And more God stuff.....
Dave
In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
to prove that God does not exist.
So let me ask the Theists:-
Which God is it you believe in ?
The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?
Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?
Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
Richard Caley
d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
d> to prove that God does not exist.
No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
to provide a rational proof no god exists.
Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.
d> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
d> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
There is no god but KaTe and Dave ws her prophet.
If you need proof you are not playing it loud enough.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
NUNIA
and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
watcher
news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
>
NUNIA
John Hattan
Can you provide proof that you don't owe me a thousand dollars?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Jez
expecting us to live on this shitty little planet............
And look at the way he treats his 'worshipers', it's not
as if He sends them a postcard for their trouble......
Miserable git...........
:)
--
Ho hum
Jez
(Remove NOtSPAM to reply)
welsh witch
"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in message
news:srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
******************************************
You didn't ask about the Ritual Magicians or Pagans I notice;-)
If so I would have said that we all make our own gods. Some of us are
aware of what we're doing and some of us are not.
A god is made or worshiped by us as a means of "pulling power" through
from either our subconcious or a group conciousness.
For example Roman Catholocism has the extremely powerful icon of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. It is extremely powerful because it has been the
object of intense emotional attention for hundreds of years. Its
unbelievable what can be achieved by the appeal to this icon of the
faith.
So all gods are the same in essence ie a focus some more colourful
than others. The Egyptian gods and of course the Hindu deities...
contemplation of which colourful beings and ritual associated with the
paricular entity lifts the worshiper into an altered state of
conciousness in which it is possible to achieve a desired goal one has
in mind.
It doesn't matter which icon of which religion you choose but some
icons are more associated with the beautiful and artistic, others are
more associated with domination by any means etc etc.
Of course you are usually born into a religion, but many of us winkle
our way to something different later in life.
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm
watcher
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:3cbleus5fq7qotano...@4ax.com...
> "watcher" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
> >news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> >> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
> >> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific
proof.
> >>
> >can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
> Can you provide proof that you don't owe me a thousand dollars?
>
Fred Stone
We rest our case.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369; linux user # 254178; machine # 138214
Dave
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1p1g...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave
(d) writes:
>
> d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
> d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.
It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or Goblins
do not exist.
If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.
Dave
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in
...if somoene wants to dispute that they have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.
>
> Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
> atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
> of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.
Kouros
<snipped and re-edited>
>> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
> absolutly.
How?
John Hattan
Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative assertion
of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a similar negative
assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to prove the positive.
So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
Kouros
news:rsyG8.4594$7M3.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net:
>> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
>> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they
>> have to provide a rational proof no god exists.
>
> It is an irrational argument to expect proof that God or Unicorns or
> Goblins do not exist.
I don't see how God can be equated to Unicorns or Goblins.
Unicorns or Goblins do not exist, because they would be solid beings of
solid matter. We have never found any remains of them, either complete or
fossilised.
Therefore we know they do not exist.
God, on the other hand, may not have no physical components - and if He
(She?) did, why would we ever find any remnants of them?
God, if He/She exists is an entirely different being to that of any
theoretical or actual creature.
> If you believe in God or Unicorns or Goblins, show me the evidence.
We are alive.
If God exists - God put us here. If God does not exist, then what we (or at
least, a lot of people) consider to be God is a set a remarkable
coincidences that led to our being - in which case, the very Universe
itself is our creator - hence the Universe being "God".
God, under one name or another, exists.
Daniel Kolle
>people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
>and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
...So much for this thread.
Kolle (kohl-lee); 14.
A.A. #2035.
The planet is fine, the people are fucked.
Kouros
<snip>
> Waitwaitwait. First you insist that someone prove the negative
> assertion of "Gods[sic] non existance". When I ask you to prove a
> similar negative assertion, you suddenly change it to the need to
> prove the positive.
>
> So is the burden of proof on the positive or negative claimant?
I think he was just making the point about making rash statements without
being able to back them up.
Saying "God does not exist" or "God exists" cannot be proven either way.
Gregory Gadow
> Hello,
>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> So let me ask the Theists:-
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
> The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?
>
> Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?
There is only One True God (tm) and it just happens to be the one I believe in.
If you don't belive as I do, therefore, you are bound for Hell and eternal
torment.
> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
What part of One True God (tm) did you not understand? If I believe in the One
True God (tm), then there can be no other gods, true or otherwise. That's
logic.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
to the amount of real information available.
-- Gregory Benford
JeffLawrence
news:aceac0$p7lk4$1...@ID-18631.news.dfncis.de...
It seems to me that a theory that cannot be either proved or disproved might
have a slight flaw in it.
Cheers
Jeff
c3b3rus
lawre...@zonnet.nl says...
Isn't that what makes it a theory? Once it's proven/disproven it becomes
either a fact or a fallacy......
The standpoint of this particular agnostic ;)
Regards
JeffLawrence
news:MPG.1754d23d8...@news.btinternet.com...
Well I wish they'd get a move on to do one of them.
Cheers
Jeff
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Hello,
>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
> Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
>
> So let me ask the Theists:-
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?
The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Termite of Temptation
<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020521180158.278$2...@newsreader.com...
> "Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
> > Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
> >
> > So let me ask the Theists:-
> >
> > Which God is it you believe in ?
>
> The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
> Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.
Ah, you believe in the REAL God. But which one is that? Does He/She have a
name? Who worships Him/Her? Did He/She send His/Her only begotten son? Any
other myths or legends that might help us distinguish one imaginary being
from another?
Duncan
Edward Cowling London UK
>
>Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
>the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
>
All religions are a group psychosis, brought on by the human fear of
mortality.
When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
better place.
--
Edward Cowling London UK
John Hattan
>"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
>> Atheist to prove that God does not exist.
