Of What Use, Exactly, is God? Seriously?
Budikka666
online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
(many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
etc.
It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
a medicine man).
So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being, and not
even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
(it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
sites).
Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
boredom, built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
populated planet in it, for no other reason than to consign the entire
human population of that planet to HELL for eternity, if we don't
agree to the slavish worship of this god for eternity.
This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
planet like a toilet - killing every living thing save for a pitiful
handful on an ark. Every living thing. That means he killed *every*
*single* child, *every* *single* *infant*, *every* *young* *person*,
every fetus, every embryo on Earth because some grown-ups pissed him
off.
Think about that for a minute. Your god is worse than Hitler, who
never even pretended he wanted to destroy every living thing. He was
worse than any abortion doctor you can name. He's the universe's
biggest mass murderer and always will be. Life is totally meaningless
to him. He cares not a whit about children born or unborn.
He had absolutely no compunction whatsoever about murdering thousands
if not millions. Did he even for a split second give any thought at
all to forgiveness or rehabilitation of those sinner sinners Noah's
time? No. He pulled the plug and flushed it all.
Yet you worship this.
You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested? I
seriously doubt it. If you were not asked, if you were not given the
choice to opt out of this barbaric test, then how under any definition
of the words whatsoever is there any free will involved in a test into
which you were forced blindly, the result of which could condemn you
to eternal misery?
Has any god ever answered your prayer? If you think he has, how many
prayers do suppose he's ignored? How many parents have prayed for
their child to live only to see the child die? How many have prayed
for someone to get well only to see them get worse and die? How many
Christians have prayed for the victims of a tsunami or an earthquake
to survive only to see their corpses pulled from the debris? How many
Jews prayed for deliverance from the holocaust only to join the six
million, for not one of whom did any god lift a finger? How many
Muslims have prayed for the "American Satan" as they term it, to leave
the Middle East only to see the American presence there drag on for
nine long years?
Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
way you didn't expect? So if that's what you believe, then of what
use is your Jesus's promise that **WHATEVER** you ask for in his name,
you shall receive? Was Jesus not god? Or did he simply not exist, as
you seem to have agreed by your lack of support for him in the thread
of this series devoted to his mythology?
If you want to come after me with this Pope, this Jesus, this god of
yours, you're failing dismally, and you going to need a hell of a lot
more than you've been able to muster so far before you'll ever
convince me that you're not all dangerously deluded.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
>online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
gets.
>It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>a medicine man).
>So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>any scientific or objective evidence
Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
things that causes people to believe in God.
>This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
>planet like a toilet
Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
>You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
>if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
My parents did.
>Has any god ever answered your prayer?
Always.
>Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
>way you didn't expect?
I get what's best for me.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mitchell Holman
news:1nqim5hskcq372d2q...@4ax.com:
>
>
> I get what's best for me.
>
That being the scorn and ridicule of everyone
you converse with here.
Do you crave that sort of attention?
John Locke
>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
>>online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>>the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
>
>Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
>gets.
>
>>It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>>a medicine man).
>
>>So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>any scientific or objective evidence
>
>Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
>things that causes people to believe in God.
>
>>This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
>>planet like a toilet
>
>Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
>
>>You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
>>if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
>
>My parents did.
>
>>Has any god ever answered your prayer?
>
>Always.
>
Duke, let's test your faith. Cut off a leg and pray to your god to
grow it back. Let us know the results...
Anybody wanna make some bets ?
John Locke
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
>online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
>can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
>by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
>(many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
>virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
>etc.
>
>It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>a medicine man).
>
>So of what use is "God"?....
>
You need God because God puts the God in God damn ! Just plain old
"damn" doesn't do it. As far as any other use for God...nothing I can
think of.
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <s9ajm59ctpgqdaeg0...@4ax.com>):
That does not take real faith, let him cut off his head, then his god can
grow it back. Now that takes true belief.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"It's tough ... but not as tough as comedy!" - Edmund Gwenn on dying
Budikka666
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> >online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> >the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
>
> Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
> gets.
If either were of any real value, someone would have been able to post
something which demonstrated it, but no one did, especially (and
unsurprisingly) including you. You lose. Again. Yawn.
> >It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> >a medicine man).
> >So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >any scientific or objective evidence
>
> Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
> things that causes people to believe in God.
"the two very things that causes"? You illiterate, hypocritical
prick. You have the nerve to RUN from the arguments of others by
hiding behind taunts at misspelled or errant words, and here you go
posting your own. I guess Jesus's advice about hypocrisy was lost on
you, huh? That's entirely unsurprising: everything in the Bible is
lost on you, as most of your fellow Catholics here realize.
> >This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> >planet like a toilet
>
> Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
You can't even get that right. I said there's no scientific evidence
of a global flood **AND** there's no objective or scientific evidence
(or even an intelligent rationale) for your god.
But I'm not talking about reality there, I'm talking about your blind
beliefs, jackass. You can't even get that clear, and your failure to
embrace the essential realization that the two are completely
different is your problem.
> >You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
> >if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
>
> My parents did.
Oh, your parents are god now? Besides, we only have the word of a
know LIAR for this claim that they both planned and wanted you.
> >Has any god ever answered your prayer?
>
> Always.
Yeah, and when I ask you to prove that, you FLEE the request as usual.
> >Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
> >way you didn't expect?
>
> I get what's best for me.
Oh you will that.
And thanks for proving once again that you cannot support your god
with rationale; you cannot support your god with objective evidence;
you cannot support your god with scientific evidence, but we already
knew all of the above: we already knew that the *only* support you can
offer for your god is blind, vacuous, hypocritical, cowardly, pig-
ignorant, juvenile faith.
I'll add this to your list of challenges from which FLED. Keep
running Chicken Shit
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>
LoL! Excellent!
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:53:07 -0600, John Locke wrote
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:28:58 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
But what guarantee would we have that the new one wouldn't be just as
ugly and empty inside as his present one?
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
> things that causes people to believe in God.
On the contrary, neither scientific nor objective evidence supports the
existence of ANY god, much less any particular god.
There is a lot of what is no better than hearsay evidence for the
existence of a number of different and even competing gods. But none of
it is either scientific nor objective.
javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
We non-theists, by being merely skeptics and not raging dogmatists,
avoid any need for proofs.
You theists, of whatever dubious ilk, by being raging dogmatists and not
mere skeptics like us, have a dire need of, but total lack of, proof of
your dogma.
Andrew
> Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
> can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
> by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
> (many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
> virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
> etc.
You seem to have a rather odd understanding of the word "established"
>
> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> a medicine man).
>
> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence". Normally, for
simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
"has anyone experienced it?" Where the experience is not commonplace
we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
> and not
> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> sites).
>
> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>
> This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
> boredom,
Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
> built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
> populated planet in it,
You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
> for no other reason than to consign the entire
> human population of that planet to HELL for eternity, if we don't
> agree to the slavish worship of this god for eternity.
You seem not to have read the letters of Paul. The saving quality is
faith - not worship. That is trust and a trusting relationship with God.
>
> This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> planet like a toilet - killing every living thing save for a pitiful
> handful on an ark.
That would be a myth. Do make a point of distinguishing that from
"story". It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
trial
> Every living thing. That means he killed *every*
> *single* child, *every* *single* *infant*, *every* *young* *person*,
> every fetus, every embryo on Earth because some grown-ups pissed him
> off.
>
> Think about that for a minute. Your god is worse than Hitler, who
> never even pretended he wanted to destroy every living thing. He was
> worse than any abortion doctor you can name. He's the universe's
> biggest mass murderer and always will be. Life is totally meaningless
> to him. He cares not a whit about children born or unborn.
>
> He had absolutely no compunction whatsoever about murdering thousands
> if not millions. Did he even for a split second give any thought at
> all to forgiveness or rehabilitation of those sinner sinners Noah's
> time? No. He pulled the plug and flushed it all.
>
> Yet you worship this.
>
> You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
> if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
If you had been, would you have said no?
> I
> seriously doubt it. If you were not asked, if you were not given the
> choice to opt out of this barbaric test,
Not sure about you - I have rather a good life. If this is "barbarism",
bring it on! Do you think, perhaps, you're getting caught up in your
own rhetoric here?
> then how under any definition
> of the words whatsoever is there any free will involved in a test into
> which you were forced blindly, the result of which could condemn you
> to eternal misery?
>
> Has any god ever answered your prayer?
Yes - but not always in the way I expected or hoped for
> If you think he has, how many
> prayers do suppose he's ignored?
None. But sometimes the answer is "No".
> How many parents have prayed for
> their child to live only to see the child die? How many have prayed
> for someone to get well only to see them get worse and die? How many
> Christians have prayed for the victims of a tsunami or an earthquake
> to survive only to see their corpses pulled from the debris? How many
> Jews prayed for deliverance from the holocaust only to join the six
> million, for not one of whom did any god lift a finger? How many
> Muslims have prayed for the "American Satan" as they term it, to leave
> the Middle East only to see the American presence there drag on for
> nine long years?
Oh for Heavens' sake, do at least try to understand what Christians
understand by God before launching into a tirade of this kind. God is
not The Great And Powerful Oz nor is he some kind of cosmic vending
machine where you drop a prayer in the slot and you get your heart's
desire, nor is he some kind of Magic Grandad who will swaddle you round
with cotton wool and feed you Werther's Originals. God is the one who
wrote the laws of nature and the one that makes them work day in and
day out. If he broke them on a regular basis there would BE no such laws
>
> Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
> way you didn't expect? So if that's what you believe, then of what
> use is your Jesus's promise that **WHATEVER** you ask for in his name,
> you shall receive?
Context... context..... This quote appears at the point where Jesus is
sending his followers out to serve God. His promise has to be seen in
that context - not as a free-for-all where you get to ask for an iPad
and expect one miraculously to come through your door, Quoting out of
context is dishonest
> Was Jesus not god? Or did he simply not exist, as
> you seem to have agreed by your lack of support for him in the thread
> of this series devoted to his mythology?
>
> If you want to come after me with this Pope, this Jesus, this god of
> yours, you're failing dismally, and you going to need a hell of a lot
> more than you've been able to muster so far before you'll ever
> convince me that you're not all dangerously deluded.
>
> Budikka
Not going to try and change your mind - just to urge you to at least
try to understand before you rail against something you really don't
seem to have grasped beyond Sunday School level
Smiler
Or, from a different mythology, ten wouldn't grow in its place.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
There is also a need of the use of that word at the moment of ''extacy' ;-)
John Locke
wrote:
>John Locke wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of
>>> Catholics online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even
>>> granting for the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use
>>> whatsoever, so we can consign them both to the trash can of
>>> worthless corpses worshiped by the Catholic cult of the dead, along
>>> with the so-called saints (many of whom were actually evil,
>>> despicable people), dead non- virginal women who supposedly gave
>>> birth to a god, fairy tale angels, etc.
>>>
>>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing
>>> but a medicine man).
>>>
>>> So of what use is "God"?....
>>>
>> You need God because God puts the God in God damn ! Just plain old
>> "damn" doesn't do it. As far as any other use for God...nothing I can
>> think of.
>
>There is also a need of the use of that word at the moment of ''extacy' ;-)
>
..yes indeedy. We of, course, have the alternate of "Oh f**k", but at
that moment I think we really need "Oh God" just for that extra
emphasis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the
same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations.
The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful
and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging,
three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - President Thomas Jefferson
livvy
Catholics
online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses "
ahhhh, not so fast, cubby. You've sought out and researched all
sources, all material, everywhere, and made this determination?
Jesus, and God, are just fine, the Pope as well..in spite of you. The
Pope is The Pope, Catholic regard is absolute, or you just get out.
It's so simple, pristine. We know this. It's a "given". You will
find dis-enfranchised Catholics, people, men, women, puppies,
Protestants, Jews, parakeets, goldfish....how expanded do your
expectations get? Don't tell me, don't really care. You focus
on as much negativity as you need to to get you through your day,
whatever it is. Ignore God, Christ, the Pope, and whatever. We're
fine, got along without you before you found the internet, gonna get
along without you now. And forever. Amen.
Zacharias Mulletstein - FIGHTER OF THE FOX CHRISTIANS
Budikka666
> On 2010-02-03 11:17:45 +0000, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>
> > Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> > online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> > the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
> > can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
> > by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
> > (many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
> > virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
> > etc.
>
> You seem to have a rather odd understanding of the word "established"
And you an understanding of nothing because even here, where I'm
explicitly stating a *fact*: that no one has offered any utility for
either the Pope or for Jesus Christ, you can't even pretend you can
offer one, thereby proving my point further.
> > It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> > a medicine man).
>
> > So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> > any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
lexicon. Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
fuirther, you're embarrassing yourself. Didn't you claim at one
point that you were a scientist?
> Normally, for
> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
> "has anyone experienced it?"
I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
> Where the experience is not commonplace
> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
> have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
> > and not
> > even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> > (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
> > point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> > their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> > sites).
>
> > Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>
> > This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
> > boredom,
>
> Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
> If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
I'm not a god, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I pretend to
omnipotence nor omniscience, although I'm flattered by your thinking
I'm comparable with a god. However, as a human, there are valid
reasons for having children. Perhaps loneliness and boredom are the
reasons some have children, but then I'd argue that such people are
not mentally whole. Is that the case with your god, because I still
see you offering not a shred of utility for him or for his creation.
> > built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
> > populated planet in it,
>
> You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
> church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
Once again you ascribe to me the stupidity of religions worldwide.
Now are you going to start LYING that god is real for me because I
know him so well? LoL! You really don't get the technique of
assuming the perspective of another and questioning that perspective
do you? You apparently don't grasp either that it;s your very own
Bible which implies that earth was made for a purpose and that only
earth is so made. I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. You really cannot put
yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
argument, can you?
To set you straight (again), no, I don't think the universe has only
one planet populated with intelligent life, but I do think it's
extraordinarily rare, at least in our vicinity - so rare as to make
the assertion practically true for now.
> > for no other reason than to consign the entire
> > human population of that planet to HELL for eternity, if we don't
> > agree to the slavish worship of this god for eternity.
>
> You seem not to have read the letters of Paul. The saving quality is
> faith - not worship. That is trust and a trusting relationship with God.
You seem not to have read about Thomas, the only disciple who actually
did require objective/scientific evidence and who was promptly
presented with it. Why then do Christians RUN AWAY from offering that
same evidence for us, today? Why does your god flee all requests for
such evidence?
Is it because there is no god to provide it? is it because there was
no son of a god? Is it because Thomas was right - there was no
reason, even after having lived, ate and breathed with your Christ for
months and months, *still* did not credit that he was able to do the
things you, now, without a shred of supportive evidence worth its
salt, swallow whole and unquestioningly?
if Thomas didn't believe, even after meeting with this supposed
miracle-working Christ, even after seeing him raise the dead and cure
the sick, if Thomas, who was there from the off (so we're led to
believe) did not believe it, then why should we? And why should we
credit any of the fantastical things the anonymous authors of the
gospels claim?
> > This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> > planet like a toilet - killing every living thing save for a pitiful
> > handful on an ark.
>
> That would be a myth.
Now you're interpreting the Bible. Now you're admitting that some of
it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. But you cannot
offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in the
Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not even by
Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
> "story".
I do, As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
support any of them, which is my whole point.
> It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
> has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
> trial
Pretty much all of the Bible is a fictional morality play. I get it.
How does this admisison that it's largely fiction support your claim
that there's a god and a Jesus, son of this god? I rather suspect it
supports my contention, not yours.
> > Every living thing. That means he killed *every*
> > *single* child, *every* *single* *infant*, *every* *young* *person*,
> > every fetus, every embryo on Earth because some grown-ups pissed him
> > off.
>
> > Think about that for a minute. Your god is worse than Hitler, who
> > never even pretended he wanted to destroy every living thing. He was
> > worse than any abortion doctor you can name. He's the universe's
> > biggest mass murderer and always will be. Life is totally meaningless
> > to him. He cares not a whit about children born or unborn.
>
> > He had absolutely no compunction whatsoever about murdering thousands
> > if not millions. Did he even for a split second give any thought at
> > all to forgiveness or rehabilitation of those sinner sinners Noah's
> > time? No. He pulled the plug and flushed it all.
>
> > Yet you worship this.
>
> > You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
> > if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
>
> If you had been, would you have said no?
Very probably. But I'm encouraged to see that you aren't trying to
play the joker card of free will any more.
> > I
> > seriously doubt it. If you were not asked, if you were not given the
> > choice to opt out of this barbaric test,
>
> Not sure about you - I have rather a good life. If this is "barbarism",
> bring it on! Do you think, perhaps, you're getting caught up in your
> own rhetoric here?
I'm disturbed by how thoroughly callous you are in your dismissal of
the plight of literally billions because you're all right jack.
> > then how under any definition
> > of the words whatsoever is there any free will involved in a test into
> > which you were forced blindly, the result of which could condemn you
> > to eternal misery?
>
> > Has any god ever answered your prayer?
>
> Yes - but not always in the way I expected or hoped for
Why is that answer entirely predictable? If he didn't give you what
you asked in Jesus name then Jesus LIED. It's that simple.
> > If you think he has, how many
> > prayers do suppose he's ignored?
>
> None.
And you know this how?
> But sometimes the answer is "No".
If he didn't give you what you asked in Jesus name then Jesus LIED.
It's that simple.
> > How many parents have prayed for
> > their child to live only to see the child die? How many have prayed
> > for someone to get well only to see them get worse and die? How many
> > Christians have prayed for the victims of a tsunami or an earthquake
> > to survive only to see their corpses pulled from the debris? How many
> > Jews prayed for deliverance from the holocaust only to join the six
> > million, for not one of whom did any god lift a finger? How many
> > Muslims have prayed for the "American Satan" as they term it, to leave
> > the Middle East only to see the American presence there drag on for
> > nine long years?
>
> Oh for Heavens' sake, do at least try to understand what Christians
> understand by God before launching into a tirade of this kind. God is
> not The Great And Powerful Oz nor is he some kind of cosmic vending
> machine where you drop a prayer in the slot and you get your heart's
> desire
That's not the contract Jesus offered. Clearly you have some Bible
reading to do. If you only get what god wants you to have no matter
what you request, then what's the point of prayer? And by extension,
once again, what's the point of god? Thanks for playing right into my
hands yet again.
>, nor is he some kind of Magic Grandad who will swaddle you round
> with cotton wool and feed you Werther's Originals. God is the one who
> wrote the laws of nature and the one that makes them work day in and
> day out. If he broke them on a regular basis there would BE no such laws
And you know this how? I see, once again, even here where I'm
specifically asking for no more than did Thomas, you're RUNNING AWAY
from answering honest questions with supported answers and offering
bland theist platitudes. How pathetic is that? Really?
> > Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
> > way you didn't expect? So if that's what you believe, then of what
> > use is your Jesus's promise that **WHATEVER** you ask for in his name,
> > you shall receive?
>
> Context... context..... This quote appears at the point where Jesus is
> sending his followers out to serve God. His promise has to be seen in
> that context - not as a free-for-all where you get to ask for an iPad
> and expect one miraculously to come through your door, Quoting out of
> context is dishonest
And you know this how? Do you honestly believe that the disciples had
no more need then than people do today, and vice versa? But we can
see that even back then the disciples prayers were not answered. In
fact, other than rising again (so we're expected to believe) and
getting even that wrong, Jesus never kept a promise to his disciples.
> Not going to try and change your mind - just to urge you to at least
> try to understand before you rail against something you really don't
> seem to have grasped beyond Sunday School level
Get a fucking clue. You're not going to change my mind, and not
because it is closed but because you're as useless as your god. You
cannot offer me even one valid reason to swallow this god of yours or
his son. NOT ONE. How sad and pathetic is that? You can't even
offer a shred of evidence to give me a second's pause to think that
there may be a god or there may have been a son of this god.
This has nothing not do with Sunday school, this has to do with what
you can do for your god, and as you've proven here, yet another
Christian has shrunk away like a limp Peter at the passion. You're
pathetic, the whole bunch of you, when it comes to witnessing for your
god. You're shamefully pathetic and if your god were real I guarantee
you that he'd be face palming big time right now.
Budikka
Budikka666
it may not have occurred to you that this is **ONLINE**, and that's
the context I'm speaking in. But thanks for admitting that you can't
offer a shred of justification for the Pope, for Jesus, or for god
either. I'll add you to the growing list of people who are as useless
as their god.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 6:28�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
>> >online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>> >the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
>>
>> Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
>> gets.
