How does an atheist practice his faithlessness?
duke
He calls it "getting in shape".
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Torch
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oubkl1dh5ajs05cc1...@4ax.com...
So how does a christian get in shape? - by removing all useful function from
his brain - the prospect of spending eternity as gods pet puppy would send
someone of normal intelligence completely mad.
Parsifal
all convinced that "Christians" are a bunch of morons? Has it ever
occured to you to, for example, elaborate, develop and discuss ideas
instead of throwing these utterly idiotic sentences? Have you ever
wondered how stupid you look and sound? There isn't a single day where
you don't show to the planet how incapable of one intelligent thought
you are. Your latest is about this woman in SF.
Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
Kate
wrote:
He's an idiot that is begging for attention from his betters the only
way he can manage. Plonk him.
It's a takeover
I've already perfected it.
wbarwell
> By sticking his hand in a fire.
>
> He calls it "getting in shape".
>
By building strong arguments against stupid
superstitions. Here you go again, stupid.
The argument you cannot deal with.
----------------------------------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truely necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
chibiabos
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> By sticking his hand in a fire.
Had my hand in a fire yesterday. The baby back ribs were pretty fuckin'
good.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
duke
>So how does a christian get in shape?
By following God. And it's so, so easy.
> - by removing all useful function from
>his brain - the prospect of spending eternity as gods pet puppy would send
>someone of normal intelligence completely mad.
duke
>Puke, have you ever thought that thanks to your stupids posting, we are
>all convinced that "Christians" are a bunch of morons?
We Christians KNOW you atheists are a bunch of morons.
> Has it ever
>occured to you to, for example, elaborate, develop and discuss ideas
>instead of throwing these utterly idiotic sentences?
You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about that.
> Have you ever wondered how stupid you look and sound?
But it's you atheists that think that. Intelligent people know better.
> There isn't a single day where
>you don't show to the planet how incapable of one intelligent thought
>you are.
Hey, then this is your chance to disucss/debate the issues. I'm ready - go for
it. You get to pick the subject.
> Your latest is about this woman in SF.
>Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
Nope, an atheist/mentally person throws her kids into the bay. No Christian is
even capable of doing that.
duke
>> By sticking his hand in a fire.
>> He calls it "getting in shape".
>By building strong arguments against stupid
>superstitions. Here you go again, stupid.
>The argument you cannot deal with.
Your first attempt at disproving God was better thought out then this one, and I
kicked it in the butt too.
duke
Torch
> On 22 Oct 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Parsifal" <jeanpasc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Puke, have you ever thought that thanks to your stupids posting, we are
>>all convinced that "Christians" are a bunch of morons?
>
> We Christians KNOW you atheists are a bunch of morons.
>
>> Has it ever
>>occured to you to, for example, elaborate, develop and discuss ideas
>>instead of throwing these utterly idiotic sentences?
>
> You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about that.
Er.. actually duke you still havent answered a question I have asked you a
few times over the last few weeks ago - so while we are on the subject of
people not discussing and running away maybe you could set the example to
the rest of us and answer this fairly simple question:
god is omniscient
therefore when he created satan he knew he would turn bad and become the
source of all evil in the world
therefore god is the creator of the source of all evil in the world
why would he do that duke?
Now as you abhor people not discussing things and running away I know that
you are going to set an example and answer this
William T. Goat
Thank you for sharing that joke with us. I'm sure the Roman Catholic
newsgroup will love it even more. They'll want to see how you're
setting such a fine example of obedience to God. You know, like God's
commandment to tell tasteless jokes about non-Catholics.
--Billy
Parsifal
are
*>all convinced that "Christians" are a bunch of morons?
*We Christians KNOW you atheists are a bunch of morons.
Well, for a starter, fuck you Puke... And thank you for continuing to
prove my point...
*> Has it ever
*>occured to you to, for example, elaborate, develop and discuss ideas
*>instead of throwing these utterly idiotic sentences?
*You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about
that.
Actually, Puke, I've been following your postings for a while and
you're the one running away, all the time. Answering systematically
"god exists and atheists are morons" isn't an intelligent answer.
*> Have you ever wondered how stupid you look and sound?
*But it's you atheists that think that. Intelligent people know
better.
Maybe, but you don't quality as an intelligent people... Intelligence
has nothing to do with faith or lack thereof.
*> There isn't a single day where
*>you don't show to the planet how incapable of one intelligent thought
*>you are.
*Hey, then this is your chance to disucss/debate the issues. I'm ready
- go for
*it. You get to pick the subject.
OK: why are you so convinced that if there is a god, he/she is
necessarily christian? Here's another one: do you seriously think that
your postings are in any way contributing anything to Christianity?
*> Your latest is about this woman in SF.
*>Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
*Nope, an atheist/mentally person throws her kids into the bay.
Please, enlighten us: give us examples... Why do you link "atheism"
with "mental illness"? Again, fuck you Puke...
*No Christian is even capable of doing that.
No sane person does that. Christian or not, jewish or not, muslim or
not... If you can't admit that, you're a liar... The fact that this
woman commited this deed has nothing to do with faith or lack thereof.
There are insane Christians and insane atheists... BTW, why do you
insist in labelling people?
dgillesp
"William T. Goat" wrote:
>
> duke wrote:
> > By sticking his hand in a fire.
> >
> > He calls it "getting in shape".
> >
> > duke
> > *****
> > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> > Pope Paul VI
> > *****
>
> Thank you for sharing that joke with us.
I'll have to confess I didn't get it (and still don't).
I'm sure the Roman Catholic
> newsgroup will love it even more. They'll want to see how you're
> setting such a fine example of obedience to God. You know, like God's
> commandment to tell tasteless jokes about non-Catholics.
Mr. Goat, you done told it like it is. I suspect duke is one of those
Wm. Hazlitt had in mind when he said, "We are not satisfied to be right,
unless we can prove others to be quite wrong."
--
Denny
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
wbarwell
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:34:23 -0500, wbarwell
> <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
>
>>> By sticking his hand in a fire.
>>> He calls it "getting in shape".
>
>>By building strong arguments against stupid
>>superstitions. Here you go again, stupid.
>>The argument you cannot deal with.
>
> Your first attempt at disproving God was better thought out then
> this one, and I kicked it in the butt too.
No, you went into it a bit, blathered bullshit and
the bailed.
The argument stands untouched, you got your butt kicked
and my argument has not been dealt with by the likes of
you.
And I am working on more arguments that will
be just as unanswerable.
You lost. Everybody saw you lose too.
You went in just deep enough to see you were
going to lose so you stopped. You didn't finish.
You got rattled and ran.
The argument stands.
--
wbarwell
> On 22 Oct 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Parsifal"
> <jeanpasc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Puke, have you ever thought that thanks to your stupids posting, we
>>are all convinced that "Christians" are a bunch of morons?
>
> We Christians KNOW you atheists are a bunch of morons.
>
>> Has it ever
>>occured to you to, for example, elaborate, develop and discuss ideas
>>instead of throwing these utterly idiotic sentences?
>
> You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about
> that.
>
No, you ran from my argument. You cannot deal with it
because I am right and you are wrong.
God does not exist. Proof follows.
------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
***********
--
Abner Mintz
> I'll have to confess I didn't get it (and still don't).
He was saying that we should all get in shape for
his god sending us to eternal burning by sticking
our hands in fires. In other words, making a
rather tasteless joke about us being human BBQs.
Oddly, many atheists also consider Hell to be a
rather tasteless joke. The sad thing is that Duke
would probably be outraged at his god if his god
*doesn't* barbeque everyone Duke disagrees with.
If there is a Christian deity, I wonder what it does
when evil Christians show up at heaven's gates and
demand to be let in to inspect the place and make
sure it's down to their standards. :)
Hugh Betcha
A young liberal teacher explains to her class of small children that
she is an atheist. She asks her class if they are atheists too. Not
really knowing what atheism is but wanting to be like their teacher,
all of them raise their hands.
There is, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy has not gone along
with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be
different.
"Because I'm not an atheist." replies Lucy
Then, asks the teacher, what are you?
"I'm a Christian." says Lucy.
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks
Lucy why she is a Christian. "Well, I was brought up knowing and loving
Jesus. My mom is a Christian, and my dad is a Christian, so I am a
Christian."
The teacher is now agitated. "That's no reason," she says forcefully.
"What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you
be then?"
A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Lucy, "I'd be an atheist."
H.
Pylon climbers for Jesus
exclaimed:
>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:54:49 +0100, "Torch" <To...@torch.com> wrote:
>
>>So how does a christian get in shape?
>
>By following God. And it's so, so easy.
>
It is absolutely clear that you find false consciousness easy to
indulge in. Honest people don't, however.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Mike Painter
Years later a full grown Lucy was walking across a bridge one day, and saw
a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. She ran over and said, "Stop!
Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
Lucy said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
Lucy said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
Lucy said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
Lucy said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
Lucy said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
Lucy said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of
the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
Lucy said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you
Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
Lucy said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of
1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
Lucy said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
BDK
@cox.net says...
I'm laughing. Not at the joke, but at you, dooky.
Are you really as lame as you seem?
A little kid could do better..
BDK
BDK
@cox.net says...
LOL, you've never kicked anything in the butt in your entire life!
Except maybe a puppy or kitten, like the loser that you are would.
If anything, you have gotten your ass kicked your entire life, first by
other kids, then girls, and now by everyone here..
What a guy...
BDK
duke
<yourna...@martyrdom.com> wrote:
>>>So how does a christian get in shape?
