Why I don't believe in god..

[ManuelPagami]

I was born in a christian household with god fearing parents who would
read bible stories like bedtime stories every night until i was able
to go to prekindergarten.. from pre-k to 3rd grade i was consumed by
my love for god and everything that i did not yet understand.. but
then in the second semester of 3rd grade, i realized that none of my
wishes have ever come true.. i started to wonder.. "it must be part of
the divine plan.. maybe my prayers have been answered, but i just
somehow overlooked them.. maybe im just not a good christian.. hmm..
am i talking to myself.." i started doing a lot of critical thinking
before i went to sleep and would always have nightmares about my
perception of what hell was.. however by the time i was in 4th grade,
i had decided to constantly challenge god to either prove to me that
he did exist or at least that i wasnt talking to myself this whole
time.. nothing that i did seemed to get god's attention.. i talked to
my family about this, and asked how each of them knew he was there..
thats when i began to realize that i never actually believed in god; i
had never actually considered the possibility of there not being a god
because everyone around me was so convinced that it was true, and to
me, everything would make less sense..

therefore, i began to read some of the bedtime stories that my mom
would read.. not one, but all of them seemed highly improbable and
more or less exaggerated.. i began to go to outside sources instead of
my holy book.. the more i would learn about the intelligence of the
population and the many other beliefs of the cultures that co-existed
with jews and those that came before, i found myself constantly
pushing back and trying to convince myself that there was no way that
there were so many other religions out there.. i then started to
wonder if god and its complexity was the result of the population's
misunderstanding of the world.. this is a close minded view of
course.. there would be no need to investigate if there was something
divine taking place.. its hard to figure that there would be a man
with enough mental capacity to say otherwise during a time period in
which very little was known about the world and the concept that gods
were controlling everything made perfect sense..

i started reading about others who questioned their religions in 6th
grade, and i adopted webster's version of absurdism as the closest
thing to my mindset as it pertained to the universe and the human
race.. ill explain it at the end.. it was in 8th grade that i
determined that i wasnt actually an atheist, but an agnostic.. to me,
ive always been an agnostic, and i think everyone falls under that
category by default.. i honestly feel like i wasted my life believing
in that non-sense for so long..

i do remember it being nearly impossible to actually free myself from
talking to myself, and setting up challenges with everything i would
do..

IE.
heads god, tails no god
or
if i fail at this simple task, then there is a god, but if i dont..
you get my point..

Absurdism - a philosophy based on the belief that mankind has been
thrown into a meaningless universe in which order is an illusion and
any search for purpose will result in conflict with the irrationality
of the universe itself

this is how i define my agnosticism and ive found a few other
interpretations of it online..

Agnosticism as i know it - i do not believe that it is possible to
know whether or not a god or gods do or do not exist

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC Manuel and thanks for sharing your interesting personal story.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge and atheism a statement of belief.

So, it is possible for someone to be both an agnostic and an atheist or an agnostic and a theist.

As you said, you do not believe that it's possible to know whether or not gods exist.

Do you believe in god(s)?

If not, that is, if you lack a belief in god(s) you are also an atheist.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[e_space]

i was raised in similar circumstances and came to the same conclusion
about the "god" that i was introduced to ... i didnt totally reject
that there may be some advanced level of existence, but that it didnt
involve what i had been taught to date ... and there isnt anybody out
there who will be able to answer that question for you ... i dont
believe in "god" persay because there is no accepted definition of
such ... i do have reason to consider that there may be "something"
out there, but exactly what "it" is has escaped my ability to
describe, despite the awesome nature of several experiences that have
led to that conclusion ...

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 7, 2:14 am, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> I was born in a christian household with god fearing parents who would
> read bible stories like bedtime stories every night until i was able
> to go to prekindergarten.. from pre-k to 3rd grade i was consumed by
> my love for god and everything that i did not yet understand.. but
> then in the second semester of 3rd grade, i realized that none of my
> wishes have ever come true.. i started to wonder.. "it must be part of
> the divine plan.. maybe my prayers have been answered, but i just
> somehow overlooked them.. maybe im just not a good christian.. hmm..
> am i talking to myself.." i started doing a lot of critical thinking
> before i went to sleep and would always have nightmares about my
> perception of what hell was.. however by the time i was in 4th grade,
> i had decided to constantly challenge god to either prove to me that
> he did exist or at least that i wasnt talking to myself this whole
> time.. nothing that i did seemed to get god's attention.. i talked to
> my family about this, and asked how each of them knew he was there..

I'm curious about what they might have told you.

Do you think it is possible to falsify gods when they are defined in
physical terms, as in we know Zeusand the other Greek gods don't exist
because we've been to Mount Olympus and they aren't there, or we know
that the Christian god doesn't exist because we know that humans
evolved - they weren't magically popped into existence 10,000 years
ago? In other words, are you an atheist in terms of *some* gods, at
least? Or are you agnostic (you don't think it is possible to know
whether any of them exist or not)?

[LL]

On Aug 7, 2:14 am, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:

LL: That's true, but you are disregarding the fact that you have no
belief in a god, which makes you an atheist, whether you like the term
or not. A atheist who knows what atheism is does not claim that he
knows there is no god. He only claims that he has no belief in one.

Atheism is a word that describes a lack of belief in a god (a =
without; theism = belief in a god.) Atheists (except perhaps a handful
of foolish ones who don't know what the word means) do not claim to
know there is no god. Most theists, on the other hand, do claim to
know that there IS a god. This is probably where the false impression
comes from regarding atheism. Theists think one must KNOW, so they
assume atheists also assume they KNOW. This is completely wrong.

There is no real reason to have or use the word agnostic. It is
completely redundant and used by people who don't know the meaning of
atheism. There are only two positions to take on the existence of
god--atheism or theism. Knowing does not come into the discussion.

**********************************************************

[LL]

On Aug 7, 3:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i was raised in similar circumstances and came to the same conclusion
> about the "god" that i was introduced to ... i didnt totally reject
> that there may be some advanced level of existence, but that it didnt
> involve what i had been taught to date ... and there isnt anybody out
> there who will be able to answer that question for you ... i dont
> believe in "god" persay because there is no accepted definition of
> such ... i do have reason to consider that there may be "something"
> out there, but exactly what "it" is has escaped my ability to
> describe, despite the awesome nature of several experiences that have
> led to that conclusion ...

LL: As you describe it here, you are an atheist. Whether you think
there could be "something" out there is not part of the definition. If
you can't say you have a definite belief that a god exists, you are an
atheist. If you have a definite belief that a god exists you are a
theist. There is no middle ground. What you think could be the case
does not rise to belief.

******************

[LL]

LL: That wouldn't make him an agnostic. It would make him an atheist
who doesn't think it's possible to know whether any exist or not--the
position of the vast majority of atheists.

*******************

[Mystic Merman]

Thanks for clearing that up Trance. That makes perfect sense.

Manuel, there are also many non-believers that refer to themselves as
non-theists. To them, it better represents the idea of a lack of a
belief in a god or gods.

> everything else." --Dev- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 7, 5:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Welcome to AvC Manuel and thanks for sharing your interesting personal
> story.
>
>

> Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge and atheism a statement of belief.
>
> So, it is possible for someone to be both an agnostic and an atheist or an
> agnostic and a theist.
>
> As you said, you do not believe that it's possible to know whether or not
> gods exist.
>
> Do you believe in god(s)?
>
> If not, that is, if you lack a belief in god(s) you are also an atheist.
>
> --
> "Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as
> everything else." --Dev

i understand.. however, i find myself still falling under agnostic
rather than theist or atheist.. i dont have enough information to say
that there is a god(s), but i cant say that i do not believe in a
god(s) for the same reason.. im more of a spectator in the debate
until proof is submitted either way.. science has utterly destroyed
some of the impossibilities within the bible, and im depending on
science to eventually bring forth the 'End All' for the debate.. its
hard for some people to acknowledge agnosticism as an actual stance,
but it is, and i am currently leaning towards the idea of there never
actually being a god at all as opposed to and other supernatural
explanation of the universe..

the idea of how the human race came into existence based on the idea
that we are actually meant to be a 'mining colony' that was planted by
a superior alien race seems to make more sense than the god theory..
it remains in second place to the theory of evolution,,

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 7, 5:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i was raised in similar circumstances and came to the same conclusion
> about the "god" that i was introduced to ... i didnt totally reject
> that there may be some advanced level of existence, but that it didnt
> involve what i had been taught to date ... and there isnt anybody out
> there who will be able to answer that question for you ... i dont
> believe in "god" persay because there is no accepted definition of
> such ... i do have reason to consider that there may be "something"
> out there, but exactly what "it" is has escaped my ability to
> describe, despite the awesome nature of several experiences that have
> led to that conclusion ...
>

right.. god in my opinion remains undefined unless you say that
everything is god especially that which you do not yet understand..

[Trance Gemini]

You might feel more comfortable with this definition then ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[ManuelPagami]

>
> I'm curious about what they might have told you.
>
>

> Do you think it is possible to falsify gods when they are defined in
> physical terms, as in we know Zeusand the other Greek gods don't exist
> because we've been to Mount Olympus and they aren't there, or we know
> that the Christian god doesn't exist because we know that humans
> evolved - they weren't magically popped into existence 10,000 years
> ago? In other words, are you an atheist in terms of *some* gods, at
> least? Or are you agnostic (you don't think it is possible to know
> whether any of them exist or not)?

its hard to recall what each of them said, but it left me
unsatisfied..

science has been put into an awkward place.. it has to prove things
that have never been proven, and its complicated because there isnt a
standard at which you can test these things.. if one is proven, then i
will decide.. or i can say that it will be a test on my character to
accept what i thought to be impossible..

[ManuelPagami]

>
> LL: That's true, but you are disregarding the fact that you have no
> belief in a god, which makes you an atheist, whether you like the term
> or not. A atheist who knows what atheism is does not claim that he
> knows there is no god. He only claims that he has no belief in one.
>
> Atheism is a word that describes a lack of belief in a god (a =
> without; theism = belief in a god.) Atheists (except perhaps a handful
> of foolish ones who don't know what the word means) do not claim to
> know there is no god. Most theists, on the other hand, do claim to
> know that there IS a god. This is probably where the false impression
> comes from regarding atheism. Theists think one must KNOW, so they
> assume atheists also assume they  KNOW. This is completely wrong.
>
> There is no real reason to have or use the word agnostic. It is
> completely redundant and used by people who don't know the meaning of
> atheism. There  are only two positions to take on the existence of
> god--atheism or theism. Knowing does not come into the discussion.
>
> **********************************************************

hmm.. i dont agree with your reasoning here.. agnosticism is the
equivalent of going to a football game and not being for either team..

i would argue that theism and atheism are for people that do not
understand the multiple definitions of agnosticism.. haha.. relax.. i
believe that it is an untestable situation and therefore both opinions
are null..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 7, 10:40 pm, Mystic Merman <mysticmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for clearing that up Trance.  That makes perfect sense.
>
> Manuel, there are also many non-believers that refer to themselves as
> non-theists.  To them, it better represents the idea of a lack of a
> belief in a god or gods.
>

hmm.. theres words for everything.. but since this argument seems to
be impossible to test because of the loopholes in the god theory, i
still find myself falling under agnostic instead of a more definite
word choice.. hopefully this doesnt offend LL.. haha.. =-J

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 8, 4:06 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > I'm curious about what they might have told you.