>
>If either were of any real value, someone would have been able to post
>something which demonstrated it, but no one did, especially (and
>unsurprisingly) including you. You lose. Again. Yawn.
Eventually, you're going to have to come forward with some real facts,
eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points. For a
person that offers exactly no reason to believe, other than your famous
plagiarism of a few years go, you have a long way to go..
>> >It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>> >a medicine man).
>> >So of what use is "God"? �First of all, no one has ever put forward
>> >any scientific or objective evidence
>> Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
>> things that causes people to believe in God.
>"the two very things that causes"? You illiterate, hypocritical
>prick.
You..................didn't know about the evidence being overwhelming, as many
times as I've talked to you about faith and belief???? Come on, dud, you're
making an embarrassing ass of yourself now.
> You have the nerve to RUN from the arguments of others by
>hiding behind taunts at misspelled or errant words, and here you go
>posting your own. I guess Jesus's advice about hypocrisy was lost on
>you, huh? That's entirely unsurprising: everything in the Bible is
>lost on you, as most of your fellow Catholics here realize.
Oh, dud, you just don't get it, do you. You try to use unscientific data to
prove scientific facts. You demand proof when I say that evidence is all there
is. You hide when I say we believe sans proof but the evidence is overwhelming.
You're just a natural born loser.
>> >This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
>> >planet like a toilet
>> Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
>You can't even get that right. I said there's no scientific evidence
>of a global flood **AND** there's no objective or scientific evidence
>(or even an intelligent rationale) for your god.
I told you long ago that no one knows the date of the flood, IF THERE WAS A
FLOOD, but that it could have been anytime in the 4.5 billion year history of
the earth. But, nooooooo, you insisted the earth was only 6000 years old. Of
course, again you used unscientific data to substantiate a scientific event.
You never learn.
>But I'm not talking about reality there, I'm talking about your blind
>beliefs, jackass. You can't even get that clear, and your failure to
>embrace the essential realization that the two are completely
>different is your problem.
See, there you go again. I believe (fact #1) basis the evidence (fact #2) that I
find overwhelming. When are you going to get it?
>> >You talk about free will? �Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
>> >if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
>> My parents did.
>Oh, your parents are god now? Besides, we only have the word of a
>know LIAR for this claim that they both planned and wanted you.
My existence, and yours, has nothing to do with our personal decision. I can't
speak for whatever your parents were, but mine wanted children. The decision
was made for you and me. If you don't like the arrangement, talk to God and see
if he can give some leeway in the future of how that works.
>> >Has any god ever answered your prayer?
>> Always.
>Yeah, and when I ask you to prove that, you FLEE the request as usual.
And how can I "prove" it? You can't even prove you have thoughts.
duke
wrote:
>> I get what's best for me.
> That being the scorn and ridicule of everyone
>you converse with here.
My prayers to God are much more valuable to me.
> Do you crave that sort of attention?
God is my choice.
duke
>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes us to
reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or belief, but a
conclusion none the less.
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <xaran.163203$9A6....@newsfe07.ams2>):
Very true, both of the above, however I really doubt that either of these
myths are true so the chances are extremely low.
If he does it I will volunteer to be the first to poke him with a sharp stick
to make certain that he hasn't returned.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
ￜNot even the voices in your head like you.ￜ-redc1c4
John Locke
Wrong ! She can now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8497148.stm
Unlike your stagnate, hocus pocus religion, science progresses
forward yielding tangible, verifiable results. Now we can read
thoughts..just like you claim your god spook can !
Alex W
> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being, and not
> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> sites).
>
> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
Permit me some devil's advocacy...
God -- or gods -- in themselves are surplus to requirements.
But the *belief* in gods can have its uses.
It can help promote social and cultural cohesion.
It offers a ready-made social and moral system for those too
lazy or not intellectually gifted enough to develop their
own.
It offers support to those who feel threatened and
overwhelmed by the enormity and complexity of life: the
trust that no matter what, someone somewhere loves you and
will lend a shoulder to cry on is a powerful emotional draw.
It offers comfort and even hope to those who are troubled by
the thought of their own personal extinction; death is
scary, so the notion of somewhere nice to go is comforting.
Generally speaking, we humans have always felt the need for
illusions and delusions to prop up our reality. She loves
me, I look good in yellow, I am better because I am white or
male or have a degree or am rich or am a citizen of the
nation with a Manifest Destiny, wearing the number 13 jersey
will make me a better player, whatever goes wrong is the
fault of X -- you get the idea.
Andrew
> On Feb 3, 5:02�pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-02-03 11:17:45 +0000, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> said:
>>
>>> Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
>>> online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>>> the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
>>> can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
>>> by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
>>> (many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
>>> virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
>>> etc.
>>
>> You seem to have a rather odd understanding of the word "established"
>
> And you an understanding of nothing because even here, where I'm
> explicitly stating a *fact*: that no one has offered any utility for
> either the Pope or for Jesus Christ, you can't even pretend you can
> offer one, thereby proving my point further.
Sure - there have been plenty of people whose lives have been turned
round through faith in Jesus Christ - criminals, drug addicts,
prostitutes. That seems at least vaguely useful to me
>
>>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>>> a medicine man).
>>
>>> So of what use is "God"? �First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>>
>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
> lexicon. Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
> fuirther, you're embarrassing yourself. Didn't you claim at one
> point that you were a scientist?
I am - and your failure to mount an intelligent reasoned response betrays you.
>
>> Normally, for
>> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
>> "has anyone experienced it?"
>
> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>
>> �Where the experience is not commonplace
>> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
>> have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
>
> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
Yes they are - it's you who doesn't seem to understand them. If someone
says that they have experienced something it is objectively and
scientifically true that the claim has been made. There is absolutely
nothing "unscientific" or "subjective" about the use of witness
statements per se. There are times in science when they are the only
kind of evidence available
>
>>> �and not
>>> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
>>> (it's always a "Him". �The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
>>> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
>>> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
>>> sites).
>>
>>> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>>
>>> This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
>>> boredom,
>>
>> Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
>> If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
>
> I'm not a god, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I pretend to
> omnipotence nor omniscience, although I'm flattered by your thinking
> I'm comparable with a god. However, as a human, there are valid
> reasons for having children. Perhaps loneliness and boredom are the
> reasons some have children, but then I'd argue that such people are
> not mentally whole. Is that the case with your god, because I still
> see you offering not a shred of utility for him or for his creation.
If God is as I believe him to be, his utility is in there being a
universe and laws of nature. But I'm a little confused - you can see
that you, as a human being, can have many reasons for engendering
children, but you cannot imagine God having any reasons other than
"boredom or loneliness". As human beings we can be instinctively
creative - creating for the sheer joy of creation. Why do you imagine
the same could not be true of God?
>
>>> �built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
>>> populated planet in it,
>>
>> You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
>> church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
>
> Once again you ascribe to me the stupidity of religions worldwide.
> Now are you going to start LYING that god is real for me because I
> know him so well?
Not at all. You appear to be projecting
> LoL! You really don't get the technique of
> assuming the perspective of another and questioning that perspective
> do you? You apparently don't grasp either that it;s your very own
> Bible which implies that earth was made for a purpose and that only
> earth is so made.
The Bible makes no such claim. It merely says that the world was
created with a purpose.
> I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
> an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. You really cannot put
> yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
> argument, can you?
No - I think the problem is yours. What you are doing is putting up
*what you think* the theist view of things is and then criticising it.
But your understanding of "the theist view of things" is so wide of the
mark that I'm having a hard time grasping where you get your rather
strange ideas from
Of course I'm interpreting the Bible! That's what it's there for!
Honestly - I'm not being funny or clever here - if you haven't grasped
that you really don't understand Christianity at all. Or do you really
imagine that you can take a text written to speak to Jewish exiles in
the 5th Century BC can be said to speak to folk in the 21st Century
*without* interpreting it? As Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks put it, "To
go from text to action without interpretationis heresy"
> Now you're admitting that some of
> it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. But you cannot
> offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
> truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in the
> Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not even by
> Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
How do you distinguish the truth in the Bible? Same way as you do in
every other part of life - you use your intelligence, your knowledge
and your experience and yopu make an informed judgement
And be aware, if something isn't literal fact that doesn't make it a
lie. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and began "There
was a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves" it would be
asinine to write the story off as a lie if that man did not actually
exist
>
>> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
>> "story".
>
> I do, As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
> shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
> support any of them, which is my whole point.
Fairt enough. You have every right to make such a judgement. That does
not make your judgement objective fact
>
>> It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
>> has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
>> trial
>
> Pretty much all of the Bible is a fictional morality play. I get it.
> How does this admisison that it's largely fiction support your claim
> that there's a god and a Jesus, son of this god? I rather suspect it
> supports my contention, not yours.
My belief in God stems from my personal experience - not from the
Bible. I came to belief in God (not Christianity) first, before I read
the Bible so for me it's not an issue. I don't think I said "largely"
fiction.
>
>>> �Every living thing. �That means he killed *every*
>>> *single* child, *every* *single* *infant*, *every* *young* *person*,
>>> every fetus, every embryo on Earth because some grown-ups pissed him
>>> off.
>>
>>> Think about that for a minute. �Your god is worse than Hitler, who
>>> never even pretended he wanted to destroy every living thing. �He was
>>> worse than any abortion doctor you can name. �He's the universe's
>>> biggest mass murderer and always will be. �Life is totally meaningless
>>> to him. �He cares not a whit about children born or unborn.
>>
>>> He had absolutely no compunction whatsoever about murdering thousands
>>> if not millions. �Did he even for a split second give any thought at
>>> all to forgiveness or rehabilitation of those sinner sinners Noah's
>>> time? �No. �He pulled the plug and flushed it all.
>>
>>> Yet you worship this.
>>
>>> You talk about free will? �Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
>>> if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
>>
>> If you had been, would you have said no?
>
> Very probably. But I'm encouraged to see that you aren't trying to
> play the joker card of free will any more.
I've come to the view that free will is still an issue, but it's part
of a wider issue concerning God being faithful and consistent
>
>>> � I
>>> seriously doubt it. �If you were not asked, if you were not given the
>>> choice to opt out of this barbaric test,
>>
>> Not sure about you - I have rather a good life. If this is "barbarism",
>> bring it on! Do you think, perhaps, you're getting caught up in your
>> own rhetoric here?
>
> I'm disturbed by how thoroughly callous you are in your dismissal of
> the plight of literally billions because you're all right jack.
Sorry - I may inadvertently have given that impression. I am by no
means callous; neither, though, do I regard life as a vale of abject
misery.
>
>>> �then how under any definition
Prayer is communion with God. It is time spent with God developing
one's relationship with him. I think you have a very one-dimensional,
perhaps carticatured, understanding of prayer. Consider the Lord's
Prayer - the model of prayer. Does it fit the kind of "ask and you'll
get" model of prayer you're suggesting
> And by extension,
> once again, what's the point of god? Thanks for playing right into my
> hands yet again.
What's the point of any relationship? It's not my own denomination, but
consider the Catholic catechism with regard to the purpose of life - to
praise God and *enjoy Him forever*. Experiencing they joy of the love
of God has led many many people to live lives of self-sacrificial love
for others. I regard that as useful
>
>> , nor is he some kind of Magic Grandad who will swaddle you round
>> with cotton wool and feed you Werther's Originals. God is the one who
>> wrote the laws of nature and the one that makes them work day in and
>> day out. If he broke them on a regular basis there would BE no such laws
>
> And you know this how? I see, once again, even here where I'm
> specifically asking for no more than did Thomas, you're RUNNING AWAY
> from answering honest questions with supported answers and offering
> bland theist platitudes. How pathetic is that? Really?
You're missing my point. My point is that you are setting up a "straw
God" - one that no one actually believes in - and knocking it down.
Now, if by "Of what use is God" you mean "Of what use is this "god"
that I've invented in my own mind", well probably none. If, on the
other hand, you mean "Of what use is the God that Christians believe
in", then it behoves you to make an effort to understand what
Christians actually understand by "God".
>
>>> Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
>>> way you didn't expect? �So if that's what you believe, then of what
>>> use is your Jesus's promise that **WHATEVER** you ask for in his name,
>>> you shall receive?
>>
>> Context... context..... This quote appears at the point where Jesus is
>> sending his followers out to serve God. His promise has to be seen in
>> that context - not as a free-for-all where you get to ask for an iPad
>> and expect one miraculously to come through your door, Quoting out of
>> context is dishonest
>
> And you know this how?
Because the only text where Jesus makes a promise in those terms is at
John 14:13 and follows the statement "he who believes in me will do as
I do - he will do greater things than I"
> Do you honestly believe that the disciples had
> no more need then than people do today, and vice versa? But we can
> see that even back then the disciples prayers were not answered.
Really? How do you know what the disciples prayed for?
> In
> fact, other than rising again (so we're expected to believe) and
> getting even that wrong, Jesus never kept a promise to his disciples.
>
>> Not going to try and change your mind - just to urge you to at least
>> try to understand before you rail against something you really don't
>> seem to have grasped beyond Sunday School level
>
> Get a fucking clue. You're not going to change my mind, and not
> because it is closed but because you're as useless as your god.
Notice the word "Not" at the beginning of that last sentence I wrote
> You
> cannot offer me even one valid reason to swallow this god of yours or
> his son. NOT ONE. How sad and pathetic is that? You can't even
> offer a shred of evidence to give me a second's pause to think that
> there may be a god or there may have been a son of this god.
>
> This has nothing not do with Sunday school, this has to do with what
> you can do for your god, and as you've proven here, yet another
> Christian has shrunk away like a limp Peter at the passion. You're
> pathetic, the whole bunch of you, when it comes to witnessing for your
> god. You're shamefully pathetic and if your god were real I guarantee
> you that he'd be face palming big time right now.
And for a moment or two there you were showing glimmerings of
rudimentary inteligence. What a pity....
>
> Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:25:50 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 3, 6:28�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> >> >online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> >> >the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
> >>
> >> Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what
> >> she
> >> gets.
> >
> >If either were of any real value, someone would have been able to post
> >something which demonstrated it, but no one did, especially (and
> >unsurprisingly) including you. You lose. Again. Yawn.
>
> Eventually, you're going to have to come forward with some real facts
It is duckgumbo's lack of facts that causes his arguments to fail.
Skepticism does not accept fairy tales as being factual.
>
> >> >It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> >> >a medicine man).
> >> >So of what use is "God"? �First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >> >any scientific or objective evidence
>
> >> Actually, dud, scientific evidence and objective evidence are the two very
> >> things that causes people to believe in God.
Curious, as the lack of any scientific evidence or objective evidence
are the very things that lead people to question the reality all god
myths, including yours.
>
> You..................didn't know about the evidence being overwhelming
There are more and more people every day who are so UNDERwhelmed by what
you call evidence that they give up belief in any and all gods, not
merely your notion of one.
> > You have the nerve to RUN from the arguments of others by
> >hiding behind taunts at misspelled or errant words, and here you go
> >posting your own. I guess Jesus's advice about hypocrisy was lost on
> >you, huh? That's entirely unsurprising: everything in the Bible is
> >lost on you, as most of your fellow Catholics here realize.
>
> Oh, dud, you just don't get it, do you. You try to use unscientific data to
> prove scientific facts.
Any data at all can be used scientifically, at least by those who
understand science. That duckgumbo does not makes him incompetent to
judge whether data is being correctly used or not.
> You demand proof when I say that evidence is all there is.
There are those, like duckgumbo, who take everything on faith.
But skeptics don't, they require evidence before giving up their doubts.
> You hide when I say we believe sans proof but the evidence is
> overwhelming.
"Sans proof" means WITHOUT evidence, which does not convince skeeptics
like us.
>
> >> >This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> >> >planet like a toilet
>
> >> Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
>
> >You can't even get that right. I said there's no scientific evidence
> >of a global flood **AND** there's no objective or scientific evidence
> >(or even an intelligent rationale) for your god.
>
> I told you long ago that no one knows the date of the flood, IF THERE
> WAS A FLOOD, but that it could have been anytime in the 4.5 billion
> year history of the earth. But, nooooooo, you insisted the earth
> was only 6000 years old.
That 6000 year age is what YOUR religion claims. The evidence which we
go by says otherwise.
> Of course, again you used unscientific data
> to substantiate a scientific event.
Better that you who try to use no evidence at all to substantiate
religious events.
>
> You never learn.
That's our line.
>
> >But I'm not talking about reality there, I'm talking about your blind
> >beliefs, jackass. You can't even get that clear, and your failure to
> >embrace the essential realization that the two are completely
> >different is your problem.
>
> See, there you go again. I believe (fact #1) basis the evidence (fact #2)
> that I
> find overwhelming. When are you going to get it?
Since we, and at least 2/3 of the world, and more every day, are totally
underwhelmed by your vaporware presentation of evidence, it ain't ever
going to happen.
> >> >Has any god ever answered your prayer?
> >> Always.
> >Yeah, and when I ask you to prove that, you FLEE the request as usual.
>
> And how can I "prove" it? You can't even prove you have thoughts.
Anyone can prove to his/her own satisfaction that he/she has thoughts.
But "proving" things to duckgumbo's satisfaction requires extreme
psychiatric skills far beyond any layperson's skills.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>
> >> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes us to
> reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or belief, but a
> conclusion none the less.
There are less subjective, and more reliable, definitions of "evidence".
But according to duckgumbo's own definition, he has never presented
anything that causes us to REACH for any conclusions at all.
Our "conclusions" would be those we had acquired well prior to
duckgumbo's presentation of what he calls evidence, so no "reach" was
involved.
Unless, of course, his sillinesses has given some one time theists
sufficient disgust of his claimings that they have become atheists
because of him.
Budikka666
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:25:50 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 3, 6:28 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> >> >online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> >> >the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
>
> >> Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
> >> gets.
>
> >If either were of any real value, someone would have been able to post
> >something which demonstrated it, but no one did, especially (and
> >unsurprisingly) including you. You lose. Again. Yawn.
>
> Eventually, you're going to have to come forward with some real facts,
This form the cowardly piece of shit who RUNS away from *every*
request the *he* supply some support for his claims? LoL! Go look up
"HYPOCRITE" in a dictionary, dick head.
> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
OK, here's "FACTS":
1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
support your claim that there's a god.
2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
claim that there's a god.
3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
claim that there's a god.
4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
> For a
> person that offers exactly no reason to believe,
That would be you. LoL!
Budikka
duke
Uh, no she can't. She would still need to compare actual thought with measured
apparent thought.
Syd M.
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:16:13 -0800, John Locke <johnlocke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:46:13 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:25:50 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
PDW
Budikka666
> On 2010-02-04 11:23:26 +0000, Budikka666 said:
> > And you an understanding of nothing because even here, where I'm
> > explicitly stating a *fact*: that no one has offered any utility for
> > either the Pope or for Jesus Christ, you can't even pretend you can
> > offer one, thereby proving my point further.
>
> Sure - there have been plenty of people whose lives have been turned
> round through faith in Jesus Christ - criminals, drug addicts,
> prostitutes. That seems at least vaguely useful to me
LIAR. There are people who claim their lives have been turned around,
and this claim isn't contingent on their being a *real* Jesus, merely
on the person's 8belief* in there being a Jesus, but there are a lot
of other people who have turned their lives around through a belief in
something or someone else. So once again, what use is Jesus when
*you* offer nothing scientific or objective (go ;look up the meaning
of those words, because I see you still don't get it) to show that he
ever really existed and *he* offers nothing which cannot be derived
from other sources?
> >>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> >>> a medicine man).
>
> >>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> > I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
> > lexicon. Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
> > fuirther, you're embarrassing yourself. Didn't you claim at one
> > point that you were a scientist?
>
> I am - and your failure to mount an intelligent reasoned response betrays you.
This form a supposed scientist who quite evidently doesn't grasp what
"objective" and "scientific" mean? LoL!
> >> Normally, for
> >> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
> >> "has anyone experienced it?"
>
> > I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>
> >> Where the experience is not commonplace
> >> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
> >> have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
>
> > I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>
> Yes they are - it's you who doesn't seem to understand them. If someone
> says that they have experienced something it is objectively and
> scientifically true that the claim has been made.