>>
>> So let me ask the Theists:-
>>
>> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
>The One Who is The God of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Egyptians,
>Romans, and *any and all* , including the atheists.
Ahh, Quetzocoatl.
Steve Knight
Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
Lack of proof isn't evidence of proof. It's plain word soup
bullshit.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
The Chosen Few
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3CEAB98A...@serv.net...
[snip]
> Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> to the amount of real information available.
> -- Gregory Benford
I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
nuclear physicist, IMHO.
Omnipitus V2.0
>
> > Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> > to the amount of real information available.
> > -- Gregory Benford
>
>
> I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
> nuclear physicist, IMHO.
Gimme a break!! As if more information is necessarily going to destroy
passion. It *would* take a physicist to make such an inhuman comment!
Intellectuals are the stupidest people on earth. ;-)
Steve Farrell
somebody called "Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> made the
following views known to all at uk.media.tv.misc
Truly this is a quote worthy of a sig.
Steve
--
'Intellecutals are the stupidest people on earth' - Omnipitus V2.0,
uk.media.tv.misc
The Chosen Few
"Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acemdl$o3qto$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> > > to the amount of real information available.
> > > -- Gregory Benford
> >
> >
> > I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
> > nuclear physicist, IMHO.
>
> Gimme a break!! As if more information is necessarily going to destroy
> passion. It *would* take a physicist to make such an inhuman comment!
Having read Benford's novels, which often feature passionate characters as
heroes, I presume that what he was referring to in his epigram was
irrational passion. And even that kind of passion, like any other form of
energy, can't be destroyed (at least, not in classical physics). It can
only be converted into other, hopefully more constructive, forms.
> Intellectuals are the stupidest people on earth. ;-)
I feel/think (aka believe) they're tied with emotionals in vying for that
distinction.
Mark A
>
> Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
> Lack of proof isn't evidence of proof. It's plain word soup
> bullshit.
Absolutely, but unfortunately it works in exactly the same way for both
sides of the debate.
Regards
Mark
John Hattan
>Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
>despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position.
According to whom?
Clayton the Devil's Avacado
"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3CEADF...@rbgkew.org.uk...
> Steve Knight wrote:
> >
> > Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> > respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> > entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> > regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
>
> No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
Do you think that it is an equal leap of faith to say that unicorns and
leprechauns and Zeus and Odin and Bungfort the Giant Breasted Monkey God
don't exist? All of them hold equal evidence and credibility as the
standard interpretation of God. Dismissing the absurd and impossible is not
faith...it is a little thing called accepting reality.
Fester
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1p1g...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...(d) writes:
>
> d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
> d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.
No, one just has to prove that it is rational to reject the existence of the
critter(s). For my part, I consider it rational to reject any hypothesis
that lacks any evidence to support it.
> Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
> atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
> of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.
Speaking for myself, my opinion is not an aesthetic judgement. It is one
arrived at by the same processes by which I accept or reject all claims
about the natural world.
<snip>
Fester
The Not-So-Bad-Assed Atheist #369
welsh witch
"Omnipitus V2.0" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acemdl$o3qto$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
******************************
One of our kings who had his head chopped off Ican't quite remember
which one..I think probably Charles 1st...they said "He never said a
foolish thing nor ever did a wise
one!!"http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm
Olrik
Outside of mathematics, very few, if any, scientific theories can be
proved, but they are all based on facts. Take gravity: it's still a
theory because the explanation for it by Einstein, while precise and
predictive, cannot be at this point "proved".
> The standpoint of this particular agnostic ;)
>
>
> Regards
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
Olrik
No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime, we
are atheists.
> Regards
>
> Mark
welsh witch
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
******************************************
No one seems to have come up with the very well known story.
The scientist had a guest to dinner. The guest was shown into a room
where there was a working model of the universe set up on the table.
Said the guest "That's brilliant...who made it?"
"No one said the scientist"
"Don't be daft" said the guest
"Oh no it just arrived.....Just like the universe you were telling
me???"
The Ritual Magician doesn't say he worships the god of the Hindu, the
Jews nor the Muslims or Christian or any other.
When asked who is God the over-all power in the universe he learns "I
am THAT I am" language preferred Latin, Greek or Hebrew!)This covers
all and goes beyond all belief systems.
It operates through the two great Ring Cosmos and Ring Chaos. Ring
Cosmos which is all the beautiful and creative and Ring Chaos all that
is destructive.
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piddington.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/hercall.htm
Thomas P.
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Dave (d) writes:
>
>d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the Atheist
>d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
>No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
>rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they have
>to provide a rational proof no god exists.
Which is wrong. It is perfectly rational not to believe in something
for which there is no evidence.
>
>Many atheists are quite sane and sensible and happy knowing that their
>atheism is based on non rational factors such as feeling that the idea
>of god is silly/ugly/insulting/whatver.
The above is total nonsense. The belief in god is based on feelings.
>
>d> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
>d> the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
>
>There is no god but KaTe and Dave ws her prophet.
>
>If you need proof you are not playing it loud enough.
Talk about being irrational.
>
>--
>Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
>
Thomas P.
"You know", he added very gravely, "it's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle-to get one's head cut off."
Mike
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
>
Atheism is not the firm belief that no deity exists. Atheism is simply the
position of not claiming the existence of any deity. A theist claims that
at least one deity exists. An atheist does not make that claim. Period.
As an atheist, I may claim that certain gods do not exist. For example, any
deity based on the bible, does not exist. The bible contains so many
contradictions that a deity based on the entirety of the bible cannot exist.
However, there may be some gods for which I do not claim it positively does
not exist. I make no such claim for the Deist god. Based on my
understanding of that god, it cannot be proven to exist or to not exist.
However, I do not claim that it exists (since there is no evidence pointing
to its existence) so I am still considered an atheist. I also do not claim
that it does not exist (since there is no evidence positively pointing to
its non-existence).