> its hard to recall what each of them said, but it left me
> unsatisfied..

> > Do you think it is possible to falsify gods when they are defined in
> > physical terms, as in we know Zeusand the other Greek gods don't exist
> > because we've been to Mount Olympus and they aren't there, or we know
> > that the Christian god doesn't exist because we know that humans
> > evolved - they weren't magically popped into existence 10,000 years
> > ago? In other words, are you an atheist in terms of *some* gods, at
> > least? Or are you agnostic (you don't think it is possible to know
> > whether any of them exist or not)?

> science has been put into an awkward place.. it has to prove things
> that have never been proven,

All science has to do to disprove religious claims is to contradict
them with valid evidence. I gave you a couple of examples.

> and its complicated because there isnt a
> standard at which you can test these things.

Yes, there is a standard. It's called the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method#History

> if one is proven, then i
> will decide..

Evolution *is* proven. Adult males do not give birth to adult females
by having one of their ribs magically extracted. That is not how
humans reproduce. Genesis is wrong. It is disproven. Why are you an
agnostic in terms of the God of the Bible?

> or i can say that it will be a test on my character to
> accept what i thought to be impossible.

What is it that you thought was impossible?

[JB]

God knowing you and you knowing God. There is no guess work in this.
How well do you know yourself or how well do you know your parents are
your children?

[Jean Briscoe]

It has not been proven at all how man was first made!  Where did you get that information at?  If man knew how we was created than we would have understanding about our body's and sickness, although we have learned over time somewhat about our flesh and how it works.  If we knew how we were created do you not think we would be more up to date than we are now on the understanding of the body and of sickness?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 8, 4:34 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has not been proven at all how man was first made!

Yes it has. Evolution is a fact. We evolved from earlier life forms.

>  Where did you get that information at?

From all the scientifically valid evidence that has been accumulated
over the past 150 years.

>  If man knew how we was created than we would have
> understanding about our body's and sickness,

Which we do, to a large extent.

> although we have learned over
> time somewhat about our flesh and how it works.

Thanks to science we have learned a lot more about our bodies than
just our flesh. For instance, we are starting to know a lot about DNA,
and as we map our genome and the genome of other species, we are
finding out exactly how we are related to the other species. .

>  If we knew how we were
> created do you not think we would be more up to date than we are now on the
> understanding of the body and of sickness?

We only recently found out how humans came to exist, starting with
Darwin, and we're still trying to overcome thousands of years of
ignorance and superstition imposed upon us by the religious. We are
exactly as up to date as I would expect us to be under these
conditions.

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[LL]

On Aug 8, 4:12 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > LL: That's true, but you are disregarding the fact that you have no
> > belief in a god, which makes you an atheist, whether you like the term
> > or not. A atheist who knows what atheism is does not claim that he
> > knows there is no god. He only claims that he has no belief in one.
>
> > Atheism is a word that describes a lack of belief in a god (a =
> > without; theism = belief in a god.) Atheists (except perhaps a handful
> > of foolish ones who don't know what the word means) do not claim to
> > know there is no god. Most theists, on the other hand, do claim to
> > know that there IS a god. This is probably where the false impression
> > comes from regarding atheism. Theists think one must KNOW, so they
> > assume atheists also assume they  KNOW. This is completely wrong.
>
> > There is no real reason to have or use the word agnostic. It is
> > completely redundant and used by people who don't know the meaning of
> > atheism. There  are only two positions to take on the existence of
> > god--atheism or theism. Knowing does not come into the discussion.
>
> > **********************************************************
>
> hmm.. i dont agree with your reasoning here.. agnosticism is the
> equivalent of going to a football game and not being for either team..

LL: No, it isn't. If you want to use the football game analogy, you'd
be better off saying that its the same as not knowing what the score
will be at the end. It has nothing to do with which team (or position)
you favor.

>
> i would argue that theism and atheism are for people that do not
> understand the multiple definitions of agnosticism.. haha.. relax.. i
> believe that it is an untestable situation and therefore both opinions
> are null..

LL: No, there is a definite definition for agnosticism and it's "not
knowing." That's all it is. If you are agnostic about the existence of
god, you don't know whether a god exists or not. (It is possible to be
agnostic about other things, but it still means not knowing.) When it
comes to the existence of a god you are either a theist or you are not
a theist. Saying you are agnostic doesn't mean anything since people
can be theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. If you can't say

you have a definite belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. If

you have a definite belief that a god exists you are a theist. That's
all there is. You may be the kind of person who doesn't know what he
thinks. That's an ignostic.

**************************

****************

[LL]

LL: I'm never offended about the definition of words, though I have
opinions. But loopholes in the god theory have nothing to do with
whether you believe in any god or not. Do you have a definite belief
that any god exists? Answer that question and you will have your
answer as to how to describe your position. Loopholes don't matter.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Aug 9, 2:13 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 4:12 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> > > LL: That's true, but you are disregarding the fact that you have no
> > > belief in a god, which makes you an atheist, whether you like the term
> > > or not. A atheist who knows what atheism is does not claim that he
> > > knows there is no god. He only claims that he has no belief in one.
>
> > > Atheism is a word that describes a lack of belief in a god (a =
> > > without; theism = belief in a god.) Atheists (except perhaps a handful
> > > of foolish ones who don't know what the word means) do not claim to
> > > know there is no god. Most theists, on the other hand, do claim to
> > > know that there IS a god. This is probably where the false impression
> > > comes from regarding atheism. Theists think one must KNOW, so they
> > > assume atheists also assume they  KNOW. This is completely wrong.
>
> > > There is no real reason to have or use the word agnostic. It is
> > > completely redundant and used by people who don't know the meaning of
> > > atheism. There  are only two positions to take on the existence of
> > > god--atheism or theism. Knowing does not come into the discussion.
>

> > hmm.. i dont agree with your reasoning here.. agnosticism is the
> > equivalent of going to a football game and not being for either team..
>
> LL: No, it isn't. If you want to use the football game analogy, you'd
> be better off saying that its the same as not knowing what the score
> will be at the end. It has nothing to do with which team (or position)
> you favor.
>
> > i would argue that theism and atheism are for people that do not
> > understand the multiple definitions of agnosticism.. haha.. relax.. i
> > believe that it is an untestable situation and therefore both opinions
> > are null..
>
> LL: No, there is a definite definition for agnosticism and it's "not
> knowing." That's all it is. If you are agnostic about the existence of
> god, you don't know whether a god exists or not. (It is possible to be
> agnostic about other things, but it still means not knowing.) When it
> comes to the existence of a god you are either a theist or you are not
> a theist. Saying you are agnostic doesn't mean anything since people
> can be theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. If you can't say
> you have a definite belief that a god exists, you are an atheist.

If one follows a tradition of presuming that gods exist (a god exists)
but if, by virtue of inability to demonstrate these gods (this god),
one is uncertain that these gods exist (this god exists), then one
might be agnostic according to TF Huxley's definition as per which all
that is necessary to be agnostic is to be uncertain about the reality
of that which is undemonstrable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the
principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. -
TF Huxley

[Jean Briscoe]

What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having anything to do with it.  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Bob T.]

On Aug 9, 8:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said
> man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having
> anything to do with it.

There is a difference in the perceived amount of necessary time. The
Bible: six days. Reality: fourteen billion years.

>  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

Yes, of course.

- Bob T

> > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@­googlegroups.com>

[Drafterman]

On Aug 9, 11:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said
> man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having
> anything to do with it.  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

Here is the conflict:

The Bible presents a series of distinct events. Each a singular act of
creation. God created plants (Genesis 1:11-13), God created sea
creatures and birds (Genesis 1:20-23), God created land creatures
(Genesis 1:24,25), and, finally, God created man (Genesis 1:Genesis
26). With these events, the Bible establishes a convention for
classification: kinds. Each animal has a kind and each animal belongs
to that kind and the kinds distinguish the animals. Also, the Bible
distinguishes man from other animals as being somehow unique in a way
that animals are not from each other, having a soul, or the breath of
life. However you put it, the Bible has the nature of man being
distinct from that over other animals.

This is wrong.

It isn't just slightly wrong, it is completely wrong.

Ignoring, for the moment, the ordering of events, we now know that the
distinctness between different the different "kinds" is an illusion.
It is an illusion created by evolution over time. In actuality life is
but a spectrum and truly distinguishing between different organisms,
rather than being by divine dictate, requires man-made semi-arbitrary
line-drawing. A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog, not because that is
how God made them, but because that is how we, man, has drawn the
line.

Organisms are included in, and separated by, the label of "species"
because of *us*. We have created this classification and we maintain
it in according to its usefulness to us in describing the universe we
find ourselves in. In the same manner that we draw a line between
"red" and "orange" where no such clear delineation exists, we draw a
line between different organisms where no clear delineation exists.
This fact is clear with regards to color, because we have full and
ready access to the entire spectrum. We can see that it is a spectrum
that blends from one end to the other. We do not have full and ready
access to the spectrum of life but, nevertheless, life is a spectrum.

This brings us to man. The composition, origin, and nature of man are
such that man is no different from other animals than they are from
themselves. We are a product of evolution, just as is every other
living thing. To state that man has something that other organisms
don’t (such as a soul) is to claim that it has arisen through
evolutionary processes. But the nature of a soul does not allow this.
A soul is or it is not. One has it, or one does not. There is no
evolutionary precursor to a soul, nor is there a reason why any
organisms should evolve to have one, since it doesn’t appear to convey
any sort of evolutionary advantage.
The Bible presents a fiction, an understandable fiction, given the
knowledge of the universe at the time, but a fiction nonetheless. Man
did not come from dust, he came from other living beings.

In regards to your final question: “[W]ithout God is there virtue?”
The answer is clearly yes, it comes from within.

> > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@­googlegroups.com>

[Simon Ewins]

[Jean Briscoe]

What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having anything to do with it.  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

Yes.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"Even a clock that does not work is right twice a day." [Polish Proverb]

[Brock]

On Aug 7, 5:14 am, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> i do remember it being nearly impossible to actually free myself from
> talking to myself, and setting up challenges with everything i would
> do..
>
> IE.
> heads god, tails no god
> or
> if i fail at this simple task, then there is a god, but if i dont..
> you get my point..