Oh, so if someone *says* they achieved cold fusion, and especially if
they really *believe* it, that proves that cold fusion is real? Got
you. Thanks for clue-ing us all in to what kind of "scientist" *you*
are.
> There is absolutely
> nothing "unscientific" or "subjective" about the use of witness
> statements per se.
Clearly you have a seriously problem in differentiating "objective"
from "subjective". So yeah, thanks! I ask for objective evidence
that there's a god or that there's a Jesus and your "scientific"
response is "Well *they* said there was"! LoL! I seriously hope you
don't work on making new medicines.
"Well, we gave her the antibiotic and after one day, she *said* she
felt better, so clearly we don't need to actually do any real science,
nor do we need to run the full course; let's just put it straight on
the market." LoL!
> There are times in science when they are the only
> kind of evidence available
Then it's not science, jackass, it's folklore, if all you have is
someone who *says* something happened. Clearly you don't have even
the first clue what this thread is even about to begin with, do you?
So this person says it was God was who won them the lottery. The
other person says that person forged the winning ticket and they can
prove it, but let's go with the god explanation because she *said*
that was true! Got it! LoL! And here I thought you were a chemist,
not a professional contortionist. Guess I was wrong about that, too.
> >>> and not
> >>> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> >>> (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
> >>> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> >>> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> >>> sites).
>
> >>> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>
> >>> This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
> >>> boredom,
>
> >> Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
> >> If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
>
> > I'm not a god, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I pretend to
> > omnipotence nor omniscience, although I'm flattered by your thinking
> > I'm comparable with a god. However, as a human, there are valid
> > reasons for having children. Perhaps loneliness and boredom are the
> > reasons some have children, but then I'd argue that such people are
> > not mentally whole. Is that the case with your god, because I still
> > see you offering not a shred of utility for him or for his creation.
>
> If God is as I believe him to be, his utility is in there being a
> universe and laws of nature.
And this is of utility because...? This is of use to whom, exactly,
other than this fictional god? Are you now admitting that he built it
because he was bored or lonely and simply wanted to torture a few
sentient beings rather like decidedly warped children might pull the
wings off butterflies? At least the explanation makes some sort of
sense. The one you believers usually spout doesn't.
> But I'm a little confused - you can see
> that you, as a human being, can have many reasons for engendering
> children, but you cannot imagine God having any reasons other than
> "boredom or loneliness".
First of all, why don't you shove your children example? That's
nothing but a straw man, because there are no parallels whatsoever
between reasons a human might have children and the "reasons" a god
might create everything from nothing for no other apparent purpose
than to put people on a planet for no other apparent purpose than that
he loves (to torment and torture) them.
Or do you seriously believe that I plan on punishing any children I
might have for eternity if they don't bow down and worship me?
Seriously?
I can think of a better reason - pure sadism and mischief. Why else
would he torture and torment people when it's completely and utterly
unnecessary?
There, that makes four reasons I've thought up. Still waiting for
even one from the theist camp.
> As human beings we can be instinctively
> creative - creating for the sheer joy of creation. Why do you imagine
> the same could not be true of God?
How is this universe even remotely creative? Ever heard of entropy?
After the initial burst, there's nothing but decay and destruction.
Is this what your loving god wanted? Pain and death? Children
separated from families? Rape? Torture? War? Plague? Famine? And
the only thing you have to look forward to is an eternity of suffering
in Hell for putting one foot wrong? Seriously?
Satan offers a better deal I'll warrant.
> >>> built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
> >>> populated planet in it,
>
> >> You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
> >> church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
>
> > Once again you ascribe to me the stupidity of religions worldwide.
> > Now are you going to start LYING that god is real for me because I
> > know him so well?
>
> Not at all. You appear to be projecting
Oh, so you didn't claim that Jesus is real because I talked about him?
> > LoL! You really don't get the technique of
> > assuming the perspective of another and questioning that perspective
> > do you? You apparently don't grasp either that it;s your very own
> > Bible which implies that earth was made for a purpose and that only
> > earth is so made.
>
> The Bible makes no such claim. It merely says that the world was
> created with a purpose.
Clearly reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit either. I
never said the Bible *claims* that, I said, and here let me quote it
for you: "Bible which implies that Earth was made for a purpose and
that only Earth is so made".
So are you saying that the Bible doesn't imply that Earth was made for
a purpose - the purpose of populating it with us? So then your god is
mor random than is, according to creaitonsitsts, evoltuion? That he
just tossed out this planet, perhaps even by mistake, and then put
humans on it as an afterthought with no idea of what was going to
happen, no plan, no design, no purpose, this omnisicent god?
Are you saying the Bible, by it's very lack of mention of other
populated planets doesn't give the distinct impression that Earth is
the only such planet?
> > I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
> > an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. You really cannot put
> > yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
> > argument, can you?
>
> No - I think the problem is yours. What you are doing is putting up
> *what you think* the theist view of things is and then criticising it.
LIAR. I posted nothing which isn't said or implied in the Bible.
> But your understanding of "the theist view of things" is so wide of the
> mark that I'm having a hard time grasping where you get your rather
> strange ideas from
Nice out. Now you don't have to take responsibility for your
inability to offer any semblance of utility for your god. Nicely
done. I see you are indeed a professional contortionist.
Thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, you;re now in the unenviable
position of having to explain why *your* idiosyncratic interpretation
is any more valid than some else's - like Duke's! LoL! Dare I phrase
it thus: Of what use is your interpretation? Seriously?
> Honestly - I'm not being funny or clever here - if you haven't grasped
> that you really don't understand Christianity at all.
Because...? Because only your interpretation of the Bible is valid?
Because only *you* can read it? Because only *you* can understand
it? Because I'm blind to how Christians *really* are, because the
behavior I see is their public face but they only behave as the sweet,
smart, deep things they really are when I can;t observe them? Because
Christians here on Usenet aren't even remotely representative of those
out in the "real world"? Because I can't understand their behavior,
their hypocrisy, their cruelty, their intolerance, their cowardice,
their blind sheep-like habits?
> Or do you really
> imagine that you can take a text written to speak to Jewish exiles in
> the 5th Century BC can be said to speak to folk in the 21st Century
> *without* interpreting it? As Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks put it, "To
> go from text to action without interpretationis heresy"
And there is your weakness. The Bible is irrelevant to modern society
and can only be made relevant by interpreting it any way-the-hell you
want. That's why there are or have been some TWENTY THOUSAND
Christian sects since the purported time of Christ - very roughly one
per month. That's *why* the Bible is useless. it cna so readily mean
anyhting to anyone that it is literally devoid of meaning. I guess
that's my next thread in this series.
> > Now you're admitting that some of
> > it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. But you cannot
> > offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
> > truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in the
> > Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not even by
> > Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
>
> How do you distinguish the truth in the Bible? Same way as you do in
> every other part of life - you use your intelligence, your knowledge
> and your experience and yopu make an informed judgement
Again, of what use is it then?
> And be aware, if something isn't literal fact that doesn't make it a
> lie. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and began "There
> was a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves" it would be
> asinine to write the story off as a lie if that man did not actually
> exist
This goes right back to interpretation. Why should I take the Jesus
story any more seriously or literally than I'd take the man went down
to Jericho parable? What if the whole Bible is a parable? How does
this validate a god or a Christ, and if they cannot be validated or
trusted, of what use (other then self hypnosis) are they?
> >> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
> >> "story".
>
> > I do, As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
> > shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
> > support any of them, which is my whole point.
>
> Fairt enough. You have every right to make such a judgement. That does
> not make your judgement objective fact
I never said it did, but then I'm not pushing a faith. I'm
questioning one. The fact that no theist on Usenet can offer a
validation for their god is extremely telling.
> >> It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
> >> has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
> >> trial
>
> > Pretty much all of the Bible is a fictional morality play. I get it.
> > How does this admisison that it's largely fiction support your claim
> > that there's a god and a Jesus, son of this god? I rather suspect it
> > supports my contention, not yours.
>
> My belief in God stems from my personal experience - not from the
> Bible. I came to belief in God (not Christianity) first, before I read
> the Bible so for me it's not an issue. I don't think I said "largely"
> fiction.
Again, interpretation, we know that, very broadly speaking, some of
the Bible isn't fiction. How do we know this, Andrew? Because it has
been scientifically and/or objectively verified. Get it now?
That's why I buy those portions 9not as a religion but as a record),
but the fact that there actually was a Nebuchadnezzar (or whomever)
for example, doesn't demonstrate a god or a Christ, let alone speak to
their utility.
This is long enough for one message.
Budikka
Smiler
You'll have to join the queue...
Smiler
The "Oh f**k" alternative is very 'circular', wouldn't you agree?
Andrew
> On Feb 4, 1:46�pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-02-04 11:23:26 +0000, Budikka666 said:
>>> And you an understanding of nothing because even here, where I'm
>>> explicitly stating a *fact*: that no one has offered any utility for
>>> either the Pope or for Jesus Christ, you can't even pretend you can
>>> offer one, thereby proving my point further.
>>
>> Sure - there have been plenty of people whose lives have been turned
>> round through faith in Jesus Christ - criminals, drug addicts,
>> prostitutes. That seems at least vaguely useful to me
>
> LIAR.
To claim that you have to demonstrate that I don't think what I say is
true. Best of luck
> There are people who claim their lives have been turned around,
> and this claim isn't contingent on their being a *real* Jesus, merely
> on the person's 8belief* in there being a Jesus, but there are a lot
> of other people who have turned their lives around through a belief in
> something or someone else.
So what? Your point is irrational. whether Jesus is real, unreal or is
a small purple pot buried near Sinai is irrelevant. Real people ascribe
a turnaround in their lives to Jesus. That means that *whatever he may
or may not be* he has been useful.
> So once again, what use is Jesus when
> *you* offer nothing scientific or objective (go ;look up the meaning
> of those words, because I see you still don't get it)
My friend, you wouldn't know objectivity if it bit your bum
> to show that he
> ever really existed
The gospels really exist. The letters of Paul really exist. Whether you
believe they are accurate or not is neither here no there. Their very
existence is evidence (though not proof) for the existence of Jesus
> and *he* offers nothing which cannot be derived
> from other sources?
Why do you think that's relevant? If I can get water from a variety of
water fountains it doesn't mean that any of them is without use. You
really don't do reason, do you?
>
>>>>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
>>>>> a medicine man).
>>
>>>>> So of what use is "God"? �First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>>
>>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>
>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
>>> lexicon. �Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
>>> fuirther, �you're embarrassing yourself. �Didn't you claim at one
>>> point that you were a scientist?
>>
>> I am - and your failure to mount an intelligent reasoned response betrays you.
>
> This form a supposed scientist who quite evidently doesn't grasp what
> "objective" and "scientific" mean? LoL!
Yada yada. I've yet to see any hint of objectivity from you
>
>>>> Normally, for
>>>> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
>>>> "has anyone experienced it?"
>>
>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>>
>>>> �Where the experience is not commonplace
>>>> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
>>>> have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
>>
>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>>
>> Yes they are - it's you who doesn't seem to understand them. If someone
>> says that they have experienced something it is objectively and
>> scientifically true that the claim has been made.
>
> Oh, so if someone *says* they achieved cold fusion, and especially if
> they really *believe* it, that proves that cold fusion is real?
Notice that word "prove"? You've made the classic atheist shift from
"evidence" to "proof". I've been careful not to claim proof at any
point. See, I know the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Do
you?
And anyway you deliberately ignored the fact that I made clear (and I
write it again in the hope you'll actually read it) "Where the
experience is not commonplace we normally fence the question round with
riders like "it ought to have been experienced by a substantial number
of people". In the context you cite, that rider would be referred to as
"peer review"
> Got
> you. Thanks for clue-ing us all in to what kind of "scientist" *you*
> are.
>
>> There is absolutely
>> nothing "unscientific" or "subjective" about the use of witness
>> statements per se.
>
> Clearly you have a seriously problem in differentiating "objective"
> from "subjective". So yeah, thanks! I ask for objective evidence
> that there's a god or that there's a Jesus and your "scientific"
> response is "Well *they* said there was"! LoL! I seriously hope you
> don't work on making new medicines.
>
> "Well, we gave her the antibiotic and after one day, she *said* she
> felt better, so clearly we don't need to actually do any real science,
> nor do we need to run the full course; let's just put it straight on
> the market." LoL!
Again, oaf, read what I actually said, rather than what you fondly
imagine I said. You didn't answer the example I gave. Can you?
>
>> There are times in science when they are the only
>> kind of evidence available
>
> Then it's not science, jackass, it's folklore, if all you have is
> someone who *says* something happened. Clearly you don't have even
> the first clue what this thread is even about to begin with, do you?
> So this person says it was God was who won them the lottery. The
> other person says that person forged the winning ticket and they can
> prove it, but let's go with the god explanation because she *said*
> that was true! Got it! LoL! And here I thought you were a chemist,
> not a professional contortionist. Guess I was wrong about that, too.
OK let me give you an example. Things like bird populations and the
spread of bird species can't be assessed in a laboratory. So they send
out questionnaires to volunteers who have bird tables in their gardens
that ask them to count, say, sparrows. Scientific and objective or not?
>
>>>>> �and not
>>>>> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
>>>>> (it's always a "Him". �The Catholics took great pains - or more tothe
>>>>> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
>>>>> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
>>>>> sites).
>>
>>>>> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>>
>>>>> This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
>>>>> boredom,
>>
>>>> Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
>>>> If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
>>
>>> I'm not a god, nor do I pretend to be one. �Nor do I pretend to
>>> omnipotence nor omniscience, although I'm flattered by your thinking
>>> I'm comparable with a god. �However, as a human, there are valid
>>> reasons for having children. �Perhaps loneliness and boredom are the
>>> reasons some have children, but then I'd argue that such people are
>>> not mentally whole. �Is that the case with your god, because I still
>>> see you offering not a shred of utility for him or for his creation.
>>
>> If God is as I believe him to be, his utility is in there being a
>> universe and laws of nature.
>
> And this is of utility because...? This is of use to whom, exactly,
> other than this fictional god?
Ah! You're assuming he's fictional then?
> Are you now admitting that he built it
> because he was bored or lonely
Nope - those are your words. I have never used them in this thread
except when quoting you. It's you who's insisting on them, not you. I'm
making absolutely clear that I don't attribute either of those terms to
God in his acts of creation. You seem to be losing it a bit
> and simply wanted to torture a few
> sentient beings rather like decidedly warped children might pull the
> wings off butterflies?
And life is all torture is it?
> At least the explanation makes some sort of
> sense. The one you believers usually spout doesn't.
>
>> But I'm a little confused - you can see
>> that you, as a human being, can have many reasons for engendering
>> children, but you cannot imagine God having any reasons other than
>> "boredom or loneliness".
>
> First of all, why don't you shove your children example?
Because you haven't answered it
> That's
> nothing but a straw man, because there are no parallels whatsoever
> between reasons a human might have children and the "reasons" a god
> might create everything from nothing for no other apparent purpose
> than to put people on a planet for no other apparent purpose than that
> he loves (to torment and torture) them.
Again - is life all torture and torment?
>
> Or do you seriously believe that I plan on punishing any children I
> might have for eternity if they don't bow down and worship me?
Nope - again you've ignored the point I made that the New Testament
doesn't require worship - it requires trust based on a loving
relationship between God and humanity. Again your complete failure to
grasp what others actually believe lets you down
> Seriously?
>
> I can think of a better reason - pure sadism and mischief. Why else
> would he torture and torment people when it's completely and utterly
> unnecessary?
>
> There, that makes four reasons I've thought up. Still waiting for
> even one from the theist camp.
These aren't "reasons" at all. They are rhetorical flourishes that - if
you really look at the way human life actually is - dissolve into
nothing.
>
>> As human beings we can be instinctively
>> creative - creating for the sheer joy of creation. Why do you imagine
>> the same could not be true of God?
>
> How is this universe even remotely creative? Ever heard of entropy?
"Heard of It"? I teach it
> After the initial burst, there's nothing but decay and destruction.
No that's just plain wrong and displays a real ignorance of what the
2nd Law really means. The 2nd Law says that *in a closed system*
entropy constantly increases. That may (or may not) apply to the
universe as a whole. It certainly does not most systems within the
universe. The fact that the Earth is bathed 24/7 with heat and light
from the Sun means that the Earth is certainly not a closed system, so
there can be increased order.
> Is this what your loving god wanted? Pain and death? Children
> separated from families? Rape? Torture? War? Plague? Famine? And
> the only thing you have to look forward to is an eternity of suffering
> in Hell for putting one foot wrong? Seriously?
And you think that's what human life is about do you? Let's recite it
again - pain, death, separation, rape, torture, war. Last I checked
those are things arewhat humans do. So let me throw your question back
at you. Of what use, exactly, are humans?
And your soteriology is completely wrong and misunderstands Christian
belief almost completely. Seriously, if you can use a phrase like "an
eternity of suffering in Hell for putting one foot wrong" then you
really, really haven't understood *one word* of Christianity.
Really, what do you think the parable of Prodigal Son means? Read it
again - I challenge you - it's at Luke 15:11-32. Read it and come back
and put your hand on your heart and write "Christians believe that if
you put one foot wrong you are condemned to an eternity of suffering in
Hell"
>
> Satan offers a better deal I'll warrant.
>
>>>>> �built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
>>>>> populated planet in it,
>>
>>>> You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
>>>> church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
>>
>>> Once again you ascribe to me the stupidity of religions worldwide.
>>> Now are you going to start LYING that god is real for me because I
>>> know him so well?
>>
>> Not at all. You appear to be projecting
>
> Oh, so you didn't claim that Jesus is real because I talked about him?
No - I don't think so. If you think I suggested that, sorry
>
>>> � LoL! �You really don't get the technique of
>>> assuming the perspective of another and questioning that perspective
>>> do you? �You apparently don't grasp either that it;s your very own
>>> Bible which implies that earth was made for a purpose and that only
>>> earth is so made.
>>
>> The Bible makes no such claim. It merely says that the world was
>> created with a purpose.
>
> Clearly reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit either. I
> never said the Bible *claims* that, I said, and here let me quote it
> for you: "Bible which implies that Earth was made for a purpose and
> that only Earth is so made".
>
> So are you saying that the Bible doesn't imply that Earth was made for
> a purpose - the purpose of populating it with us?
Nope - I'm saying that that the Bible doesn't claim that only the Earth
was so made
> So then your god is
> mor random than is, according to creaitonsitsts, evoltuion? That he
> just tossed out this planet, perhaps even by mistake, and then put
> humans on it as an afterthought with no idea of what was going to
> happen, no plan, no design, no purpose, this omnisicent god?
>
> Are you saying the Bible, by it's very lack of mention of other
> populated planets doesn't give the distinct impression that Earth is
> the only such planet?
Ah. You're interpreting the Bible, then?
>
>>> �I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
>>> an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. �You really cannot put
>>> yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
>>> argument, can you?
>>
>> No - I think the problem is yours. What you are doing is putting up
>> *what you think* the theist view of things is and then criticising it.
>
> LIAR. I posted nothing which isn't said or implied in the Bible.
Yes you did. You say it's implied, but I'm waiting for support for that
>
>> But your understanding of "the theist view of things" is so wide of the
>> mark that I'm having a hard time grasping where you get your rather
>> strange ideas from
>
> Nice out. Now you don't have to take responsibility for your
> inability to offer any semblance of utility for your god. Nicely
> done. I see you are indeed a professional contortionist.
I work out a bit.
You say my view is "idiosyncratic". I'm looking forward to you
sustaining that with facts. As well as being a science teacher I am a
lay preacher, licensed by the Church of Scotland to preach in all its
churches. The views I have expressed here are entirely consonant with
the doctrines of that Church. My views are entirely mainstream
>
>> Honestly - I'm not being funny or clever here - if you haven't grasped
>> that you really don't understand Christianity at all.
>
> Because...? Because only your interpretation of the Bible is valid?
No - there really is no way that this can be read into what I said.
What I said was that all Christians interpret the Bible - *not* that my
interpretation is the only (or, necessarily, the right) one
> Because only *you* can read it?
As above
> Because only *you* can understand
> it?
As above
> Because I'm blind to how Christians *really* are, because the
> behavior I see is their public face but they only behave as the sweet,
> smart, deep things they really are when I can;t observe them? Because
> Christians here on Usenet aren't even remotely representative of those
> out in the "real world"? Because I can't understand their behavior,
> their hypocrisy, their cruelty, their intolerance, their cowardice,
> their blind sheep-like habits?