>>By following God. And it's so, so easy.
>It is absolutely clear that you find false consciousness easy to
>indulge in. Honest people don't, however.
Oh, I'm VERY honest in my profession regarding eternal salvation. You're the
one trying so desperately to hide from the coming judgment of you for what you
did while in the flesh.
duke
>> You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about that.
>Er.. actually duke you still havent answered a question I have asked you a
>few times over the last few weeks ago - so while we are on the subject of
>people not discussing and running away maybe you could set the example to
>the rest of us and answer this fairly simple question:
Wow, I was sure I had answered your comment. Please repeat.
>god is omniscient
>therefore when he created satan he knew he would turn bad and become the
>source of all evil in the world
>therefore god is the creator of the source of all evil in the world
>why would he do that duke?
You and I and all creatures are a result of God creating free will for all his
creation. God knew that some would accept him and some would reject him. He
promises eternal salvation to those that understand and respond positively, and
gives to those that reject him their eternal desire - to spend all eternity
outside the influence of God, outside himself.
That puts you by your free choice in the company of satan and the fires of hell
for all eternity. Enjoy your eternity. I heard it isn't very pleasant.
See, it's not an issue of God not understanding your final fate, but you having
to deal with your coming judgment, and what will be your final fateful decision.
There, not you can't say I didn't answer you.
> Now as you abhor people not discussing things and running away I know that
>you are going to set an example and answer this
But of course.
duke
>Actually, Puke, I've been following your postings for a while and
>you're the one running away, all the time. Answering systematically
>"god exists and atheists are morons" isn't an intelligent answer.
Yet it's an absolute truth.
>*Hey, then this is your chance to disucss/debate the issues. I'm ready
>- go for
>*it. You get to pick the subject.
>OK: why are you so convinced that if there is a god, he/she is
>necessarily christian?
God isn't "Christian". God is God. God became man in the person of Jesus the
Christ, the promised Messiah. Now you know.
> Here's another one: do you seriously think that
>your postings are in any way contributing anything to Christianity?
I'm not trying to contribute to Christianity. I'm trying to help lost souls
like you.
>*> Your latest is about this woman in SF.
>*>Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
>*Nope, an atheist/mentally person throws her kids into the bay.
>Please, enlighten us: give us examples... Why do you link "atheism"
>with "mental illness"?
Only an atheist would toy with eternal damnation out of hardheadedness.
> Again, fuck you Puke...
No thanks, call yang for that.
>*No Christian is even capable of doing that.
>No sane person does that. Christian or not, jewish or not, muslim or
>not... If you can't admit that, you're a liar... The fact that this
>woman commited this deed has nothing to do with faith or lack thereof.
>There are insane Christians and insane atheists... BTW, why do you
>insist in labelling people?
Atheists are in need of labels.
duke
>No, you ran from my argument. You cannot deal with it
>because I am right and you are wrong.
Don't be so silly, barnyard. God exists. Watch.
>God does not exist. Proof follows.
You define minor gods in your own terms, but you miss the boat with almighty
God.
>------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
>Strong Atheism's answer.
>A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
>The general overarching definition of god as per
>the major religions of the world is:
>A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.
>B. God has free will.
No, God gives us free will.
>C. God is the creator of all.
Yes.
>D. God is omnipotent.
>E. God is omnibenevolent.
>F. God is omniscient.
>G. God is that which nothing more powerful
> can be imagined.
I can accept those just to humor you.
>These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
>for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
>Islam, and Hinduism.
No, not hinduism.
>Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
>logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
>omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
>attributes, and may be considered special aspects
>of omnipotence.
>There are other attributes of god, that he is the
>only such god, that he is is immortal and that
>god has always existed that are not important
>for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
>They are secondary arguments and are for the most
>part not foundational or truely necessary, except
>those that can be logically derived from the
>attributes listed above.
>A CLASS OF GODS
>It is important to note here that this is a
>definition not for a particular god, but an
>entire class of gods.
there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.
>Sub-theories about god are not important here.
>Christianity claims one may attain salvation
>only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
>dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
>blasphemous.
>Ideas like this though, are of little importance
>to the overarching and general claims made for a
>personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
>coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
>for this sort of god, this sort of theological
>system of expansive claims for god.
>Grand theologies are those theologies that have
>adopted this class of god as their basic
>attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
>is important to remember here that what is being
>discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
>gods or specific gods.
>THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
>Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
>to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
>Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
>their basic definitions of what god is at god's
>most basic level.
Nope, not Hinduism.
>A big problem with this class of gods is, it
>collapses rather easily into internal self
>contradiction.
This is where you must get serious.
>THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
>The problem of evil was first written down by
>Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
But acknowledged by God for all eternity.
>Today's formulation is:
>A. God is defined as omnipotent;
>B. and as omnibenevolent.
>C. Evil exists.
>D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and thereby
disagrees with you.
You lose that one.
>E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
>F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
> omnibenevolent.
>G. Or god is not existant.
You must get past "D" before going to "go".
>THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
>The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
>back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
>still popular, and is championed most notably
>today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
>theologiams.
God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.
>God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
>evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
>lacking free will.
Which is why God gave us free will.
>THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
>God has free will.
Nope. You lose.
>God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
>incapable of doing evil.
>
>A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
> this good nature is not allowed to cound
> againts god's free will.
>B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
> allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
>C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
> free will and a god like good nature.
>D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
> against man's free will than it does for god's
> free will.
>E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
> and god does not have free will as claimed.
>F. If god does not have absolute and total free
> will, thus free will is not a true necessity
> at all.
>F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
> can give man a god like free will and a
> god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
> god must do so or god is not moral, not
> omnibenevolent.
>G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
>So free will does not exist,
You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God gives us free
will.
> or it does and we can
>have a god like free will and a god like good
>nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
>the existance of evil. This free will defense
>then, is a failed argument.
>OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
>God is defined as creator of all in most
>religions.
>And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
>A. God created the Universe and all in it.
>B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
> in the Universe and he knows the future of the
> Universe and its contents.
Yep.
>C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
> in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
> man named John Smith in it.
Yep.
>D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
> damned, God will know that.
Yep.
>E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
> state will have a John Smith, god may then
> contemplate the future state of Smith and
> decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
Nope. God does not interfere.
>F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
> specific personal and will choice made solely
> by god.
Nope, by Smith. It's called free will.
>G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
> because of a choice made by god.
Nope, by Smith in accordance with his free will.
> In fact all
> moral evil done by creations of god will be
> evil and do evil only because of personal and
> willful creations of god allowing evil acts
> to be done, by direct decision of god.
Man does evil on behalf of his free will. God gave us free choice, and to be
suitably rewarded basis our decision - heaven or hell.
>H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
> creator god, it is solely and only because
> god allows evil.
He allows man to free choose evil.
>I. If evil exists solely because of personal
> choices of god, god then is not as defined,
> omnibenevolent.
An interesting concept. You're saying that God should not be committeewomen
because to do so would allow us to injure ourselves on behalf of our free will.
We injure ourselves because of our free will to do so.
>J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
> Universe cannot have any free will, not even
> in principle. A Universe with a god that
> creates all and knows all precludes free will
> for all beings god creates in the strongest
> possible manner.
Nope, God knows our final free decision, but we don't. We still have to make
it.
> The Grand God of Grand
> Theology is thus self destroying, it is
> incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
>THE SITUATION SO FAR.
>1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
> Grand God has been defined here with as few
> terms as possible.
By your definition, but I've showed you to be in error.
>2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
No, it doesn't.
>3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
> flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
> claims free will makes evil necessary for man
> to have free will.
Free will is what you are hiding from.
>4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
> doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
> man's free will free will cannot exist for
> man. All evil is the direct and knowing
> creation of god contradicting claims of
> omnibenevolence.
>5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
> free will cannot be a good quality, much less
> neccesary.
No free will for man is impossible, because then man would not be made in the
image of God who is all love.
>Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
>collapsed. As has Grand
>Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
>and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
>all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
>this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
>or tertiary claims.
But not almighty God. Only a weak class of god (small g) like alcoholism, sex
drive, etc.
>If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
>specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
>or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
>man or some prophet or did this or that.
These are not grand gods, but small gods that are satan driven.
>God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
>to anything real and existant.
You're successfully defined small gods, but not God almighty.
Better luck next time, barnyard.
duke
>> Your first attempt at disproving God was better thought out then
>> this one, and I kicked it in the butt too.
>No, you went into it a bit, blathered bullshit and
>the bailed.
>The argument stands untouched, you got your butt kicked
>and my argument has not been dealt with by the likes of
>you.
You self-defined error of minor gods makes you a loser, barnyard.
Stick with your first failed attempt. It's more accurate than this garbage.
janos...@hotmail.com
How do you discuss something that doesn't exist?
How do you debate a person whose only argument is superstitious belief?
Atheists face reality. They don't run away, they've simply thrown up
their hands in the face of ignorance.
janos...@hotmail.com
Les Hellawell
<janos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you make an excellent point. As you say, in the face of ignorance
about something we admit we don't know and don't jump to fanciful
conclusions like' goddit' unable to admit our ignorance. Sometimes we
try to banish our ignorance by trying to find out things of course We
regularly ask Christians how they know there is a god for example so
we can share their beliefs but they never tell us,never give us any
evidence. It is almost as if there were none to give or they have made
some kind of binding secret agreement never to reveal what they know.