Well, why would you measure temperature with a ruler? Or measure
sound levels with a thermometer? So why presume that a coin flip
represents an adequate test for God's existence?

I consider instead evidence for God's existence:

http://bible.cc

> Absurdism - a philosophy based on the belief that mankind has been
> thrown into a meaningless universe in which order is an illusion and
> any search for purpose will result in conflict with the irrationality
> of the universe itself

Consider that the objective nature of reality is not limited by your
assessment of absurdity. Like your coin flip above, it is the wrong
tool for the job, and not objectively tenable.

Regards,

Brock

[flying gorilla]

Christians really only have to be wrong about one aspect of god for it
to be possible that they are right about everything else. If god is
not omnibenevolent, as most Christians claim, then all bets are off.
For example, evolution could be a lie, and the evidence for it could
have been planted by a nasty, dishonest god. All science that leads
people away from "biblical truths" could be this nasty gods way of
thinning the heard and making sure only the most obedient make it to
heaven. Perhaps this nasty god prefers blind devotion to reason, even
though he bestowed humans with the ability to reason. Perhaps
torturing his creations is the most fun he could possibly have. Take
away omnibenevolence, and all atheist arguments against the existence
of the Christian god become meaningless. There would still be no
evidence FOR this god that wasn't circumstantial, but there wouldn't
be absolute proof AGAINST it.

So the question remains, can we take away the omnibenevolence and
still call him the "Christian" god? I think we can. No two Christians
believe in the exact same god, and there is plenty of biblical support
for a nasty Jehovah.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 9, 8:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said
> man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having
> anything to do with it.

Science disagrees that man was made out of dust, and says instead that
humans evolved from earlier and extinct life forms. Australopithicus
can hardly be called "dust."

>  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

virtue – noun (from dictionary.com)

1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical
principles; uprightness; rectitude.
3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.
4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural
virtue, theological virtue.
5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing
one's weaknesses.
6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of
removing warts.
7. virtues, an order of angels. Compare angel ( def. 1 ) .
8. manly excellence; valor.

The dictionary makes it clear that the word "virtue" is independent of
God by excluding him from the definition, or at least giving him a
very minor role that is equal to the role of any deity in any
religion.

Do you think that atheists can be virtuous? Do you think that Hindus
can be virtuous? Do you think that Muslims can be virtuous?

> > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@­googlegroups.com>

[LL]

On Aug 9, 2:57 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

> of that which is undemonstrable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
> the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the
> principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
> conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. -
> TF Huxley

LL: However, the fact remains that agnosticism describes a position on
knowledge and atheism or theism describes a position on belief. If you
have no positive belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. That
you are uncertain does not change your position on the existence of
gods. You have no positive belief.

But, of course, you will use the words you wish to use. That's your
right. But your actual position will be imprecise and confusing to
many people--especially those who are in favor of precise definitions
of words. You cannot communicate your position effectively without
precise definitions, which would require long conversations and
continuing confusion about what your position actually is.



********************

**************

*******************

[LL]

On Aug 9, 8:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said
> man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having
> anything to do with it.  I have a question,without God is there virtue?

LL: Adam was made of dust, according to the bible. Eve was not. She
was made out of Adam's rib. Why god would have changed his method of
creation of human beings is anyone's guess. He could have created a
whole population of humans out of dust or ribs--or some other method--
if he wanted to. In fact, a wife was found for Cain and Abel, even
though, according to Genesis, at that time there were only 3 people on
earth (Cain had, by then, killed Abel). Where did his wife come from?
Dust? ribs? something else? Some say Adam and Eve had other children,
including girls and that Cain married his sister. So he was guilty not
only of murder but of incest. Oh, we had wonderful, virtuous
beginnings, according to the bible, didn't we?

Adam and Eve get all the flack for eating of the tree of knowledge
(Eve, actually, gets most of it), but Cain, who was a murderer and an
incestuous is hardly talked about. I wonder why. It's also interesting
that his wife, wherever she came from, is not named in the bible,
where nearly everyone else (especially men) are named, women being
mere vessels for man's seed, evidently.

So we're all descended from a known murderer and two people who
committed incest (according to god's plan, presumably--a god who had
the power to create people in much less sinful ways but chose this
way). No wonder humanity is doomed.

*************************

> > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>

[Jean Briscoe]

Little bit of a dark side is it not?  You can put anything in a dark light.

 

Humans or humans.  But not what was in God's plan.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

On Aug 9, 5:52 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Little bit of a dark side is it not?  You can put anything in a dark light.

LL: The Bible doesn't need me or anyone else to put it in a dark
light. It's there already.
>
JB: Humans or humans.  But not what was in God's plan.

LL: Are you saying that the way humans turned out was outside of your
god's control? He didn't mean humans to come out this way? He couldn't
have prevented it or made them come out differently? Is that what
you've been taught?

**********************

> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>

> > <y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > >  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><atheism-vs-christianit
> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

[Answer_42]

One either believes X or one does not. No middle ground.
Alternatively, one has no belief at all about X.

So, yes or no, do you believe in a god, any god?
______________________________________________
Once you attempt legislation upon religious grounds, you open the way
for every kind of intolerance and religious persecution.
-- William Butler Yeats

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 9, 11:43 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, why would you measure temperature with a ruler?  Or measure
> sound levels with a thermometer?  So why presume that a coin flip
> represents an adequate test for God's existence?
>

well if you are assuming that there is an all powerful entity that
does exist and wants to be a part of your life.. lol.. then there is
an implication that he should be inclined to make me aware of its
presence.. instead it (the many tests including when i used to test
the power of prayer) has made me favor math and science instead.. now
i look at god related historical events with probability and logic in
mind.. nothing supernatural has ever happened..

> I consider instead evidence for God's existence:
>
> http://bible.cc
>

why??..

> > Absurdism - a philosophy based on the belief that mankind has been
> > thrown into a meaningless universe in which order is an illusion and
> > any search for purpose will result in conflict with the irrationality
> > of the universe itself
>
> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not limited by your
> assessment of absurdity.  Like your coin flip above, it is the wrong
> tool for the job, and not objectively tenable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

i have.. but i havent found any reason to think otherwise.. there is
absolutely no reason for anything to exist..

if there is a god, why does it keep creating new people with new souls
if it already knows where they will go after they die??..

how do you know if your interpretation of a holy book is the correct
one??..

if youve read the bible and you still havent sold everything you own
to follow jesus, how do you expect to get into heaven??..

practice skepticism..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 10, 2:27 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:16 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> One either believes X or one does not. No middle ground.
> Alternatively, one has no belief at all about X.
>
> So, yes or no, do you believe in a  god, any god?
>

i offer skepticism to all points of view on the topic instead.. no
belief, no disbelief.. just skepticism..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 9, 1:15 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: I'm never offended about the definition of words, though I have
> opinions. But loopholes in the god theory have nothing to do with
> whether you believe in any god or not. Do you have a definite belief
> that any god exists? Answer that question and you will have your
> answer as to how to describe your position. Loopholes don't matter.

the loopholes i was talking about are what makes the god theory
impossible to test.. i do not have a definite belief that any god
exists.. i am an agnostic.. haha.. whats your point??..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 9, 1:13 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: No, it isn't. If you want to use the football game analogy, you'd
> be better off saying that its the same as not knowing what the score
> will be at the end. It has nothing to do with which team (or position)
> you favor.
>
>

haha.. maybe if youre an agnostic that is also fearful of the "end
times".. im not sure why you would think that though.. logic tells me
that there is no such thing as a soul and therefore no afterlife.. i
am open to opposing view points on this since i havent died and found
out just yet.. :)

so like i said, agnosticism = being a member of the crowd at a
football game, not being for either team, just watching the game and
right now we are watching a major comeback from the atheists.. the
motivation for coming out wouldnt be to see the ending score, but in
eventually choosing a side before the end of the game (a reference to
the end of your life not the end of the world).. =-)

> LL: No, there is a definite definition for agnosticism and it's "not
> knowing." That's all it is. If you are agnostic about the existence of
> god, you don't know whether a god exists or not. (It is possible to be
> agnostic about other things, but it still means not knowing.) When it
> comes to the existence of a god you are either a theist or you are not
> a theist. Saying you are agnostic doesn't mean anything since people
> can be theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. If you can't say
> you have a definite belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. If
> you have a definite belief that a god exists you are a theist. That's
> all there is. You may be the kind of person who doesn't know what he
> thinks. That's an ignostic.
>

nope.. let me try it this way.. its kind of mean, but its for learning
purposes.. im going to break apart every part of your paragraph
because it shows pretty much my disagreement with your view point..

"No, there is a definite definition for agnosticism and it's "not
knowing." That's all it is. If you are agnostic about the existence
of god, you don't know whether a god exists or not. (It is possible to
be
agnostic about other things, but it still means not knowing.)"

okay.. here you can see that you are putting an emphasis 'not knowing'
when earlier you said that atheism 'didnt claim to know' (and theism
doesnt either) so maybe you couldnt find a better word to use here,
but it does look hypocritical.. i dont think that it is possible to
know whether or not a god(s) does or does not exist.. i find it
childish or ignorant to pick either of the two.. since i dont think
that its possible to know then obviously it would ignorant to say that
i believe in a god or that i do not believe in god instead of which
one i think is more likely.. i think everyone is agnostic and just not
willing to show an equal amount of skepticism to the opposing view
point..

"When it comes to the existence of a god you are either a theist or
you are not
a theist."

theist or atheist.. you keep repeating this, but youve stated a
definition for agnosticism.. youre acknowledging it as a word, but
nothing more.. agnosticism falls in between the two ideas.. i feel
like im wasting repeating this to you since im already certain that
youre capable of understanding this concept.. i think that its
untestable because of the god factor.. nothing more.. nothing
less.. :)

"Saying you are agnostic doesn't mean anything since people
can be theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics."

nope.. thats like saying that there arent any tall people.. only tall
short people.. it is contradictory in itself.. whats a tall short
person??.. whats a theistic or atheistic agnostic??..

"If you can't say you have a definite belief that a god exists, you
are an atheist. If
you have a definite belief that a god exists you are a theist. That's
all there is."

you are being biased here.. the theist view is to say that one
believes in a god(s).. the atheist view would be to say that one does
not believe in a god(s).. if you cant say that you have a definite
belief that a god(s) exists then you are either an atheist or an
agnostic..