Oh dear, we really have slipped into subjectivity here, haven't we?
Look - Christians are human beings. Sometimes we do the dreadful things
you attributed to human beings above. I'm not proud of that. But many
of us do try to do better
>
>> Or do you really
>> imagine that you can take a text written to speak to Jewish exiles in
>> the 5th Century BC can be said to speak to folk in the 21st Century
>> *without* interpreting it? �As Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks put it, "To
>> go from text to action without interpretationis heresy"
>
> And there is your weakness. The Bible is irrelevant to modern society
> and can only be made relevant by interpreting it any way-the-hell you
> want.
That's an empty argument. No text can be interpreted "in any way the
hell you want" (unless it's a politician's manifesto). As I've said, by
and large my religious beliefs are entirely mainstream, yet I find the
Bible does speak to the concerns of the 21st Century.
> That's why there are or have been some TWENTY THOUSAND
> Christian sects since the purported time of Christ - very roughly one
> per month. That's *why* the Bible is useless.
No - that's because we are thinking reflective people and we disagree
with each other sometimes
> it cna so readily mean
> anyhting to anyone that it is literally devoid of meaning. I guess
> that's my next thread in this series.
>
>>> � Now you're admitting that some of
>>> it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. �But you cannot
>>> offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
>>> truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in the
>>> Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not even by
>>> Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
>>
>> How do you distinguish the truth in the Bible? Same way as you do in
>> every other part of life - you use your intelligence, your knowledge
>> and your experience and yopu make an informed judgement
>
> Again, of what use is it then?
Sorry, I really don't understand why you think that's a barrier to
usefulness. I find the Bible very useful
>
>> And be aware, if something isn't literal fact that doesn't make it a
>> lie. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and began "There
>> was a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves" it would be
>> asinine to write the story off as a lie if that man did not actually
>> exist
>
> This goes right back to interpretation. Why should I take the Jesus
> story any more seriously or literally than I'd take the man went down
> to Jericho parable? What if the whole Bible is a parable? How does
> this validate a god or a Christ, and if they cannot be validated or
> trusted, of what use (other then self hypnosis) are they?
OK - let's suppose it is all "a parable". (I don't think it is, but
I'll run with the idea for a moment), then it is God's parable told to
the world.
>
>>>> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
>>>> "story".
>>
>>> I do, �As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
>>> shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
>>> support any of them, which is my whole point.
>>
>> Fairt enough. You have every right to make such a judgement. That does
>> not make your judgement objective fact
>
> I never said it did, but then I'm not pushing a faith.
Aye. Right
> I'm
> questioning one. The fact that no theist on Usenet can offer a
> validation for their god is extremely telling.
Last I checked, that's what I'm doing
>
>>>> It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
>>>> has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
>>>> trial
>>
>>> Pretty much all of the Bible is a fictional morality play. �I get it.
>>> How does this admisison that it's largely fiction support your claim
>>> that there's a god and a Jesus, son of this god? �I rather suspect it
>>> supports my contention, not yours.
>>
>> My belief in God stems from my personal experience - not from the
>> Bible. I came to belief in God (not Christianity) first, before I read
>> the Bible so for me it's not an issue. I don't think I said "largely"
>> fiction.
>
> Again, interpretation, we know that, very broadly speaking, some of
> the Bible isn't fiction. How do we know this, Andrew? Because it has
> been scientifically and/or objectively verified. Get it now?
>
> That's why I buy those portions 9not as a religion but as a record),
> but the fact that there actually was a Nebuchadnezzar (or whomever)
> for example, doesn't demonstrate a god or a Christ, let alone speak to
> their utility.
No - the Bible in itself doesn't. The Bible is the book of people who
have already accepted the Christian faith. It's not a history book nor
a science book. If it hasn't convinced you I'm not at all surprised.
Have you friends who are Christians? If you really want to argue with
Christians about what they believe, could I suggest that you sit down
with them with a few bottles of wine and a comfortable environment and
talk. Honestly - you'll get a far better understanding of Christian
belief than I can communicate over UseNet. I've come to feel that
UseNet does no one any favours. Behind the mask of nyms we can be as
abusive as we like without comeback. I'm not sure that casts any of us
in a good light.
>
> This is long enough for one message.
Yes it is. It's past midnight here. A goodnight to you, and go with my love.
>
> Budikka
Smiler
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
Smiler
> He's an excuse to keep your sorry, evil, immortal athiest ass out of
> Hell.
Nope. Just your excuse for posting crap to a.a.
Smiler
And J.R.R. Tolkien's existence is, therefore, evidence for Hobbits, Orks,
Sauron, etc., etc.
>> and *he* offers nothing which cannot be derived
>> from other sources?
>
> Why do you think that's relevant? If I can get water from a variety of
> water fountains it doesn't mean that any of them is without use. You
> really don't do reason, do you?
>
There are plenty of books written about fire-breathing dragons. Does this
mean that they REALLY exist?
>>
>>>>>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is
>>>>>> nothing but a medicine man).
>>>
>>>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put
>>>>>> forward any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical
>>>>>> being,
>>>
>>>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>>
>>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
>>>> lexicon. Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
>>>> fuirther, you're embarrassing yourself. Didn't you claim at one
>>>> point that you were a scientist?
>>>
>>> I am - and your failure to mount an intelligent reasoned response
>>> betrays you.
>>
>> This form a supposed scientist who quite evidently doesn't grasp what
>> "objective" and "scientific" mean? LoL!
>
> Yada yada. I've yet to see any hint of objectivity from you
>
I've seen less from you.
>>
>>>>> Normally, for
>>>>> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for
>>>>> evidence is "has anyone experienced it?"
>>>
>>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
>>>> lexicon.
>>>
>>>>> Where the experience is not commonplace
>>>>> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought
>>>>> to have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
>>>
>>>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
>>>> lexicon.
>>>
>>> Yes they are - it's you who doesn't seem to understand them. If
>>> someone says that they have experienced something it is objectively and
>>> scientifically true that the claim has been made.
>>
>> Oh, so if someone *says* they achieved cold fusion, and especially if
>> they really *believe* it, that proves that cold fusion is real?
>
> Notice that word "prove"? You've made the classic atheist shift from
> "evidence" to "proof". I've been careful not to claim proof at any
> point. See, I know the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Do
> you?
OK, then Is it evidence that cold fusion is real?
>
> And anyway you deliberately ignored the fact that I made clear (and I
> write it again in the hope you'll actually read it) "Where the
> experience is not commonplace we normally fence the question round
> with riders like "it ought to have been experienced by a substantial
> number of people". In the context you cite, that rider would be referred
> to
> as "peer review"
Peer review is not a test of repeatability, merely a check on the methods
and calculations used to achieve the result.
The real check is if other, independent scientists, can repeat the
experiment and get the same results.
I'm independent. How do I get to see your 'god'?
Don't try the usual "believing is seeing" nonsense as I will ask you to try
believing in leprechauns for 5 minutes without laughing.
To me, gods and leprechauns are in the same class...unevidenced and
non-existent.
>
>> Got
>> you. Thanks for clue-ing us all in to what kind of "scientist" *you*
>> are.
>>
>>> There is absolutely
>>> nothing "unscientific" or "subjective" about the use of witness
>>> statements per se.
>>
>> Clearly you have a seriously problem in differentiating "objective"
>> from "subjective". So yeah, thanks! I ask for objective evidence
>> that there's a god or that there's a Jesus and your "scientific"
>> response is "Well *they* said there was"! LoL! I seriously hope you
>> don't work on making new medicines.
>>
>> "Well, we gave her the antibiotic and after one day, she *said* she
>> felt better, so clearly we don't need to actually do any real
>> science, nor do we need to run the full course; let's just put it
>> straight on the market." LoL!
>
> Again, oaf, read what I actually said, rather than what you fondly
> imagine I said. You didn't answer the example I gave. Can you?
>
>>
If ten men went to a court and swore that they 'believed' you to be a
murderer, would that be enough to convict you?
Note that there is no substantiated claim by any of them that they saw you
and there was no body or weapon found.
>>> There are times in science when they are the only
>>> kind of evidence available
>>
>> Then it's not science, jackass, it's folklore, if all you have is
>> someone who *says* something happened. Clearly you don't have even
>> the first clue what this thread is even about to begin with, do you?
>> So this person says it was God was who won them the lottery. The
>> other person says that person forged the winning ticket and they can
>> prove it, but let's go with the god explanation because she *said*
>> that was true! Got it! LoL! And here I thought you were a chemist,
>> not a professional contortionist. Guess I was wrong about that, too.
>
> OK let me give you an example. Things like bird populations and the
> spread of bird species can't be assessed in a laboratory. So they send
> out questionnaires to volunteers who have bird tables in their gardens
> that ask them to count, say, sparrows. Scientific and objective or
> not?
Not scientific, as there is no (easy) way to tell the number not spotted by
the volunteers.
What they are doing is estimating the numbers. The difference in numbers
spotted, year on year, give a good indication of the relative increase or
decrease in the population, but doesn't take into account different
'spotters', in different locations with different abilities. Are voting
polls before elections scientific? If so, why do they often get the result
wrong?
As there is no evidence that he, or any other god, exist, that is the only
conclusion I can draw.
What about the OT? Or have you throw that out because you don't like it?
>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> I can think of a better reason - pure sadism and mischief. Why else
>> would he torture and torment people when it's completely and utterly
>> unnecessary?
>>
>> There, that makes four reasons I've thought up. Still waiting for
>> even one from the theist camp.
>
> These aren't "reasons" at all. They are rhetorical flourishes that -
> if you really look at the way human life actually is - dissolve into
> nothing.
>
This is bullshit that dissolves into nothing but a nasty smell.
>>
>>> As human beings we can be instinctively
>>> creative - creating for the sheer joy of creation. Why do you
>>> imagine the same could not be true of God?
>>
>> How is this universe even remotely creative? Ever heard of entropy?
>
> "Heard of It"? I teach it
>
>> After the initial burst, there's nothing but decay and destruction.
>
> No that's just plain wrong and displays a real ignorance of what the
> 2nd Law really means. The 2nd Law says that *in a closed system*
> entropy constantly increases. That may (or may not) apply to the
> universe as a whole. It certainly does not most systems within the
> universe. The fact that the Earth is bathed 24/7 with heat and light
> from the Sun means that the Earth is certainly not a closed system, so
> there can be increased order.
No need for any god, then.
>
>> Is this what your loving god wanted? Pain and death? Children
>> separated from families? Rape? Torture? War? Plague? Famine? And the
>> only thing you have to look forward to is an eternity of
>> suffering in Hell for putting one foot wrong? Seriously?
>
> And you think that's what human life is about do you? Let's recite it
> again - pain, death, separation, rape, torture, war. Last I checked
> those are things arewhat humans do.
Why doesn't your supposedly omnipotent supposed god character stop it?
He's not powerful enough?
He can't be bothered?
He enjoys seeing humans do these things to each other?
So let me throw your question back
> at you. Of what use, exactly, are humans?
More useful than any supposed god.
Did your supposed god invent penicillin?
Did your supposed god rid the world of smallpox?
Is your god ridding the world of polio?
What efforts is your supposed god making towards world peace?
>
> And your soteriology is completely wrong and misunderstands Christian
> belief almost completely. Seriously, if you can use a phrase like "an
> eternity of suffering in Hell for putting one foot wrong" then you
> really, really haven't understood *one word* of Christianity.
Where do you believe atheists will go to after death?
Most xians who come to a.a. will tell us that we're all going to their
supposed hell.
>
> Really, what do you think the parable of Prodigal Son means? Read it
> again - I challenge you - it's at Luke 15:11-32. Read it and come back
> and put your hand on your heart and write "Christians believe that if
> you put one foot wrong you are condemned to an eternity of suffering
> in Hell"
>
That's what most xians who come here to a.a. tell us.
Are they wrong? Can you prove it?
Neither does it claim that there *are* other planets so made.
By that omission, it surely is implying that there are no other planets so
made.
>> So then your god is
>> mor random than is, according to creaitonsitsts, evoltuion? That he
>> just tossed out this planet, perhaps even by mistake, and then put
>> humans on it as an afterthought with no idea of what was going to
>> happen, no plan, no design, no purpose, this omnisicent god?
>>
>> Are you saying the Bible, by it's very lack of mention of other
>> populated planets doesn't give the distinct impression that Earth is
>> the only such planet?
>
> Ah. You're interpreting the Bible, then?
>
There's nothing about other planets being suitable for life *to* interpret.
>>
>>>> I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
>>>> an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. You really cannot put
>>>> yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
>>>> argument, can you?
>>>
>>> No - I think the problem is yours. What you are doing is putting up
>>> *what you think* the theist view of things is and then criticising
>>> it.
>>
>> LIAR. I posted nothing which isn't said or implied in the Bible.
>
> Yes you did. You say it's implied, but I'm waiting for support for
> that
It's an obvious conclusion from that which is not said.
Or is your supposed god not capable of expressing himself clearly?
Mainstream nonsense for the weak minded.
>>
>>> Honestly - I'm not being funny or clever here - if you haven't
>>> grasped that you really don't understand Christianity at all.
>>
>> Because...? Because only your interpretation of the Bible is valid?
>
> No - there really is no way that this can be read into what I said.
> What I said was that all Christians interpret the Bible - *not* that
> my interpretation is the only (or, necessarily, the right) one
>
Interpretation = reading between the lines to see what isn't there.
Why couldn't your supposed god express himself clearly?
>> Because only *you* can read it?
>
> As above
>
>> Because only *you* can understand
>> it?
>
> As above
>
>> Because I'm blind to how Christians *really* are, because the
>> behavior I see is their public face but they only behave as the
>> sweet, smart, deep things they really are when I can;t observe them?
>> Because Christians here on Usenet aren't even remotely
>> representative of those out in the "real world"? Because I can't
>> understand their behavior, their hypocrisy, their cruelty, their
>> intolerance, their cowardice, their blind sheep-like habits?
>
> Oh dear, we really have slipped into subjectivity here, haven't we?
> Look - Christians are human beings. Sometimes we do the dreadful
> things you attributed to human beings above. I'm not proud of that. But
> many
> of us do try to do better
>
Most of the xians that come to a.a. try to do worse.
>>
>>> Or do you really
>>> imagine that you can take a text written to speak to Jewish exiles
>>> in the 5th Century BC can be said to speak to folk in the 21st Century
>>> *without* interpreting it? As Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks put it, "To
>>> go from text to action without interpretationis heresy"
>>
>> And there is your weakness. The Bible is irrelevant to modern
>> society and can only be made relevant by interpreting it any
>> way-the-hell you want.
>
> That's an empty argument. No text can be interpreted "in any way the
> hell you want"
Liar. How many different 'interpretations' of the bible are there?
At least one per sect of christianity for each of the 66 books.
(unless it's a politician's manifesto). As I've said,
> by and large my religious beliefs are entirely mainstream, yet I find the
> Bible does speak to the concerns of the 21st Century.
Only if you read between the lines to see what isn't there.
>
>> That's why there are or have been some TWENTY THOUSAND
>> Christian sects since the purported time of Christ - very roughly one
>> per month. That's *why* the Bible is useless.
>
> No - that's because we are thinking reflective people and we disagree
> with each other sometimes
Because you each 'interpret' the bible differently.
>
>> it cna so readily mean
>> anyhting to anyone that it is literally devoid of meaning. I guess
>> that's my next thread in this series.
>>
>>>> Now you're admitting that some of
>>>> it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. But you cannot
>>>> offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
>>>> truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in
>>>> the Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not
>>>> even by Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
>>>
>>> How do you distinguish the truth in the Bible? Same way as you do in
>>> every other part of life - you use your intelligence, your knowledge
>>> and your experience and yopu make an informed judgement
>>
>> Again, of what use is it then?
>
> Sorry, I really don't understand why you think that's a barrier to
> usefulness. I find the Bible very useful
So do I. It makes a useful supply of toilet paper when we run out of the
regular stuff.
>
>>
>>> And be aware, if something isn't literal fact that doesn't make it a
>>> lie. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and began
>>> "There was a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves" it
>>> would
>>> be asinine to write the story off as a lie if that man did not
>>> actually exist
>>
>> This goes right back to interpretation. Why should I take the Jesus
>> story any more seriously or literally than I'd take the man went down
>> to Jericho parable? What if the whole Bible is a parable? How does
>> this validate a god or a Christ, and if they cannot be validated or
>> trusted, of what use (other then self hypnosis) are they?
>
> OK - let's suppose it is all "a parable". (I don't think it is, but
> I'll run with the idea for a moment), then it is God's parable told to
> the world.
Your evidence that any god had any influence on what is in the bible is
what?
"Because it says so in the bible" is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Your beliefs and opinions are not evidence.
>
>>
>>>>> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
>>>>> "story".
>>>
>>>> I do, As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
>>>> shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
>>>> support any of them, which is my whole point.
>>>
>>> Fairt enough. You have every right to make such a judgement. That
>>> does not make your judgement objective fact
>>
>> I never said it did, but then I'm not pushing a faith.
>
> Aye. Right
>
>> I'm
>> questioning one. The fact that no theist on Usenet can offer a
>> validation for their god is extremely telling.
>
> Last I checked, that's what I'm doing
>
But you've yet to provide any validation beyond your beliefs.
--
duke
wrote:
>> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>OK, here's "FACTS":
>1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
>support your claim that there's a god.
But my answer is at least as realistic as one you can come up with.
>2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
>claim that there's a god.
He's actually the Supreme Creator. His name is God.
>3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
>claim that there's a god.
All the evidence, and I have 100% of it, demands the existence of God.
>4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
And all evidence, for which you have none for your wildness.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>>
>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>
>> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
>> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
>> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>>
>
>So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
>murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
>evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
>for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
> >>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
> >>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
> >>
> >
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
And around the logic loop, one more time.......
Patrick
> And around the logic loop, one more time.......
Hey wanger....
I thought you had plonked duke and me.
SHADDUP!
Smiler
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com>
> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew
>>> <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put
>>>>> forward any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical
>>>>> being,
>>>
>>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>>
>>> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that
>>> causes us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific
>>> conclusion or belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>>>
>>
>> So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you
>> were a murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there
>> is no objective evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to
>> serve a life sentence for murder, would you puke? Or are their
>> beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
So this evidence you claim to have isn't just your belief, but real tangible
objective evidence for the existence of your supposed god character?
Why are you so shy about showing it to us, puke?
Brian E. Clark
hleo...@coxyx.net says...
> > Anybody wanna make some bets ?
>
> That does not take real faith, let him cut off his head,
Wouldn't it be a greater test of faith, if he cut off some
part of his body which he actually *used*?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
> >>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
> >>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
> >>
> >
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
Which is a curious claim, since duckgumbo has too much of the latter but
not enough of the former to drive anything.
javs = "JESUSFREAKS (LIKE DUCKGUMBO) ARE VERY STUPID"
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:49:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
> >OK, here's "FACTS":
>
> >1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
> >support your claim that there's a god.
>
> But my answer is at least as realistic as one you can come up with.
>
> >2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
>
> He's actually the Supreme Creator. His name is God.
>
> >3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
>
> All the evidence, and I have 100% of it, demands the existence of God.
100% of 0 is still 0.
>
> >4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
>
> And all evidence, for which you have none for your wildness.
Our skepicism only needs lack of evidence, of which there is an surfeit.
Budikka666
> On 2010-02-04 22:50:12 +0000, Budikka666 said:
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:46 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
> >> On 2010-02-04 11:23:26 +0000, Budikka666 said:
> >>> And you an understanding of nothing because even here, where I'm
> >>> explicitly stating a *fact*: that no one has offered any utility for
> >>> either the Pope or for Jesus Christ, you can't even pretend you can
> >>> offer one, thereby proving my point further.
>
> >> Sure - there have been plenty of people whose lives have been turned
> >> round through faith in Jesus Christ - criminals, drug addicts,
> >> prostitutes. That seems at least vaguely useful to me
>
> > LIAR.
>
> To claim that you have to demonstrate that I don't think what I say is
> true. Best of luck
The lie is not what you say or what you believe but in your false
attribution of value to this Jesus character.
