There is, however,
>> something else to be said about Randy's statement. Let
>> us assume that there is some kind of god and that the
>
> Good point.
No, it's not a good point. There is no reason to make the
assumption.
Bob Crowley
> duke wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:52:18 GMT, Dixit <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Actually the crowd in question are those true believers who argue from
> >>ignorance, "A magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there
> >>is no god spoor we true believers can point out, and this hypothesis
> >>even a genius like Galileo could not prove false!"
> >
> > So what, besides nothing, does the atheist offer as evidence for no God?
>
>
> You ignored me before, lets go again and expose your ignorance.
>
> Can god do the inpossible, create a 4 sided triangle, make a square circle?
> That is, does god make the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe?
>
> If he doez make the rules and laws, he can then do the impossible, he could
> make a world where man has free will yet freely chooses only to do moral
> good, never moral evil.
>
> But there is moral evil in the world. If god makes the rules, the laws of
> the Universe, then god is responsible for all evil in the world. Evil
> exists solely because he allows it to, he is then the creator of evil and
> the sustaining cause of all evil.
>
> According to theological dogma, god is omnibenevolent, so if god
> makes the rules, he is evil, omnimalevolent, this contradicts dogmatic
> claims.
>
> So we are forced to answer, no, god does not make the rules and cannot do
> the impossible.
>
> But dogmatic claims are, god is omnipotent, all powerful.
> Well that god obviously does not exist. Omnipotence menas
> without limits and we now know god is limited by the rules,
> the laws, the logic of the Universe.
>
> But that means the Universe with its rules and laws is beyong
> and outside of god. And he cannot have created it. If he had created it,
> he'd have created it so he controlled its laws. After all, by
> failing to do so, he gave up the ability to control the Universe and thus
> knowingly allowed evil to exist, again he is evil, omnimalicious.
>
> So now we know god did not create the Universe.
> Dogmatic claims are god created the Universe, we now know that cannot be so.
> So much for Aquinas's 2 and 5th ways and all other forms of cosmological
> proofs of god's existance.
>
> Dogmatic claims are, god is the most powerful thing that we can imagine.
> But now we know, the Universe at large is more powerful still, that
> Universe with its laws, its rules, its logic preceeds god, is greater than
> any imaginable god, and its rules and laws are so powerful, even the most
> powerful god we could imagine falls sway to those rules, the logic, the
> laws of the Universe.
>
> Since god is the most powerful thing we can imagine is the starting
> statement for Anslem's ontological proof, so much for that 'proof' and all
> variations of ontological proofs.
>
> The god you claim, is supposedly, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
> the creator of all, greater than anything else we can imagine, but we see
> that god cannot exist. The claims are not sustainable.
>
> Now we know, and have proven god is not the creator of the Universe and
> is subject to all rules, laws and logic of the Universe.
>
> The question is, exactly what are these rules, laws and logic?
>
> For one, it seems that matter and energy are prevalent building blocks
> of everything worth mentioning, and it is impossible for a thinking,
> active, intelligent being to exist that is not made up of matter and energy.
>
> And if you deny this, the burden has now shifted very much on you to prove,
> with rather hard evidence, that such a god can exist that is not made of
> matter and energy. That the rules and laws of the Universe
> allow such things and what laws and rules, what physics is there that can
> be proven to allow such things as disemboddied entities to live and act.
>
> So, your god is now rather dead. Its a concept whose basic internal
> contradictions show us that that god as stated cannot exist.
>
> The bible idea of a grand god creating the enire Universe in 6 days
> is a farce.
>
> At the end, all you have left is the task of proving physics allows the
> possibility of such things as a god and good luck proving the rules and
> laws and logic of this Universe, which its proven now god did not create,
> allow for such entities.
>
> And if you could, and you cannot, we would know that possible entity
> is NOT the god of Genesis nor the god of the Greek Philosophers, the omni
> everything god theologicans babble dogmatically about endlessly.
>
> That god is dead and gone forever, killed off by a simple
> little question, "Can god to the impossible?".
>
> There no longer is a god, theology has to start from scratch,
> and the burden is on theology to create a god within the confines of a
> Universe that god cannot have created and is subject to that Universe's
> laws, rules, logic. Unless you want to accept that god is not good,
> but omnimalevolent, all evil, fount and sustaining cause of all evil.