"You may be the kind of person who doesn't know what he thinks. That's
an ignostic."

haha.. thats pretty funny.. but no..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 8, 6:34 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has not been proven at all how man was first made!  Where did you get
> that information at?  If man knew how we was created than we would have
> understanding about our body's and sickness, although we have learned over
> time somewhat about our flesh and how it works.  If we knew how we were
> created do you not think we would be more up to date than we are now on the
> understanding of the body and of sickness?
>

it has taken a while for someone to grow skeptical and actually
attempt to go against popular belief, but now you can reassured that
there is progress being made to determine how we got here.. hopefully
you will accpet the results..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 8, 6:27 pm, JB <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> God knowing you and you knowing God.  There is no guess work in this.
> How well do you know yourself or how well do you know your parents are
> your children?
>

hmm.. this might sound a bit cold, but that question isnt relevant.. a
doctor, a psychiatrist, and a personal trainer could, in most cases,
tell you more about yourself than you thought you knew.. my question
to you is: how well do you "think" you know yourself or how well do
you "think" you know your parents and/or children??.. practice
skepticism..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 8, 6:24 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> All science has to do to disprove religious claims is to contradict
> them with valid evidence. I gave you a couple of examples.
>

okay.. what i meant was that science has to disprove things that have
yet to be proven.. and even when it does appear to disprove an
extraordinary claim, the claim and variables within are modified in
such a way that the defender of the claim is still left ignorant of
the scientific conclusion.. so what im trying to say (using some of
your words instead of mine) is that even though science does release
valid evidence against a religious claim, it more than likely rendered
null due to the claim holder simply not wanting his/her holy book(s)
or doctrine(s) to be wrong*..

> Yes, there is a standard. It's called the scientific method.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method#History

i understand.. haha.. im trying to explain to you that the god(s)
factor*, even though it is not proven to actually exist, is what makes
these claims untestable.. if god(s) can make anything happen at any
point in time, then how are we supposed to make an assessment
accordingly??.. thats what i meant when i said that science has been
put in an awkward position..

>
> Evolution *is* proven. Adult males do not give birth to adult females
> by having one of their ribs magically extracted. That is not how
> humans reproduce. Genesis is wrong. It is disproven. Why are you an
> agnostic in terms of the God of the Bible?
>

because the events in the bible seem to be obvious misunderstandings
of how the world works.. basic concepts such as lightning and volcanic
eruptions were apparently seen as "acts of god(s)".. today we have a
more plausible explanation for it.. to me, it would be simple to say
that something extraordinary had taken placed when something that you
do not yet understand has taken place.. i do think that everything
that has happened from the very beginning* can be explained.. and i
know someone will want to ask what i think happened at the
beginning*.. however, i do not know yet.. i see the big bang theory as
the most rational cause and the mining colony* concept as the second
most likely..

>
> What is it that you thought was impossible?

the god(s) theory.. this topic is called "why i dont believe in god"..
with everything that i know now, i would have to say that the theory
is more than likely impossible..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 8, 6:04 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You might feel more comfortable with this definition then ;-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
>

haha.. no.. :)

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 9, 10:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about. The Bible said
> man was made out of dust. Man calls it evolution without God having
> anything to do with it. I have a question,without God is there virtue?

youre already assuming that there is a god and i can imply from this
statement that you think that the god concept drags virtue into the
picture.. looking at the composition of the human body, youll be able
to see that dirt isnt the main ingredient.. how does having a god
bring virtue??.. or even better, how do you define virtue??.. :)

[Trance Gemini]

Why not?

And just a comment on your claim that agnosticism is a third position in between atheism and theism.

How is a statement of knowledge a third position on statements of belief?

You do realize that a statement of belief is not the same thing as a statement of knowledge.

Belief refers to unjustified belief
Knowledge refers to justified belief.

Saying agnosticism is in a single range:

atheism <-> agnosticism <-> theism

Is like saying:

I'm not a stamp collector (atheist) <-> don't know if I'm a stamp collector  <-> I am a stamp collector (theist)

Either you're a stamp collector or you're not.

You may decide that it's not really possible to know if stamp collecting is valid and either choose to do it or choose not to do it despite not being able to know. (agnostic)

Or you could simply say that stamp collecting is irrelevant and meaningless and there really isn't any point in worrying about it unless someone gives you a good reason to get involved in it. (ignostic)

An ignostic will determine a position based on the claim.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[LL]

LL: My point is that if it's true that you have no definite belief
that any god exists then you are an atheist by definition, no matter
how afraid you are to use the correct term. You can call yourself any
name you wish to use, but if you have no belief that any god exists
you ARE an atheist.

***************************************************

**************************************

[LL]

On Aug 14, 12:46 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:

LL: Yes, I agree, but it has nothing to do with also being an atheist.
If the belief in god is lacking, you're an atheist, whether or not you
also claim to be an agnostic. When you are asked you position on your
BELIEF in god, you are are not answering the question when you say you
are an agnostic. You might as well answer the question by saying you
are a scuba diver. It doesn't answer the question. When you answer a
question about belief you shouldn't answer it with a term that has
nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism does not answer a question
about belief. It answers a question about knowledge. Atheists can also
be agnostics. But when the question is about belief, "agnostic" is not
the answer.

>
> okay.. here you can see that you are putting an emphasis 'not knowing'
> when earlier you said that atheism 'didnt claim to know' (and theism
> doesnt either) so maybe you couldnt find a better word to use here,
> but it does look hypocritical.. i dont think that it is possible to
> know whether or not a god(s) does or does not exist.. i find it
> childish or ignorant to pick either of the two..

LL: You think it childish or ignorant to pick either of the two
because you don't know the meaning of the word "atheist."

since i dont think
> that its possible to know then obviously it would ignorant to say that
> i believe in a god or that i do not believe in god instead of which
> one i think is more likely.. i think everyone is agnostic and just not
> willing to show an equal amount of skepticism to the opposing view
> point..

LL: Which means nothing as to whether you are an atheist. All you have
to say is that you have no belief in a god to be an atheist. You don't
have to claim that you know no god exists. You have already said you
don't believe in a god, so you're an atheist.

>
> "When it comes to the existence of a god you are either a theist or
> you are not
> a theist."
>
> theist or atheist.. you keep repeating this, but youve stated a
> definition for agnosticism.. youre acknowledging it as a word, but
> nothing more.. agnosticism falls in between the two ideas..

LL: No, it doesn't, and that's where you lose the argument.
Agnosticism is not a third choice between atheism and theism. There is
no third choice. You either believe in god or you don't. That you are
also agnostic is of no consequence.

i feel
> like im wasting repeating this to you since im already certain that
> youre capable of understanding this concept.. i think that its
> untestable because of the god factor.. nothing more.. nothing
> less.. :)

LL: What is untestable? That you either believe or not? Belief or lack
of belief or even agnosticism is not testable because it is an
intellectual opinion. You can't test opinions. You can't test for
agnosticism, either, for that matter.

>
> "Saying you are agnostic doesn't mean anything since people
> can be theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics."
>
> nope.. thats like saying that there arent any tall people.. only tall
> short people.. it is contradictory in itself.. whats a tall short
> person??.. whats a theistic or atheistic agnostic??..

LL: A theistic agnostic is one who claims not to know but believes
anyway.An atheistic agnostic is one who claims not to know but does
not believe anyway. That's the difference, and tallness is not an
analogy to the question. Tallness is testable. Tallness is not a
belief system.

>
> "If you can't say you have a definite belief that a god exists, you
> are an atheist. If
> you have a definite belief that a god exists you are a theist. That's
> all there is."
>
> you are being biased here.. the theist view is to say that one
> believes in a god(s).. the atheist view would be to say that one does
> not believe in a god(s).. if you cant say that you have a definite
> belief that a god(s) exists then you are either an atheist or an
> agnostic..
>
> "You may be the kind of person who doesn't know what he thinks. That's
> an ignostic."
>
> haha.. thats pretty funny.. but no..

LL: It's funny and true.

[Steve in Virginia]

Please Jean...

That's not what he said. It is disingenuous to twist his statement
into something to serve a personal, veiled religious agenda. We're
talking about human evolution not some bible-fogged position about the
when the first man or woman was "made" out of a clump of dirt. We're
talking about evolution, a biological continuum where the processes of
adaptation, radiation, migration and speciation occur over tens of
thousands of years.

And as for your position about our understanding of the human
body...spare me. Absolutly not - if we'd left science and medicine in
the sweaty little mitts of the power-hungey, money-grubbing shamans,
priests, mullahs and their ilk we'd still be sniffing rosemary sprigs
to ward off the Black Plague and hanging loaves of bread pole outside
our doors to collect the evil humors that were making us sick. It was
science and the scientific method that developed the modern science of
medicine, despite centuries of suppression by irrational religious
zealots and church apparatchiks.

Natural scientists, such a DaVinci and Nicolo Steno took their very
lives in their hands by dissecting human remains to foster a better
understanding of human anatomy and physiology. Up until the early
19th century clerics and lay idiots alike still held onto the delusion
that disease was a punishment from god. As late at the 1950's the
Vatican argued that antibiotics and vaccines were a direct
interference with god's plan...which I presume was to sit back on his
useless ass, pop open a cold one and watch the human race die off from
every bug bites and scraped knee.


Cheers,

Steve

"Science flies you to the Moon, and religion flies you into
buildings."

On Aug 8, 7:34 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has not been proven at all how man was first made!  Where did you get
> that information at?  If man knew how we was created than we would have
> understanding about our body's and sickness, although we have learned over
> time somewhat about our flesh and how it works.  If we knew how we were
> created do you not think we would be more up to date than we are now on the
> understanding of the body and of sickness?
>

> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 4:06 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm curious about what they might have told you.
>
> > > its hard to recall what each of them said, but it left me
> > > unsatisfied..
>
> > > > Do you think it is possible to falsify gods when they are defined in
> > > > physical terms, as in we know Zeusand the other Greek gods don't exist
> > > > because we've been to Mount Olympus and they aren't there, or we know
> > > > that the Christian god doesn't exist because we know that humans
> > > > evolved - they weren't magically popped into existence 10,000 years
> > > > ago? In other words, are you an atheist in terms of *some* gods, at
> > > > least? Or are you agnostic (you don't think it is possible to know
> > > > whether any of them exist or not)?
>
> > > science has been put into an awkward place.. it has to prove things
> > > that have never been proven,
>

> > All science has to do to disprove religious claims is to contradict
> > them with valid evidence. I gave you a couple of examples.
>

> > > and its complicated because there isnt a
> > > standard at which you can test these things.
>

> > Yes, there is a standard. It's called the scientific method.
>
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method#History
>

> > > if one is proven, then i
> > > will decide..
>

> > Evolution *is* proven. Adult males do not give birth to adult females
> > by having one of their ribs magically extracted. That is not how
> > humans reproduce. Genesis is wrong. It is disproven. Why are you an
> > agnostic in terms of the God of the Bible?
>

> > > or i can say that it will be a test on my character to
> > > accept what i thought to be impossible.
>

> > What is it that you thought was impossible?
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Steve in Virginia]

Belief in god needs genuine evidence not an anthology of ancient
middle eastern fairy tales or anecdotal campfire stories spun by the
very people why profit politically and financially from the claims
that those tales are true.