You seem to be forgetting (apart from the fact that this is the god
thread and not the Jesus thread) that the point of Jesus, so we're
told, is not that believing in him can cure disease (it patently
cannot). The point of him is to actually *be* real, otherwise the
entire edifice of Christianity comes tumbling down. If he isn't real,
if he didn't die, if he wasn't resurrected, if he cannot defeat death,
then of what value is he?
The fact that some people experience his myth as a placebo doesn't
devalue my point. It actually supports my point in that it adequately
demonstrates that it's not Jesus who offers the utility, but people's
own ability to completely delude themselves.
> > There are people who claim their lives have been turned around,
> > and this claim isn't contingent on their being a *real* Jesus, merely
> > on the person's 8belief* in there being a Jesus, but there are a lot
> > of other people who have turned their lives around through a belief in
> > something or someone else.
>
> So what? Your point is irrational. whether Jesus is real, unreal or is
> a small purple pot buried near Sinai is irrelevant. Real people ascribe
> a turnaround in their lives to Jesus. That means that *whatever he may
> or may not be* he has been useful.
No, he hasn't. It's the delusion which has been useful if you want
to put it that way; he himself has been of no value whatsoever, and
this is especially true if all that he is, is a placebo.
> > So once again, what use is Jesus when
> > *you* offer nothing scientific or objective (go ;look up the meaning
> > of those words, because I see you still don't get it)
>
> My friend, you wouldn't know objectivity if it bit your bum
Talking of delusions....
> > to show that he
> > ever really existed
>
> The gospels really exist. The letters of Paul really exist.
Congratulations. You've proven (if we take you at your word for a
minute) that there exist gospels and epistles. Now which of that,
precisely, supports a real existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle
working son of a god as opposed to a demonstrated *belief* in a
Christ, which is most assuredly not the same as a real existence?
I'll tell you: None of it. What you've just demonstrated is yet
again, not the reality of any Jesus, but the well-established reality
of people's ability to blindly believe; to be deluded.
> Whether you
> believe they are accurate or not is neither here no there. Their very
> existence is evidence (though not proof) for the existence of Jesus
You're still struggling with the word "objective". I can see how well
you'd do in court, in a murder trial. "Well your honor, the reason we
found him not guilty is that we have a letter here from someone who
never met whim, who wasn't there at the time, but who insists that the
accused says he didn't do it. Good luck with that philosophy.
> > and *he* offers nothing which cannot be derived
> > from other sources?
>
> Why do you think that's relevant?
It's relevant because it means there really is no utility even to the
*belief* in Jesus if that same utility can be derived from other
sources.
> If I can get water from a variety of
> water fountains it doesn't mean that any of them is without use. You
> really don't do reason, do you?
So you'd rather go to the muddy creek three miles down the valley to
get your water than to draw it from the faucet in your kitchen because
you're firmly convinced that the creek water is somehow better? You
were saying about reason?
> >>>>> It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> >>>>> a medicine man).
>
> >>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your
> >>> lexicon. Go look them up before you open your dumb mouth any
> >>> fuirther, you're embarrassing yourself. Didn't you claim at one
> >>> point that you were a scientist?
>
> >> I am - and your failure to mount an intelligent reasoned response betrays you.
>
> > This form a supposed scientist who quite evidently doesn't grasp what
> > "objective" and "scientific" mean? LoL!
>
> Yada yada. I've yet to see any hint of objectivity from you
There's none so blind...
> >>>> Normally, for
> >>>> simple "does it exist" questions the normal criterion for evidence is
> >>>> "has anyone experienced it?"
>
> >>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>
> >>>> Where the experience is not commonplace
> >>>> we normally fence that question round with riders like "it ought to
> >>>> have been experienced by a substantial number of people".
>
> >>> I guess the words "scientific" and "objective" aren't in your lexicon.
>
> >> Yes they are - it's you who doesn't seem to understand them. If someone
> >> says that they have experienced something it is objectively and
> >> scientifically true that the claim has been made.
>
> > Oh, so if someone *says* they achieved cold fusion, and especially if
> > they really *believe* it, that proves that cold fusion is real?
>
> Notice that word "prove"? You've made the classic atheist shift from
> "evidence" to "proof". I've been careful not to claim proof at any
> point. See, I know the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Do
> you?
So how do you want me to phrase it when we're talking about the
utility of a person described in the Bible, a person whose sole
utility lies not in his being a useful blind belief, as God might be
to those sufficiently deluded, but in his actually being a real person
who died for our sins? Evidently you can't establish that he was real
and so you're forced into the farcical position of claiming that it
isn't the reality of Jesus which makes him important but the fact that
people *believe* in a lie!
So do tell me, if his utility is supposed to be that he can provide us
with eternal life by virtue of his death and resurrection, and he
isn't real, then how, exactly is blind belief going to make up that
deficit? Now it's your turn to make more ineffectual claims for the
power of belief and offer a dazzling display of smoke screens and
straw men.
> And anyway you deliberately ignored the fact that I made clear (and I
> write it again in the hope you'll actually read it) "Where the
> experience is not commonplace we normally fence the question round with
> riders like "it ought to have been experienced by a substantial number
> of people". In the context you cite, that rider would be referred to as
> "peer review"
We're not talking about someone's claim that they saw some gold
nuggets in the local river but the gold was washed downstream before
they could grab it. We're talking about the purportedly omniscient
omnipotent creator of the unvierse and his son. You seem to keep
losing track of that in your endless detours into the cul-de-sacs of
blind belief.
So your claim here (which I did read and did understand but which you
seem to be wa-ay over rating) is irrelevant. we're not talking about
something which can't be repeated or which is necessarily as rare as a
captured neutron. We're talking, according to his adherents, about a
living god, who is supposed to watch over us and *grant* - not answer,
but *grant* any prayer offered in Jesus's name. (Having said that, it
occurs to me that since we actually don't honestly *know* Jesus's true
name, only his mythical one perhaps this is why there *are* no
answered prayers?). This is the contract the Bible offers.
But I digress. This god of the OT regularly dropped in on people in
apparent physical form in Biblical days. Now why do you suppose he
doesn't do that any more? Why do you suppose this god and his son are
precisely as you describe them in your unnecessarily repeated
paragraph above, to whit: as rare as hen's teeth (which actually
aren't rare in embryos, so perhaps that's a bad metaphor)?
Is it because these two divinities (or is it one?) have abandoned us,
or is it because they never actually did appear and the sole reason we
have them in popular modern culture isn't because they were or are
real, but because Bible writers had extremely vivid imaginations and
nothing (especially not science or objectivity) to rein them in?
> > Got
> > you. Thanks for clue-ing us all in to what kind of "scientist" *you*
> > are.
>
> >> There is absolutely
> >> nothing "unscientific" or "subjective" about the use of witness
> >> statements per se.
>
> > Clearly you have a seriously problem in differentiating "objective"
> > from "subjective". So yeah, thanks! I ask for objective evidence
> > that there's a god or that there's a Jesus and your "scientific"
> > response is "Well *they* said there was"! LoL! I seriously hope you
> > don't work on making new medicines.
>
> > "Well, we gave her the antibiotic and after one day, she *said* she
> > felt better, so clearly we don't need to actually do any real science,
> > nor do we need to run the full course; let's just put it straight on
> > the market." LoL!
>
> Again, oaf, read what I actually said, rather than what you fondly
> imagine I said. You didn't answer the example I gave. Can you?
I precisely addressed it. You're trying to pretend that a belief in
something is the same as objective evidence for the actual physical
existence of that thing and that's patently absurd.
> >> There are times in science when they are the only
> >> kind of evidence available
>
> > Then it's not science, jackass, it's folklore, if all you have is
> > someone who *says* something happened. Clearly you don't have even
> > the first clue what this thread is even about to begin with, do you?
> > So this person says it was God was who won them the lottery. The
> > other person says that person forged the winning ticket and they can
> > prove it, but let's go with the god explanation because she *said*
> > that was true! Got it! LoL! And here I thought you were a chemist,
> > not a professional contortionist. Guess I was wrong about that, too.
>
> OK let me give you an example. Things like bird populations and the
> spread of bird species can't be assessed in a laboratory. So they send
> out questionnaires to volunteers who have bird tables in their gardens
> that ask them to count, say, sparrows. Scientific and objective or not?
Again, you're side-stepping the issue. Are sparrows supernatural, or
is their existence a given for all but the most pedantic amongst us?
Now can you say the same thing about God? Not about a *belief* in a
god, but about the actual, real, independent, objective existence of
that god?
Now do you see how lousy your example is? No one takes the existence
of sparrows on trust. Indeed, if we did, if sparrows were a ethereal
as gods, then your survey would be of as little utility as your god
because no one in their right mind could trust any survey of
sparrows. LoL! Seriously, these arguments aren't even at high school
level. Is this really the best you can offer in witness of the hub of
your life?
> >>>>> and not
> >>>>> even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> >>>>> (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more tothe
> >>>>> point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> >>>>> their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> >>>>> sites).
>
> >>>>> Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>
> >>>>> This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
> >>>>> boredom,
>
> >>>> Are those the only reasons you can come up with? Do you have children?
> >>>> If so, was your reason for engendering them loneliness or boredom?
>
> >>> I'm not a god, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I pretend to
> >>> omnipotence nor omniscience, although I'm flattered by your thinking
> >>> I'm comparable with a god. However, as a human, there are valid
> >>> reasons for having children. Perhaps loneliness and boredom are the
> >>> reasons some have children, but then I'd argue that such people are
> >>> not mentally whole. Is that the case with your god, because I still
> >>> see you offering not a shred of utility for him or for his creation.
>
> >> If God is as I believe him to be, his utility is in there being a
> >> universe and laws of nature.
>
> > And this is of utility because...? This is of use to whom, exactly,
> > other than this fictional god?
>
> Ah! You're assuming he's fictional then?
In the complete absence of objective or of scientific evidence (or
even an intelligent rationale), then why wouldn't I treat it as
fiction?
> > Are you now admitting that he built it
> > because he was bored or lonely
>
> Nope - those are your words. I have never used them in this thread
> except when quoting you. It's you who's insisting on them, not you. I'm
> making absolutely clear that I don't attribute either of those terms to
> God in his acts of creation. You seem to be losing it a bit
You're the one who is evidently claiming that his only utility is that
he created this universe. You offer no reason for it, so what should
we assume other than boredom, loneliness, or malice? It certainly was
not for our benefit, unless you want to offer some utility for that.
> > and simply wanted to torture a few
> > sentient beings rather like decidedly warped children might pull the
> > wings off butterflies?
>
> And life is all torture is it?
So if some people have some joy in some parts of their lives and some
people have nothing but joy all their life and others have a sliver of
joy here and there, when all of us could have had bliss all of the
time, or alternately could have never existed and have been spared
misery and pain, we can completely dismiss the suffering of literally
millions throughout history because they're nothing but a bunch of
wussy little whiney brats?
It's truly tragic how you so desperately justify the action of a true
barbarian in order to avoid upsetting the neat little apple cart of
your belief.
> > At least the explanation makes some sort of
> > sense. The one you believers usually spout doesn't.
>
> >> But I'm a little confused - you can see
> >> that you, as a human being, can have many reasons for engendering
> >> children, but you cannot imagine God having any reasons other than
> >> "boredom or loneliness".
>
> > First of all, why don't you shove your children example?
>
> Because you haven't answered it
I'm sorry but your inability to grasp the answer doesn't constitute a
non-answer; rather it constitutes a non-understanding on your part.
It begs the question, since you seem so insistent that I'm quite
comparable with this god of yours in so many ways as to how you can
even pretend you can make a case for his utility. You're evidently
finding it all but impossible to make a decent case for him as a god.
How do you suppose you're going to fare now you've reduced him to me?
Seriously?
And yes, I did answer it. it's rather funny how when I answer
something and you don't like the answer, then I haven't answered it,
but your god really does answer prayers even when he doesn't.
> > That's
> > nothing but a straw man, because there are no parallels whatsoever
> > between reasons a human might have children and the "reasons" a god
> > might create everything from nothing for no other apparent purpose
> > than to put people on a planet for no other apparent purpose than that
> > he loves (to torment and torture) them.
>
> Again - is life all torture and torment?
Again I see that you're avoiding like the plague your failure to
address your god's creating us in the first place, so your weasel
answer that some good somewhere somehow negates horrible misery, fails
sadly when stacked against the issue that if your god had not created
any of this, there would have been **NO** misery.
I'm sorry you can't see that or can't summon the courage to address
it, but I'm not at all surprised. I certainly wouldn't like to be in
the position of justifying Hitler by trying to claim that, for
example, his mother found joy in nursing him.
> > Or do you seriously believe that I plan on punishing any children I
> > might have for eternity if they don't bow down and worship me?
>
> Nope - again you've ignored the point I made that the New Testament
> doesn't require worship - it requires trust based on a loving
> relationship between God and humanity. Again your complete failure to
> grasp what others actually believe lets you down
So you're claiming that there is no hell? If you're not, then please
do explain how your sentence here even remotely addresses what I
said. More to the point of what you wrote here, how can there be a
loving relationship with someone who can and has condemned people to
an eternity of suffering? I don't want to be in the presence of
someone like that, god or no. This is why, even were I convinced
there is a god, would not want to go to his heaven. I don't want to
even associate with the like sof him, and I certianly do not want ot
enter the enslavement of worshiping siuhc a creature eternally. That
to me, is hell.
Or are you saying that I should be like your god, and that if I have
children, then instead of protecting them from harm and raising them
decently and lovingly, and trying to steer them clear of misery, I
should instead quite literally toss them out of the house and leave
them to their fate in the world at large? That if they transgress my
rules I should throw up my hands and try to drown them? That if I see
harm coming their way through no fault of their own, I should let it
come and not lift a finger to help them even if they beg me for help?
That I should literally ignore all their attempts to communicate with
me? That if they ask for something reasonable that's within my power
to grasp, then I should deliberately refrain from offering it for no
other reason than that I can? That if they request medical attention,
I prevent them from getting it? That if I see a baby reaching to
grasp a flame I should let him grasp it and burn his hand? That if a
four-year old somehow gets hold of a sharp knife I shouldn't interfere
with her free will? Because this caliber of thing is *exactly* what
your god does. The truth is that I'm *better* than your god because I
would *never* let these things happen to children if it were even
remotely within my power to prevent it much less condemn them to
suffer for eternity, which is what your god does when he doesn't get
his juvenile petulant way.
If this is what you're claiming, then you're really not a nice person
at all. If I treated children as your god does his, then I would be
rightly stripped of the right to parent them. So what's your excuse
for you're god's abusive parenting? That he moves in mysterious ways?
> > Seriously?
>
> > I can think of a better reason - pure sadism and mischief. Why else
> > would he torture and torment people when it's completely and utterly
> > unnecessary?
>
> > There, that makes four reasons I've thought up. Still waiting for
> > even one from the theist camp.
>
> These aren't "reasons" at all. They are rhetorical flourishes that - if
> you really look at the way human life actually is - dissolve into
> nothing.
I'm so glad for you that you can dismiss human suffering so
effortlessly. No wonder your life is a bed of roses. I'm actually
starting to see the utility of this god of yours. Religion actually
means never having to care, doesn't it? So what if two million
children over there starve to death this year - at least children over
here are having fun in their sandbox! So what if four million
children die horribly of diseases back there? Children up ahead are
smiling.
> >> As human beings we can be instinctively
> >> creative - creating for the sheer joy of creation. Why do you imagine
> >> the same could not be true of God?
>
> > How is this universe even remotely creative? Ever heard of entropy?
>
> "Heard of It"? I teach it
>
> > After the initial burst, there's nothing but decay and destruction.
>
> No that's just plain wrong and displays a real ignorance of what the
> 2nd Law really means. The 2nd Law says that *in a closed system*
> entropy constantly increases.
The *universe* is a closed system. Or are you party to some new
physics which means the universe won't eventually die a cold death and
perpetual motion is a reality? But why worry about this universe
dying, when other universes are smiling?
> That may (or may not) apply to the
> universe as a whole. It certainly does not most systems within the
> universe. The fact that the Earth is bathed 24/7 with heat and light
> from the Sun means that the Earth is certainly not a closed system, so
> there can be increased order.
Tell me, which part of "After the initial burst," is it that's beyond
your reading level? Did you honestly think I was referring to when
your god created Earth 6,000 years ago (according to the Bible),
instead of the so-called Big Bang?
> > Is this what your loving god wanted? Pain and death? Children
> > separated from families? Rape? Torture? War? Plague? Famine? And
> > the only thing you have to look forward to is an eternity of suffering
> > in Hell for putting one foot wrong? Seriously?
>
> And you think that's what human life is about do you? Let's recite it
> again - pain, death, separation, rape, torture, war. Last I checked
> those are things arewhat humans do. So let me throw your question back
> at you. Of what use, exactly, are humans?
So it was *humans* who created the St. Stephen's Tsunami? It was
*humans* who created the earthquake in Haiti? It was *humans* who
created malaria? It was *humans* who made predators indiscriminate
about eating children? It was *humans* who, far from creating every
green herb for meat, actually made most plants inedible and some even
poisonous and far too much of the landmass incapable of growing a
decent crop? Gotcha. I just knew you'd find some way to blame us
instead of your god.
> And your soteriology is completely wrong and misunderstands Christian
> belief almost completely. Seriously, if you can use a phrase like "an
> eternity of suffering in Hell for putting one foot wrong" then you
> really, really haven't understood *one word* of Christianity.
>
> Really, what do you think the parable of Prodigal Son means? Read it
> again - I challenge you - it's at Luke 15:11-32. Read it and come back
> and put your hand on your heart and write "Christians believe that if
> you put one foot wrong you are condemned to an eternity of suffering in
> Hell"
I didn't write the Bible. Morons did. And I *do* apologize for not
grasping earlier that you're an insufferable pedant. My bad! I'll be
sure to spell out everything in painstaking detail with abundant
endnotes from this point on instead of assuming you'll grasp things.
Here, do let me re-write that at once:
an eternity of suffering in Hell for transgressing god's stringent
rules' and not to be taken literally as in the shorthand of "putting
one foot wrong"³
> > Satan offers a better deal I'll warrant.
>
> >>>>> built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
> >>>>> populated planet in it,
>
> >>>> You know that do you? As far as I know this forms no part of any major
> >>>> church's doctrine. Or is this just your own view?
>
> >>> Once again you ascribe to me the stupidity of religions worldwide.
> >>> Now are you going to start LYING that god is real for me because I
> >>> know him so well?
>
> >> Not at all. You appear to be projecting
>
> > Oh, so you didn't claim that Jesus is real because I talked about him?
>
> No - I don't think so. If you think I suggested that, sorry
So on February 2rd, under the subject "Re: It's February 2010 and
Budikka Still Hasn't Found Jesus" you didn't post this: "I gave
evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real. "?
Hmm.
> >>> LoL! You really don't get the technique of
> >>> assuming the perspective of another and questioning that perspective
> >>> do you? You apparently don't grasp either that it;s your very own
> >>> Bible which implies that earth was made for a purpose and that only
> >>> earth is so made.
>
> >> The Bible makes no such claim. It merely says that the world was
> >> created with a purpose.
>
> > Clearly reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit either. I
> > never said the Bible *claims* that, I said, and here let me quote it
> > for you: "Bible which implies that Earth was made for a purpose and
> > that only Earth is so made".
>
> > So are you saying that the Bible doesn't imply that Earth was made for
> > a purpose - the purpose of populating it with us?
>
> Nope - I'm saying that that the Bible doesn't claim that only the Earth
> was so made
Oh, so it has to explicitly claim it before we can take it as
probable? Gotcha. How convenient it is to make up the rules as you
go and dispense with them as you see fit! I'm honestly starting to to
see real benefits in your religion.
> > So then your god is
> > mor random than is, according to creaitonsitsts, evoltuion? That he
> > just tossed out this planet, perhaps even by mistake, and then put
> > humans on it as an afterthought with no idea of what was going to
> > happen, no plan, no design, no purpose, this omnisicent god?
>
> > Are you saying the Bible, by it's very lack of mention of other
> > populated planets doesn't give the distinct impression that Earth is
> > the only such planet?
>
> Ah. You're interpreting the Bible, then?
Significantly less than you are.
> >>> I think this lack of a third-party perspective is
> >>> an endemic disasease amoingst the theists. You really cannot put
> >>> yourselves into the shoes of others, not even for the sake of
> >>> argument, can you?