> A god subject to the laws of allowable physics in a Universe where we see
> not the slightest possibility of physics allowing supernatural entities of
> any sort, much less god.
>
>
> There. No. god.
>
> No god part 2
>
> 100 years ago, American archaeologist founded bible archaeology,
> archaeological activities designed to prove the bible is true.
> 10 years later, such archaeology has now disproven that claim.
> Near Eastern archaeologist now know that much of the OT is not
> history in any way.
> There were no patriarchs, not Joseph, no Egyptian captivity.
> Isreal was not enslave in Egypt and starting with 70 people did
> not grow over 430 years into a people numbering approximately
> 2 1/2 millions There was no exodus, no wandering, no camping out
> at Kadesh-Barnea as the OT claims.
> No Moses leading them to Canaan, no battles, no Joshua.
> No Genocidal assault and ethnic cleansing in Canaan.
> No mighty cities destroy as per Joshua.
> Archaeology has debunked all of that and its widely known and
> accepted by working archaeologists and historians.
>
> And so swept away are the myths of god imbedded here.
> No god preceeding non-existant Israelites as a pillar of fire by
> night, a pillar of smoke by day. No God communing with Moses
> on Mount Seir. No rules and laws of Moses from the hand of
> god himself.
> No stern commands to genocide "Leave none that breathe!".
>
> All gone now. No more real than tales of Zeus or Hercules.
> Its just a myth like all the other myths.
>
> The OT is not a history, it is a faux history, a set of myths prettied up
> much later and disguised as history.
>
> God is just a character in a novel. No more real than
> Winnie the Pooh. God is described as being at certain places
> in history at certain times doing ceratin things, none of which
> can have happened. God does not exist as described.
>
> God does not exist as described and its factual and has been
> accepted that these stories are not factual by 100 years
> of scientific endeavor meant to show that these tales of
> the Bible were true by some of the smartest and hardest
> working and most sober men and women who ever walked
> the face of the Earth.
>
>
> So now I have destroyed your Greek philospher style
> Grand God of Grand Theology, the creatro of the Universe,
> Prime Mover, omni-everything god.
>
> And I have shown you 100 years of hard nosed archeaology
> has destroyed your bible character god.
>
> God does not exist.
> There. No god.
>
> Now its time for you to rethink your life.
The prime result of evil is suffering. It produces hate, envy,
jealousy, exploitation, war, rape and all the rest. Suffering also
exist due to natural causes - drought, flood, landslides, famine etc.
However the problem we are mainly concerned with here is man's
inhumanity to man.
Now that is man's responsibility, and each act resulting from an evil
intent is both intended and performed by responsible men. ARe you
going to blame God for that?
Victor Frankl, a Viennese psychiatrist who survived concentration
camps (one of the 4% who did so on average ie. 96% did not survive)
found that there are three things which provide meaning for human
life, and that each man's "meaning" is individual, which he alone can
fulfil, no matter how innocuous it may seem.
The three things were -
1. creating a work or doing a deed.
2. experiencing something or encountering someone.
3. the attitude we take towards unavoidable suffering.
Now the creative work or accomplished deed is obviously individual,
and also depends on circumstances which allow such a thing to take
place. A concentration camp allows practically nothing in this line.
The experiencing someone or something is also individual - for me it
is Christ, for an atheist it may be a profound atheistic thinker or
even just a friend, or it may be a sphere of philosophy ... it will be
individual however.
The third, the response to suffering, is in reality the only thing we
can give back to God. If God gives a man political ability, he cannot
give it back, as it was given to him in the first place. The same
goes with any other talent.
If a man encounters someone or something which impresses him, that is
not his doing either.
The third, our choice in the face of suffering, is the only thing we
can claim as our own. In this sense then, evil forces us into a
response. That, I believe, is the job of the devil, unfortunately for
us. He provokes a response, and that response is how we show what we
think of God, through His Son, or in the way we treat other people
around us (eg. "... the least of my brothers...").
Bob Crowley
Bob Crowley.
My name = Harvey
says...
If you can prove - through logical reasoning that god exists - you're
doing something no one else can do.
If you can disprove - then you got your case all neatly tidied up.
Or point to any evidence that backs up either claim.
The statement - the bible is the word of god - of course, isn't true.