Recap:
Theist - claims at least one deity exists.
Atheist - does not claim any deity exists.
Mike
JeffLawrence
> >
> > Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
> > respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
> > entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
> > regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
>
> No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
> it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
How can you prove something doesn't exist?
Cheers
Jeff
Skraedder
news:aceac0$p7lk4$1...@ID-18631.news.dfncis.de...
> "NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
> news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> > people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the
proof.
> > and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific
proof.
> >
> can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
>
>
It's the existance that needs proving not the non-existance
--
Skræðer
Skraedder
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> mortality.
>
> When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
> better place.
>
At last, we get to the substance of the argument.
--
Skræðer
Donald Pearce
It is a matter of extreme shame that today, hundreds of years after
Newton turned on the lights, 99% of mankind are still ignorant peasants
cowering before the supernatural in the darkness of religion.
--
Don Pearce
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Will
"Dave" <god...@email.com> wrote in message
news:srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hello,
>
> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of the
Atheist
>
>
> Which God is it you believe in ?
>
>
> Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?
>
> Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please
provide
The question is not disproving the existence of "other" gods, but
accepting that people source the same knowledge from different point in
the same river. How people interpret that spiritual information, by
assigning it to a God, Gods, Humanity, Nature, Collective Unconscious is
largely irrelevant. How you perceive *God* or *spirituality* is largely
due to local factors.
Will
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:5QNmPKAq...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
Dave
> <god...@email.com> writes
> >
> >Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please
provide
> >the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
> >
>
> All religions are a group psychosis,
You're forgetting about those who worship singley.....
brought on by the human fear of
> mortality.
And those who beleive in a deity but have no belief in an afterlife....
> When mankind can live without made up Gods, the World will be a much
> better place.
Well.....depends on whether said folks are trying to pressure you into
believing or not. I haven't got a problem with anyone who believes as
long as I'm not preached to......I have no problem with discussion of
god/gods/spirituality but I don't want to be "converted"......I'm quite
happy as I am thanks :-)
Mark A
>
> >Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
> >despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position.
>
> According to whom?
Any dictionary you care to look in.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> Do you think that it is an equal leap of faith to say that unicorns
> and leprechauns and Zeus and Odin and Bungfort the Giant Breasted
> Monkey God don't exist?
I always liked Zeus myself, but Odin was a bit of a pain, though Xena
sorted him out.
> All of them hold equal evidence and credibility as the standard
> interpretation of God. Dismissing the absurd and impossible is not
> faith...it is a little thing called accepting reality.
Yes, but what is really the nature of reality? That may seem like a
jocular thing to say, but it is actually at the very core of all things,
so it must be taken into consideration.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
> believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime,
> we are atheists.
No an atheist does not believe, period. Look in any dictionary. Under
that strict definition it should hold true that you won't believe even
in the face of evidence against your position (not that any actually
exists, but logically that's beside the point). Therefore it is a blind
faith as much as a deist's blind faith, just in the opposite direction.
Neither of you need any sort of proof for your positions, which is just
as well because none has ever been found.
Now if you think you are simply waiting for evidence that might convince
you one way or the other, then you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> Atheism is not the firm belief that no deity exists.
Yes it is, look in any dictionary. For example from my desk dictionary
Collins Reference:
"atheism n. belief that there is no god"
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that you're an agnostic, not an
atheist after all? Or perhaps you like having a faith, I don't know.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> How can you prove something doesn't exist?
It sure ain't easy. Not that that's stopped a lot of people having leaps
of faith and making assumptions about things they have no proper
evidence for.
Guess it's human nature.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> Yes it is, look in any dictionary. For example from my desk dictionary
> Collins Reference:
>
> "atheism n. belief that there is no god"
And add to that...
Random House Websters Dictionary:
"atheism n. The doctrine or belief that there is no god"
Chambers Mini Dictionary:
"atheism n. belief that there is no god"
Concise Oxford Dictionary:
"atheism n. the theory or belief that god does not exist"
Regards
Mark
Wolf333
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Period.
I have seen no positive proof confirming the existance of gods, so I do not
believe. It's simple.
In order for me to believe in gods, I require proof. No one has provided
proof, therefore I do not believe in gods.
An agnostic states that the existance of gods cannot be proven or disproven.
I say that thousands of people have been trying for thousands of years to
prove the existance of gods, and they have failed. Therefore, I do not
belive in gods.
Can my position change? Well, yes. If someone does prove , beyond a doubt,
that gods do exist, then I will have to believe in them because I know they
exist.
What would it take to make me believe? Well, I don't know for sure, but I do
know that it would be more than some shithead posting on usenet.
--
___
"Do deformed bunny, that's my favorite!"
- Terry Pratchett
Michael Wolfe
AA # 1912
___
ronny_magic
>Which God is it you believe in ?
>
>The Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God ?
>
>Or is it one of the Hindu, Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods...?
>
>Once you have selected and chosen your one true God or Gods, please provide
>the evidence that shows the others do not exist.
Can you please take this back to the sixth form common room, or at
least alt.atheism?
Wolf333
But then, you could look them up separately...
a: absent
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
Absence in the belief in god or gods.
Lloyd Gilbert
<webmi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>No one seems to have come up with the very well known story.
>The scientist had a guest to dinner. The guest was shown into a room
>where there was a working model of the universe set up on the table.
>Said the guest "That's brilliant...who made it?"
>"No one said the scientist"
>"Don't be daft" said the guest
>"Oh no it just arrived.....Just like the universe you were telling
>me???"
1. This story is not very well known to me.
2. I don't get it.
L
Mark A
>
> But then, you could look them up separately...
> a: absent
> theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
>
> Absence in the belief in god or gods.