>
> >> No - I think the problem is yours. What you are doing is putting up
> >> *what you think* the theist view of things is and then criticising it.
>
> > LIAR. I posted nothing which isn't said or implied in the Bible.
>
> Yes you did. You say it's implied, but I'm waiting for support for that
You have a seriously warped view of what the bible actually does say,
but then you interpret it any way you want. I just read what's
written.
> >> But your understanding of "the theist view of things" is so wide of the
> >> mark that I'm having a hard time grasping where you get your rather
> >> strange ideas from
>
> > Nice out. Now you don't have to take responsibility for your
> > inability to offer any semblance of utility for your god. Nicely
> > done. I see you are indeed a professional contortionist.
>
> I work out a bit.
Carrying that cross, no doubt....
Why on Earth are you reading Catholic news groups? Or atheist news
groups for that matter? Isn't the CoS protestant?
> to preach in all its
> churches. The views I have expressed here are entirely consonant with
> the doctrines of that Church. My views are entirely mainstream
The Church of Scotland would be one of those 20,000 sects I
mentioned....
> >> Honestly - I'm not being funny or clever here - if you haven't grasped
> >> that you really don't understand Christianity at all.
>
> > Because...? Because only your interpretation of the Bible is valid?
>
> No - there really is no way that this can be read into what I said.
> What I said was that all Christians interpret the Bible - *not* that my
> interpretation is the only (or, necessarily, the right) one
>
> > Because only *you* can read it?
>
> As above
>
> > Because only *you* can understand
> > it?
>
> As above
>
> > Because I'm blind to how Christians *really* are, because the
> > behavior I see is their public face but they only behave as the sweet,
> > smart, deep things they really are when I can;t observe them? Because
> > Christians here on Usenet aren't even remotely representative of those
> > out in the "real world"? Because I can't understand their behavior,
> > their hypocrisy, their cruelty, their intolerance, their cowardice,
> > their blind sheep-like habits?
>
> Oh dear, we really have slipped into subjectivity here, haven't we?
> Look - Christians are human beings. Sometimes we do the dreadful things
> you attributed to human beings above. I'm not proud of that. But many
> of us do try to do better
Ad this brings right back into the question of what use is your god if
you cannot agree on what he wants, or on how you should behave, or on
what his word actually says and doesn't say? Seriously. What's the
value of this "one god' scenario if there really isn't one god? Or as
I like to put it, there is one god - one for every believer, and
they're all different?
> >> Or do you really
> >> imagine that you can take a text written to speak to Jewish exiles in
> >> the 5th Century BC can be said to speak to folk in the 21st Century
> >> *without* interpreting it? As Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks put it, "To
> >> go from text to action without interpretationis heresy"
>
> > And there is your weakness. The Bible is irrelevant to modern society
> > and can only be made relevant by interpreting it any way-the-hell you
> > want.
>
> That's an empty argument. No text can be interpreted "in any way the
> hell you want" (unless it's a politician's manifesto).
The Bible seems to be the exception to that. It both says "Thou shalt
not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". That pretty
much leaves open every possibility doesn't it? And that's just one
example. Oh wait a minute, it's "Thou shalt do no murder'. Damn, now
I have another interpretive problem on my hands....
As I've said, by
> and large my religious beliefs are entirely mainstream, yet I find the
> Bible does speak to the concerns of the 21st Century.
>
> > That's why there are or have been some TWENTY THOUSAND
> > Christian sects since the purported time of Christ - very roughly one
> > per month. That's *why* the Bible is useless.
>
> No - that's because we are thinking reflective people and we disagree
> with each other sometimes
20,000 times. Didn't the omniscient god see this coming? If he
didn't, of what use is he? If he did and did nothing about it, of
what use is he?
> > it cna so readily mean
> > anyhting to anyone that it is literally devoid of meaning. I guess
> > that's my next thread in this series.
>
> >>> Now you're admitting that some of
> >>> it is outright LIES and some of it *might* be true. But you cannot
> >>> offer a single criterion by which a third party can distinguish the
> >>> truth (if there be any) from the fiction which you now admit is in the
> >>> Bible - fiction that has never been corrected by any god, not even by
> >>> Jesus, who himself actually believed in that fiction.
>
> >> How do you distinguish the truth in the Bible? Same way as you do in
> >> every other part of life - you use your intelligence, your knowledge
> >> and your experience and yopu make an informed judgement
>
> > Again, of what use is it then?
>
> Sorry, I really don't understand why you think that's a barrier to
> usefulness. I find the Bible very useful
I'm tempted to say that it makes great toilet tissue if you get a good
quality one, but the real utility of the Bible lies in the fact that
it is so vague as to be useless. People do as you do - they dip into
it for what they think the can turn to their advantage and carefully
avoid the parts the can't use to their profit - such as all those
essential rules in the Pentateuch which Judaists follow religiously,
but which Christians have abanodned wholesale. Did your god really
not see this coming?
> >> And be aware, if something isn't literal fact that doesn't make it a
> >> lie. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan and began "There
> >> was a man who went down to Jericho and fell among thieves" it would be
> >> asinine to write the story off as a lie if that man did not actually
> >> exist
>
> > This goes right back to interpretation. Why should I take the Jesus
> > story any more seriously or literally than I'd take the man went down
> > to Jericho parable? What if the whole Bible is a parable? How does
> > this validate a god or a Christ, and if they cannot be validated or
> > trusted, of what use (other then self hypnosis) are they?
>
> OK - let's suppose it is all "a parable". (I don't think it is, but
> I'll run with the idea for a moment), then it is God's parable told to
> the world.
That's your assumption, since there's no objective evidence that any
god had anything to do with any of it! In fact, the Ockham's view
would be that it's entirely the work of humans with no divine input.
> >>>> Do make a point of distinguishing that from
> >>>> "story".
>
> >>> I do, As far as I can tell, the gospels are all "story", and not a
> >>> shred of truth, and you evidently can;t offer any means by which to
> >>> support any of them, which is my whole point.
>
> >> Fairt enough. You have every right to make such a judgement. That does
> >> not make your judgement objective fact
>
> > I never said it did, but then I'm not pushing a faith.
>
> Aye. Right
Oh, so now atheism is a belief? Dawkins is our pope? Scientific
institutions are our churches? Uh-huh.
> > I'm
> > questioning one. The fact that no theist on Usenet can offer a
> > validation for their god is extremely telling.
>
> Last I checked, that's what I'm doing
>
>
>
> >>>> It's best understood in the context of the Jewish Exile, but
> >>>> has significance for anyone who feels they are beset by temptation and
> >>>> trial
>
> >>> Pretty much all of the Bible is a fictional morality play. I get it.
> >>> How does this admisison that it's largely fiction support your claim
> >>> that there's a god and a Jesus, son of this god? I rather suspect it
> >>> supports my contention, not yours.
>
> >> My belief in God stems from my personal experience - not from the
> >> Bible. I came to belief in God (not Christianity) first, before I read
> >> the Bible so for me it's not an issue. I don't think I said "largely"
> >> fiction.
>
> > Again, interpretation, we know that, very broadly speaking, some of
> > the Bible isn't fiction. How do we know this, Andrew? Because it has
> > been scientifically and/or objectively verified. Get it now?
>
> > That's why I buy those portions 9not as a religion but as a record),
> > but the fact that there actually was a Nebuchadnezzar (or whomever)
> > for example, doesn't demonstrate a god or a Christ, let alone speak to
> > their utility.
>
> No - the Bible in itself doesn't. The Bible is the book of people who
> have already accepted the Christian faith.
Are you saying this prospectively or retrospectively? It certainly
wasn't the book of people who have accepted the Christian faith when
it was being written, and the ancient Judaists who used it have
essentially nothing in common with modern Christians.
> It's not a history book nor
> a science book. If it hasn't convinced you I'm not at all surprised.
It's convinced me of how easily people are misled and turned to
mischief by the canny and cynical amongst believers. But there are
many, particularly in the USA who would disagree with you even on this
claim of yours: they would maintain that it is indeed a history and a
science book. Again, since you can interpret it as you wish, it
really isn't of any value except perhaps as a comfort blanket such as
is issued to young children.
> Have you friends who are Christians? If you really want to argue with
> Christians about what they believe, could I suggest that you sit down
> with them with a few bottles of wine and a comfortable environment and
> talk.
Been there, done that; how do you think I learned what I know? I
attended church for many years and I observe Christians all the time.
Admittedly those who haunt a.a. are more vile than the average, but
all-too-many Christians can be all-too-vile all-too-often for me to
believe that their god if of any real utility in changing the lives of
the vast majority.
> Honestly - you'll get a far better understanding of Christian
> belief than I can communicate over UseNet. I've come to feel that
> UseNet does no one any favours. Behind the mask of nyms we can be as
> abusive as we like without comeback. I'm not sure that casts any of us
> in a good light.
Yes, it's very revealing about how all-too-many Christians are when
removed from the restraint of open society. And we see that their
belief in a god and their acceptance of the Bible provides not a whit
of restraint whatsoever to their behavior.
Budikka
Endnotes
1. Which could involve anything from putting one foot² wrong,
2. "one foot" can be taken to mean "one hand" or "both feet' or could
be a generic term intended to convey the rigidity of God's arbitrary
and senseless rules, for example making a mistake, the equivalent of
which most human parents would forgive without any fuss but which god
will not unless you debase yourself before him and throw yourself upon
his mercy *before* you die. Otherwise you're really for it
3. Although one foot wrong could be a metaphor for blaspheming the
Holy Spirit. That could quite literally be going astray in one
instance which would condemn you to eternity in Hell since there is no
forgiveness for that.
Budikka666
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:49:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
> >OK, here's "FACTS":
> >1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
> >support your claim that there's a god.
>
> But my answer is at least as realistic as one you can come up with.
Your fleeing yet another challenge has been noted by everyone in these
public world-wide fora.
> >2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
>
> He's actually the Supreme Creator. His name is God.
Another claim, another total lack of supportive evidence. Te deum is
clearly your favorite thing.
> >3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
>
> All the evidence, and I have 100% of it, demands the existence of God.
Yet not a shred of it ever shows up. This in the legal world, is
known as OUTRIGHT LYING.
> >4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
>
> And all evidence, for which you have none for your wildness.
We've supplied endless *proof* that you never supplied any evidence,
you vacuous waste of skin.
Budikka
Smiler
What part *does* he use? Maybe his right hand ;-)
Kleenex would notice the slump in sales, though.
Brian E. Clark
Smi...@joe.king.com says...
> >> That does not take real faith, let him cut off his head,
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a greater test of faith, if he cut off some
> > part of his body which he actually *used*?
>
> What part *does* he use? Maybe his right hand ;-)
> Kleenex would notice the slump in sales, though.
Some folk say he does most of his talking from his hinder
regions; but if those are removed, he would be unable to
sit down -- he'd just fall backward rotate like a ball on a
string. :)
Don Martin
But would he really ROTATE? He, himself, denies it.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
duke
It's very simple. Hard to believe you still don't understand.
duke
javs
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew
>>>> <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put
>>>>>> forward any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical
>>>>>> being,
>>>>
>>>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>>>
>>>> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that
>>>> causes us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific
>>>> conclusion or belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you
>>> were a murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there
>>> is no objective evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to
>>> serve a life sentence for murder, would you puke? Or are their
>>> beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>>
>> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
>
>So this evidence you claim to have isn't just your belief, but real tangible
>objective evidence for the existence of your supposed god character?
>Why are you so shy about showing it to us, puke?
I have shown it on these ng, dozens of times. Whether or not you were in hiding
at the time is beyond me.
duke
wrote:
>This form the cowardly piece of shit who RUNS away from *every*
>request the *he* supply some support for his claims? LoL! Go look up
>"HYPOCRITE" in a dictionary, dick head.
>
>> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>
>OK, here's "FACTS":
>1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
>support your claim that there's a god.
You need to learn the definition of rationale. Evidence is that which drives
belief. It's all there, duffus.
>2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
>claim that there's a god.
>3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
>claim that there's a god.
Gotcha.
>4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
Basis 100% of the evidence.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thec...@macunlimited.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
>>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>>
>>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>>
>> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
>> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
>> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>>
>
>So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
>murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
>evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
>for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
Evidence drives belief. That's what a court of law does. It's not vice versa.
Budikka666
> It's very simple. Hard to believe you still don't understand.
Need I add anything?
Budikka
Budikka666
> I have shown it on these ng, dozens of times. Whether or not you were in hiding
> at the time is beyond me.
The best "evidence" of a god you were ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items you posted in thread "Scientists find new face
on back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.
You appear to have appropriated these five items from Thomas Aquinas
who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five "Ways"
to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been thoroughly
discredited.
You admitted your 'evidence" was nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all you could do after the massive pounding you got.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:49:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >This form the cowardly piece of shit who RUNS away from *every*
> >request the *he* supply some support for his claims? LoL! Go look up
> >"HYPOCRITE" in a dictionary, dick head.
>
> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>
> >OK, here's "FACTS":
> >1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
> >support your claim that there's a god.
>
> You need to learn the definition of rationale. Evidence is that which drives
> belief. It's all there, duffus.
Not a shred of which you can offer.
Laaa-dies and Geeee-n'lemen, in the blue corner we have Thomas
Aquinas, Roman Catholic scholar of the 13th century, and in the
(seeing) red corner, we have Dumbass Whineyass, a Roman Catholic non-
entity apparently from the 18th century who has contributed nothing to
anything.
Aquinas published "Summa theologiae" after he went to Paris c1245. In
this work were five "Ways" to prove some god's existence, all of which
have been shot down.
Then on the morning of April 18, 2004, in thread "Scientists find new
face on back of Turin shroud" (http://tinyurl.com/dtkeq), Dumbass
Whineyass posted five items under the title "Evidence of God" in
alt.atheism.
Those five items very closely track the "Ways" in Aquinas' work, but
nowhere is Aquinas even so much as mentioned in passing, let alone
credited for anything - not even inspiration:
*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 1
Evidence of God (Rev1)- duke32, circa 2002AD
1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined.
One could hypothesize an astronomical event such as a prior universe
that collapsed in on itself and has now exploded outward to form our
new present universe. If this did happen, it would have happened
again and again for the same reason as the latest occurrence, thereby
suggesting that the universe always was, is, and always will be. Yet
another equal suggestion is that the universe was birthed out of
another universe, or another dimension.
The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning, and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.
The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is nothing but Thomas Aquinas's second way - the "efficient
cause" argument.
Note how Duck-Egg Duke LIES that this is evidence, but outright states
in the item itself that it's nothing more than *belief*, whereas
science actually offers objective independently verifiable scientific
evidence for its position.
In short, Duck-Egg Duke's item one fails dismally.
*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 2
2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of
infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then it
exploded outward to form our universe, including "time" and all "outer
space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the
universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?
This is Thomas Aquinas's first way - the "argument from motion".
Note how Duck-Egg Doofus Duke-ass can't even get the Big Bang story
correct? Note how he offers nothing to point to any god. He has
exactly the same evidence which scientists have, none of which points
to any god, but unlike scientists who add no fiction to the evidence,
Doofus adds a god to it, but *he* *cannot* *even* *offer* so much as a
pretense of a rationale for this addition, much less an iota of
scientific or objective evidence to support it.
In short, his item number 2 is just that: number two.
3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
body.
This is Thomas Aquinas's third way - the "possibility and necessity"
argument.
Note how Doofus Duck-Egg Duke-ass claims science says the body
reflects a design with purpose but that he doesn't support this
claim. He expects us to take his word - the word or a proven LIAR -
on this! he can't even get the description of what the body does
correct, nor can he offer any reason why we should assume any god was
involved in the evolution of living things.
His own Bible makes no mention of evolution because the writers of it
had no clue - the selfsame writers who were supposed to have been
inspired by a god to write the very words which quite clearly evidence
no clue as to the age of the universe or as to how life began and
developed on Earth.
In short, item number three fails dismally.
*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 4
4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals. Of
special interest is the fact that the male and female organs are of
complimentary shape in mammals. These two facts are especially
conducive to support planned design.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is Thomas Aquinas's third way - the "governance of the world"
argument.
And once again moron Doofey Duke-Ass shows no clue whatsoever as to
how life is organized, focusing only on vertebrates, which represent a
tiny fraction of the variety of living things, most of which variety
does not sexually reproduce. he shows no clue that he even begins to
grasp that there are species, even amongst vertebrates, which do not
makes or which have hermaphrodites. The depth of his ignorance is as
laughable as it is disturbing.
*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 5
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.
Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.
We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life
can't. By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.
As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.
As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.
If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.
Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.
How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.
So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.
Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is Thomas Aquinas's fourth way - the "graduation in things"
argument. The unfounded assumption that there is a hierarchy, of
which humans are the pinnacle on earth and that therefore there has to
be something higher in heaven, is pure kindergarten bullshit without a
shred of intelligent evidence to support it.
You can see that in eight hundred years, there has been no improvement
whatsoever in the quality of the Catholic case for a god. The
arguments still suck. Indeed, they're the *same* arguments in
modified garb(age) and they've been disposed of just as easily in the
21st century as they were in the 13th.
I wonder why a god would offer absolutely no help in establishing
incontrovertible proof of his own existence, especially given that
this god supposedly loves us so much that he raped a young woman and
murdered the resultant child in a desperate, sick, psychotic and
failed attempt to save us?
Why go to *that* trouble when all he really has to do is
**APPEAR**?!!!!
Could it be there is no god?
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:49:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >This form the cowardly piece of shit who RUNS away from *every*
> >request the *he* supply some support for his claims? LoL! Go look up
> >"HYPOCRITE" in a dictionary, dick head.
> >
> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
> >
> >OK, here's "FACTS":
>
> >1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
> >support your claim that there's a god.
>
> You need to learn the definition of rationale. Evidence is that which drives
> belief. It's all there, duffus.
What you call evidence, and what we call evidence, are quite different
things.
>
> >2. You can't offer a shred of scientific evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
> >3. You can't offer a shred of objective evidence to support your
> >claim that there's a god.
>
> Gotcha.
Wrong! It is duckgumbo who has been got.
>
> >4. All you *can* offer is blind belief.
>
> Basis 100% of the evidence.
100% of 0 evidence is still 0 evidence.
Duckgumbo goes on and on about evidence but never produces any.
At least not any supporting his theist claims.
javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid" .
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
It is quite easy to understand that duckgumbo wants to convince
skeptical people of something for which he cannot produce anything like
convincing evidence.
Then duckgumbo gets pissed off when his absence of convincing evidence
fails to convince.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:49:19 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> javs
javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
We non-theists, by being merely skeptics and not raging dogmatists,
avoid any need for proofs.
You theists, of whatever dubious ilk, by being raging dogmatists and not
mere skeptics like us, have a dire need of, but total lack of, proof of
your dogma.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >So this evidence you claim to have isn't just your belief, but real tangible
> >objective evidence for the existence of your supposed god character?
> >Why are you so shy about showing it to us, puke?
>
> I have shown it on these ng, dozens of times. Whether or not you were in
> hiding
> at the time is beyond me.
You have certainly claimed to have done so, but if your so called
evidence was anywhere nearly as convincing as you claim, why has you god
not let it convince anyone?
Could it be because your god knowing the future makes free will into a
logical impossibility, and so no one here is allowed by that god to
change his/her mind.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Belief can often modify testimony to the point of changing what is
presented in a court as evidence.
Consider the notorious unreliability of eyewitness accounts of an event.
And reliable evidence for his odd beliefs is just what duckgumbo lacks.
Budikka666
> In article <ormqm559jt7272dqp6mujbbcfju8egp...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:51:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <dssom5h3tgg0k1mklenbnna09n557lv...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> > >@cox.net says...
> > >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >duke wrote:
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> > >> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> > >> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> > >> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> > >> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> > >> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> > >> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were
> > >> >a
> > >> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no
> > >> >objective
> > >> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life
> > >> >sentence
> > >> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not
> > >> >evidence?
>
> > >> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
>
> > >And around the logic loop, one more time.......
>
> > It's very simple. Hard to believe you still don't understand.
>
> It is quite easy to understand that duckgumbo wants to convince
> skeptical people of something for which he cannot produce anything like
> convincing evidence.
>
> Then duckgumbo gets pissed off when his absence of convincing evidence
> fails to convince.