Or the title - The holy bible - doesn't live up to it's name.
Question - hasn't god/etc changed over the centuries?
Hasn't technology and knowledge changed a great deal since biblical times?
Would an astronaut appear to be an 'angel' to those in biblical times?
And if 'god' talked to a man - would that 'god' regarded as a 'god' today?
Would we be impressed if we saw a 'burning bush'?
Maybe 'burning bush' would be something entirely different to what we would
perceive a 'burning bush' to be.
The bible is full of descriptions in which we would probably describe
them differently today, because our language is vastly different today.
Harvey
David V.
>
> Question - hasn't god/etc changed over the centuries?
Of course. Mythologies always change over time.
> Hasn't technology and knowledge changed a great deal
> since biblical times?
Which is a good reason to dump the bible.
> Would an astronaut appear to be an 'angel' to those in
> biblical times?
No.
> And if 'god' talked to a man - would that 'god' regarded
> as a 'god' today?
No. The person that heard the god should be checked for TLE
or other seizures.
> Would we be impressed if we saw a 'burning bush'?
No. Neither were they back then. The whole Moses thing is a
myth. No plagues, no 40 years of a million people roaming in
a desert, no burning bush.
> The bible is full of descriptions in which we would
> probably describe them differently today, because our
> language is vastly different today.
So? That doesn't mean any of the gods therein are real.
David V.
>
> Now that is man's responsibility, and each act resulting
> from an evil intent is both intended and performed by
> responsible men. ARe you going to blame God for that?
Yes.
Ayin
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:00:47 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Arguments about the existence of god usually serve as a tangent for
> >theists to avoid questions pertaining to religious beliefs.
>
> >The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
> >the burden of proof is transferred to him.
>
> Actually, that's not the case at all. This is not a matter of trying to get one's politician elected.
one can not manufactor faith or force belief so it would be up to God
to provide proof if proof was needed by any individual. if God doesnt
care enough to provide the desired proof or is not up to the challange
certainly it is not the fault of the "unbeliever" but God's fault for
being unwilling or unable to provide the gift of faith ... or proof
that faith is warrented.
the bible God is nasty despotic entity with a tendency to lose Self
control and wrath on "His" hapless creations. i'd certainly not vote
for "Him" in an election.
This is a case of inviting you to not commit spiritual suicide.
>
spiritual suicide? so a spirit can die? no problemo then. once
dead theres no consciousness and one does not feel or care if one is
no longer conscious.
void is only frightening to the egotist.
> If you don't buy in, you lose, not me.
>
"ha! ha! ha! so there! I get to go to heaven and you don't! neener
neener neener!"
> >My argument with the theist starts with the statement, "Whether he
> >exists or not, I believe that you know as much about god as I do,
> >WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."
>
> Knowing "about" God is one thing. Knowing what he expects of us is entirely different,
> and you can't hide from that.
can't hide from what? social norms couched in religious dogma? well
... you're right about that. self righteous hypocrits are everywhere
ya go. no escaping them unless you become a cave bound hermit and
even then i bet the JWs would find ya.
Remember, if you do try to hide, you are doing yourself in,
> not anybody else.
>
i'm not too worried about doing myself in but sometimes those bible
thumpers selling God at my door first thing in the morning come close
to being done in. sheesh! not before coffee! PLEASE!
> > The idea here is to transfer the burden
> >of proof on the theist. Let him take it from there and try to defend
> >his theological theories.
>
> You'll never get anywhere with that silly idea.
and where are you going with your silly ideas? just curious.
duke
>The prime result of evil is suffering. It produces hate, envy,
>jealousy, exploitation, war, rape and all the rest. Suffering also
>exist due to natural causes - drought, flood, landslides, famine etc.
And it comes from man that chose to say no to God, and God said "ok, go ahead and be like
a god". And now you see the mess we're in.
>However the problem we are mainly concerned with here is man's
>inhumanity to man.
>Now that is man's responsibility,
That is absolutely correct.
> and each act resulting from an evil
>intent is both intended and performed by responsible men. ARe you
>going to blame God for that?
Of course he is. He's missing the point that much.
duke
>Bob Crowley wrote:
>>
>> Now that is man's responsibility, and each act resulting
>> from an evil intent is both intended and performed by
>> responsible men. ARe you going to blame God for that?