Why do you feel the need to create a manufactured and incorrect meaning
of a word that already has a perfectly good and accepted meaning all
of its very own?
Regards
Mark
Donald Pearce
says...
Why do we need a word for not believing in something that doesn't exist?
There is no god, there is no need for atheism. Don't accept labels - they
are always twisted by others.
Mark A
>
> Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Period.
Wrong, Atheism has a specific and well defined meaning, and what you've
written above is not it. Look in a dictionary.
> I have seen no positive proof confirming the existance of gods, so I
> do not believe. It's simple.
I'm glad for you.
> In order for me to believe in gods, I require proof.
Any sensible person would.
> No one has provided proof, therefore I do not believe in gods.
Not a difficult leap of logic.
> An agnostic states that the existance of gods cannot be proven or
> disproven.
In the light of existing knowledge.
> I say that thousands of people have been trying for thousands of years
> to prove the existance of gods, and they have failed. Therefore, I do
> not belive in gods.
Good for you. Now all you have to do is take the logical step that no
one has disproved it either and thus perhaps you can come to a more
even-handed view?
> Can my position change? Well, yes. If someone does prove , beyond a
> doubt, that gods do exist, then I will have to believe in them because
> I know they exist.
Seems fair.
> What would it take to make me believe? Well, I don't know for sure,
> but I do know that it would be more than some shithead posting on
> usenet.
Seems highly unlikely, but then one should really keep an open mind, no?
All I'm pointing out is that due to the lack of any proof either way
it's more logical to not make any leaps of faith that either deism
or athiesm requires. They're both unproven.
Regards
Mark
John Hattan
>Olrik wrote:
>>
>> No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
>> believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime,
>> we are atheists.
>
>No an atheist does not believe, period. Look in any dictionary. Under
>that strict definition it should hold true that you won't believe even
>in the face of evidence against your position (not that any actually
>exists, but logically that's beside the point).
Huh? Where in the definition does it state that this lack of belief is
irrevocable?
I don't believe in unicorns, thus making me aunicornist, but if you
bring one to me, I'll believe in it. Ditto for a god.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
John Hattan
Encarta: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God
or deities
Webster Collegiate: a disbelief in the existence of deity
Steve Knight
<m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote:
>Steve Knight wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is not a claim or assertion. It's a neutral position with
>> respect to deities. Until evidence can be show that an all powerful
>> entity exists (and I won't hold my breath) then the subject is
>> regulated to ghosts, Fairies and Garden Pixies.
>
>No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that no deity exist
>despite the lack of absolute proof confirming such a position. In short,
>it's as much a leap of faith as a deists.
>
It's not agnosticism to me. There is no proof of 'any' supernatural
existence so giving them equal time with reality is worthless. It
doesn't exist. Gods don't exist.
Perhaps 'default' position would have been better than 'neutral'
>> Lack of proof isn't evidence of proof. It's plain word soup
>> bullshit.
>
>Absolutely, but unfortunately it works in exactly the same way for both
>sides of the debate.
>
Atheists do not have to prove something doesn't exist. We are not
making any claim. We are in a neutral position because we don't
believe the claim.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Mike
Add to that The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
2. Godlessness.
Deny: 2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow; disown.
Godless: 1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
Therefore, I am an atheist.
Mike
Mike
Why do you feel the need to deny a perfectly good and accepted meaning of a
word just because it doesn't agree with your limited understanding of that
word?
Mike
Steve Knight
<m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote:
>Wolf333 wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Period.
>
>Wrong, Atheism has a specific and well defined meaning, and what you've
>written above is not it. Look in a dictionary.
Dictionaries seldom, if at all, give proper definitions for
atheism. I haven't seen one yet that I agreed with. All that proves is
how atheism remains a very misunderstood concept.
Why are you so concentrated on dictionary definitions and ignoring
definitions from actual atheists?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Richard Caley
w> An agnostic states that the existance of gods cannot be proven or
w> disproven.
No, then there would be no agnostics, since clearly it would be
possible to prove the existance of god in some circumstances (eg. if
he turns up and lets you run tests).
The original definition was someone who believed that proposed
non-physical phenomena are not things we can have any knowledge of and
so we shouldn't bother with them. This only applies to god in so far
as a supposed god refrains from all action in the world.
However, since then the use has expanded to include people who look
around and say `so far as I can see no god _has_ taken action in the
world within the area available to humans, so I will put the existance
and properties of`god' in the category of unknowable things pending
developments'.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Mark A
>
> Why are you so concentrated on dictionary definitions and ignoring
> definitions from actual atheists?
Really? So if I decide that I'm a Martian because I believe that means
that I have three left legs and speak fluent wolf, and dictionaries the
world over have got the definition wrong, I should be believed?
Don't think so.
Regards
Mark
Joseph Hutcheon
That would depend on whether you actually *are* a Martian, have three
left legs and speak fluent wolf.
Mark A
>
> Why do we need a word for not believing in something that doesn't
> exist?
It's called communication. You know, language and all that. It's one
of the tools that allow us to rationalise and make sense of the
universe.
> There is no god, there is no need for atheism.
Hey, I didn't make up the word, nor the faith that guides it.
> Don't accept labels - they are always twisted by others.
Or to put it another way, I don't like being labelled as having a blind
faith when I've convinced myself I don't, that's what silly deists do,
but when the logic of the situation is pointed out I get uncomfortable?
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> Why do you feel the need to deny a perfectly good and accepted meaning
> of a word just because it doesn't agree with your limited
> understanding of that word?
Hey, I have the dictionaries of the world on my side, whilst you, erm,
don't. Simple, really.
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> Add to that The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
>
> Atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
> 2. Godlessness.
Yep, there it is in black and white.
> Deny: 2. To refuse to believe; reject.