>
> javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
I thought "javs" was Just Another Vacuous Statement"...!
Budikka
Smiler
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:04:06 -0500, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <xZ3bn.6700$Tu....@newsfe21.ams2>,
>> Smi...@joe.king.com says...
>>
>>>>> That does not take real faith, let him cut off his head,
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be a greater test of faith, if he cut off some
>>>> part of his body which he actually *used*?
>>>
>>> What part *does* he use? Maybe his right hand ;-)
>>> Kleenex would notice the slump in sales, though.
>>
>> Some folk say he does most of his talking from his hinder
>> regions; but if those are removed, he would be unable to
>> sit down -- he'd just fall backward rotate like a ball on a
>> string. :)
>
> But would he really ROTATE? He, himself, denies it.
>
We all know that he denies reality.
Virgil
<045a92b1-18ea-49c8...@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:37�ｿｽpm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article <ormqm559jt7272dqp6mujbbcfju8egp...@4ax.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �ｿｽduke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:51:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >In article <dssom5h3tgg0k1mklenbnna09n557lv...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> > > >@cox.net says...
> > > >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >duke wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew
> > > >> >> <thecr...@macunlimited.net>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >>>> So of what use is "God"? �ｿｽFirst of all, no one has ever put
> > > >> >>>> forward
> > > >> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
> >
> > > >> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
> >
> > > >> >> The dud just doesn't get it. �ｿｽEvidence are those "things" that
> > > >> >> causes
> > > >> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> > > >> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
> >
> > > >> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you
> > > >> >were
> > > >> >a
> > > >> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no
> > > >> >objective
> > > >> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life
> > > >> >sentence
> > > >> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not
> > > >> >evidence?
> >
> > > >> No, beliefs are not evidence. �ｿｽEvidence drives belief.
> >
> > > >And around the logic loop, one more time.......
> >
> > > It's very simple. �ｿｽHard to believe you still don't understand.
> >
> > It is quite easy to understand that duckgumbo wants to convince
> > skeptical people of something for which he cannot produce anything like
> > convincing evidence.
> >
> > Then duckgumbo gets pissed off when his absence of convincing evidence
> > fails to convince.
> >
> > javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
>
> I thought "javs" was "Just Another Vacuous Statement"...!
But I suppose the difference could be that when duckgumbo posts it, it
is "Just Another Vacuous Statement"
but when others post it it means
"Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
>
> Budikka
Smiler
All the 'evidence' puke has are his beliefs, which he has admitted above,
are not evidence.
Watch him attempt to backpedal on that admission.
Smiler
All you have show are your beliefs, which you admit are not evidence.
The bullshit you spout about "everything around you" is only your belief and
isn't evidence.
Not show us some evidence that you can back up and which we can test.
But I know you have none, so your weaseling out of showing us the evidence
you claim to have will only prove you have none and that you are a consumate
liar.
Syd M.
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
>
>
Except in your case.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:51:50 -0500, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>
> >> >duke wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> >> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> >> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
>
> >And around the logic loop, one more time.......
>
> It's very simple. Hard to believe you still don't understand.
>
>
Maybe he doesn't because you don't..
PDW
Syd M.
Lie.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> Evidence drives belief. That's what a court of law does. It's not vice versa.
>
>
To bad you don't have any, huh?
PDW
Yap
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:16:13 -0800, John Locke <johnlocke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:46:13 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:25:50 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 3, 6:28 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:17:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> >Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> >>>> >online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> >>>> >the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever
>
> >>>> Well, I guess anyone stupid enough to make that statement deserves what she
> >>>> gets.
>
> >>>If either were of any real value, someone would have been able to post
> >>>something which demonstrated it, but no one did, especially (and
> >>>unsurprisingly) including you. You lose. Again. Yawn.
>
> >>Eventually, you're going to have to come forward with some real facts,
> >>eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points. For a
> >>person that offers exactly no reason to believe, other than your famous
> >>plagiarism of a few years go, you have a long way to go..
>
> >>>> >It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> >>>> >a medicine man).
> >>>> >So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> >any scientific or objective evidence
>
> >>>> things that causes people to believe in God.
>
> >>>"the two very things that causes"? You illiterate, hypocritical
> >>>prick.
>
> >>You..................didn't know about the evidence being overwhelming, as many
> >>times as I've talked to you about faith and belief???? Come on, dud, you're
> >>making an embarrassing ass of yourself now.
>
> >>> You have the nerve to RUN from the arguments of others by
> >>>hiding behind taunts at misspelled or errant words, and here you go
> >>>posting your own. I guess Jesus's advice about hypocrisy was lost on
> >>>you, huh? That's entirely unsurprising: everything in the Bible is
> >>>lost on you, as most of your fellow Catholics here realize.
>
> >>Oh, dud, you just don't get it, do you. You try to use unscientific data to
> >>prove scientific facts. You demand proof when I say that evidence is all there
> >>is. You hide when I say we believe sans proof but the evidence is overwhelming.
> >>You're just a natural born loser.
>
> >>>> >This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> >>>> >planet like a toilet
>
> >>>> Whoa, dud, you said there was no evidence of God, therefore no flood.
>
> >>>You can't even get that right. I said there's no scientific evidence
> >>>of a global flood **AND** there's no objective or scientific evidence
> >>>(or even an intelligent rationale) for your god.
>
> >>I told you long ago that no one knows the date of the flood, IF THERE WAS A
> >>FLOOD, but that it could have been anytime in the 4.5 billion year history of
> >>the earth. But, nooooooo, you insisted the earth was only 6000 years old. Of
> >>course, again you used unscientific data to substantiate a scientific event.
>
> >>You never learn.
>
> >>>But I'm not talking about reality there, I'm talking about your blind
> >>>beliefs, jackass. You can't even get that clear, and your failure to
> >>>embrace the essential realization that the two are completely
> >>>different is your problem.
>
> >>See, there you go again. I believe (fact #1) basis the evidence (fact #2) that I
> >>find overwhelming. When are you going to get it?
>
> >>>> >You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
> >>>> >if you wanted to be placed into this rat's maze to be tested?
> >>>> My parents did.
>
> >>>Oh, your parents are god now? Besides, we only have the word of a
> >>>know LIAR for this claim that they both planned and wanted you.
>
> >>My existence, and yours, has nothing to do with our personal decision. I can't
> >>speak for whatever your parents were, but mine wanted children. The decision
> >>was made for you and me. If you don't like the arrangement, talk to God and see
> >>if he can give some leeway in the future of how that works.
>
> >>>> >Has any god ever answered your prayer?
> >>>> Always.
> >>>Yeah, and when I ask you to prove that, you FLEE the request as usual.
>
> >>And how can I "prove" it? You can't even prove you have thoughts.
>
> >Wrong ! She can now:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8497148.stm
>
> Uh, no she can't. She would still need to compare actual thought with measured
> apparent thought.
Hey, duckbrain, you are given the facts about her reply.
Yet you just do the usual "ostrich" display?
Yap
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:02:37 +0000, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net>
> >> wrote:
>
>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
Imagination?
Yap
> "WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> > And around the logic loop, one more time.......
>
> I thought you had plonked duke and me.
> SHADDUP!
Oh, can't stand lies being refuted?
Yap
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:49:19 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> javs
Yap
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:44:45 -0000, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> So of what use is "God"? First of all, no one has ever put forward
> >>>> any scientific or objective evidence for this mythical being,
>
> >>> That depends on what you think qualifies as "evidence".
>
> >> The dud just doesn't get it. Evidence are those "things" that causes
> >> us to reach a conclusion, a belief - not a specific conclusion or
> >> belief, but a conclusion none the less.
>
> >So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you were a
> >murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there is no objective
> >evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing to serve a life sentence
> >for murder, would you puke? Or are their beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>
> Evidence drives belief. That's what a court of law does. It's not vice versa.
livvy
> On Feb 3, 10:18 pm, livvy <go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of
> > Catholics
> > online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> > can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses "
>
> > ahhhh, not so fast, cubby. You've sought out and researched all
> > sources, all material, everywhere, and made this determination?
> > Jesus, and God, are just fine, the Pope as well..in spite of you. The
> > Pope is The Pope, Catholic regard is absolute, or you just get out.
> > It's so simple, pristine. We know this. It's a "given". You will
> > find dis-enfranchised Catholics, people, men, women, puppies,
> > Protestants, Jews, parakeets, goldfish....how expanded do your
> > expectations get? Don't tell me, don't really care. You focus
> > on as much negativity as you need to to get you through your day,
> > whatever it is. Ignore God, Christ, the Pope, and whatever. We're
> > fine, got along without you before you found the internet, gonna get
> > along without you now. And forever. Amen.
> > On Feb 3, 6:17 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of Catholics
> > > online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
> > > can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses worshiped
> > > by the Catholic cult of the dead, along with the so-called saints
> > > (many of whom were actually evil, despicable people), dead non-
> > > virginal women who supposedly gave birth to a god, fairy tale angels,
> > > etc.
>
> > > It's time to go after the big kahuna (which, in Hawaii, is nothing but
> > > a medicine man).
>
> > > even so much as an intelligent rational argument has come out for him
> > > (it's always a "Him". The Catholics took great pains - or more to the
> > > point gave great pain - to kill off the she-gods of yore by filching
> > > their holy days and building their new churches on top of pagan
> > > sites).
>
> > > Secondly, there is no rationale for him.
>
> > > This is a god who supposedly, for no reason except loneliness or
> > > boredom, built an entire universe for no other reason than to put one
> > > populated planet in it, for no other reason than to consign the entire
> > > human population of that planet to HELL for eternity, if we don't
> > > agree to the slavish worship of this god for eternity.
>
> > > This god became so pissed off with us at one point that he flushed the
> > > handful on an ark. Every living thing. That means he killed *every*
> > > *single* child, *every* *single* *infant*, *every* *young* *person*,
> > > every fetus, every embryo on Earth because some grown-ups pissed him
> > > off.
>
> > > Think about that for a minute. Your god is worse than Hitler, who
> > > never even pretended he wanted to destroy every living thing. He was
> > > worse than any abortion doctor you can name. He's the universe's
> > > biggest mass murderer and always will be. Life is totally meaningless
> > > to him. He cares not a whit about children born or unborn.
>
> > > He had absolutely no compunction whatsoever about murdering thousands
> > > if not millions. Did he even for a split second give any thought at
> > > all to forgiveness or rehabilitation of those sinner sinners Noah's
> > > time? No. He pulled the plug and flushed it all.
>
> > > Yet you worship this.
>
> > > You talk about free will? Did you get *asked*, before you were born,
> > > seriously doubt it. If you were not asked, if you were not given the
> > > choice to opt out of this barbaric test, then how under any definition
> > > of the words whatsoever is there any free will involved in a test into
> > > which you were forced blindly, the result of which could condemn you
> > > to eternal misery?
>
> > > Has any god ever answered your prayer? If you think he has, how many
> > > prayers do suppose he's ignored? How many parents have prayed for
> > > their child to live only to see the child die? How many have prayed
> > > for someone to get well only to see them get worse and die? How many
> > > Christians have prayed for the victims of a tsunami or an earthquake
> > > to survive only to see their corpses pulled from the debris? How many
> > > Jews prayed for deliverance from the holocaust only to join the six
> > > million, for not one of whom did any god lift a finger? How many
> > > Muslims have prayed for the "American Satan" as they term it, to leave
> > > the Middle East only to see the American presence there drag on for
> > > nine long years?
>
> > > Oh but he hears your prayer, sometimes he chooses to answer it in a
> > > way you didn't expect? So if that's what you believe, then of what
> > > use is your Jesus's promise that **WHATEVER** you ask for in his name,
> > > you shall receive? Was Jesus not god? Or did he simply not exist, as
> > > you seem to have agreed by your lack of support for him in the thread
> > > of this series devoted to his mythology?
>
> > > If you want to come after me with this Pope, this Jesus, this god of
> > > yours, you're failing dismally, and you going to need a hell of a lot
> > > more than you've been able to muster so far before you'll ever
> > > convince me that you're not all dangerously deluded.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> it may not have occurred to you that this is **ONLINE**, and that's
> the context I'm speaking in. But thanks for admitting that you can't
> offer a shred of justification for the Pope, for Jesus, or for god
> either. I'll add you to the growing list of people who are as useless
> as their god.
>
> Budikka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"But thanks for admitting that you can't
> offer a shred of justification for the Pope, for Jesus, or for god
> either. I'll add you to the growing list of people who are as useless
> as their god."
Not my job. Talk to your parents, your school teachers, your college
professors, anyone who never taught you that you are, at some point
in your life, expected and required to think for yourself. Your
Useless is from within you....I can offer justification for anything
for the next 100 years , but isn't it about time you stood up, grew
up, and took care of yourself? Add me to whatever list you
want....to me, a grown-up, it will be treated like an ant. stomp.
I'm still here, as is my God....And you'lll still be expecting others
to "justify"....no one owes you a thing.
>
duke
wrote:
>On Feb 6, 6:07�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> It's very simple. �Hard to believe you still don't understand.
>
>Need I add anything?
No, we all understand that you choose to turn away from God.
duke
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 1:34�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:49:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>> >OK, here's "FACTS":
>> >1. �You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
>> >support your claim that there's a god.
>>
>> But my answer is at least as realistic as one you can come up with.
>
>Your fleeing yet another challenge has been noted by everyone in these
>public world-wide fora.
But dud, you have nothing, provided nothing, and will provide nothing. If you
did, you could offer an argument against the existence of God. You are an empty
shell of nothing.
duke
wrote:
>> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>> >OK, here's "FACTS":
>> >1. �You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
>> >support your claim that there's a god.
>> You need to learn the definition of rationale. �Evidence is that which drives
>> belief. �It's all there, duffus.
>Not a shred of which you can offer.
Oh, I have creation of the universe, human and all existing life, the laws of
science, one of my favorites - the human body as the blue print for all
mechanisms, beauty, love, good, etc.
You have ............ bad.
>Those five items very closely track the "Ways" in Aquinas' work, but
>nowhere is Aquinas even so much as mentioned in passing, let alone
>credited for anything - not even inspiration:
Hey, dud, I didn't have to plagiarize the works of others to see the obvious.
It's there for all the intelligent to see. You need to evaluate your
shortcomings.
Gosh, dud, first cause is not new science. God is the author of first cause.
That's the exact reason it's called "first cause".
>*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 2
>2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
>energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of
>infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then it
>exploded outward to form our universe, including "time" and all "outer
>space" as we know it.
>
>The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the
>universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?
>This is Thomas Aquinas's first way - the "argument from motion".
Never heard of this "argument form motion". However, scientists have discussed
the expansion of the universe for decades now. Isn't God wonderful.
>
>Note how Duck-Egg Doofus Duke-ass can't even get the Big Bang story
>correct? Note how he offers nothing to point to any god. He has
>exactly the same evidence which scientists have, none of which points
>to any god, but unlike scientists who add no fiction to the evidence,
>Doofus adds a god to it, but *he* *cannot* *even* *offer* so much as a
>pretense of a rationale for this addition, much less an iota of
>scientific or objective evidence to support it.
>
>In short, his item number 2 is just that: number two.
>3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
>"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
>supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
>(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
>disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
>transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
>maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
>(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
>minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
>body.
>
>This is Thomas Aquinas's third way - the "possibility and necessity"
>argument.
It is?? Wow, that guy was intelligent for living way back then, wasn't he.
Gosh, I heard my Bishop discuss that on tv one day. Isn't God wonderful.
All mine, big dud.
>This is Thomas Aquinas's fourth way - the "graduation in things"
>argument. The unfounded assumption that there is a hierarchy, of
>which humans are the pinnacle on earth and that therefore there has to
>be something higher in heaven, is pure kindergarten bullshit without a
>shred of intelligent evidence to support it.
>
>You can see that in eight hundred years, there has been no improvement
>whatsoever in the quality of the Catholic case for a god. The
>arguments still suck. Indeed, they're the *same* arguments in
>modified garb(age) and they've been disposed of just as easily in the
>21st century as they were in the 13th.
>
>I wonder why a god would offer absolutely no help in establishing
>incontrovertible proof of his own existence, especially given that
>this god supposedly loves us so much that he raped a young woman and
>murdered the resultant child in a desperate, sick, psychotic and
>failed attempt to save us?
>
>Why go to *that* trouble when all he really has to do is
>**APPEAR**?!!!!
>
>Could it be there is no god?
>Budikka
God's existence is guaranteed, dud.
duke
>>>>> So if ten people went to a court and swore they 'believed' that you
>>>>> were a murderer (They don't claim to have seen you do it and there
>>>>> is no objective evidence like a body or weapon), you'd be willing
>>>>> to serve a life sentence for murder, would you puke? Or are their
>>>>> beliefs, like yours, not evidence?
>>>>
>>>> No, beliefs are not evidence. Evidence drives belief.
>>>
>>> So this evidence you claim to have isn't just your belief, but real
>>> tangible objective evidence for the existence of your supposed god
>>> character?
>>> Why are you so shy about showing it to us, puke?
>>
>> I have shown it on these ng, dozens of times. Whether or not you
>> were in hiding at the time is beyond me.
>All you have show are your beliefs, which you admit are not evidence.
Evidence drives belief. Even a court of law, which follows the laws of God, do
the same thing.
That you reject the evidence simply reduces you to a knob on a door. Everything
happens in front of the door know, but it jut doesn't understand.
>The bullshit you spout about "everything around you" is only your belief and
>isn't evidence.
Evidence is evidence.
>Not show us some evidence that you can back up and which we can test.
>But I know you have none, so your weaseling out of showing us the evidence
>you claim to have will only prove you have none and that you are a consumate
>liar.
You deny the evidence. God didn't say "test my evidence". God said "here I
am".
duke
Creation of the universe out of nothing into nothingness, all laws of physics
and chemistry, love, good, right, beauty, color, etc.
Disease comes from those that refuse to follow God.
duke
If you don't comprehend that evidence drives belief, then you are a wall flower.
duke
>"Well I think we've pretty well established, with the help of
>Catholics
>online everywhere, that neither the Pope nor Jesus (even granting for
>the sake of argument that he existed) is of any use whatsoever, so we
>can consign them both to the trash can of worthless corpses "
>
>
>ahhhh, not so fast, cubby. You've sought out and researched all
>sources, all material, everywhere, and made this determination?
>Jesus, and God, are just fine, the Pope as well..in spite of you. The
>Pope is The Pope, Catholic regard is absolute, or you just get out.
>It's so simple, pristine. We know this. It's a "given". You will
>find dis-enfranchised Catholics, people, men, women, puppies,
>Protestants, Jews, parakeets, goldfish....how expanded do your
>expectations get? Don't tell me, don't really care. You focus
>on as much negativity as you need to to get you through your day,
>whatever it is. Ignore God, Christ, the Pope, and whatever. We're
>fine, got along without you before you found the internet, gonna get
>along without you now. And forever. Amen.
Duffus dud is truly that - a big dud.
duke
>"But thanks for admitting that you can't
>> offer a shred of justification for the Pope, for Jesus, or for god
>> either. I'll add you to the growing list of people who are as useless
>> as their god."
>Not my job. Talk to your parents, your school teachers, your college
>professors, anyone who never taught you that you are, at some point
>in your life, expected and required to think for yourself. Your
>Useless is from within you....I can offer justification for anything
>for the next 100 years , but isn't it about time you stood up, grew
>up, and took care of yourself? Add me to whatever list you
>want....to me, a grown-up, it will be treated like an ant. stomp.
>I'm still here, as is my God....And you'lll still be expecting others
>to "justify"....no one owes you a thing.
Welcome to your pit of fire, dud.
Budikka666
Well done. Now you've shed yourself of the very responsibility your
own LORD gave to you - to witness for him! LoL! You've abandoned
Christianity, you've abandoned your principles, and you think you're
mature enough to lecture me? The only thing your;e qualified to
elcture on is pure, rank cowardice.
[Rest of your asinine, juvenile, clueless, vacuous cowardly horse-shit
flushed where it belongs]
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > offer a shred of justification for the Pope, for Jesus, or for god
>> > either. �I'll add you to the growing list of people who are as useless
>> > as their god."
>>
>> Not my job.