Steve

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 14, 12:46 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:

> On Aug 8, 6:24 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All science has to do to disprove religious claims is to contradict
> > them with valid evidence. I gave you a couple of examples.
>
> okay.. what i meant was that science has to disprove things that have
> yet to be proven.. and even when it does appear to disprove an
> extraordinary claim, the claim and variables within are modified in
> such a way that the defender of the claim is still left ignorant of
> the scientific conclusion.. so what im trying to say (using some of
> your words instead of mine) is that even though science does release
> valid evidence against a religious claim, it more than likely rendered
> null due to the claim holder simply not wanting his/her holy book(s)
> or doctrine(s) to be wrong*..

If the religious wish to be willfully ignorant then science can't be
faulted.

> > Yes, there is a standard. It's called the scientific method.
>
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method#History
>
> i understand.. haha.. im trying to explain to you that the god(s)
> factor*, even though it is not proven to actually exist, is what makes
> these claims untestable.. if god(s) can make anything happen at any
> point in time, then how are we supposed to make an assessment
> accordingly??.. thats what i meant when i said that science has been
> put in an awkward position..

Right. If God exists then science and the laws of nature are illusions

> > Evolution *is* proven. Adult males do not give birth to adult females
> > by having one of their ribs magically extracted. That is not how
> > humans reproduce. Genesis is wrong. It is disproven. Why are you an
> > agnostic in terms of the God of the Bible?
>
> because the events in the bible seem to be obvious misunderstandings

> of how the world works. basic concepts such as lightning and volcanic

> eruptions were apparently seen as "acts of god(s)"..

So if events like lightning and volcanoes are explained by science,
doesn't that contradict the Bible? And if the Bible is contradicted by
reality, doesn't that mean the Bible isn't real? And if the Bible
isn't real, doesn't that have to mean that Bible God does not exist?

> today we have a
> more plausible explanation for it.. to me, it would be simple to say
> that something extraordinary had taken placed when something that you
> do not yet understand has taken place.. i do think that everything
> that has happened from the very beginning* can be explained..

Can you give me an example of something that has happened that can't
be explained that is keeping you from becoming an atheist?

> and i
> know someone will want to ask what i think happened at the
> beginning*.. however, i do not know yet..



> i see the big bang theory as
> the most rational cause

The Big Bang wasn't the cause, it was the effect (possibly). The Big
Bang happened; that is fact. God is one theory about what caused the
Big Bang (if anything). I prefer physics theories to invoking super
fantastic magic invisible beings. Here's a physics theory I like,
called "The Big Bounce":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html?full=true&print=true

Or another interesting one, that the "mining colony theorist" in you
might like that our universe is a hologram:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-

There are several other theories like this that don't involve
violating the laws of nature including, in the case of the "God"
theory, the laws of biology. Evolution is a natural law, living beings
evolve, and even matter evolved in a broader sense. How is it that the
most complex object imaginable, God, could possibly be the first thing
to exist? How does a being not have a parent?

> and the mining colony* concept as the second
> most likely..

What you need to ask is "What caused the Big Bang to happen"? When you
do, the mining colony concept ceases to make sense.

> > What is it that you thought was impossible?
>
> the god(s) theory.. this topic is called "why i dont believe in god"..
> with everything that i know now, i would have to say that the theory
> is more than likely impossible..

Then why do you call yourself an agnostic?

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 15, 3:20 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: Yes, I agree, but it has nothing to do with also being an atheist.
> If the belief in god is lacking, you're an atheist, whether or not you
> also claim to be an agnostic. When you are asked you position on your
> BELIEF in god, you are are not answering the question when you say you
> are an agnostic. You might as well answer the question by saying you
> are a scuba diver. It doesn't answer the question. When you answer a
> question about belief you shouldn't answer it with a term that has
> nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism does not answer a question
> about belief. It answers a question about knowledge. Atheists can also
> be agnostics. But when the question is about belief, "agnostic" is not
> the answer.
>

by answering theist or atheist you are saying that you are ignostic..
otherwise you would have to answer that you are agnostic.. here's my
personal opinion.. if you believe in something but you dont actually
know, then youre being ignorant.. and if you dont believe in something
but you dont actually know, then youre just as ignorant.. those two
positions are absolutes..

>
> LL: You think it childish or ignorant to pick either of the two
> because you don't know the meaning of the word "atheist."
>

i know the meaning of the word 'atheist'.. you explain it every time
you reply.. however, i would like to know how you define yourself.. i
think youre an ignostic or an atheistic agnostic..

>
> LL: Which means nothing as to whether you are an atheist. All you have
> to say is that you have no belief in a god to be an atheist. You don't
> have to claim that you know no god exists. You have already said you
> don't believe in a god, so you're an atheist.
>

hmm.. i dont like the implications here.. haha..
there isnt enough evidence for me to pick one of those..
i dont believe in god(s), but i dont NOT believe in god(s)..
this makes me an agnostic..

>
> LL: No, it doesn't, and that's where you lose the argument.
> Agnosticism is not a third choice between atheism and theism. There is
> no third choice. You either believe in god or you don't. That you are
> also agnostic is of no consequence.
>

OR you can choose to neither believe nor not believe.. that leaves you
in the middle like everyone else is..

>
> LL: What is untestable? That you either believe or not? Belief or lack
> of belief or even agnosticism is not testable because it is an
> intellectual opinion. You can't test opinions. You can't test for
> agnosticism, either, for that matter.
>

no, not that.. god(s) is untestable because it(they) is undefined
which allows people to make excuses for test results when they are
unfavorable..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 15, 3:08 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: My point is that if it's true that you have no definite belief
> that any god exists then you are an atheist by definition, no matter
> how afraid you are to use the correct term. You can call yourself any
> name you wish to use, but if you have no belief that any god exists
> you ARE an atheist.
>

hmm.. no definite belief that a god(s) exist.. that rules out theism
and one of your versions of ignosticism (theistic agnostic) of
course.. so now we have atheist, agnostic, and your other version of
ignosticism, atheistic agnsotic.. ill shorten the definitions because
im sure youre familiar with them.. haha..

atheist - lack of belief in..
agnostic - impossible to know whether or not..
atheistic agnostic - doesnt know, but chooses to be atheist.. <-- im
summarizing what i think your definition of the word is..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 14, 3:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:48 PM, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> Why not?
>
> And just a comment on your claim that agnosticism is a third position in
> between atheism and theism.
>
> How is a statement of knowledge a third position on statements of belief?
>
> You do realize that a statement of belief is not the same thing as a
> statement of knowledge.
>
> Belief refers to unjustified belief
> Knowledge refers to justified belief.
>
> Saying agnosticism is in a single range:
>
> atheism <-> agnosticism <-> theism
>
> Is like saying:
>
> I'm not a stamp collector (atheist) <-> don't know if I'm a stamp collector
> <-> I am a stamp collector (theist)
>
> Either you're a stamp collector or you're not.
>
> You may decide that it's not really possible to know if stamp collecting is
> valid and either choose to do it or choose not to do it despite not being
> able to know. (agnostic)
>
> Or you could simply say that stamp collecting is irrelevant and meaningless
> and there really isn't any point in worrying about it unless someone gives
> you a good reason to get involved in it. (ignostic)
>
> An ignostic will determine a position based on the claim.

hmm.. well if you put it that way then youre an ignostic.. if you dont
believe in god(s) but you dont know that it(they) exists, then yes,
you are ignostic.. i understand your definitions of the terms ignostic
and agnostic, but i dont see why you give ignostic any more validity
than agnostic.. regardless of what you believe in or lack a belief in,
no one actually knows.. therefore there are actually only two
positions for everyone to take on the matter ignostic (theist or
atheist) or agnostic..

and on the stamp collecting bit.. that situation is not a good
example.. it supports your claim 'that there can only be a "yes" or a
"no", but nothing more.. in order to make it relevant you would need
to have the third party's view of 'i do not think its possible to know
whether or not i am a stamp collector'..

ie. - say someone happens to have an amazing amount of stamps in his/
her house.. that doesnt mean that he/she is a stamp collector; that
just means that there is an amazing amount of stamps in his/her
house.. what im trying to say is that if you look at this situation,
youll find that a theist would believe that he/she is indeed a stamp
collector and an atheist would not.. what you dont realize is that you
are both ignostics (theistic agnostic and atheistic agnostic).. then
the agnostic would say "its impossible to know whether or not this
person is a stamp collector" (based on the variables given)..

why is agnosticism so unappealing of an idea to you??..

[Trance Gemini]

I agree that your analogy is better but you just demonstrated my point here.

You aren't differentiating between unjustified belief and justified true belief (knowledge).

The agnostic theist would say that they *believe* (theist statement of belief) they're a stamp collector but don't *know* (statement of knowledge) that they are because it's impossible to determine whether they are or not based on the information available.

The agnostic atheist would say that they *believe* (atheist statement of lack of belief) that they're not but don't *know* (statement of knowledge) that they're not because it's impossible to determine whether they are or not based on the information available.

Two positions. Not three.

I don't actually agree that there's such a thing as an "ignostic" position but that's another discussion.

If there were, the ignostic would be the third position because it also speaks to belief. It says that I don't lack a belief or believe because both are irrelevant and meaningless unless a definition is provided by a theist at which point I'll speak to that definition.

atheist <-> ignostic <-> theist
 

why is agnosticism so unappealing of an idea to you??..

It isn't :-). It's just a question of defining the terms correctly. Here, we use the philosophical definitions rather than popular ones which are often based on misconceptions.

On a debating group like this we tend to be a little picky about that. Lol.

I'm an agnostic atheist where all gods which have not been claimed to exist are concerned and where the Deistic Gods are concerned.

I'm an atheist where all gods claimed to exist (except Deistic Gods) are concerned because all of the claimed gods are falsifiable.

That is, they *can* be demonstrated not to exist. The Abrahamic God of the Bible is a falsifiable God.

Deistic Gods can't be falsified so while I lack a belief in the them because the probability that they exist is so slim, I will continue to remain agnostic where they are concerned.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM, ManuelPagami <kingi...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:43 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, why would you measure temperature with a ruler?  Or measure
>> sound levels with a thermometer?  So why presume that a coin flip
>> represents an adequate test for God's existence?
>>
>
> well if you are assuming that there is an all powerful entity that
> does exist and wants to be a part of your life.. lol.. then there is
> an implication that he should be inclined to make me aware of its
> presence

Your wish has been granted:

http://bible.cc

> .. instead it (the many tests including when i used to test
> the power of prayer) has made me favor math and science instead.. now
> i look at god related historical events with probability and logic in
> mind.. nothing supernatural has ever happened..