> 3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow; disown.
True again.
> Godless: 1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
True once more, give the man a bun.
> Therefore, I am an atheist.
And?
All you've done is demonstrated that as an atheist you disbelieve in the
existence of a god. Not really earth shattering, nor in any way changing
the meaning of atheism from being a belief.
Regards
Mark
John Hattan
>All you've done is demonstrated that as an atheist you disbelieve in the
>existence of a god. Not really earth shattering, nor in any way changing
>the meaning of atheism from being a belief.
So disbelief is a belief?
Gregory Gadow
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
> > > to the amount of real information available.
> > > -- Gregory Benford
> >
> >
> > I like that! I like his SF novels, too. Nobody can write 'em like a
> > nuclear physicist, IMHO.
>
> Gimme a break!! As if more information is necessarily going to destroy
> passion. It *would* take a physicist to make such an inhuman comment!
Topics that generate the most passion among humans -- religion and politics
-- are those for which we have the least amount of real information. Topics
that generate the least passion among humans -- yesterday's weather, for
example -- are those for which we have the most amount of real information.
To keep this vaguely on topic to where I am reading this (alt.atheism),
most of the passion that surrounds religion would evaporate almost
immediately if God were to finally reveal Herself as the witch all True
Believers know Her to be or (better yet) modern science proves that the
elusive tachyon is the carrier of the God Force.
> Intellectuals are the stupidest people on earth. ;-)
Second, perhaps. Pride of place should go to those who use a broad brush
when issuing condemnations.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional
to the amount of real information available.
-- Gregory Benford
Mark A
>
> Huh? Where in the definition does it state that this lack of belief is
> irrevocable?
Because it's a faith, just like deism. It only survives as a faith as
long as you keep the faith. If you decide to change your mind due to
some revelation or upon examining some new evidence then you have
ceased to be an atheist. You have become an ex-athiest. Or in the
deist's case, an ex-deist.
> I don't believe in unicorns, thus making me aunicornist, but if you
> bring one to me, I'll believe in it. Ditto for a god.
You sound like a aunicornist to me. Perhaps some time in the future you
will become an ex-aunicornist, who knows?
Regards
Mark
Mark A
>
> It's not agnosticism to me. There is no proof of 'any' supernatural
> existence so giving them equal time with reality is worthless. It
> doesn't exist. Gods don't exist.
A view you apparently hold without any proof to substantiate it. You
are exactly the same as the deists, just at the opposite end of the
same argument.
> Atheists do not have to prove something doesn't exist.
You do if you wish to hold a valid position in a logical debate.
> We are not making any claim.
Yes you are, you hold a belief that a deity doesn't exist.
> We are in a neutral position because we don't believe the claim.
No, you are in opposition to deists, the other bunch of blind faithers.
Regards
Mark
John Hattan
>John Hattan wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe in unicorns, thus making me aunicornist, but if you
>> bring one to me, I'll believe in it. Ditto for a god.
>
>You sound like a aunicornist to me. Perhaps some time in the future you
>will become an ex-aunicornist, who knows?
Does that mean that I have faith that unicorns do not exist or do I just
lack belief because I've seen no evidence of one?
John Hattan
>Steve Knight wrote:
>>
>> It's not agnosticism to me. There is no proof of 'any' supernatural
>> existence so giving them equal time with reality is worthless. It
>> doesn't exist. Gods don't exist.
>
>A view you apparently hold without any proof to substantiate it.
How is that apparent?
Mark A
>
> Encarta: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of
> God or deities
Yup, Encarta stands alone (so far) in it's use of 'unbelief' as opposed
to a 'belief in the non-existence of a god' that the others generally
use.
> Webster Collegiate: a disbelief in the existence of deity
You missed out 2: The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Still, six to one isn't bad. And we all know how Microsoft likes to
mangle English, no? :)
Regards
Mark
Richard Caley
ma> A view you apparently hold without any proof to substantiate it. You
ma> are exactly the same as the deists, just at the opposite end of the
ma> same argument.
<pedant mode>
A Deist is not the same thing as a theist. Deism is/was a
specific belief system. Basicly an attempt at a rational
theist position which developed in England and spread to
france and the American colonies and early US.
Thus deists are theists, but most theists are not deists.
</pedant mode>
Many athesists are quite well disposed to deism, it being quite a
reasonable position for someone to take at a time when there were far,
far bigger holes in out ideas of how the world could have come about
without a god. Basicly `there but for the grace of Darwin go
I'. Voltair seems to have been a Deist, though don't know if he ever
actually said so explicitly.
Dr. Sunil
While not believing in an external monotheist 'godhead', I think that
there is a rational explanation for the 'gods' of many ancient
cultures' pantheons. In that they might have been references to
members of an archaic civilization in possession of a degree of
technology and science (not necessarily the same as in our modern
civilization), that for some reason travelled the world to disseminate
said knowledge. Perhaps they were survivors of a lost civilization
that came to grief at the end of the Ice Age due to resultant
flooding. Anyway, this knowledge often is referred to as 'gifts
from the gods'. Thus in, time, known historical civilizations
flourished in ancient Egypt, Mexico, Peru, India, Mesopotamia, China
and elsewhere.
Landis D. Ragon
which I replied:
>Wolf333 wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. Period.
>
>Wrong, Atheism has a specific and well defined meaning, and what you've
>written above is not it. Look in a dictionary.
>
Well, Merriam Webster seems to feel that atheism is withholding belief
in the existence of a deity.
from www.m-w.com
atheism:
2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
disbelief:
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
disbelieve
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
John Hattan
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 22 May 2002, JAF wrote:
> That's just as much bollocks as the god hypothesis.
How do you know?