Guess we will have to remain ignorant and not have anything to believe
concerning this god they claim to know about. I must admit though
this god they profess does not sound very nice. According to one
poster his god is coming to tear us apart. One to avoid methinks!
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Gregory Gadow
Here is another one. Hey, Duke, have you beaten your dog to death yet?
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
janos...@hotmail.com
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks
Lucy why she is a Christian. "Well, I was brought up knowing and loving
Jesus. My mom is a Christian, and my dad is a Christian, so I am a
Christian."
Change this verse to read, "My parents taught me not to believe in
superstitions. There are no such things as ghosts. There are no people
living in the sky. It's make believe."
It would make more sense.
firel...@hotmail.com
> duke wrote:
> > Your first attempt at disproving God was better thought out then
> > this one, and I kicked it in the butt too.
>
> No, you went into it a bit, blathered bullshit and
> the bailed.
> The argument stands untouched, you got your butt kicked
> and my argument has not been dealt with by the likes of
> you.
>
> And I am working on more arguments that will
> be just as unanswerable.
You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't
use reason to get to. Duke is, at best, just
pretending to argue - he really has no arguments,
nor does he think he needs any. You can hit him
with the best you've got, he'll just look heavenwards
and say "I'm right and you're wrong, God says so,
so there". He can be entertaining for a while,
though.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Neil Kelsey
>Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
Nope, an atheist/mentally person throws her kids into the bay. No
Christian is
even capable of doing that."
[This is totally offensive, and you are an idiot. Your lack of
understanding of mental illness is appalling. I have a schizophrenic
sister who is an atheist and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I worked with a
guy who was schizophrenic, read THE BIBLE, and slaughtered his ENTIRE
FAMILY because the BIBLE instructed him to do so. He was a CHRISTIAN.
YOU are a complete asshole.]
seattleatheist
>>god is omniscient
>>therefore when he created satan he knew he would turn bad and become the
>>source of all evil in the world
>>therefore god is the creator of the source of all evil in the world
>>why would he do that duke?
>
>You and I and all creatures are a result of God creating free will for all his
>creation. God knew that some would accept him and some would reject him.
This has been said before by other atheists more eloquent then I...
Atheists and Non-christians don't *REJECT* your god. Many ask you to
provide evidence... to give them a REASON to believe in your god over
any other god, but you fail everytime.
Your 'reasons' consist of your feelings. Your 'reasons' consist of
quoting your own holy book.
So the question must be asked... do people reject your GOD, or are
people rejecting your arguement? These two things aren't even in the
same ballpark.
>He
>promises eternal salvation to those that understand and respond positively, and
>gives to those that reject him their eternal desire - to spend all eternity
>outside the influence of God, outside himself.
So you say:
1. My God is a LOVING god.
2. My God wants you to worship him.
3. My God will torture you for eternity if you don't worship Him.
Do you see a conflict between number 1 and 3?
>That puts you by your free choice in the company of satan and the fires of hell
>for all eternity. Enjoy your eternity. I heard it isn't very pleasant.
You say it's our 'free choice' yet if we buy 100% into your idea of
choices, perfect heaven or horrible hellfire, is that REALLY much of a
"choice"?
But if we don't believe YOU... YOUR WORDS... YOUR BELIEFS, then you
interpret that as purposefully rejecting your god. What if your god
just sends untrustworthy and unbelievable messengers?
>See, it's not an issue of God not understanding your final fate, but you having
>to deal with your coming judgment, and what will be your final fateful decision.
>There, not you can't say I didn't answer you.
The question was: "Why did your god create all evil in the world"
Your answer is: "You can reject my god and go to hell or believe and
be saved from hell -- it's your choice."
I think it's painfully obvious that you DID NOT answer his question.
By the way... why do you still have me killfiled since all I do is ask
hard questions... I have never swore at you, cursed you, or insulted
you.... Or is it just the "hard question" reason? I can understand
that.
Please remove me from your killfile, so I don't have to change my
'from' information just to talk with you. (and I'm not being
deceptive in doing so, since I am very honest as to who I am... I
could easily just sign 'joe schmoe' and you wouldn't know it's James,
Seattle")
James, Seattle
duke
seattleatheist<SP-AMB-LO...@raincity.com> wrote:
>>You and I and all creatures are a result of God creating free will for all his
>>creation. God knew that some would accept him and some would reject him.
>This has been said before by other atheists more eloquent then I...
>Atheists and Non-christians don't *REJECT* your god.
But you do. You have the same evidence as I have. And I definitely believe.
> Many ask you to
>provide evidence
I did.
>... to give them a REASON to believe in your god over
>any other god, but you fail everytime.
Nope. I can't give proof, but I gave you plenty of evidence, not counting that
which is staring you in the face. You are like bud the dud, you run from what
you don't want to see.
>Your 'reasons' consist of your feelings. Your 'reasons' consist of
>quoting your own holy book.
Actually, I quote scientific evidence.
>So the question must be asked... do people reject your GOD, or are
>people rejecting your arguement? These two things aren't even in the
>same ballpark.
Atheists reject my God, and I'm not the one that will pay, you are.
>>He
>>promises eternal salvation to those that understand and respond positively, and
>>gives to those that reject him their eternal desire - to spend all eternity
>>outside the influence of God, outside himself.
>So you say:
>1. My God is a LOVING god.
>2. My God wants you to worship him.
>3. My God will torture you for eternity if you don't worship Him.
That's your words, not mine.
>Do you see a conflict between number 1 and 3?
Yes, I do, but you don't.
>>That puts you by your free choice in the company of satan and the fires of hell
>>for all eternity. Enjoy your eternity. I heard it isn't very pleasant.
>You say it's our 'free choice' yet if we buy 100% into your idea of
>choices, perfect heaven or horrible hellfire, is that REALLY much of a
>"choice"?
My idea has nothing to do with it. Your argument is between you and God, and
you WILL lose.
>But if we don't believe YOU... YOUR WORDS... YOUR BELIEFS, then you
>interpret that as purposefully rejecting your god. What if your god
>just sends untrustworthy and unbelievable messengers?
Nope, you're joyfully denying the obvious.
>>See, it's not an issue of God not understanding your final fate, but you having
>>to deal with your coming judgment, and what will be your final fateful decision.
>>There, not you can't say I didn't answer you.
>The question was: "Why did your god create all evil in the world"
He allows you.
>Your answer is: "You can reject my god and go to hell or believe and
> be saved from hell -- it's your choice."
It's your choice. I have nothing to do with it.
>I think it's painfully obvious that you DID NOT answer his question.
I know it's painfully obvious that I did answer but it swooshed - right over
your head.
>By the way... why do you still have me killfiled since all I do is ask
>hard questions... I have never swore at you, cursed you, or insulted
>you.... Or is it just the "hard question" reason? I can understand
>that.
I don't have you killfiled. Never have, don't now, never will. Wouldn't see
your post if I did.
>Please remove me from your killfile, so I don't have to change my
>'from' information just to talk with you. (and I'm not being
>deceptive in doing so, since I am very honest as to who I am... I
>could easily just sign 'joe schmoe' and you wouldn't know it's James,
>Seattle")
>James, Seattle
I'm right here, James. If you want to have a serious discussion, I're right
here to talk with you.
duke
>You atheists won't discuss. You run away. Ask bud the dud about that.
>How do you discuss something that doesn't exist?
Easy - God does exist.
>How do you debate a person whose only argument is superstitious belief?
You should check out the evidence.
>Atheists face reality. They don't run away, they've simply thrown up
>their hands in the face of ignorance.
No, there is no evidence anywhere that there is no God. All evidence demands
his existence.
duke
But this woman threw her kids into the bay.
duke
>LOL, you've never kicked anything in the butt in your entire life!
Oh, I do that to your atheists every day. I've never seen a dumber group of
people that deny something that they have no idea about.
>Except maybe a puppy or kitten, like the loser that you are would.
>If anything, you have gotten your ass kicked your entire life, first by
>other kids, then girls, and now by everyone here..
>What a guy...
>BDK
Yes, I am.
duke
>In article <oubkl1dh5ajs05cc1...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> By sticking his hand in a fire.
>>
>> He calls it "getting in shape".
>>
>> duke
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****
>I'm laughing. Not at the joke, but at you, dooky.
That's ok, I'm laughing at you.
>Are you really as lame as you seem?
>A little kid could do better..
You haven't even come close yet.
>BDK
duke
>Fallacy of prejudicial language.
>Here is another one. Hey, Duke, have you beaten your dog to death yet?
Nope.
Neil Kelsey
only surpassed by your lack of understanding. No sane person would toss
their children into the ocean, theist or atheist. Man, you are a total
scumbag. I used to think you had a grain of intelligence, but now I
think you're just a fucking idiot.
duke
>> And I am working on more arguments that will
>> be just as unanswerable.
>You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't
>use reason to get to. Duke is, at best, just
>pretending to argue - he really has no arguments,
>nor does he think he needs any.
Well, look at it this way - you atheists need to present an argument to argue
against. Most of you are fully lacking in knowledge of God and of the message
that he sent us. When you understand that, and elevate your argument above the
level of fairy tale created by atheists, then we can discuss.
> You can hit him
>with the best you've got, he'll just look heavenwards
>and say "I'm right and you're wrong, God says so,
>so there". He can be entertaining for a while,
>though.
That's just the problem - you best is a joke. When you start by referring to
"sky pixie", there's no point is further comment from me.
But God notices your attitude about him.