>
>Yes.
But you're an atheist, so it doesn't count. :-)
My name = Harvey
-ammit...@excite.com says...
It is good to provide simple explanations of basic beliefs and see if
it does make sense or not.
What is the basic christian premise? Within 30 words or less?
I can't summarise the christian view - so I'll let someone else do that.
I'll provide what I've been reading about and thinking about for a long time.
The reincarnation view -
You are born into a life situation, that will usually test you - for most
people, it is a difficult life to live here, with much trials and few rewards.
Some people will have a very hard, difficult life, and a very few a luxury
life - but for most of us, it's a normal life, which is mainstream, and
pretty average. But whatever life you'll live, there will always be trials.
Everyone is in the same situation - more or less. Go through the same process.
That of being born, living a life here, dying - which is merely the
transistional state to enter the afterlife. You don't literally die and
stay dead, but your physical body dies, and your spirit body goes on.
What happens afterwards?
Usually a rest period, then one of self-examination and self judgement of
your own life, just lived. And in time - you will decide when to live another
life again - maybe back on earth (in which time will now have passed), or
perhaps on another world, elsewhere in the universe - or even on another
plane - (on a different spiritual plane/dimension). You can choose not to go
back to earth, because after all, it's a horrible place here, at the worst
of times... etc.
I know the above sounds rather fanciful - but anything else anyone else
cares to voice, will sound as hard to believe too.
If you start looking for evidence of the above, you can find it ---
in reincarnation memories, in which people do accurately describe a former
life, in Near Death Experiences, which describe the afterlife plane, in
Out of Body Experiences, in which consciousness goes outside and away from
the physical body.
This is not hard scientific data/evidence - but just lots of peoples'
accounts and experiences, expressed genuinely - from many different sources,
in different parts of the world, independently of each other.
I believe in the reincarnation world view, because there is nothing
else which has any colloborative evidence behind it, like reincarnation
does.
As regards proving that god exists - in various near death experiences -
there has been accounts of people feeling god's love, and what it is like
there - a place full of love, unlike here.
Now --- just don't go out and commit suicide, thinking you'll be in
paradise straight away. That is not what we are here for --- a quick trip
back "home" when we are suppose to be living here, while you can.
Harvey
Pangur Ban
If a person has been a sociopathic personality here - then passes - then
goes into the period of self-examination, are the sociopathic traits
left behind? What of murderers, child molesters, etc.?
As I believe in "balance" - how are the damages the above caused in this
life balanced?
Pang - fascinated!
My name = Harvey
Your question is a very interesting one.
I'll suggest that you post your question in
alt.paranormal.reincarnation
and see the many varied answers you'll get there.
Treatment is very much needed there, and as long as the personality
acknowledges the need for it, help will be given.
In the self-examination, which is a life review process (that everyone goes
through) - it is said, that you'll relive your life as you review it, and you
will be painfully aware of the consequences of your actions here. So people
will feel the hurt inflicted upon others. Not only the physical, but the
mental and pyschological as well.
And that someone who was very very bad in a previous life, may decide to live
a life, in which pain and suffering is very constant in the next.
Yes, all lives are chosen with the preknowledge of what suffering will be
present. People freely choose to come to earth and live their life here - even
though we may very strongly deny it, while here (people do forget all this as
part of the birth and being born process).
You may get a similar answer, to what I have written above.
Harvey
cliffh...@shaw.ca
THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF SUPPORT, THE FIRST LINE
IS FAITH.
THE SECOND LINE IS FACT. UNFAITHFULL PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE
TRUTH AND NEVER FINDING IT. UNBELIEVING PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS QUESTIONING
THE FACTS AND NEVER ACCEPTING THEM. IF IT IS REAL FACTS YOU WANT, I
RECOMMEND YOU TURN TO,
http://members.shaw.ca/mias
THE SUGGESTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, PART(1),(2),(3) IS LOADED WITH
FACTS FOR THEM THAT ARE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE ENOUGH FAITH TO GIVE
THE FACTS A CHANCE TO
BE READ.
David V.
>
> THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF SUPPORT, THE
> FIRST LINE IS FAITH.
Faith supports noting but ignorance.
> THE SECOND LINE IS FACT
There are no facts supporting any religion, only lies.