Well, again, why would you measure temperature with a ruler? Or

measure sound levels with a thermometer? So why presume that a

naturalistic appeal is adaquate to measure something supernatural?
The scientific method is indeed wonderful. But it has significant and
noteworthy limitations. For example, as one professor notes:

"Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of
the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions
for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words,
science has limitations.

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer
our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they
present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to
the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue
of science.

The three areas of limitation are

* Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no
scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is
prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of
course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one
ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the
element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper
with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to
scientifically determine value.

* Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding
good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of
science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us
solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what
is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right
or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and
social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from
consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all
humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

* Finally, science can't help us with questions about the
supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means
"above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains
only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are
outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting
how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few
years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has
either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of
course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it
certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a
supernatural phenomenon.

So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his
or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've
stepped outside of these limitations."[1]

[1] http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm

>> > Absurdism - a philosophy based on the belief that mankind has been
>> > thrown into a meaningless universe in which order is an illusion and
>> > any search for purpose will result in conflict with the irrationality
>> > of the universe itself
>>
>> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not limited by your
>> assessment of absurdity.  Like your coin flip above, it is the wrong
>> tool for the job, and not objectively tenable.
>>
>

> i have.. but i havent found any reason to think otherwise.. there is
> absolutely no reason for anything to exist..

Or alternatively, the objective nature of reality is not limited by
your assessment of it.

> if there is a god, why does it keep creating new people with new souls
> if it already knows where they will go after they die??..

A question is not an objection.

> how do you know if your interpretation of a holy book is the correct
> one??..
>
> if youve read the bible and you still havent sold everything you own
> to follow jesus, how do you expect to get into heaven??..
>
> practice skepticism..

Or perhaps simply note absurdism's clear and specific limitations.

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 16, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 11:43 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, why would you measure temperature with a ruler?  Or measure
> >> sound levels with a thermometer?  So why presume that a coin flip
> >> represents an adequate test for God's existence?
>
> > well if you are assuming that there is an all powerful entity that
> > does exist and wants to be a part of your life.. lol.. then there is
> > an implication that he should be inclined to make me aware of its
> > presence
>
> Your wish has been granted:
>
> http://bible.cc

Seems that Brock now thinks he's God.

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 16, 9:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 9, 11:43 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Well, why would you measure temperature with a ruler?  Or measure
>> >> sound levels with a thermometer?  So why presume that a coin flip
>> >> represents an adequate test for God's existence?
>>
>> > well if you are assuming that there is an all powerful entity that
>> > does exist and wants to be a part of your life.. lol.. then there is
>> > an implication that he should be inclined to make me aware of its
>> > presence
>>
>> Your wish has been granted:
>>
>> http://bible.cc
>
> Seems that Brock now thinks he's God.

Or that God has been pleased to reveal specific information to sinful humankind:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Aug 16, 9:14 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or that God has been pleased to reveal specific information to sinful humankind:
>
> http://bible.cc

I'm curious about the relationship betweent that source and this one:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1062/1062_01.asp

Does the Bible agree with Jack Chick that the Papacy will soon be in
the hands of the Antichrist? If the Bible is mum on the subject, then
please tell me if you, Brock, agree with the esteemed Mr. Chick?

- Bob T

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 16, 9:14 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you can grant wishes and you can speak for God.

Seems that Brock now thinks he's Jesus.

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So you can grant wishes and you can speak for God.

God's revelation is for all of humankind. :)

> Seems that Brock now thinks he's Jesus.

Or just notes that God has been pleased to reveal specific information
to sinful humankind:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Art Grey]

Hi Manuel,

But God has revealed himself in many ways, not necessarily
spiritual, to most of the inhabitants of this planet.

Sorry you have not seen it yet.

What are your wishes, by the way?

On Aug 7, 2:14 am, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> I was born in a christian household with god fearing parents who would
> read bible stories like bedtime stories every night until i was able
> to go to prekindergarten.. from pre-k to 3rd grade i was consumed by
> my love for god and everything that i did not yet understand.. but
> then in the second semester of 3rd grade, i realized that none of my
> wishes have ever come true.. i started to wonder.. "it must be part of
> the divine plan.. maybe my prayers have been answered, but i just
> somehow overlooked them.. maybe im just not a good christian.. hmm..
> am i talking to myself.." i started doing a lot of critical thinking
> before i went to sleep and would always have nightmares about my
> perception of what hell was.. however by the time i was in 4th grade,
> i had decided to constantly challenge god to either prove to me that
> he did exist or at least that i wasnt talking to myself this whole
> time.. nothing that i did seemed to get god's attention.. i talked to
> my family about this, and asked how each of them knew he was there..
> thats when i began to realize that i never actually believed in god; i
> had never actually considered the possibility of there not being a god
> because everyone around me was so convinced that it was true, and to
> me, everything would make less sense..
>
> therefore, i began to read some of the bedtime stories that my mom
> would read.. not one, but all of them seemed highly improbable and
> more or less exaggerated.. i began to go to outside sources instead of
> my holy book.. the more i would learn about the intelligence of the
> population and the many other beliefs of the cultures that co-existed
> with jews and those that came before, i found myself constantly
> pushing back and trying to convince myself that there was no way that
> there were so many other religions out there.. i then started to
> wonder if god and its complexity was the result of the population's
> misunderstanding of the world..  this is a close minded view of
> course.. there would be no need to investigate if there was something
> divine taking place.. its hard to figure that there would be a man
> with enough mental capacity to say otherwise during a time period in
> which very little was known about the world and the concept that gods
> were controlling everything made perfect sense..
>
> i started reading about others who questioned their religions in 6th
> grade, and i adopted webster's version of absurdism as the closest
> thing to my mindset as it pertained to the universe and the human
> race.. ill explain it at the end.. it was in 8th grade that i
> determined that i wasnt actually an atheist, but an agnostic.. to me,
> ive always been an agnostic, and i think everyone falls under that
> category by default.. i honestly feel like i wasted my life believing
> in that non-sense for so long..

>
> i do remember it being nearly impossible to actually free myself from
> talking to myself, and setting up challenges with everything i would
> do..
>
> IE.
> heads god, tails no god
> or
> if i fail at this simple task, then there is a god, but if i dont..
> you get my point..
>

> Absurdism - a philosophy based on the belief that mankind has been
> thrown into a meaningless universe in which order is an illusion and
> any search for purpose will result in conflict with the irrationality
> of the universe itself
>

> this is how i define my agnosticism and ive found a few other
> interpretations of it online..
>
> Agnosticism as i know it - i do not believe that it is possible to
> know whether or not a god or gods do or do not exist

[Bob T.]

On Aug 17, 11:49 am, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Manuel,
>
>    But God has revealed himself in many ways, not necessarily
> spiritual, to most of the inhabitants of this planet.

Right... like when he made that Global Flood that never happened.

>
> Sorry you have not seen it yet.

I'm sorry that you are so gullible.

- Bob T

> > know whether or not a god or gods do or do not exist- Hide quoted text -

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 16, 6:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that your analogy is better but you just demonstrated my point here.
>
> You aren't differentiating between unjustified belief and justified true
> belief (knowledge).
>
> The agnostic theist would say that they *believe* (theist statement of
> belief) they're a stamp collector but don't *know* (statement of knowledge)
> that they are because it's impossible to determine whether they are or not
> based on the information available.
>
> The agnostic atheist would say that they *believe* (atheist statement of
> lack of belief) that they're not but don't *know* (statement of knowledge)
> that they're not because it's impossible to determine whether they are or
> not based on the information available.
>
> Two positions. Not three.

hmm.. so instead of allowing agnosticism to hold a position here, you
would instead just add it to "the only two positions".. haha.. okay..
but we all agree that it is impossible to know whether or not he/she
is a stamp collector.. therefore it is irrational to decide that
either he/she is or isnt a stamp collector..

>
> I don't actually agree that there's such a thing as an "ignostic" position
> but that's another discussion.
>
> If there were, the ignostic would be the third position because it also
> speaks to belief. It says that I don't lack a belief or believe because both
> are irrelevant and meaningless unless a definition is provided by a theist
> at which point I'll speak to that definition.
>
> atheist <-> ignostic <-> theist
>
>

i do ask ignostic questions, but to me, the word ' god' is undefined
because everyone seems to have their own meaning of what god is.. i
dont think its fair to actually put a definition on god.. saying
that.. haha.. i usually define god as the sum of everything that we do
not yet know.. ignostic is an irrelevant word to me.. it attempts to
redefine the agnostic concept, but is still looking like theistic
agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism because it requires one to
believe without knowing.. 'ignorant' of 'belief in god'..

>
> > why is agnosticism so unappealing of an idea to you??..
>
> It isn't :-). It's just a question of defining the terms correctly. Here, we
> use the philosophical definitions rather than popular ones which are often
> based on misconceptions.
>

haha.. i see a lot of wikipedia use here.. and thats wasnt even a
credible source for my 6th grade history research paper..

> On a debating group like this we tend to be a little picky about that. Lol.
>
> I'm an agnostic atheist where all gods which have not been claimed to exist
> are concerned and where the Deistic Gods are concerned.
>
> I'm an atheist where all gods claimed to exist (except Deistic Gods) are
> concerned because all of the claimed gods are falsifiable.
>
> That is, they *can* be demonstrated not to exist. The Abrahamic God of the
> Bible is a falsifiable God.
>
> Deistic Gods can't be falsified so while I lack a belief in the them because
> the probability that they exist is so slim, I will continue to remain
> agnostic where they are concerned.
>

im agnostic when it comes to all gods.. falsifiable or not.. i do not
believe that anything supernatural has happened at any point in
documented history.. this means that any text pertaining to
supernatural events to justify the idea of a god are more than likely
man-made.. there are a few that stand out as more plausible than the
others..

[ManuelPagami]

its hard for me to respond to this because i do feel like i may offend
you with my response.. you sound like the guy who tried to describe
the banana as irrefutable evidence of a god.. he just proved that
there is absolutely no reason to believe in intelligent design..
haha.. ray comfort i think..

On Aug 16, 11:02 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ManuelPagami]

and i do think that if there was a god that it would know that i
wouldnt believe a talking bush that was on fire or a talking volcano
etc etc..

[ManuelPagami]

On Aug 17, 1:49 pm, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Manuel,
>
>    But God has revealed himself in many ways, not necessarily
> spiritual, to most of the inhabitants of this planet.
>
> Sorry you have not seen it yet.
>
> What are your wishes, by the way?
>

hmm.. they werent exactly wishes.. they were unanswered prayers..
pretty much, i would ask 'God' to make me believe, unable to
disbelieve, or at least give me a sign that im not wasting my life
here..