Les Hellawell
I have had a serious discussion with you, and all your beliefs boil
down to 'everything points towards god' but you failed to explain the
essential link that makes everything that exists a product of a god.
Where is your pointer in other words. What is the roadmap from
everything that exists which leads you to god didit?
I personally do not have a clue regarding our origins. Neither do
you or anybody else. Scientists have theorised our origins back to
a finite time after this origin, but it is only a tentative theory and
far frombeing proved and the actual origin still remains a mystery.
So you have made a 'leap of faith' saying 'goddit' without explaining
how this god came into existence itself or what the necessary link is.
Your leap of faith is nothing more than a guess. You are jumping from
ignorance to wishfull thinkingness and have nothing, absolutely
nothing, to justify it. (Leastways you have not offered any and you
would if you could)
Even if you are right you are still only in the position of knowing
that a supernatural being created everything. You know absolutely
nothing else but believe plenty. This being, for all you know may have
sacrificed itself in the act of creation and no longer exist. So the
onus is on you to show it still exists and has all the properties you
claim for it. Where is your evidence for all the things claimed in the
Bible?
So, when you can justify your god exists, has all the properties
you claim for it, and that it offers heaven or hell as you claim,
get back to us. We are always here eyes open waiting. This
god of course can make us hear it anytime it likes directly
instead of relying onn poor advocates such as yourself. Assuming
for a moment you god exists it must be sitting up there groaning
everytime you fail to rise to the challenge.
How long is it since you rose to the challenge BTW?
BDK
@cox.net says...
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:15:52 -0400, BDK <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>
> >LOL, you've never kicked anything in the butt in your entire life!
>
> Oh, I do that to your atheists every day. I've never seen a dumber group of
> people that deny something that they have no idea about.
You even screwed up your oh so clever response! We know enough about
your god to see that it's a nonsensical sham.
>
> >Except maybe a puppy or kitten, like the loser that you are would.
>
> >If anything, you have gotten your ass kicked your entire life, first by
> >other kids, then girls, and now by everyone here..
> >What a guy...
> >BDK
>
> Yes, I am.
Glad to see you admit to being a loser.
Nice apartment, BTW. LOL.
BDK
Les Hellawell
>On 24 Oct 2005 08:39:04 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"> Your latest is about this woman in SF.
>>>Man, you're one sick piece of shit, let me tell you...
>
>>Nope, an atheist/mentally person throws her kids into the bay. No
>>Christian is
>>even capable of doing that."
>
>>[This is totally offensive, and you are an idiot. Your lack of
>>understanding of mental illness is appalling. I have a schizophrenic
>>sister who is an atheist and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I worked with a
>>guy who was schizophrenic, read THE BIBLE, and slaughtered his ENTIRE
>>FAMILY because the BIBLE instructed him to do so. He was a CHRISTIAN.
>>YOU are a complete asshole.]
Ditto the Yorkshire Ripper. Serial killers are almost invariably
Christians, who do it because they think gods tell them to. I know of
no example of an atheist serial killers. My cousin interviewed the
Ripper in prison several times and testified as to his religious
convictions. He provoked controvery when he send Sutcliffe a Christmas
card but he was only trying to gain his trust so he could get some
insight into what makes a serial killer tick. Clearly the more we know
about them the better we are able to deal with future serial killers.
Religion is a far more dangerous addiction than so called pornography
as far as women are concerned.
The religious stuff people so full with sin and guilt that they see
evil everywhere and start thinking they aught to be warriors for
god and start combatting it. Women in particular are always seen
as more guilty than men because they happen to be attractive to
men. This unhealthy attitude is what leads to killing. That is why
I see the Christian religion as morally repugnant when it leads to
such extreme behavoir.
>But this woman threw her kids into the bay.
After being in the care of Christians it is hardly surprising. If she
had placed herself in the care of atheists it might never have
happened. Rather than reinforce her delusions and feelings of guilt
and sin through praying and confessing ' they would have sought to try
and get her to think more rationally and to cast aside guilt since she
probably had nothing to reproach herself for. She needed help not
religion and clearly got none. So yes another female victim of
religious morality. Now she will have to bear what she has done for
the rest of her life. She now needs someone to carefully persuade
her how she has been deluded and keep well away from preachers
who can only do her more harm.
Les Hellawell
>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:15:52 -0400, BDK <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>
>>LOL, you've never kicked anything in the butt in your entire life!
>
>Oh, I do that to your atheists every day. I've never seen a dumber group of
>people that deny something that they have no idea about.
The reason we do not believe your gods exist is precisely because we
do not have sufficient information or justification to form such
belief. Yes you hit the nail right on the head there!
firel...@hotmail.com
> On 24 Oct 2005 07:37:05 -0700, firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> And I am working on more arguments that will
> >> be just as unanswerable.
>
> >You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't
> >use reason to get to. Duke is, at best, just
> >pretending to argue - he really has no arguments,
> >nor does he think he needs any.
>
> Well, look at it this way - you atheists need to present an argument to argue
> against.
Your claim Duke, burden of proof is on you. "It is obvious"
is insufficient on it's face, since if it were obvious we
wouldn't be having this discussion.
> Most of you are fully lacking in knowledge of God and of the message
> that he sent us.
How is your message from your god any different from the messages
sent by every other god? "Because only my god is real" is
insufficient in itself, since every believer in every god can
say that.
> When you understand that, and elevate your argument above the
> level of fairy tale created by atheists, then we can discuss.
You've yet to show that your message is elevated above the level
of fairy tale, compared to every other message out there.
> > You can hit him
> >with the best you've got, he'll just look heavenwards
> >and say "I'm right and you're wrong, God says so,
> >so there". He can be entertaining for a while,
> >though.
>
> That's just the problem - you best is a joke.
Duke, your best is "god said so". That's all you've ever
had, but I suspect that the nature of your faith is such
that "god said so" is all you've ever needed. Realize
that not everyone has such faith, and that the vast
majority of the people on the planet don't have such
faith in *your* god.
> When you start by referring to
> "sky pixie", there's no point is further comment from me.
OK, no "sky pixie" - just you telling me why yours is true,
and all the others are false. I'll even make it easy for
you, you can just start by telling me why all, or even some
of the others are false.
> But God notices your attitude about him.
Thinking for your god again, Duke?
Les Hellawell
Well yes if they think the burden is on us to prove their
god false they by default also assume the same burden
with respect to all the other claimed gods.
I look forward to Dukes long list of all the claimed gods each
with a carefully argued rebuttal. He could start with
the class of gods referred to by wbarwell if he needs help.
And there is the possible god I referred to based on his
'everything points to god' theory a god that destroyed itself
(a perfect act of love) in order to create us.
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>I'm right here, James. If you want to have a serious discussion, I're right
>>here to talk with you.
>I have had a serious discussion with you, and all your beliefs boil
>down to 'everything points towards god' but you failed to explain the
>essential link that makes everything that exists a product of a god.
>Where is your pointer in other words. What is the roadmap from
>everything that exists which leads you to god didit?
The alternative is what an atheist claims - it did it itself (which is stupid)
or it always was like that (which is even more stupid).
I told you - we all have the same evidence. I believe - you deny. That's your
free choice. You will be suitably rewarded basis your actions in this life.
I follow the unquestioned evidence that drives my faith, you follow yours.
Remember: Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
into play if there is no almighty God.
>I personally do not have a clue regarding our origins. Neither do
>you or anybody else.
You and I have exactly the same evidence. I believe - you deny.
> Scientists have theorised our origins back to
>a finite time after this origin, but it is only a tentative theory and
>far frombeing proved and the actual origin still remains a mystery.
>So you have made a 'leap of faith' saying 'goddit' without explaining
>how this god came into existence itself or what the necessary link is.
>Your leap of faith is nothing more than a guess. You are jumping from
>ignorance to wishfull thinkingness and have nothing, absolutely
>nothing, to justify it. (Leastways you have not offered any and you
>would if you could)
And just what do you think you're saying when you say: the cosmos (mass and
energy) always existed. You believe such a stupid notion, and then deny a
supreme being.
Your problem is that you have come to associate "creation" as separate from
"evolution". I say evolution is God's way. Man left the sea and then walked on
the earth. That's God's plan of evolution.
As a Christian, I find the silly creation v evolution discussion a child's game
amongst the atheist mentally-challenged.
>Even if you are right you are still only in the position of knowing
>that a supernatural being created everything. You know absolutely
>nothing else but believe plenty.
Of course I believe. When I pray the Profession of Faith, it starts with "I
believe in God...." It doesn't come anywhere's close to saying "I know God
exists....."
You have exactly the same physical and scientific evidence that I do. I say God
did it, and you say it did itself. You are one confused guy.
> This being, for all you know may have
>sacrificed itself in the act of creation and no longer exist. So the
>onus is on you to show it still exists and has all the properties you
>claim for it. Where is your evidence for all the things claimed in the
>Bible?
I don't have to show you anything. I believe. Do you understand? I believe.
That means I believe all that is and all that will be comes from a Supreme
Creator, whom we call God. You believe it created itself, or always was, which
is even sillier.
>So, when you can justify your god exists, has all the properties
>you claim for it, and that it offers heaven or hell as you claim,
>get back to us.
You and I will both die without that. I put my faith in God. You put your
faith in matter and energy.
> We are always here eyes open waiting. This
>god of course can make us hear it anytime it likes directly
>instead of relying onn poor advocates such as yourself. Assuming
>for a moment you god exists it must be sitting up there groaning
>everytime you fail to rise to the challenge.