By the way; using all capitals is considered rude, but then
nothing has ever stopped christians from being rude.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
I RECOMMEND EXISTANT SO CALLED CHRISTIANS BEGIN READING TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION PART (3)
John M Price PhD
: > >
: THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF SUPPORT, THE FIRST LINE
: IS FAITH.
: THE SECOND LINE IS FACT. UNFAITHFULL PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE
: TRUTH AND NEVER FINDING IT. UNBELIEVING PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS QUESTIONING
: THE FACTS AND NEVER ACCEPTING THEM. IF IT IS REAL FACTS YOU WANT, I
: RECOMMEND YOU TURN TO,
: http://members.shaw.ca/mias
: THE SUGGESTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, PART(1),(2),(3) IS LOADED WITH
: FACTS FOR THEM THAT ARE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE ENOUGH FAITH TO GIVE
: THE FACTS A CHANCE TO
: BE READ.
If you have to believe to see, what you see is not in the real world, but
rather your own mind.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
"Duct tape is like the force:
it has a light side, a dark side,
and it holds the universe together..."
-Carl Zwanzig-
Libertarius
John M Price PhD wrote:
> In alt.atheism article <be2c6dd8.0404...@posting.google.com> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
> : > >
>
> : THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF SUPPORT, THE FIRST LINE
> : IS FAITH.
> : THE SECOND LINE IS FACT. UNFAITHFULL PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE
> : TRUTH AND NEVER FINDING IT. UNBELIEVING PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS QUESTIONING
> : THE FACTS AND NEVER ACCEPTING THEM. IF IT IS REAL FACTS YOU WANT, I
> : RECOMMEND YOU TURN TO,
> : http://members.shaw.ca/mias
> : THE SUGGESTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, PART(1),(2),(3) IS LOADED WITH
> : FACTS FOR THEM THAT ARE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE ENOUGH FAITH TO GIVE
> : THE FACTS A CHANCE TO
> : BE READ.
>
> If you have to believe to see, what you see is not in the real world, but
> rather your own mind.
===>That is what makes stage hypnosis work so well!
You believe it, so you see it. -- L.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
No, doctor Price. You've got things confused, sir. The truth is
often hard to accept and it is easier to not believe what is seen than
to believe it. My God does not approve of sloths, having neither the
courage to admit the truth
let alone live it. Believe the voice in your ear and you may find
guidence there more than you thought was possible. Nobody is asking
you to believe what is not already there.Believe in my God sir, and
you will discover his presence
was is and shall ever be.
David V.
>
> No, doctor Price. You've got things confused, sir. The
> truth is often hard to accept and it is easier to not
> believe what is seen than to believe it. My God does not
> approve of sloths, having neither the courage to admit
> the truth let alone live it.
I admit the truth; gods exist only in human mythologies.
They're not real.
> Believe the voice in your ear and you may find
> guidence[sic] there more than you thought was possible.
If you hear voices; you need to see a psychiatrist.
> Nobody is asking you to believe what is not already
> there.
No, you are asking us to believe in what is not there.
> Believe in my God sir, and you will discover his presence
> was is and shall ever be.
Why would anyone want to do such a silly thing?
cliffh...@shaw.ca
And now I take time to repeat, I am new at the Post game. Even so,
pardon me doc. I'm starting to get the way it works. Without getting
loud, permit me to say, David V. I thought you were a PHD. But on the
basis of your last question? It seems you need to be educated,
http://members.shaw.ca/mias Maybe after you have learned about my God
the answer to your question will become known to you.
John M Price PhD
: John M Price PhD <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote in message news:<408d4ef3$0$7528$d36...@news.calweb.com>...
I used to. Then reason overtook me. Go figure.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask
not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that
you were our countrymen.
- Samuel Adams
cliffh...@shaw.ca
And when you went to school,Did they in good faith teach you how to
be ignorant? Perhaps it was your faith in them that educated you, eh
David V.?
Must I believe you are one of those LAKS-ADAYS-ICLES who doesn't read
the facts, http://members.shaw.ca/mias Looks to me like you got
need to be educated.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>
>>> THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF SUPPORT,
>>> THE FIRST LINE IS FAITH.
>>
>> Faith supports noting but ignorance.
>>
>>> THE SECOND LINE IS FACT
>>
>> There are no facts supporting any religion, only lies.