>
>Well done. Now you've shed yourself of the very responsibility your
>own LORD gave to you - to witness for him! LoL! You've abandoned
>Christianity, you've abandoned your principles, and you think you're
>mature enough to lecture me? The only thing your;e qualified to
>elcture on is pure, rank cowardice.
>
>[Rest of your asinine, juvenile, clueless, vacuous cowardly horse-shit
>flushed where it belongs]
>
>Budikka
I've never understood why they a so willing to perjure themselves by
saying they saw something they didn't - because that's what "witness"
means in the real world.
Or why they lie about "the truth" when it's merely their religious
belief.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
> >> >OK, here's "FACTS":
> >> >1. You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
> >> >support your claim that there's a god.
> >> You need to learn the definition of rationale. Evidence is that which drives
> >> belief. It's all there, duffus.
> >Not a shred of which you can offer.
>
> Oh, I have creation of the universe, human and all existing life, the laws of
> science, one of my favorites - the human body as the blue print for all
> mechanisms, beauty, love, good, etc.
And this is why you're such a pathetic person. You say no one
discusses anything with you, but you're completely blind to why. Let
me educate you yet agian. The reason no one can discuss anything with
you is that you refuse to stand there and discuss. Instead, you're
RUNNING and HIDING from every request, every question, every
challenge; all you can offer as an excuse for a response is not
objectivity, not evidence, not rationale, not even intelligent
exchange. All you can offer is mindless mantras which you learned as
a chld and have never progresse beyond.
Once you get into a concersation with adults, an exchange which
requires you to think outside the box in which you were raised, and
which requires that you actually support your claims, you're
completely and hopelessly lost. That's what your religion has done
for you. It's made you into a puppet. Congratulations. Just how does
it feel to be nothing more than a tool hanging on a wall in a garage
waiting to be taken down to hammer a nail in, and then failing even
with that because every nail you try to hammer gets uselessly bent?
LoL!
Clearly you're too fundamentally stupid distinguish between declaring
a thing exists and *actually* establishing a root cause for that
existence by providing evidence for one. You really are too stupid to
be able to understand that the universe exists whether it was created
by a god or came about through natural processes, which is what
**ALL** of the available evidence suggests.
The existence of the universe proves nothing other than that it
exists. If you want to declare that some god made it, then the entire
burden of proof is upon ***YOU*** to establish that very thing. The
pure existence of the universe establishes no such thing. All it
establishes is that the universe exists. It says nothing about a
creator. You have to be laughably to stupid to imagine it establishes
anything else. To establish something else requires the provision of
supportive evidence for your claim, and *that* is what you've
consistently failed to do, because you always RUN from every such
challenge and hide behind the LIE that you provided such evidence,
when every can clearly see now that you did not.
All you offered was a blind *belief* that some god did it. We still
await your objective or scientific evidence (as opposed to opinion,
which is all you've so far offered, and it wasn't even your opinion
but that of Thomas Aquinas! LoL!). failing any evidence, we'll
consider an objective rationale. Can you provide even that?
My prediction right here and now is that once again you will RUN from
this challenge. You will provide no science. You will provide no
objectivity. You will provide no rationale.
> You have ............ bad.
>
> >Those five items very closely track the "Ways" in Aquinas' work, but
> >nowhere is Aquinas even so much as mentioned in passing, let alone
> >credited for anything - not even inspiration:
>
> Hey, dud, I didn't have to plagiarize the works of others to see the obvious.
But you did plagiarize. You plagiarized Thomas Aquinas and despite
being told this many times directly by me you still fail to
acknowledge his precedence in offering his five ways, which are the
same as yours, and all of which have been thoroughly discredited.
THOROUGHLY. So before you even posted "your" evidence in 2004, it had
*already* been overturned.
That's how dumb, ignorant, and dishonest to the core you are. Yet
even now, even in this thread, it's this same (non-)evidence to which
you refer people (without the courtesy of offering a URL so they can
actually see what a shameful piece of trash it is) when they ask you
for evidence. Instead of offering evidence, instead of admitting you
have one, you consistently take thoroughly dishonest tack of pointing
to evidence which is not yours, which has been discredited, and which
doesn't even constitute evidence, since it constitutes nothing more
than blind belief as you openly admitted here:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
So why are you being dishonest? If you desire is truly to help people
as you've claimed many times, why then do you direct them to non-
evidence which was overturned decades (if not centuries) before you
plagiarized it and LIED that it was yours?
> It's there for all the intelligent to see. You need to evaluate your
> shortcomings.
I guess your LORD's injunction to remove the plank from your own eye
before you whine like a baby about what you perceive as a mote in mine
was completely lost on you, wasn't it?
Again, you make a statement which you cannot support. Where is your
OBJECTIVE evidence that some god was the first cause? Where, for that
matter, is your evidence that there even was a first cause? You
really are the most abysmally stupid jackass on Usenet, aren't you?
That wouldn't be so bad if you were so proudly dedicated to
maintaining that status.
> >*** *** *** *** *** Evidence number 2
> >2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
> >energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of
> >infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then it
> >exploded outward to form our universe, including "time" and all "outer
> >space" as we know it.
>
> >The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge to the
> >universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?
> >This is Thomas Aquinas's first way - the "argument from motion".
>
> Never heard of this "argument form motion".
That would be because you're an illiterate prick. No surprises
there. Go Google it jackass; that's what you're so fond of telling
everyone who asks you for help and gets none, isn't it? Go Google
it! LoL!
> However, scientists have discussed
> the expansion of the universe for decades now. Isn't God wonderful.
Keep running, Chicken Shit. Your god isn't even remotely wonderful,
not even if you could offer evidence that there is one, and we've had
a de facto admission from you for half a decade at least that you
can't offer a shred of evidence for anything you tell us about your
god or your LORD. Keep running from the questions, requests, and
challenges Jackass and see how big of a Usenet joke you can turn
yourself into.
> >Note how Duck-Egg Doofus Duke-ass can't even get the Big Bang story
> >correct? Note how he offers nothing to point to any god. He has
> >exactly the same evidence which scientists have, none of which points
> >to any god, but unlike scientists who add no fiction to the evidence,
> >Doofus adds a god to it, but *he* *cannot* *even* *offer* so much as a
> >pretense of a rationale for this addition, much less an iota of
> >scientific or objective evidence to support it.
>
> >In short, his item number 2 is just that: number two.
> >3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
> >"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
> >supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
> >(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
> >disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
> >transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
> >maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
> >(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
> >minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
> >body.
>
> >This is Thomas Aquinas's third way - the "possibility and necessity"
> >argument.
>
> It is?? Wow, that guy was intelligent for living way back then, wasn't he.
Keep running, Chicken Shit. Given that his "evidences" have been
thoroughly trashed, then no, he was almost as dumb as you are.
Keep running, Chicken Shit. Clearly your bishop is almost as dumb as
you are.
Not even close as the paragraph below demonstrates. Keep running,
Chicken Shit.
> >This is Thomas Aquinas's fourth way - the "graduation in things"
> >argument. The unfounded assumption that there is a hierarchy, of
> >which humans are the pinnacle on earth and that therefore there has to
> >be something higher in heaven, is pure kindergarten bullshit without a
> >shred of intelligent evidence to support it.
>
> >You can see that in eight hundred years, there has been no improvement
> >whatsoever in the quality of the Catholic case for a god. The
> >arguments still suck. Indeed, they're the *same* arguments in
> >modified garb(age) and they've been disposed of just as easily in the
> >21st century as they were in the 13th.
>
> >I wonder why a god would offer absolutely no help in establishing
> >incontrovertible proof of his own existence, especially given that
> >this god supposedly loves us so much that he raped a young woman and
> >murdered the resultant child in a desperate, sick, psychotic and
> >failed attempt to save us?
>
> >Why go to *that* trouble when all he really has to do is
> >**APPEAR**?!!!!
>
> >Could it be there is no god?
> >Budikka
>
> God's existence is guaranteed, dud.
Keep running, Chicken Shit. As I've proven here, your plagiarized
"evidence" isn't any such thing. it was overturned long before you
posted it, and now you're dishonestly claiming you posted evidence
when you didn't. Now you'll have to find another LIE to use. You
really are pathetic and now everyone on Usenet know just what a piece
of work you are: vacuous, hypocritical, cowardly, dishonest, and
thoroughly useless.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Feb 7, 7:11�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 07:50:54 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> eh................that's FACTS, dud, if you wish to make any points.
>> >> >OK, here's "FACTS":
>> >> >1. �You can't offer even a pretence of an intelligent rationale to
>> >> >support your claim that there's a god.
>> >> You need to learn the definition of rationale. �Evidence is that which drives
>> >> belief. �It's all there, duffus.
>> >Not a shred of which you can offer.
>>
>> Oh, I have creation of the universe, human and all existing life, the laws of
>> science, one of my favorites - the human body as the blue print for all
>> mechanisms, beauty, love, good, etc.
>And this is why you're such a pathetic person. You say no one
>discusses anything with you, but you're completely blind to why.
You can't make any points, dud.
>>Let me educate you yet agian. The reason no one can discuss anything with
>you is that you refuse to stand there and discuss. Instead, you're
>RUNNING and HIDING from every request, every question, every
>challenge; all you can offer as an excuse for a response is not
>objectivity, not evidence, not rationale, not even intelligent
>exchange. All you can offer is mindless mantras which you learned as
>a chld and have never progresse beyond.
No, no, no. YOU....just refuse to listen to me.
>Clearly you're too fundamentally stupid distinguish between declaring
>a thing exists and *actually* establishing a root cause for that
>existence by providing evidence for one.
I'm at least your equal at establishing root cause as you are. I can're reveal
what I don't have. You constantly try to establish what is there using
unscientific information.
>The existence of the universe proves nothing other than that it
>exists. If you want to declare that some god made it, then the entire
>burden of proof is upon ***YOU*** to establish that very thing.
It's the only reality, as you yourself have NEVER been able to offer a
suggestion that I haven't myself offered.
> All you offered was a blind *belief* that some god did it.
All evidence demands it.
>But you did plagiarize. You plagiarized Thomas Aquinas
No, I didn't. I didn't even know that he had spoken.
>> >*** � *** � *** � *** � *** Evidence number 1
>> >Evidence of God (Rev1)- duke32, circa 2002AD
>> Gosh, dud, first cause is not new science. �God is the author of first cause.
>> That's the exact reason it's called "first cause".
>Again, you make a statement which you cannot support.
It is self supporting.
>> >*** � *** � *** � *** � *** Evidence number 2
>> >2. �The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass, no
>> >energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point of
>> >infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before, and then it
>> >exploded outward to form our universe, including "time" and all "outer
>> >space" as we know it.
>> >The universe is expanding, but into what? �Is there an edge to the
>> >universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into?
>> >This is Thomas Aquinas's first way - the "argument from motion".
>> Never heard of this "argument form motion".
>That would be because you're an illiterate prick.
Hey, you can turn on the local science discovery channel and get a repeat.
>>�However, scientists have discussed
>> the expansion of the universe for decades now. �Isn't God wonderful.
>Keep running, Chicken Shit.
Gotcha, dud.
>> >3. �Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
>> >"design with purpose". �It consists of a central computer (brain)
>> >supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
>> >(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
>> >disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
>> >transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
>> >maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
>> >(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
>> >minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
>> >body.
>> >This is Thomas Aquinas's third way - the "possibility and necessity"
>> >argument.
>> It is?? �Wow, that guy was intelligent for living way back then, wasn't he.
>Keep running, Chicken Shit. Given that his "evidences" have been
>thoroughly trashed, then no, he was almost as dumb as you are.
Or at least as smart.
>> >*** � *** � *** � *** � *** Evidence number 4
>> >4. �The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
>> >in the male and 50% in the female. �We only mix the chemicals.
>> Gosh, I heard my Bishop discuss that on tv one day. � Isn't God wonderful.
>Keep running, Chicken Shit. Clearly your bishop is almost as dumb as
>you are.
Hmmm, maybe you're an insect and didn't know it.
>> All mine, big dud.
All mine, dud. Never even knew TA had commented.
>> >I wonder why a god would offer absolutely no help in establishing
>> >incontrovertible proof of his own existence, especially given that
>> >this god supposedly loves us so much that he raped a young woman and
>> >murdered the resultant child in a desperate, sick, psychotic and
>> >failed attempt to save us?
>>
>> >Why go to *that* trouble when all he really has to do is
>> >**APPEAR**?!!!!
>> >Could it be there is no god?
>> >Budikka
>> God's existence is guaranteed, dud.
>Keep running, Chicken Shit. As I've proven here, your plagiarized
>"evidence" isn't any such thing.
No, I plagiarized nothing. But you sure went ballistic when I accused you of
same in explaining by there was no biblical flood. And you did because of your
science background.
Must have been very embarrassing to be revealed as a plagiarist even before your
career got off the ground.
duke
>> >>And how can I "prove" it? �You can't even prove you have thoughts.
>> >Wrong ! She can now:
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8497148.stm
>>
>> Uh, no she can't. �She would still need to compare actual thought with measured
>> apparent thought.
>Hey, duckbrain, you are given the facts about her reply.
>Yet you just do the usual "ostrich" display?
And you stepped on your pecker.
duke
wrote:
Nope, the traditional meaning has been to speak for.
Scott Campbell
> On Feb 7, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
[...] Duke embarrassing himself again.
>> Gosh, dud, first cause is not new science. God is the author of
>> first cause. That's the exact reason it's called "first cause".
>
> Again, you make a statement which you cannot support. Where is your
> OBJECTIVE evidence that some god was the first cause? Where, for that
> matter, is your evidence that there even was a first cause?
First cause advocates are so profoundly dense that they never even
realize that following such a position to its logical conclusion can only
lead to a, "It's-Turtles-All-The-Way-Down" argument.
They insist that since something exists, it can only have been created by
something else. Yet such deep thinking ceases when one attempts to
discuss the necessary creation of their god.
At best, god could be a second cause.
--
Scott Campbell
[on a George Michael video]
"He's smiling at you, Beavis."
"Shut up, Butthead!"
Christopher A. Lee
<thunderin...@msn.com> wrote:
>Budikka666 wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[...] Duke embarrassing himself again.
>
>>> Gosh, dud, first cause is not new science. God is the author of
>>> first cause. That's the exact reason it's called "first cause".
>>
>> Again, you make a statement which you cannot support. Where is your
>> OBJECTIVE evidence that some god was the first cause? Where, for that
>> matter, is your evidence that there even was a first cause?
>
>First cause advocates are so profoundly dense that they never even
>realize that following such a position to its logical conclusion can only
>lead to a, "It's-Turtles-All-The-Way-Down" argument.
>
>They insist that since something exists, it can only have been created by
>something else. Yet such deep thinking ceases when one attempts to
>discuss the necessary creation of their god.
>
>At best, god could be a second cause.
Did Aquinas originate this stupidity?
He can be excused for not knowing what modern science does about
causeless events.
But his logic was abysmal. He's supposed to be one of the best
classical Christian thinkers - but can you imagine any of the ancient
Greek thinkers being this stupid?
Let alone callig it "proof" when it's actually just a statement f
belief.
He believes in a first cause which he calls God - with all sorts of
attributes that he happens already to believe in.
Bill M
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hfftm5h58k0efb53f...@4ax.com...
A wild 'opinion' with NO objective verifiable evidence.
> Disease comes from those that refuse to follow God.
Disease harms and punishes both the guilty and the innocent. Why would your
God punish
perfectly innocent children?
As usual your opinions are neither valid or logical and are not supported by
any factual objective evidence.
Bill M
dude ( d>d, dy >d) n. 1. Informal An Easterner or city person who vacations
on a ranch in the West. 2. Informal A man who is very fancy or sharp in
dress and demeanor. 3. Slang A fellow; a chap. v. tr. dud�ed dud�ing dudes
1. Slang To dress elaborately or flamboyantly: got all duded up for the
show.
thomas p.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:199um5922t0oitqpg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:29:32 -0600, "Scott Campbell"
> <thunderin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Budikka666 wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>[...] Duke embarrassing himself again.
>>
>>>> Gosh, dud, first cause is not new science. God is the author of
>>>> first cause. That's the exact reason it's called "first cause".
>>>
>>> Again, you make a statement which you cannot support. Where is your
>>> OBJECTIVE evidence that some god was the first cause? Where, for that
>>> matter, is your evidence that there even was a first cause?
>>
>>First cause advocates are so profoundly dense that they never even
>>realize that following such a position to its logical conclusion can only
>>lead to a, "It's-Turtles-All-The-Way-Down" argument.
>>
>>They insist that since something exists, it can only have been created by
>>something else. Yet such deep thinking ceases when one attempts to
>>discuss the necessary creation of their god.
>>
>>At best, god could be a second cause.
>
> Did Aquinas originate this stupidity?
>
> He can be excused for not knowing what modern science does about
> causeless events.
>
> But his logic was abysmal. He's supposed to be one of the best
> classical Christian thinkers - but can you imagine any of the ancient
> Greek thinkers being this stupid?
Aristotle actually. He argued that a "first cause" was necessary. Aquinas
accepted it as a given.
>
> Let alone callig it "proof" when it's actually just a statement f
> belief.
>
> He believes in a first cause which he calls God - with all sorts of
> attributes that he happens already to believe in.
I never understood why everyone accepted that an infinite regression
was not possible. Perhaps there is an argument that justifies that
assumption, but I have not heard it. It seems to be a glaringly obvious
example of special pleading in that it simultaneously insists that
everything
has a cause and proposes a causeless cause to explain it all. It has
annoyed me since I first heard it from a priest during religion class
in the 7'th grade. I think Andersen's the point of "The Emperor's New
Clothes"
applies here: "Really smart guy say it is a valid argument, so anyone who
disagrees must be dumb; so I agree". Add to that the fact that it supports
the basic beliefs of the three major monotheistic religions in the world,
and
one is not going to oppose it without cost.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Aristotle can be excused but did he insist what this first cause was?
>> Let alone callig it "proof" when it's actually just a statement f
>> belief.
>>
>> He believes in a first cause which he calls God - with all sorts of
>> attributes that he happens already to believe in.
>
>I never understood why everyone accepted that an infinite regression
>was not possible. Perhaps there is an argument that justifies that
>assumption, but I have not heard it. It seems to be a glaringly obvious
>example of special pleading in that it simultaneously insists that
>everything
>has a cause and proposes a causeless cause to explain it all. It has
>annoyed me since I first heard it from a priest during religion class
>in the 7'th grade. I think Andersen's the point of "The Emperor's New
>Clothes"
>applies here: "Really smart guy say it is a valid argument, so anyone who
>disagrees must be dumb; so I agree". Add to that the fact that it supports
>the basic beliefs of the three major monotheistic religions in the world,
>and
>one is not going to oppose it without cost.
They're basically beyond where there is any information to make any
determination.
And they pluck it out of thin air.
Once upon a time it was reasonable to assume there could have been a
first cause. But not what it was.
Budikka666
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:26:54 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
And then this LYING HYPOCRITE claims we can't give him a discussion?
Everyone who reads this, friend and foe alike can see that he got
discussion point after discussion point after discussion point from
the message I posted, and what did he offer in return? Did he address
them? Did he try to engage them? Did he try to take them down with
superior logic or with objective evidence?
Let's see. here's a sampling of his typical response from this very
message - one line vacuous excuses for his lack of ability to discuss
or support his claims:
"You can't make any points, dud."
"No, no, no. YOU....just refuse to listen to me."
"Hmmm, maybe you're an insect and didn't know it."
And this: "No, I didn't. I didn't even know that he had spoken.",
with this: "All mine, dud. Never even knew TA had commented." in the
very thread were I explain how I've *repeatedly* told Duke about
Aquinas. So here's an outright LIE. He *knew* about Aquinas because
I've *told* him about Aquinas; he *knew* his non-evidence was merely
regurgitated Aquinas which has been long *refuted* because I've *told*
him, and he's *still* LYING that he's posted evidence! LoL!
And the classic "All evidence demands it." - in the very thread where
I wiped the floor with "his" non-evidence! Duke is far, *far* too
dumb to see the irony there.
That's the kind of mindless shit-head we're dealing with, and it more
than adequately explains why he's not worth even pretending to discuss
anything with since he's utterly incapable of having any kind of
intelligent exchange, much less supporting the mantras he tediously
and mindlessly spouts.
End of story.
Budikka