If your eyes are open as you say, simply state your views on where the universe
comes from. Science has an answer for the last 14.5 billion years. What
happened before, and why did it show up. You can suggest any answer you wish,
and you'll be just as accurate as me. It's called belief. That's all I have.
The atheist's problem is wrapped up in the physical wherefrom and whathow, and
the Christian is wrapped up in living the right life - one based on love for one
another as God loves us. No sky pixie, no guy with horns. Live the good life.
Over come our evil tendencies. John 13:34.
>How long is it since you rose to the challenge BTW?
You are the one confused on what I believe as a Christian. And you have been
substantially wrong since day 1.
duke
>She is a SCHIZOPHRENIC. Your lack of compassion for the MENTALLY ILL is
>only surpassed by your lack of understanding. No sane person would toss
>their children into the ocean, theist or atheist.
Atheists are not sane. That's just the issue. An atheist denies the existence
of God. That's insanity at it's best.
> Man, you are a total
>scumbag. I used to think you had a grain of intelligence, but now I
>think you're just a fucking idiot.
Your ignorance of my statement consumes you.
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>[This is totally offensive, and you are an idiot. Your lack of
>>>understanding of mental illness is appalling. I have a schizophrenic
>>>sister who is an atheist and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I worked with a
>>>guy who was schizophrenic, read THE BIBLE, and slaughtered his ENTIRE
>>>FAMILY because the BIBLE instructed him to do so. He was a CHRISTIAN.
>>>YOU are a complete asshole.]
>Ditto the Yorkshire Ripper. Serial killers are almost invariably
>Christians, who do it because they think gods tell them to.
No they aren't. For instance, the major butchers of humanity have all been
atheists, every one - hitler, stalin, emin, mao, saddam, and on and on.
And before you say it, hitler may have been a Christian in youth, but he tossed
all his God beliefs out the window - He didn't butcher 6 million Jews as a
christian concept, but as a man that denies God, just like an atheist.
>The religious stuff people so full with sin and guilt that they see
>evil everywhere and start thinking they aught to be warriors for
>god and start combatting it. Women in particular are always seen
>as more guilty than men because they happen to be attractive to
>men. This unhealthy attitude is what leads to killing. That is why
>I see the Christian religion as morally repugnant when it leads to
>such extreme behavoir.
This killing you refer to is mankind's failure to follow God's command to love
one another as he loves us. Do you get it yet - love one another, not kill for
God.
>>But this woman threw her kids into the bay.
>After being in the care of Christians it is hardly surprising.
What Christians? I saw nothing said about a Christian setting. She might have
been a wiccan, or a devil worshipper.
If she
>had placed herself in the care of atheists it might never have
>happened.
Might???? Christian care is to offer love. You have your facts confused.
> Rather than reinforce her delusions and feelings of guilt
>and sin through praying and confessing ' they would have sought to try
>and get her to think more rationally and to cast aside guilt since she
>probably had nothing to reproach herself for. She needed help not
>religion and clearly got none.
You have no idea what she got. Show me where it says she got Christian hatred.
Grow up, les. You are totally confused over what a Christian is.
duke
>> Well, look at it this way - you atheists need to present an argument to argue
>> against.
>Your claim Duke, burden of proof is on you. "It is obvious"
>is insufficient on it's face, since if it were obvious we
>wouldn't be having this discussion.
Then try the burden of proof that Christianity means hatred.
>> Most of you are fully lacking in knowledge of God and of the message
>> that he sent us.
>How is your message from your god any different from the messages
>sent by every other god?
There are no other gods.
> "Because only my god is real" is
>insufficient in itself, since every believer in every god can
>say that.
>> When you understand that, and elevate your argument above the
>> level of fairy tale created by atheists, then we can discuss.
>You've yet to show that your message is elevated above the level
>of fairy tale, compared to every other message out there.
Or that you are capable of consuming that message.
>> That's just the problem - you best is a joke.
>Duke, your best is "god said so".
Nope, sorry. I don't use, and never have used, that argument. See, you're
accusing me without knowing what I did say.
> That's all you've ever
>had, but I suspect that the nature of your faith is such
>that "god said so" is all you've ever needed.
You suspect wrong.
> Realize
>that not everyone has such faith, and that the vast
>majority of the people on the planet don't have such
>faith in *your* god.
I know. You believe matter and energy created themselves, but deny the actions
of a supreme being.
>> When you start by referring to
>> "sky pixie", there's no point is further comment from me.
>OK, no "sky pixie" - just you telling me why yours is true,
>and all the others are false.
The message: Love one another.
> I'll even make it easy for
>you, you can just start by telling me why all, or even some
>of the others are false.
None ever so much as lifted a wooden finger.
>> But God notices your attitude about him.
>Thinking for your god again, Duke?
I hope to never forget him.
duke
>> Oh, I do that to your atheists every day. I've never seen a dumber group of
>> people that deny something that they have no idea about.
>You even screwed up your oh so clever response! We know enough about
>your god to see that it's a nonsensical sham.
You're certainly never showed it here. Try something and I'll discuss it with
you.
>> >Except maybe a puppy or kitten, like the loser that you are would.
>> >If anything, you have gotten your ass kicked your entire life, first by
>> >other kids, then girls, and now by everyone here..
>> >What a guy...
>> >BDK
>> Yes, I am.
>Glad to see you admit to being a loser.
No, I responded to "what a guy...".
>Nice apartment, BTW. LOL.
>BDK
Yes it is.
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>The reason we do not believe your gods exist is precisely because we
>do not have sufficient information or justification to form such
>belief. Yes you hit the nail right on the head there!
And I do, and I have the same information you have.
I win.
I don't believe matter and energy created themselves as you do.
wbarwell
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:03:00 +0100, Les Hellawell
> <myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>I'm right here, James. If you want to have a serious discussion,
>>>I're right here to talk with you.
>
>>I have had a serious discussion with you, and all your beliefs boil
>>down to 'everything points towards god' but you failed to explain
>>the essential link that makes everything that exists a product of a
>>god. Where is your pointer in other words. What is the roadmap from
>>everything that exists which leads you to god didit?
>
> The alternative is what an atheist claims - it did it itself (which
> is stupid) or it always was like that (which is even more stupid).
>
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
Jim07D5
This for some reason makes me wonder if this God could have created
creatures that are like itself in every way, and if so, why didn't it,
and if it couldn't, why not? It is an entirely new question for me,
so, thanks!
--- Jim07D5
Adam H.
>On 24 Oct 2005 16:32:49 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>She is a SCHIZOPHRENIC. Your lack of compassion for the MENTALLY ILL is
>>only surpassed by your lack of understanding. No sane person would toss
>>their children into the ocean, theist or atheist.
>
>Atheists are not sane. That's just the issue. An atheist denies the existence
>of God. That's insanity at it's best.
No, insanity is believing to the point of self-contradiction (as you
do) that a god exists even though you have no evidence whatsoever to
support that claim.
Sanity is acknowledging the lack of evidence and drawing appropriate
conclusions.
Adam H.
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:33:35 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>The reason we do not believe your gods exist is precisely because we
>>do not have sufficient information or justification to form such
>>belief. Yes you hit the nail right on the head there!
>
>And I do, and I have the same information you have.
>
>I win.
"Win"? How do you "win"? By believing in something that has no
evidentiary support?
How is that a 'win'?
Jim Austin
> By sticking his hand in a fire.
>
> He calls it "getting in shape".
No. Self burning along with self-flagellation, self-mutilation,
self-abnegation, self-destruction, etc., etc., ad nauseam are
characteristic of various religions.
Atheism offers freedom from all that.
<Snip> Signature block.
Jim07D5
Ooh ooh can I do a Duke imitation here?
"In exchange for putting yourself in eternal fire."
How's that?
--- Jim07D5
William T. Goat
Hugh Betcha wrote:
>
> The teacher is now agitated. "That's no reason," she says forcefully.
> "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you
> be then?"
>
> A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Lucy, "I'd be an atheist."
>
> H.
I wonder what God thinks about this story. Perhaps God told you to post
it? Perhaps God loves seeing you belittle others? Hmm.
--Billy
"Love your enemies; be kind to those who persecute you."
--Jesus
BDK
ad...@mailinator.com says...
It can be summed up as "It makes me feel better to think that god
exists".
IOW, wishful thinking..
BDK
BDK
@cox.net says...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:26:48 -0400, BDK <king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, I do that to your atheists every day. I've never seen a dumber group of
> >> people that deny something that they have no idea about.
>
> >You even screwed up your oh so clever response! We know enough about
> >your god to see that it's a nonsensical sham.
>
> You're certainly never showed it here. Try something and I'll discuss it with
> you.
>
Try something? Try to make sense Dooky.
You've never shown the slightest proof, or given any response that would
make anyone even give the slightest consideration that what you say
might be true..
Nice snip job, by the way...
> >> >Except maybe a puppy or kitten, like the loser that you are would.
>
> >> >If anything, you have gotten your ass kicked your entire life, first by
> >> >other kids, then girls, and now by everyone here..
> >> >What a guy...
> >> >BDK
> >> Yes, I am.
>
> >Glad to see you admit to being a loser.
>
> No, I responded to "what a guy...".
I know, but what I said fits oh so well.
>
> >Nice apartment, BTW. LOL.
> >BDK
>
> Yes it is.
By the time I hit 23 or so, I was done with apartments and landlords,
managers, etc. I'd rather own than hand my money over to someone else.