[LL]

LL: If you don't believe, as you say here, you are atheistic when it
comes to the supernatural.

Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
knowing.

****************************

[LL]

LL: Exactly, and it would have made you with the capacity to reject
belief--and it would know before you were "created" which way you were
going to go.

********************

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
> knowing.

Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

No, no - believing that The Garden of Eden actually existed - that, my
friend, is the true Position of Ignorance.

- Bob T

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Eris]

Religion is a position from ignorance.
Why anyone would believe a bunch of gay goat herders.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
>> > knowing.
>>
>>Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>>
>

> Religion is a position from ignorance.

Check the etymology before you point the finger:

ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Regards,

Brock

[LL]

On Aug 19, 9:59 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

LL: Can you explain that? I have no idea what you mean.


**************************************************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[LL]

On Aug 19, 11:47 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 12:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
> >> > knowing.
>
> >>Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>
> > Religion is a position from ignorance.
>
> Check the etymology before you point the finger:
>
> ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

LL: OK, an agnostic has no knowledge of god. Neither does an atheist.
Neither does a believer, for that matter. He might THINK he has
knowledge, but he doesn't. Theism, like atheism and agnosticism, are
positions from ignorance. I am happy to say I am ignorant of knowledge
of any god.

************

**************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Art Grey]

Hi Eris, lol,

On Aug 19, 10:08 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Religion is a position from ignorance.
> Why anyone would believe a bunch of gay goat herders.

Because most of their prophetic predictions
came true.

Especially those of Daniel, the Prime Minister of the
King of Persia.

[Steve in Virginia]

Not so, Art. Other people - mostly men who - have a financial and/or
political motive have been the ones to reveal god to the inhabitants
of this planet. Sadly, that revelation is too often accompanied with
the admonition that if you don't believe you'll be sorry. Certainly
not divine, but effective nonetheless for keeping the unworthy and
unwashed masses in line.

Steve

"Science flies you to the Moon, and religion flies you into
buildings."

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 19, 9:59 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
>> > knowing.
>>
>> Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>
>
> LL: Can you explain that? I have no idea what you mean.

Consider the etymology of the term:

ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

one who speaks "without knowledge" (the prefix "a" meaning "not" and
"gnossis" meaning knowledge in the greek), is articulating a position
from a basis of ignorance. A classic example is Protagoras'
agnosticism:

"Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the
Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing
whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the
obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

So Protagoras rejection is (by his own admission) volition-ally
without knowledge.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 19, 11:47 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 12:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
>> >> > knowing.
>>
>> >>Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>>
>> > Religion is a position from ignorance.
>>
>> Check the etymology before you point the finger:
>>
>> ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
>
> LL: OK, an agnostic has no knowledge of god. Neither does an atheist.
> Neither does a believer, for that matter.

The believer has specifics concerning God, humankind's sin, and
salvation through Christ:

http://bible.cc

> He might THINK he has
> knowledge, but he doesn't.

But by your own admission, such an analysis is based on ignorance.
Consider instead:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

> I am happy to say I am ignorant of knowledge
> of any god.

I consider Thomas Nagel volition-ally agreed when he noted:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of
the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally,
hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like
that."[1]

But ignorance is not bliss. And also, it is no defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345

[Bob T.]

On Aug 19, 1:24 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 11:47 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Aug 19, 12:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
> >> >> > knowing.
>
> >> >>Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>
> >> > Religion is a position from ignorance.
>
> >> Check the etymology before you point the finger:
>
> >> ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known
>
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
>
> > LL: OK, an agnostic has no knowledge of god. Neither does an atheist.
> > Neither does a believer, for that matter.
>
> The believer has specifics concerning God, humankind's sin, and
> salvation through Christ:

They're not true, but they are specific.

>
> http://bible.cc
>
> > He might THINK he has
> > knowledge, but he doesn't.
>
> But by your own admission, such an analysis is based on ignorance.

Not at all. Many agnostics quite reasonably consider the question of
God's existence to be unknowable. That's certainly less ignorant than
believing in Noah'a Ark

> Consider instead:

Look! An example of ignorance, in cartoon form!
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

Say, Brock, you still havent answered my questions about _this_ Chick
tract:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1062/1062_01.asp

Do you agree with Jack Chick that one day soon the Antichrist will
become Pope? Since I have given you several opportunities to denounce
this opinion as silly superstition, I can only assume that you agree
with it.

- Bob T

<snip>

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 9, 10:16 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 8:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible said
> > man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having
> > anything to do with it.
>
> Science disagrees that man was made out of dust, and says instead that
> humans evolved from earlier and extinct life forms. Australopithicus
> can hardly be called "dust."
>
> >  I have a question,without God is there virtue?
>
> virtue – noun (from dictionary.com)
>
> 1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
> 2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical
> principles; uprightness; rectitude.
> 3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.
> 4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural
> virtue, theological virtue.
> 5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing
> one's weaknesses.
> 6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of
> removing warts.
> 7. virtues, an order of angels. Compare angel ( def. 1 ) .
> 8. manly excellence; valor.
>
> The dictionary makes it clear that the word "virtue" is independent of
> God by excluding him from the definition, or at least giving him a
> very minor role that is equal to the role of any deity in any
> religion.
>
> Do you think that atheists can be virtuous? Do you think that Hindus
> can be virtuous? Do you think that Muslims can be virtuous?
>

No, without a god there are no morals or virtues. That's just silly.
Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
decides to say today, which may change tomorrow. And judging from the
economy, new morals are on the way to reduce the debt. Hold on to your
wallet.

-Bill

> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 4:34 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It has not been proven at all how man was first made!
>
> > > Yes it has. Evolution is a fact. We evolved from earlier life forms.
>
> > > >  Where did you get that information at?
>
> > > From all the scientifically valid evidence that has been accumulated
> > > over the past 150 years.
>
> > > >  If man knew how we was created than we would have
> > > > understanding about our body's and sickness,
>
> > > Which we do, to a large extent.
>
> > > > although we have learned over
> > > > time somewhat about our flesh and how it works.
>
> > > Thanks to science we have learned a lot more about our bodies than
> > > just our flesh. For instance, we are starting to know a lot about DNA,
> > > and as we map our genome and the genome of other species, we are
> > > finding out exactly how we are related to the other species. .
>
> > > >  If we knew how we were
> > > > created do you not think we would be more up to date than we are now on
> > > the
> > > > understanding of the body and of sickness?
>
> > > We only recently found out how humans came to exist, starting with
> > > Darwin, and we're still trying to overcome thousands of years of
> > > ignorance and superstition imposed upon us by the religious. We are
> > > exactly as up to date as I would expect us to be under these
> > > conditions.
>
> > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 8, 4:06 pm, ManuelPagami <kingish...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm curious about what they might have told you.
>
> > > > > > its hard to recall what each of them said, but it left me
> > > > > > unsatisfied..
>
> > > > > > > Do you think it is possible to falsify gods when they are defined
> > > in
> > > > > > > physical terms, as in we know Zeusand the other Greek gods don't
> > > exist
> > > > > > > because we've been to Mount Olympus and they aren't there, or we
> > > know
> > > > > > > that the Christian god doesn't exist because we know that humans
> > > > > > > evolved - they weren't magically popped into existence 10,000 years
> > > > > > > ago? In other words, are you an atheist in terms of *some* gods, at
> > > > > > > least? Or are you agnostic (you don't think it is possible to know
> > > > > > > whether any of them exist or not)?
>
> > > > > > science has been put into an awkward place.. it has to prove things
> > > > > > that have never been proven,
>
> > > > > All science has to do to disprove religious claims is to contradict
> > > > > them with valid evidence. I gave you a couple of examples.
>
> > > > > > and its complicated because there isnt a
> > > > > > standard at which you can test these things.
>
> > > > > Yes, there is a standard. It's called the scientific method.
>
> > > > >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method#History
>
> > > > > > if one is proven, then i
> > > > > > will decide..
>
> > > > > Evolution *is* proven. Adult males do not give birth to adult females
> > > > > by having one of their ribs magically extracted. That is not how
> > > > > humans reproduce. Genesis is wrong. It is disproven. Why are you an
> > > > > agnostic in terms of the God of the Bible?
>
> > > > > > or i can say that it will be a test on my character to
> > > > > > accept what i thought to be impossible.
>
> > > > > What is it that you thought was impossible?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@­googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide

> > > quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > > --
> > >  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[LL]

On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Art Grey <artgreyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eris, lol,
>
> On Aug 19, 10:08 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Religion is a position from ignorance.
> > Why anyone would believe a bunch of gay goat herders.
>
> Because most of their prophetic predictions
> came true.

LL: So did Jean Dixon's. Anybody can twist the "truth" out of
anything--and fools will believe it.

********************************

[LL]

On Aug 19, 1:17 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 9:59 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
> >> > knowing.
>
> >> Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>
> > LL: Can you explain that? I have no idea what you mean.
>
> Consider the etymology of the term:
>
> ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
>
> one who speaks "without knowledge" (the prefix "a" meaning "not" and
> "gnossis" meaning knowledge in the greek), is articulating a position
> from a basis of ignorance.  A classic example is Protagoras'
> agnosticism:
>

> "Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On theGods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing

>
> whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the
> obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." "
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
>
> So Protagoras rejection is (by his own admission) volition-ally
> without knowledge.

LL: Volitionally? So he was without knowledge because he intended to
be without knowledge? Now that makes about as much sense as the other
things you've posted to support your belief in the bible.

*********************
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[LL]

LL: Atheism cannot be "true." It is simply a position on the existence
of god--one of non-belief. The only thing true about atheism is that
someone has no belief in a god.

********************************

[LL]

LL: There are no morals or virtues with god, either, because god is a
figment of people's imaginations. Whatever people attribute to god
comes from the same faulty imagination.

*********************************

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:36:57 -0400, Bill Bowden <wronga...@att.net>
wrote:

>> Do you think that atheists can be virtuous? Do you think that Hindus
>> can be virtuous? Do you think that Muslims can be virtuous?
>
> No, without a god there are no morals or virtues. That's just silly.
> Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
> decides to say today, which may change tomorrow.

Well, since there is no god that is obviously false.

--
"Music is my religion" [Jimi Hendrix]

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
[Andre Gide]

[Drafterman]

Demonstrate the soundness of this conclusion, please.

> That's just silly.
> Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
> decides to say today, which may change tomorrow.

Ok, and why can't that be the case?

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[thea]

Is there any way we could get the two sides together by reminding them they all
they are are *Atoms* - and those *Atoms* are moving things.
Atoms make up this body.  atoms make up everything.
So - Atoms made us??