"The archaeological evidence suggested that rather than developing
slowly and painfully, as is normal with human species, the
civilization of Ancient Egypt, like that of the Olmecs, emerged *all
at once and fully formed*. Indeed, the period of transition from
primitive to advanced society appears to have been so short that it
makes no kind of historical sense. Technological skills that should
have taken hundreds or even thousands of years to evolve were brought
into use almost overnight - and with no apparently antecedents
whatever.
For example, remains from the pre-dynastic period around 3500 BC show
no trace of writing. Soon after that date, quite suddenly and
inexplicably, the hieroglyphs familiar from so many of the ruins of
Ancient Egypt begin to appear in a complete and perfect state. Far
from being mere pictures of objects or actions, this written language
was complex and structured at the outset, with signs that represented
sounds only and a detailed system of numerical symbols. Even the very
earliest hieroglyphs were stylized and conventionalized; and it is
clear that an advanced cursive script was in common usage by the dawn
of the First Dynasty [WB Emery, Archaic Egypt, Penguin, 1987, p192].
What is remarkable is that there is no traces of evolution from the
simple to the sophisticated, and the same is true of mathematics,
medicine, astronomy and architecture and of Egypt's amazingly rich and
convoluted religio-mythological system (even the central content of
such refined works as the Book of the Dead existed *right at the
start* of the dynastic period) [ibid, p38; also The Egyptian Book of
the Dead, translation EA Wallis Budge, British Museum, 1895,
Introduction, pp. xii-xiii].
The majority of Egyptologists will not consider the implications of
Egypt's early sophistication. These implications are startling,
according to a number of more daring thinkers. John Anthony West, an
expert on the early dynastic period, asks:
How does a complex civilization spring full-blown into being? Look
at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no
mistaking the process of 'development'. But in ancient Egypt there
are no parallels. Everything is there right at the start.
The answer to the mystery is of course obvious but, because it is
repellent to the prevailing cast of modern thinking, it is seldom
considered. *Egyptian civilization was not a 'development', it was
a legacy*. [John Anthony West, Serpent in the Sky, Harper and Row,
1979, p13]
West has been a thorn in the flesh of the Egyptological establishment
for many years. But other more mainstream figures have also confessed
puzzlement at the suddenness with which Egyptian civilization
appeared. Walter Emery, late Edwards Professor of Egyptology at the
University of London, summed up the problem:
At a period approximately 3400 years before Christ, a great change
took place in Egypt, and the country passed rapidly from a state
of neolithic culture with a complex tribal character to one of
well-organized monarchy...
At the same time the art of writing appears, monumental
architecture and the arts and crafts develop to an astonishing
degree, and all the evidence points to the existence of a
luxurious civilisation. All this was achieved within a
comparatively short period of time, *for there appears to be
little or no background to these fundamental developments in
writing and architecture*. [Archaic Egypt, p38.]
One explanation could simply be that Egypt received its sudden and
decisive cultural boost from some other known civilization of the
ancient world. Sumer, on the Lower Euphrates in Mesopotamia, is the
most likely contender. Despite many basic differences, a variety of
shared building techniques and architectural styles [ibid., pp175-191]
do suggest a link between the two regions. But none of these
similarities is strong enough to infer that the connection could have
been in any way causal, with one society directly influencing the
other. On the contrary, as Professor Emery writes:
The impression we get is of an *indirect* connection, and perhaps
the existence of a third party, whose influence spread to both the
Euphrates and the Nile...Modern scholars have tended to ignore the
possibility of immigration to both regions from some hypothetical
and as yet undiscovered area. [However] a third party whose
cultural achievements were passed on independently to Egypt and
Mesopotamia would best explain the common features and fundamental
differences between these two civilizations. [ibid., p31, p177]
Among other things, this theory sheds light on the mysterious fact
that the Egyptians and Sumerian people of Mesopotamia appear to have
worshipped virtually identical lunar deities, who were among the
*oldest* in their respective pantheons (Thoth in the case of the
Egyptians, Sin in the case of the Sumerians) [ibid., p126]. According
to the eminent Egyptologist Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, 'The similarity
between the two gods is too close to be accidental....It would be
wrong to say that the Egyptians borrowed from the Sumerians or the
Sumerians from the Egyptians, but it may be submitted that the
literati of both peoples borrowed their theological systems from some
common but exceedingly ancient source.' [From Fetish to God in Ancient
Egypt, Oxford U. Press, 1934, p.155]
The question, therefore, is this: what was that 'common but
exceedingly ancient source', that 'hypothetical and as yet
undiscovered area', that advanced 'third party' to which both Budge
and Emery refer? And if it left a legacy of high culture in Egypt and
in Mesopotamia, why shouldn't it have done so in Central America?
It's not good enough to argue that civilization 'took off' much later
in Mexico than it had in the Middle East. It is possible that the
initial impulse could have been felt at the same time in both places,
but that the subsequent outcome could have been completely different.
On this scenario, the civilizers would have succeeded brilliantly in
Egypt and in Sumer, creating lasting and remarkable cultures there. In
Mexico, on the other hand (as also seems to have been the case in
Peru), they suffered some serious setback - perhaps getting off to a
good start, when the gigantic stone [negroid] heads and reliefs of
bearded [Caucasian] men were made, but going rapidly downhill. The
light of civilization would never quite have been lost, but perhaps
things didn't pick up again until around 1500 BC, the so-called 'Olmec
Horizon'. By then, the great sculptures would have been hoary with
age, ancient relics of immense spiritual power, their
all-but-forgotten origins wrapped in myths of giants and bearded
civilizers.
If so, we may be gazing at faces from a much more remote past than we
imagine when we stare into the almond eyes of the negro heads or into
the angular, chiselled features of 'Uncle Sam' [statue at La Venta].
It si by no means impossible that these great works preserve the
images of peoples from a vanished civilization which embraced several
different ethnic groups.