But whatever floats your boat...
BDK
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> said:
>
>>duke wrote:
**************
Yes, we have two problems.
If god is creator of all and omniscient, free will cannot exist.
Ignore that and claim man has free will and this latter
problem takes over. By being omnbenevolent god is duty
bound to destroy evil by giving man a likewise good nature
incapable of doing moral evil.
The free will defense, popularized by St. Augustine,
still holds sway in theology despite its abject failure.
Anselm about 1000 BCE almost worked up enough nerve
to understand this. He realized that being omnibenevolent
meant god had a duty to create as much good as possible
and destroy as much evil as possible.
This also gave rise to paradoxes. If god must be good,
he cannot do evil. Does god have free will?
Theology has ben backing off from such problems
for millenia and sweeping them under the theological rug.
The lumpiest rug in history.
Questionsabout god, omnibenevolence and omnipotence were
resurrected by R.L. Mackie in 1954. As I started thinking
about such things, I was unknown to me, going along the same
route Mackie had gone.
Alvin Plantinga has tried to take on Mackie by resurrecting
St. Augustine's free will defense. Its amazing to read
reviews of his crap and see theologians telling us Plantinga
has solved all of this for once and for all, despite the fact
he most certainly has not.
So theology will probably see this all chewed over for
a few decades.
........
wbarwell
> On 24 Oct 2005 16:32:49 -0700, "Neil Kelsey"
> <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>She is a SCHIZOPHRENIC. Your lack of compassion for the MENTALLY ILL
>>is only surpassed by your lack of understanding. No sane person
>>would toss their children into the ocean, theist or atheist.
>
> Atheists are not sane. That's just the issue. An atheist denies
> the existence
> of God. That's insanity at it's best.
>
No, I prove your god cannot exist.
You ignore the facts.
You are stupid
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
***********
--
Les Hellawell
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:03:00 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>I'm right here, James. If you want to have a serious discussion, I're right
>>>here to talk with you.
>
>>I have had a serious discussion with you, and all your beliefs boil
>>down to 'everything points towards god' but you failed to explain the
>>essential link that makes everything that exists a product of a god.
>>Where is your pointer in other words. What is the roadmap from
>>everything that exists which leads you to god didit?
>
>The alternative is what an atheist claims - it did it itself (which is stupid)
>or it always was like that (which is even more stupid).
Never mind the alternatives where is your roadmap? I make no
such claims BTW my position is that I do not know. (Did I not
make that clear?)
>
>I told you - we all have the same evidence. I believe - you deny. That's your
>free choice. You will be suitably rewarded basis your actions in this life.
Then show me the evidence that demonstrates a necessay link.
>
>I follow the unquestioned evidence that drives my faith, you follow yours.
Good show me the evidence and I will also know what to do.
Let's see your roadmap that points from everything that exists to
a creator (which may no longer exist)
>
>Remember: Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
>into play if there is no almighty God.
Big loose comes into play if there is a god and I choose the wrong
one. Since there are many gods claimed as the one true god the
odds of selecting the right one is very low. Though I think it a
somewhat unprincipled way of approaching religion it seems
my best bet is to stand pat and hope the one true god would forgive
me my dilemma than if I choose the wrong one. According to
the old testament the god you claim is the one true god likes less
those that worship other gods than if you worship none!
>
>>I personally do not have a clue regarding our origins. Neither do
>>you or anybody else.
See I did say it
>
>You and I have exactly the same evidence. I believe - you deny.
>
>> Scientists have theorised our origins back to
>>a finite time after this origin, but it is only a tentative theory and
>>far frombeing proved and the actual origin still remains a mystery.
>>So you have made a 'leap of faith' saying 'goddit' without explaining
>>how this god came into existence itself or what the necessary link is.
>>Your leap of faith is nothing more than a guess. You are jumping from
>>ignorance to wishfull thinkingness and have nothing, absolutely
>>nothing, to justify it. (Leastways you have not offered any and you
>>would if you could)
>
>And just what do you think you're saying when you say: the cosmos (mass and
>energy) always existed. You believe such a stupid notion, and then deny a
>supreme being.
I did not say that, I said what I said above. What part of, "I
personally do not have a clue regarding our origins" do you have a
problem understanding Duke?
>Your problem is that you have come to associate "creation" as separate from
>"evolution". I say evolution is God's way. Man left the sea and then walked on
>the earth. That's God's plan of evolution.
Yes we know *you* say that.
>
>As a Christian, I find the silly creation v evolution discussion a child's game
>amongst the atheist mentally-challenged.
I agree since they are different subjects though it is often
Christians ID ist who put in those terms.
It should be either
Creation V abiogenesis followed by evolution
or
Creation followed by evolution V Abiogenesis followed by evolution.
There is no reason for a believer to deny the clear evidence of
evolution taking place and accept it was a god given meachanism. The
main debate is, or should be, Creation V Abiogenesis.
>>Even if you are right you are still only in the position of knowing
>>that a supernatural being created everything. You know absolutely
>>nothing else but believe plenty.
>
>Of course I believe. When I pray the Profession of Faith, it starts with "I
>believe in God...." It doesn't come anywhere's close to saying "I know God
>exists....."
Of course you believe but if you wish others to share your belief you
need to demonstrate reasonable grounds based on evidence to share
yur belief. Lets say there was a creator. What evidence do you have
to show it still exists?
>You have exactly the same physical and scientific evidence that I do. I say God
>did it, and you say it did itself. You are one confused guy.
Nope no road map linking everything that exist with a necessary
creator. No evidence of a link that you have produced.
>
>> This being, for all you know may have
>>sacrificed itself in the act of creation and no longer exist. So the
>>onus is on you to show it still exists and has all the properties you
>>claim for it. Where is your evidence for all the things claimed in the
>>Bible?
>
>I don't have to show you anything. I believe. Do you understand? I believe.
>That means I believe all that is and all that will be comes from a Supreme
>Creator, whom we call God. You believe it created itself, or always was, which
>is even sillier.
Of course you don't have to unless you wish me to share your belief.
Do you wish it? If not why are you here in our newsgroup? You
constantly threaten us but if you wish us to take your threat
seriously then you do wish us to accept your belief.
>>So, when you can justify your god exists, has all the properties
>>you claim for it, and that it offers heaven or hell as you claim,
>>get back to us.
>
>You and I will both die without that. I put my faith in God. You put your
>faith in matter and energy.
Fine.
>
>> We are always here eyes open waiting. This
>>god of course can make us hear it anytime it likes directly
>>instead of relying onn poor advocates such as yourself. Assuming
>>for a moment you god exists it must be sitting up there groaning
>>everytime you fail to rise to the challenge.
>
>If your eyes are open as you say, simply state your views on where the universe
>comes from.
My view is that I don't know. Yep you sure have problems understanding
what I said.
> Science has an answer for the last 14.5 billion years. What
>happened before, and why did it show up. You can suggest any answer you wish,
>and you'll be just as accurate as me. It's called belief. That's all I have.
Indeed.
>
>The atheist's problem is wrapped up in the physical wherefrom and whathow, and
>the Christian is wrapped up in living the right life - one based on love for one
>another as God loves us. No sky pixie, no guy with horns. Live the good life.
>Over come our evil tendencies. John 13:34.
Are you arguing here that we do not love one another too? That we do
not seek a good life without harming others? That Duke is a wicked
calumny against your fellow man. If you truly loved you would look for
the good in others that you might praise and thus reinforce that good,
not look for bad things that are not there. Shame on you for making
such a wicked suggestion. If this is an example of Christian love then
you have just given me as good a reason as any not to be one myself.
>>How long is it since you rose to the challenge BTW?
>
>You are the one confused on what I believe as a Christian. And you have been
>substantially wrong since day 1.
You just failed yet again by making a wicked false accusation against
me instead of searching and finding the good in me. I praise all for
their good not just waste it on a false and wicked (as depicted in the
Bible) God. I see your obvious sincerity and genuine desire to teach
us though I profoundly think you are wrong.
Les Hellawell
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:33:35 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>The reason we do not believe your gods exist is precisely because we
>>do not have sufficient information or justification to form such
>>belief. Yes you hit the nail right on the head there!
>
>And I do, and I have the same information you have.
>
>I win.
>
>I don't believe matter and energy created themselves as you do.
Nope, you did not read my other post. You would have done
and tried to understand it as I meant it to be understood if you were
interested in a serious discussion.
firel...@hotmail.com
> On 25 Oct 2005 06:25:32 -0700, firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Well, look at it this way - you atheists need to present an argument to argue
> >> against.
>
> >Your claim Duke, burden of proof is on you. "It is obvious"
> >is insufficient on it's face, since if it were obvious we
> >wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> Then try the burden of proof that Christianity means hatred.
Your constant attempt to shift the argument elsewhere noted.
Quite bluntly, Duke, the best evidence I've ever seen on this
newsgroup of "Christianity means hatred" is *you*. Your own
book claims that "by their fruits you shall know them", have
you noted the fruits you've been leaving out in public?
> >> Most of you are fully lacking in knowledge of God and of the message
> >> that he sent us.
>
> >How is your message from your god any different from the messages
> >sent by every other god?
>
> There are no other gods.
And, again, you claim with no support. How can you honestly
say "there are no other gods" in this fashion and expect it
to carry weight, when you give no credence to anyone else
stating the exact same idea, but taking it one small step
forward and saying "there are no gods"?