>>
>> By the way; using all capitals is considered rude, but
>> then nothing has ever stopped christians from being
>> rude.
>
> And when you went to school
When I went to school we had to use sticks to write on clay
tablets.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
In that case, David V., You must know that without the word there
could not have been any of the organized religions that exist today.
For there is only one such religion that has ever written, maybe even
back in your time, In the begining was the word. And the word was with
God. And the word was God. Therefore we all should know where to look
for the word of God. Seeing as how you seem to be so interested, eh
David V.?
cliffh...@shaw.ca
The way things are in the churches throughout the world today, sir.
It makes Good reason to get out of them. They are not Holy places. But
only say they are. Men are born blind in them. There is no authority
from God in them. They do not do God's work. They see through a glass
darkly.
Pangur Ban
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<MaSdnXDeROO...@sti.net>...>
>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> In that case, David V., You must know that without the word there
> could not have been any of the organized religions that exist today.
Religions existed before the nomadic jews learned to write and jotted
down the old testament.....which is the foundation on which the new
testament is written. Those religions which pre-date both judaism and
christianity were the foundations on which each religion is based. In
simple language - your religion is based on an older religion which is
based on even older religions. These religions did not depend on the
written word to exist and survive.
> For there is only one such religion that has ever written
What did religion write? Or did you mean that only one religion was
written down? And if that is what you meant - you are very wrong. Any
goodly number of religions world-wide have had their sacred texts
written down.
maybe even
> back in your time, In the begining was the word. And the word was
> with God. And the word was God. Therefore we all should know where to
> look for the word of God.
Which god? And assuming you were referring to written religious texts,
which ones?
Pang
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> THEOLOGY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE TWO LINES OF
>>>>> SUPPORT, THE FIRST LINE IS FAITH.
>>>>
>>>> Faith supports noting but ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>> THE SECOND LINE IS FACT
>>>>
>>>> There are no facts supporting any religion, only
>>>> lies.
>>>>
>>>> By the way; using all capitals is considered rude,
>>>> but then nothing has ever stopped christians from
>>>> being rude.
>>>
>>> And when you went to school
>>
>> When I went to school we had to use sticks to write on
>> clay tablets.
>
> In that case, David V., You must know that without the
> word there could not have been any of the organized
> religions that exist today.
"The word" is a bunch of lies. That means all those
"organized religions" are founded on a bunch of lies.
> For there is only one such religion that has ever
> written, maybe even back in your time, In the begining
> was the word.
What "word"? And there are many such religions written.
Which one are you talking about?
> And the word was with God. And the word was God.
Which god? Provide proof of that gods existence and proof
that the other gods written about do not exist. Then explain
how a god can be a word and how a word can be a god?
> Therefore we all should know where to look for the word
> of God.
Which god?
Marc Fleury
news:q026809hvib1bgrqo...@4ax.com:
> The moment a theist says anything beyond the statement, "God exists"
> the burden of proof is transferred to him. Any statement, god is, god
> wants, god knows, god says, etc. requires the theist to prove what he
> claims to know.
Why? If I say that I know there's some feces in my bowels, do I have to
prove it?
Saying that you know something does not require you to prove it to be true.
TRYING TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE requires you to
prove that it's true.
--
Marc.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
and the written word, of the Hebrew God, Who is the Christian Saviour,
The Book Of John 1:1-14. Did it ever occurr to you that there is no
word anywhere with out a language. Even a childs first cry is
language. And I repeat.., sir. There is only one religion that has
ever written saying God is the WORD! So we know who, in the begining,
God is.
David V.
> Pangur Ban <Pangu...@SatisHouse.org> wrote
>
>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> cliffh...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>
>>> In that case, David V., You must know that without
>>> the word there could not have been any of the
>>> organized religions that exist today.
>>
>> Religions existed before the nomadic jews learned to
>> write and jotted down the old testament.....which is
>> the foundation on which the new testament is written.
>> Those religions which pre-date both judaism and
>> christianity were the foundations on which each
>> religion is based. In simple language - your religion
>> is based on an older religion which is based on even
>> older religions. These religions did not depend on the
>> written word to exist and survive.
>>
>>> For there is only one such religion that has ever
>>> written
>>
>> What did religion write? Or did you mean that only one
>> religion was written down? And if that is what you
>> meant - you are very wrong. Any goodly number of
>> religions world-wide have had their sacred texts
>> written down. maybe even
>>> And the word was with God. And the word was God.