That, in a nutshell, is the 'hypothetical third party' theory as
applied to Central America: the civilization of Ancient Mexico did not
emerge without external influence, and it did not emerge as a result
of influence from the Old World; instead certain cultures in the Old
World and the New World may have received a legacy of influence and
ideas from a third party at some exceedingly remote date."
- Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, Century Books, 2001
(originally published by W. Heinemann, 1995), pp. 147-150.
> Come back Eric von Daniken.
> Or, don't.
Daniken believed in a decidedly extra-terrestrial origin for
civilization. I don't.
Robin
>What would it take to make me believe? Well, I don't know for sure, but I do
>know that it would be more than some shithead posting on usenet.
I think a gigantic crucifix ( or crescent) appearing simultaneously
above every major city in the world would do it for me.
I can't hold my breath, but even if I could, I wouldn't :)
--
Robin Muskett
Gregory Gadow
> In article <uemp172...@news.supernews.com>, Wolf333
> <wolf...@spamexcite.com> writes
> >What would it take to make me believe? Well, I don't know for sure, but I do
> >know that it would be more than some shithead posting on usenet.
>
> I think a gigantic crucifix ( or crescent) appearing simultaneously
> above every major city in the world would do it for me.
Applying Occam's infamous razor, my first thought to such an occurance would be
the arrival of alien space craft.
Robin
<tech...@serv.net> writes
>Robin wrote:
>
>> In article <uemp172...@news.supernews.com>, Wolf333
>> <wolf...@spamexcite.com> writes
>> >What would it take to make me believe? Well, I don't know for sure, but I do
>> >know that it would be more than some shithead posting on usenet.
>>
>> I think a gigantic crucifix ( or crescent) appearing simultaneously
>> above every major city in the world would do it for me.
>
>Applying Occam's infamous razor, my first thought to such an occurance would be
>the arrival of alien space craft.
Yep, alien spaceships containing god :)
--
Robin Muskett
Mike
All you've done is proven yourself to be unable to comprehend the English
language. Since when does refusal to believe in the existence of something
equate with the "firm belief" that that something does not exist? Just
because I do not claim that "A" exists, does not imply that I claim that "A"
does not exist. Assume you claim you have $100 in your pocket, my lack to
also claim that you have $100 in your pocket does not mean that I claim that
you do not have $100 in your pocket. So while I don't claim belief in the
existence of $100 in your pocket, I also do not claim that $100 does not
exist in your pocket.
By the way, do you claim that intelligent life exists in the universe other
than on earth? If you answer yes, that there is definitely intelligent life
on other planets, then please provide proof. If you do not answer yes, then
according to your interpretation, you must firmly believe that there is no
intelligent life outside of earth. Please provide proof that there is no
intelligent life outside earth. I believe it's very possible and very
probable that intelligent life exists somewhere out there, but I don't have
proof. Therefore, I cannot firmly state that there is intelligent life out
there. According to you, since I can't in good conscience claim that I
firmly believe with 100 percent certainty that there is intelligent life out
there, I must firmly believe that there is no intelligent life outside of
earth. Geez, thanks for telling me what I believe. Unfortunately, you are
WRONG.
You also completely ignore the "godlessness" portion of the definition.
"Atheism" equals "godlessness" which equals "recognizing or worshipping no
god."
You apparently have a preconceived notion of what an atheist believes and
common sense, proper English definitions, and denials from atheists be
damned. You're not going to change your preconceived incorrect notion.
Therefore, any further communication with you on this subject is futile.
You've chosen to go through life ignorant of what atheism really means and
there's nothing anyone can do to help you. I guess bliss is more important
to you than truth.
Mike
JeffLawrence
My dictionary defines a Martian as "an inhabitant of Mars". It says nothing
of the number of lower limbs or linguistic ability. Does this mean that
Martians have no legs and can't speak?
Cheers
Jeff
J.R.
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 03:44:11 GMT, "welsh witch"
> <webmi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >No one seems to have come up with the very well known story.
> >The scientist had a guest to dinner. The guest was shown into a room
> >where there was a working model of the universe set up on the table.
> >Said the guest "That's brilliant...who made it?"
> >"No one said the scientist"
> >"Don't be daft" said the guest
> >"Oh no it just arrived.....Just like the universe you were telling
> >me???"
>
> 1. This story is not very well known to me.
> 2. I don't get it.
>
> L
Nobody set out to make the Universe the way it is. Somebody would
have to set out to copy it.
Everything that you see, hear, taste, etc., is the result of something
else, not the goal.
HEY-JOE.
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 22 May 2002, JAF wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 16:35:32 +0100, "Dr. Sunil" <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >How do you know?
>
> [huge snip]
>
> Oh, ffs.
How does a complex civilization like Ancient Egypt spring full-blown
into being?
Richard Caley
s> How does a complex civilization like Ancient Egypt spring full-blown
s> into being?
Just add water.
Etherman
> Wolf333 wrote:
> >
> > But then, you could look them up separately...
> > a: absent
> > theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
> >
> > Absence in the belief in god or gods.
>
> Why do you feel the need to create a manufactured and incorrect
meaning
> of a word that already has a perfectly good and accepted meaning all
> of its very own?
Sometimes dictionaries aren't very good for philosophical discussions.
Generally we have two kinds of atheism, strong and weak. What you're
defining atheism as is really strong atheism. Weak atheism is simply a
lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is usually confused with weak
atheism. An agnostic is one who believes there can be no proof of
god(s). It's entirely possible to be both agnostic and theist. The
reason why we have to use these, perhaps unusual, definitions is
because there are important differences between weak atheism, strong
atheism, and agnosticism.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Etherman
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1p1g...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <srxG8.8695$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
Dave (d) writes:
>
> d> In an earlier thread it has been argued that it is the task of
the Atheist
> d> to prove that God does not exist.