> > "Because only my god is real" is
> >insufficient in itself, since every believer in every god can
> >say that.
>
> >> When you understand that, and elevate your argument above the
> >> level of fairy tale created by atheists, then we can discuss.
>
> >You've yet to show that your message is elevated above the level
> >of fairy tale, compared to every other message out there.
>
> Or that you are capable of consuming that message.
Why should your message be given special treatment over all
the others?
> >> That's just the problem - you best is a joke.
>
> >Duke, your best is "god said so".
>
> Nope, sorry. I don't use, and never have used, that argument. See, you're
> accusing me without knowing what I did say.
Duke, you haven't said anything that has any support besides
your belief that it is true. You claim that all the universe
is evidence that your beliefs are true, but the only reason
you have for thinking the way you do is because your dogma
explains it as such. The source of your dogma? "God said so".
Please, explain to me how your Bible *isn't* a case of
"God said so" - isn't it supposed to be a record of his
message - i.e., what he *said* - to his creation?
> > That's all you've ever
> >had, but I suspect that the nature of your faith is such
> >that "god said so" is all you've ever needed.
>
> You suspect wrong.
Illuminate me.
> > Realize
> >that not everyone has such faith, and that the vast
> >majority of the people on the planet don't have such
> >faith in *your* god.
>
> I know. You believe matter and energy created themselves, but deny the actions
> of a supreme being.
I simply deny that there is compelling evidence that such a being
exists. I specifically deny that most gods, as presented by their
worshippers, are logically possible.
> >> When you start by referring to
> >> "sky pixie", there's no point is further comment from me.
>
> >OK, no "sky pixie" - just you telling me why yours is true,
> >and all the others are false.
>
> The message: Love one another.
Not unique to your religion's message, and most certainly not
all there is to your religion's message.
> > I'll even make it easy for
> >you, you can just start by telling me why all, or even some
> >of the others are false.
>
> None ever so much as lifted a wooden finger.
Nor has yours, by any standard of proof you wish to
raise against your competitors. Please, show me evidence
that Gaia didn't give birth to all the creatures on
Earth...but be careful, because any evidence you have
against Gaia will work just as well against your god.
> >> But God notices your attitude about him.
> >Thinking for your god again, Duke?
>
> I hope to never forget him.
Well, you keep forgetting tenets of his, so I suppose
it's only fair that you do his thinking for him to
make up for it.
Les Hellawell
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:27:52 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>>[This is totally offensive, and you are an idiot. Your lack of
>>>>understanding of mental illness is appalling. I have a schizophrenic
>>>>sister who is an atheist and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I worked with a
>>>>guy who was schizophrenic, read THE BIBLE, and slaughtered his ENTIRE
>>>>FAMILY because the BIBLE instructed him to do so. He was a CHRISTIAN.
>>>>YOU are a complete asshole.]
>
>>Ditto the Yorkshire Ripper. Serial killers are almost invariably
>>Christians, who do it because they think gods tell them to.
>
>No they aren't. For instance, the major butchers of humanity have all been
>atheists, every one - hitler, stalin, emin, mao, saddam, and on and on.
>
>And before you say it, hitler may have been a Christian in youth, but he tossed
>all his God beliefs out the window - He didn't butcher 6 million Jews as a
>christian concept, but as a man that denies God, just like an atheist.
I did not say Hitler was a Christian though he did follow Christian
tradition and persecute Jews. From where did he get this hatred of
jews but from Christian teachings forced on him by devout Roman
Catholic Parents? RC hatred of jews was still very strong in the
first quarter of the 20th C. The dictator of one German ally in
eastern Europe was also a Roman catholic priest and he pro-actively
assisted the holocaust.
>>The religious stuff people so full with sin and guilt that they see
>>evil everywhere and start thinking they aught to be warriors for
>>god and start combatting it. Women in particular are always seen
>>as more guilty than men because they happen to be attractive to
>>men. This unhealthy attitude is what leads to killing. That is why
>>I see the Christian religion as morally repugnant when it leads to
>>such extreme behavoir.
>
>This killing you refer to is mankind's failure to follow God's command to love
>one another as he loves us. Do you get it yet - love one another, not kill for
>God.
As I said the Ripper, full of sin and guilt, thought god told him to
do it. The Bible is full of examples of this same god telling people
to kill or bring harm upon people, he just followed Biblical precedent
like all serial killers for god. If it wasn't a god telling him who
was it?
>
>>>But this woman threw her kids into the bay.
>>After being in the care of Christians it is hardly surprising.
>
>What Christians? I saw nothing said about a Christian setting. She might have
>been a wiccan, or a devil worshipper.
From what little I have read of this I understand she had placed
herself in the care of the Salvation Army. Am I wrong?
Some salvation!
>
>If she
>>had placed herself in the care of atheists it might never have
>>happened.
>
>Might???? Christian care is to offer love. You have your facts confused.
You certainly have yours confused. Atheists would offer true love
through helping the girl rid the burden of sin and guilt put in her
head by wicked people. Perverse Religion - not gods - is to blame
here.
>
>> Rather than reinforce her delusions and feelings of guilt
>>and sin through praying and confessing ' they would have sought to try
>>and get her to think more rationally and to cast aside guilt since she
>>probably had nothing to reproach herself for. She needed help not
>>religion and clearly got none.
>
>You have no idea what she got. Show me where it says she got Christian hatred.
From religion. Where else do Christians learn their hatred but from
what the Bible tells them of a vengeful god constantly about his
smiting and hell casting?
>Grow up, les. You are totally confused over what a Christian is.
I know what a true Scotsman is :-)
Muslims play the same game of denial when they tell us that their
terrorists for god are not true muslims forgetting that it was the
same teaching they received that motivates their actions. Like all
religious people they only see of their religion what they want to
see and deny the rest.
Dubh Ghall
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:03:00 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>I'm right here, James. If you want to have a serious discussion, I're right
>>>here to talk with you.
>
>>I have had a serious discussion with you, and all your beliefs boil
>>down to 'everything points towards god' but you failed to explain the
>>essential link that makes everything that exists a product of a god.
>>Where is your pointer in other words. What is the roadmap from
>>everything that exists which leads you to god didit?
>
>The alternative is what an atheist claims - it did it itself (which is stupid)
>or it always was like that (which is even more stupid).
>
Why is it stupid? If your god can come from nothing, why not the universe?
>I told you - we all have the same evidence.
You are correct, for once; We all have the same evidence, ZERO evidence.
How you twist the total absence of evidence, to mean that your god is a fact,
defies all reason.
> I believe - you deny.
No.
You believe, based solely on the evidence.
Based on that same evidence, we find nothing to believe.
We do not need to deny anything, there is no evidence that there is anything to
deny.
> That's your free choice.
Not exactly. If it were a choice, there would be a lot fewer atheists.
>You will be suitably rewarded basis your actions in this life.
>
Whatever.
>I follow the unquestioned evidence that drives my faith,
What "faith" would that be?
You claim to be a catholic, yet my catholic friends, say that you are not.
One has even suggested that if you made the same statements to your priest, that
you make on usenet, you would quickly find your self excommunicated.
>
>Remember: Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes
>into play if there is no almighty God.
>
Provided that you have guessed the right god.
>>I personally do not have a clue regarding our origins. Neither do
>>you or anybody else.
>
>You and I have exactly the same evidence. I believe - you deny.
>
You're begriming to sound like a parrot.
Well: Perhaps not *begriming*.
>> Scientists have theorised our origins back to
>>a finite time after this origin, but it is only a tentative theory and
>>far frombeing proved and the actual origin still remains a mystery.
>>So you have made a 'leap of faith' saying 'goddit' without explaining
>>how this god came into existence itself or what the necessary link is.
>>Your leap of faith is nothing more than a guess. You are jumping from
>>ignorance to wishfull thinkingness and have nothing, absolutely
>>nothing, to justify it. (Leastways you have not offered any and you
>>would if you could)
>
>And just what do you think you're saying when you say: the cosmos (mass and
>energy) always existed. You believe such a stupid notion, and then deny a
>supreme being.
>
There is a tiny difference.
We have evidence that the universe exists, and we have evidence of it's
history.
Quite possibly, to within a few moments of it's occurrence
What do you have?
A collection of middle to late bronze age stories.
>Your problem is that you have come to associate "creation" as separate from
>"evolution".
Not so. Evolution does not even come into it.
> I say evolution is God's way.
Others have said the same, and atheists have agreed that if your god existed, it
is one method it might have used.
In fact, some atheists have asked, why could your god, not have used evolution?
All that atheists question, on that score, is where the evidence is, that a god
was needed, or took part, needed or not.
> Man left the sea and then walked on
>the earth. That's God's plan of evolution.
>
Not quite that simple, but perhaps, if you live another sixty odd, years, and do
some serious study, you might get a handle on it.
>As a Christian, I find the silly creation v evolution discussion a child's game
>amongst the atheist mentally-challenged.
>
Not having anything to support your own beliefs, or anything other than
incredulity, to show that a creation was necessary, such an assertion is
necessary, in order for you to save face.
Unfortunately for you Earl, it doesn't wash with us: We know you too well.
>>Even if you are right you are still only in the position of knowing
>>that a supernatural being created everything. You know absolutely
>>nothing else but believe plenty.
>
>Of course I believe. When I pray the Profession of Faith, it starts with "I
>believe in God...." It doesn't come anywhere's close to saying "I know God
>exists....."
Yet in your dishonesty, you claim that your god is a *fact*, not merely a
belief.