>>> Therefore we all should know where to look for the
>>> word of God.
>>
>> Which god? And assuming you were referring to written
>> religious texts, which ones?
>
> spoken word!, and the written word, of the Hebrew God,
Did this god speak or write those words?
> Who is the Christian Saviour, The Book Of John 1:1-14.
I do not care what the bible has to say about anything.
> Did it ever occurr[sic] to you that there is no word
> anywhere with out a language.
That has nothing to do with your gods.
> There is only one religion that has ever written saying
> God is the WORD!
No, they all claim that. Your religion is just a myth like
all the others. Your sub moronic claims prove nothing but
your lack of ability to comprehend the world around you.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
SHOW ME! Show me where, in any other written religion, other than
the Hebrew Christian religion, where the very words are written. 'God
is the word.''And word was made flesh and dwelt among us'. You show
us, David V,.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
Come on man.., I'm waiting. Show me, or forever hold you peace on
the, identity of God, subject.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
Take a trip back in time with me Dave. Click on
Humanities.philosophy.objectivism and scroll to April 24, 2004 Re: Do
"possibilities" exist. For all to see.
RainLover
>> No, they all claim that. Your religion is just a myth like
>> all the others. Your sub moronic claims prove nothing but
>> your lack of ability to comprehend the world around you.
>
>
>
> SHOW ME! Show me where, in any other written religion, other than
>the Hebrew Christian religion, where the very words are written. 'God
>is the word.''And word was made flesh and dwelt among us'. You show
>us, David V,.
Writing wasn't really that big of a deal for the millenia before Rome and the establishment of the
Church. Your arguement doesn't hold any water anyway. There are ancient asian texts of gods. The
mormons have a huge book of written text about god as well... some would argue it's actually the 3rd
testiment of the bible, the New new testiment if you will......
By YOUR aguement, someone could write down a new religion and Claim "Show me where, in any other
written religion, that the very words "This word of GOD superceeds all other words of God"...
Would that make it so?
If I showed you written text of a religion that said " The Buddha is the true path to enlightenment"
would you give up your current faith and live a life of the buddha?
Would you?? Cuz I can show you that.
James, Seattle
Pangur Ban
Pangur Ban <Pangu...@SatisHouse.org> wrote in message news:<8PZjc.61982$um3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>..
> and the written word, of the Hebrew God, Who is the Christian
> Saviour, The Book Of John 1:1-14.
> Did it ever occurr to you that there is no word anywhere with out a
> language.
> Even a childs first cry is language.
> And I repeat.., sir. There is only one religion that has ever written
> saying God is the WORD! So we know who, in the begining, God is.
Pang - who thinks you might be able to write more cogently and coherently if you controlled your emotions better. Foaming at the mouth just leaves water spots on your post.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
There is no REINCARNATION. My God does not need to give anyone an
infinate number of lives to determine if they qualify to recieve life
in the body beyond the first one. And let me remind you all about your
own procrastinations. How easily people put off today what they can do
tomorrow. What a soft tongued trap you set viper.
David V.
Show me why I should care what some ignorant fool wrote
hundreds of years ago. Just because someone wrote it
doesn't make it true.
cliffh...@shaw.ca
The Saviour, accoring the prescribed procedures, has delivered the
way for a man to be free of the chains that your ilk would bind man
to.
David V.
>
> The Saviour
Which one. There have been several. It's a common concept
found in many myths.
> accoring[sic] the prescribed procedures, has delivered the way
> for a man to be free of the chains that your ilk would
> bind man to.
Actually, being bound to the chains of religion has been a
detriment to the advancement of our society.
Jos Flachs
> The Saviour, accoring the prescribed procedures, has delivered the
>way for a man to be free of the chains that your ilk would bind man
>to.
Now all you have to do is proof this 'saviour' existed.
Robibnikoff
cliffh...@shaw.ca says...snip
>
> SHOW ME! Show me where, in any other written religion, other than
>the Hebrew Christian religion, where the very words are written. 'God
>is the word.''And word was made flesh and dwelt among us'. You show
>us, David V,.
What does this have to do with anything? Just because this is written in a book
doesn't make it true.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557