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve in Virginia]

Unfortunately Jean your position is untenable. God is omnipotent and
possessed the power to creaet anything he/she/it wanted. God is also
omniscient and thus fully knowledgeable of the past, present, and
future of all things in his/her/its creation. With that knowledge of
future events, god was completely aware as to how things would turn
out, for humankind, Lucifer, Noah, Job, Bert, Ernie, etc.

So to claim the events that have transpired since Adam and Eve was not
part of god's plan is untrue. It was all part of his/her/its plan.
God knew that Lucifer would turn to the Dark Side of the Force; Eve
would eat the apple; Cain would kill Able, and Noah would build a boat
the size of Manhattan Island with Bronze Age hand tools. Also, lets
not forget all the god-sanctioned rape, slaughter, maiming, mayhem,
incest and torture in Exodus; Deuteronomy; Judges; Joshua; Numbers;
Isaiah; Ezekiel and other thrill-filled chapters. This too was part of
god's divine plan.

Like I have said in the past, if an architect designs a house with
serious engineering flaws that collapses and kills the occupants it is
the fault of the architect not the homeowners. So much for god's
planning skills.

I am convinced that if humanity spent a quarter of its time improving
the human condition than it spends twisting reason and reality to fit
the absurdities of the Bible and other "inspired" holy books we would
be living in a world that would make the Garden of Eden look like a
burned out crack house.


Cheers,

Steve

On Aug 9, 8:52 pm, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Little bit of a dark side is it not?  You can put anything in a dark light.
>
> Humans or humans.  But not what was in God's plan.

>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:21 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 8:35 am, Jean Briscoe <briscoe.jea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I do not understand or what the conflict is all about.  The Bible
> > said
> > > man was made out of dust.  Man calls it evolution without God having

> > > anything to do with it.  I have a question,without God is there virtue?
>
> > LL: Adam was made of dust, according to the bible. Eve was not. She
> > was made out of Adam's rib. Why god would have changed his method of
> > creation of human beings is anyone's guess. He could have created a
> > whole population of humans out of dust or ribs--or some other method--
> > if he wanted to. In fact, a wife was found for Cain and Abel, even
> > though, according to Genesis, at that time there were only 3 people on
> > earth (Cain had, by then, killed Abel). Where did his wife come from?
> > Dust? ribs? something else? Some say Adam and Eve had other children,
> > including girls and that Cain married his sister. So he was guilty not
> > only of murder but of incest. Oh, we had wonderful, virtuous
> > beginnings, according to the bible, didn't we?
>
> > Adam and Eve get all the flack for eating of the tree of knowledge
> > (Eve, actually, gets most of it), but Cain, who was a murderer and an
> > incestuous is hardly talked about. I wonder why. It's also interesting
> > that his wife, wherever she came from, is not named in the bible,
> > where nearly everyone else (especially men) are named, women being
> > mere vessels for man's seed, evidently.
>
> > So we're all descended from a known murderer and two people who
> > committed incest (according to god's plan, presumably--a god who had
> > the power to create people in much less sinful ways but chose this
> > way). No wonder humanity is doomed.
>
> > *************************

> > > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><atheism-vs-christianit
> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>

> > <y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > >  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><atheism-vs-christianit
> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>

> > --
> >  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:58 AM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 19, 1:17 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 19, 9:59 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > Agnostic is still not a word for not believing. It's a word for not
>> >> > knowing.
>>
>> >> Otherwise known as a position from ignorance.
>>
>> > LL: Can you explain that? I have no idea what you mean.
>>
>> Consider the etymology of the term:
>>
>> ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
>>
>> one who speaks "without knowledge" (the prefix "a" meaning "not" and
>> "gnossis" meaning knowledge in the greek), is articulating a position
>> from a basis of ignorance.  A classic example is Protagoras'
>> agnosticism:
>>
>> "Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On theGods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing
>>
>> whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the
>> obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life." "
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
>>
>> So Protagoras rejection is (by his own admission) volition-ally
>> without knowledge.
>
> LL: Volitionally? So he was without knowledge because he intended to
> be without knowledge?

Well, consider again:

"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or
not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the
subject, and the brevity of human life." "

So even though he knowingly argues from a position of ignorance, he
still volition-ally concludes:

"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are,
and of things which are not, that they are not"

This conclusion, however, does not follow from his ignorant
beginnings, as, for example, Wittgenstein alternatively noted in his
Prop 7:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus#Proposition_7

Regards,

Brock

[LL]

LL: That's good advice for you, Brock. You must be silent because you
know not whereof you speak.

*********************************************
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus#Propositi...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

Just consider such a will to disbelieve is not supportable; and
represents humankind's volitional corruption:

"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
will and desires and to reject the rule of God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

> The only thing true about atheism is that
> someone has no belief in a god.

But ignorance is not bliss.  And also, it is no defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

It certainly makes clear the non-tenability of Protagoras ignorance.

> You must be silent because you
> know not whereof you speak.

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Aug 19, 9:36 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:
>

> > Do you think that atheists can be virtuous? Do you think that Hindus
> > can be virtuous? Do you think that Muslims can be virtuous?
>
> No, without a god there are no morals or virtues. That's just silly.

Don't be stupid. I don't meed a magic man in the sky to tell me it's
wrong to murder.

> Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
> decides to say today, which may change tomorrow.

The problem is that your god doesn't actually exist, which leaves you
with the same reference problem as atheists, except you are deluding
yourself about it.

> And judging from the economy, new morals are on the way to reduce the debt. Hold on to your wallet.

What the fuck are you talking about? The economy isn't doing great,
but it's been a lot worse in the past.

- Bob T

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bob T.]

On Aug 20, 7:51 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just consider such a will to disbelieve is not supportable; and
> represents humankind's volitional corruption:
>
> "The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
> inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
> strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
> will and desires and to reject the rule of God."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

Brock's favorite - the Doctrine of Total Stupidity.

- Bob T

[Bill Bowden]

Well, the 10 commandments have been around for 4000 years or more.
Generally accepted to come from god. Better than anything else man has
produced. Have you got some revision to make?

> > That's just silly.
> > Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
> > decides to say today, which may change tomorrow.
>
> Ok, and why can't that be the case?
>

Rules that change from day to day have no meaning, except for
politicians trying to win the next election.

> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext -

[Simon Ewins]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:16:02 -0400, Bill Bowden <wronga...@att.net>
wrote:

> Well, the 10 commandments have been around for 4000 years or more.
> Generally accepted to come from god. Better than anything else man has
> produced. Have you got some revision to make?

Easily.

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (or anything)

1 to 4 are just ego-boosters for the god character.
5 is good but at #5? I think not.
6 and 8 are good.
7 is silly.
9 and 10 are silly.

So...

1. Do no harm.
2. Work to reduce suffering.
3. Do not have sex with or abuse children.
4. Do not murder.
5. Do not steal.

That's a start.

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 20, 8:36 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 9:36 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Do you think that atheists can be virtuous? Do you think that Hindus
> > > can be virtuous? Do you think that Muslims can be virtuous?
>
> > No, without a god there are no morals or virtues. That's just silly.
>
> Don't be stupid.  I don't meed a magic man in the sky to tell me it's
> wrong to murder.
>

Then why is wrong to murder? What if some some 95 year old is sucking
up medical care trying to live another 6 months at a cost of 6 figures
or more. What do you do about it? Pull the plug?

> > Without god, there is no absolute reference, other than what man
> > decides to say today, which may change tomorrow.
>
> The problem is that your god doesn't actually exist, which leaves you
> with the same reference problem as atheists, except you are deluding
> yourself about it.
>
> > And judging from the economy, new morals are on the way to reduce the debt. Hold on to your wallet.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about?  The economy isn't doing great,
> but it's been a lot worse in the past.
>

Of course the economy isn't doing great. But the current
administration wants to raise taxes to fix it. The major concern is
the public employees union pension plans. They don't care much about
you or me. They protect their own.

> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Aug 20, 9:29 pm, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:16:02 -0400, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net>  

Compare those with Jesus' 5:
"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give
false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother." - Mark
10:19

[Simon Ewins]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:55:34 -0400, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Do no harm.
>> 2. Work to reduce suffering.
>> 3. Do not have sex with or abuse children.
>> 4. Do not murder.
>> 5. Do not steal.
>>
>> That's a start.
>
> Compare those with Jesus' 5:
> "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give
> false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother." - Mark
> 10:19

Well, this Jesus guy is just gonna have to get up to speed if he wants to
keep up with me.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Aug 20, 9:16 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:31 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 12:36 am, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net> wrote:

> > > No, without a god there are no morals or virtues.

With respect to the reference given below, do you think that Hebrews
who broke baby donkey's necks were more moral/ virtuous that ones who
did not break baby donkey's necks?

> > Demonstrate the soundness of this conclusion, please.
>
> Well, the 10 commandments have been around for 4000 years or more.
> Generally accepted to come from god. Better than anything else man has
> produced. Have you got some revision to make?

God beat us to it. He revised his commandments in Exodus 34. Just one
thing: God claimed that he was reissuing the same commandments. When
you read them, however, they are totally different. One more thing:
these are the commandments that the Bible calls the ten commandments;
it is not your set that the Bible calls the ten commandments. Opinion
might vary but IMHO, the most repulsive of these commandments seems to
be the one to break a baby donkey's neck for no apparent reason.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Aug 20, 10:00 pm, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:55:34 -0400, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com  

>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. Do no harm.
> >> 2. Work to reduce suffering.
> >> 3. Do not have sex with or abuse children.
> >> 4. Do not murder.
> >> 5. Do not steal.
>
> >> That's a start.
>
> > Compare those with Jesus' 5:
> > "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give
> > false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother." - Mark
> > 10:19
>
> Well, this Jesus guy is just gonna have to get up to speed if he wants to  
> keep up with me.

Well, that's actually 6, so perhaps you need to keep up with him:-)

[Bill Bowden]

On Aug 20, 6:29 pm, "Simon Ewins" <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:16:02 -0400, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...@att.net>  

> wrote:
>
> > Well, the 10 commandments have been around for 4000 years or more.
> > Generally accepted to come from god. Better than anything else man has
> > produced. Have you got some revision to make?
>
> Easily.
>
> 1. You shall have no other gods before me
> 2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
> 3. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
> 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
> 5. Honor your father and mother
> 6. You shall not murder
> 7. You shall not commit adultery
> 8. You shall not steal
> 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
> 10. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (or anything)
>
> 1 to 4 are just ego-boosters for the god character.
> 5 is good but at #5? I think not.
> 6 and 8 are good.
> 7 is silly.
> 9 and 10 are silly.
>

Really? So you think it's ok to lie under oath in a courtroom?
That's the same as bearing false witness against your neighbor.
I sure wouldn't want you for a witness.

And it's ok to covet your neighbor's wife? Just don't don't get caught
by the neighbor?