>
> No, this is a missreading. It has been argued that atheism is not a
> rational position, and that if somoene wants to dispute that they
have
> to provide a rational proof no god exists.
Theorem: There does not exist an omnipotent god(s).
Proof: Assume to the contrary that there is an omnipotent god. If god
is omnipotent it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. However,
it can't lift it so there is at least one thing that god cannot do.
Therefore god is not omnipotent. This is a contradiction, therefore an
omnipotent god cannot exist.
Corollary: The god of the Bible cannot exist.
Proof: According to Jesus all things are possible with god. Therefore
the god of the Bible is omnipotent. However, by the previous theorem
an omnipotent god cannot exist. Ergo, the god of the Bible cannot
exist.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Alan Hobson
>
> If so I would have said that we all make our own gods. Some of us are
> aware of what we're doing and some of us are not.
>
> A god is made or worshiped by us as a means of "pulling power" through
> from either our subconcious or a group conciousness.
> For example Roman Catholocism has the extremely powerful icon of the
> Blessed Virgin Mary. It is extremely powerful because it has been the
> object of intense emotional attention for hundreds of years. Its
> unbelievable what can be achieved by the appeal to this icon of the
> faith.
So can I worship a Ferrari Testarossa? I'm sure that it's garnered
intense emotional attention for years too.
How about my navel? People have contemplated their navels since time
immemorial. There's got to be loads of energy stored in there by now.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that intense, emotional concentration
goes anywhere. It just stays inside your skull. At most, it's just
dissipated as heat.
-Alan
aa#1608
Beowulf
ejaculated:
>"NUNIA" <NU...@BUSSINESS.NET> wrote in message
>news:acea6l$od1$1...@ins22.netins.net...
>> people that say god exists are the ones that need to provide the proof.
>> and i do not mean some biblical garbage-i mean rational,scientific proof.
>>
>can you provide proof for Gods non existance?
Yeah, as soon as you provide proof of Santa Claus's non existence,
you evil asanta-ist swine.
---
EAC Eater of Meatpies
Atheist #1942, Zymurgist #9
"It is the dice, in fact, that play God with the universe."
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
postm...@attglobal.net ab...@pacbell.net live...@icrmedia.org
Richard Caley
e> Theorem: There does not exist an omnipotent god(s).
e> Proof: Assume to the contrary that there is an omnipotent god. If god
e> is omnipotent it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it.
If this god is omnipotent then the phrase `a rock so heavy it can't
lift it' is meaningless. So the supposed proof is gibberish.
Beowulf
<m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> ejaculated:
>Olrik wrote:
>>
>> No, it does not. Atheism is only a reaction to people telling us to
>> believe in a "god". We're only asking for evidence. In the meantime,
>> we are atheists.
>
>No an atheist does not believe, period. Look in any dictionary. Under
>that strict definition it should hold true that you won't believe even
>in the face of evidence against your position (not that any actually
>exists, but logically that's beside the point).
Ok, then I'm not an atheist or a theist. I'm a non-theist. Why the
fuck do you care how people refer to themselves? The label they
choose doesn't change the content of their ideas. It's like saying
someone isn't a Christian because they were never crucified (i.e.,
they're not Christ-like). It's a bogus argument.
>Therefore it is a blind
>faith as much as a deist's blind faith, just in the opposite direction.
>Neither of you need any sort of proof for your positions, which is just
>as well because none has ever been found.
Is it blind faith to claim that there's not a gigantic elephant under
my chair right now?
>Now if you think you are simply waiting for evidence that might convince
>you one way or the other, then you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
So says Mark A the final arbiter of the meaning of all words in the
English language. Do you have an interesting point to make or is this
the best you've got?
Jez
> By the way, do you claim that intelligent life exists in the universe
> other than on earth?
Can you prove there is intelligent life ON Earth.....?
Dolphins and cats....maybe .....
Humans........well, we call ourselves intelligent, but the way
we behave tends to prove that we're pretty fu**ing STUPID!!
--
Ho hum
Jez
(Remove NOtSPAM to reply)
Michael Derousselle
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <OfRG8.1983$AJ5.6...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>, Etherman (e) writes:
>
>e> Theorem: There does not exist an omnipotent god(s).
>
>e> Proof: Assume to the contrary that there is an omnipotent god. If god
>e> is omnipotent it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it.
>
>If this god is omnipotent then the phrase `a rock so heavy it can't
>lift it' is meaningless. So the supposed proof is gibberish.
And therefore, this god is not omnipotent and therefore does not
exist.
*********************************************
* Michael Derousselle *
* Alt.Atheism #1948 *
* mi...@derousselle.org *
*********************************************
Mike's Axiom:
"The intensity of your religious conviction is
inversely proportional to your grip on reality."
Alun Jones
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2002 19:32:00 GMT, Richard Caley
><MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <OfRG8.1983$AJ5.6...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>, Etherman (e) writes:
>>
>>e> Theorem: There does not exist an omnipotent god(s).
>>
>>e> Proof: Assume to the contrary that there is an omnipotent god. If god
>>e> is omnipotent it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it.
>>
>>If this god is omnipotent then the phrase `a rock so heavy it can't
>>lift it' is meaningless. So the supposed proof is gibberish.
>
>And therefore, this god is not omnipotent and therefore does not
>exist.
Using meaningless phrases within the context of a proof renders the proof
meaningless. It does not say the theorem under discussion is either true or
false. The question revolves around the fact that you assume that there is an
omnipotent god, and then you ask that god to limit his potency. So you're
asking that your assumption immediately be ignored.
Why, you might as well ask that god to write a catalog of all books that do
not mention themselves. :-)
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.