>You have exactly the same physical and scientific evidence that I do.
Yep, zilch, zero, nada, nought, nothing: How many other words are there for
total absence?
> I say God
>did it, and you say it did itself.
You do, and then you refuse to tell us where your god came from.
Or worse, you tell us that your god just "always was", while denying the
possibility that the stuff of the universe "always was": Why is that?
> You are one confused guy.
>
Words like pot, kettle, and "black arse", come to mind.
>> This being, for all you know may have
>>sacrificed itself in the act of creation and no longer exist. So the
>>onus is on you to show it still exists and has all the properties you
>>claim for it. Where is your evidence for all the things claimed in the
>>Bible?
>
>I don't have to show you anything. I believe.
If you want us to believe, you do: Or are you one of those xtians who believes
that all you need do, to follow your god's wishes, is make a bald, unsupported,
statement, that it exists, and your responsibility is discharged?
That is not the teaching od the Church of Rome, either.
> Do you understand?
We understand very well.
> I believe.
Nothing more, belief is all you have.
>That means I believe all that is and all that will be comes from a Supreme
>Creator, whom we call God.
Yes, you *believe*. You have not one shred of evidence to support your belief,
in fact, your belief is based on nothing more than fear, and greed; Fear of
death, and greed for "Treasure in Heaven".
So just on the off chance, that there might be something in those silly stories,
told by illiterate bronze age goat herds, you have persuaded your self that they
are true.
Or perhaps you are even less honest than we imagined, and think that you can
fool your omniscient god, into believing that you believed, out of love for it,
and not out of love of self.
> You believe it created itself, or always was, which
>is even sillier.
>
And why is that any sillier than claiming that an all knowing being, with enough
power, to create universes, just "was"?
>>So, when you can justify your god exists, has all the properties
>>you claim for it, and that it offers heaven or hell as you claim,
>>get back to us.
>
>You and I will both die without that.
But we wont die, in fear of it.
> I put my faith in God. You put your
>faith in matter and energy.
>
There is evidence for matter and energy...
>> We are always here eyes open waiting. This
>>god of course can make us hear it anytime it likes directly
>>instead of relying onn poor advocates such as yourself. Assuming
>>for a moment you god exists it must be sitting up there groaning
>>everytime you fail to rise to the challenge.
>
>If your eyes are open as you say, simply state your views on where the universe
>comes from.
I have no "views", on where it came from. All I know is that it's current phase,
began roughly fourteen and a half thousand, million, years ago.
> Science has an answer for the last 14.5 billion years. What
>happened before,
There was no "before that".
>and why did it show up.
Does there need to be a "why", other than the natural course of events?
>You can suggest any answer you wish,
>and you'll be just as accurate as me.
>
But you see, Earl, we make no claims to know what happened before 1x10^-34,
seconds of the universe, our physics aint that good. ...Yet.
It may never be, but that is no reason to make up stories about it.
Also, unlike you, what we do make claims for, we have evidence for.
> It's called belief. That's all I have.
>
Yes, sad, isn't it, that at the dawn of the twenty first century, a man living
in what is arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world,
prefers to believe in the ghosts and goblins, that haunted his caveman
forebears, nights.
Once upon a time, death was seen as a good thing. A release from pain, a release
from suffering, the end of all troubles: Then along came xtianity, and made
death , even more horrifying than life.
Praise the Lord!
A wonderful thing, xtianity, a real bringer of comfort.
And for those xtians, stupid enough not to recognise it; That was sarcasm.
>The atheist's problem is wrapped up in the physical wherefrom and whathow, and
>the Christian is wrapped up in living the right life - one based on love for one
>another as God loves us.
And when are you going to start doing that?
I'll tell you what, kid; The next usenet fanatic, to stop being an insulting,
childish, arsehole, and start showing some evidence of "loving your fellow man",
will not only provide evidence that xtianity has some positive value, after all,
but will be the first, self professed, usenet xtian fanatic, to do so.
> No sky pixie, no guy with horns. Live the good life.
>Over come our evil tendencies. John 13:34.
>
But you don't; Do you.
None of you usenet fanatics, do.
And you continuously tell us about how we are going to burn in hell, or some
such.
>>How long is it since you rose to the challenge BTW?
>
>You are the one confused on what I believe as a Christian. And you have been
>substantially wrong since day 1.
>
Having read hundreds of your posts, over the years, I must confess that I am
also confused, as to what you believe.
Farther more, all the evidence suggests that you are, as well.
But don't worry, it seems the norm, for usenet xtian fanatics.
Dubh Ghall
>Atheists are not sane. That's just the issue. An atheist denies the existence
>of God. That's insanity at it's best.
>
Yet, strangely enough, it is beliefs in invisible daemons, which are out to get
you, such as the xtians believe in, that is liable to get you the nice canvas
Blazer, with the strings at the wrists.
But according to you, it is those maniac atheists, who insist on EVIDENCE,
[DISGUSTING CREATURES] before they will believe in faeries, goblins, sky
pixies, etc, who should be locked up.
Funny old world; aint it?
By the bye. Calling people insane, is not loving your fellow man.like your god
loves you: It aint even trying to.
>
>Your ignorance of my statement consumes you.
I think rather that it is your ignorance, and all consuming hatred, , that
disgusts him.
Neil Kelsey
you be more like him? And a delusional psychopath like you is hardly
qualified to be judging the sanity of others.
Dubh Ghall
>>Ditto the Yorkshire Ripper. Serial killers are almost invariably
>>Christians, who do it because they think gods tell them to.
>
>No they aren't.
Yes they are.
> For instance, the major butchers of humanity have all been
>atheists, every one - hitler, stalin, emin, mao, saddam, and on and on.
>
It depends on whether you are talking "pure numbers", or "per capita".
Going on pure numbers, I am sure that you are correct, sort of.
Hitler was a Roman catholic. You can deny that till the cows come home, but
Rome accepted it, and he was never excommunicated.
Are you now going to say that the Vicar of Christ, was wrong?
That would be heresy.
Saddam Hussein, is a muslim.
Idi Amin, IIRC, was/is a catholic. He has never been excommunicated
Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung, or Mao Zedong, if you prefer, were catholic educated.
So it is easy to see where they learned their trade.
You see, the major butcher of humanity, as in "percentage of population", has,
for fifteen hundred years, been the Church of Rome.
>And before you say it, hitler may have been a Christian in youth, but he tossed
>all his God beliefs out the window - He didn't butcher 6 million Jews as a
>christian concept, but as a man that denies God, just like an atheist.
Your evidence for that?
I mean real, verifiable, evidence, not some remark that was supposed to have
been overheard at a dinner party, and not made public, until all the major
players, and everyone else who could contradict it, were dead.
Remember that Hitler claimed that he was doing god's work.
Not only that, but even if his version of catholicism was a little off centre,
it was no farther off, than yours.
Now would you like to order bagpipes, or would you prefer haggis, to go with
your argument.
You ain't having the whisky, we know what you are like, sober.
firel...@hotmail.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:37:05 -0700, firelock_ny wrote:
>
> > You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't
> > use reason to get to. Duke is, at best, just
> > pretending to argue - he really has no arguments,
> > nor does he think he needs any. You can hit him
> > with the best you've got, he'll just look heavenwards
> > and say "I'm right and you're wrong, God says so,
> > so there". He can be entertaining for a while,
> > though.
>
> I plonked him. Unfortunately I can't seem to plonk every response to
> his articles.
Don't give up...just plonk everyone who responds
to Duke as well, and before you know it you'll have
a nice, quiet Usenet.
Dubh Ghall
>. This unhealthy attitude is what leads to killing. That is why
>>I see the Christian religion as morally repugnant when it leads to
>>such extreme behavoir.
>
>This killing you refer to is mankind's failure to follow God's command to love
>one another as he loves us.
Interesting how it is always mankind's fault. An all powerful, all knowing,
god, that can sustain paradox after paradox, but it cannot make us be nice,
without infringing on our free will.
Not as "all powerful", as these xtians would have us believe, it seems.
But then, the bible does tell us, that your god doesn't want us to be nice to
each other, and has set barriers in place, to make sure that we aint.
Because the big, all powerful, scary, GOD, gets worried when men set aside their
differences.
> Do you get it yet - love one another,
But you don't: do you? You can't even agree with your fellow RCs, never mind
*love* the rest of mankind.
> not kill for
>God.
>
So why tell his followers to buy swords?
>>>But this woman threw her kids into the bay.
>>After being in the care of Christians it is hardly surprising.
>
>What Christians? I saw nothing said about a Christian setting. She might have
>been a wiccan, or a devil worshipper.
>
Xtian, devil worshiper; what is the difference.
Apart, I mean, from the fact that we have got a book, which tells us how evil
the xtian godhead is.
>If she
>>had placed herself in the care of atheists it might never have
>>happened.
>
>Might???? Christian care is to offer love. You have your facts confused.
>
Have you ever been on the receiving end of any of that xtian love?
Half time, the carers are more psychotic than the cared for.
>> Rather than reinforce her delusions and feelings of guilt
>>and sin through praying and confessing ' they would have sought to try
>>and get her to think more rationally and to cast aside guilt since she
>>probably had nothing to reproach herself for. She needed help not
>>religion and clearly got none.
>
>You have no idea what she got. Show me where it says she got Christian hatred.
>
Just remember that it was you, that called xtian care, "hatred", not Les.
>Grow up, les. You are totally confused over what a Christian is.
>
But then, so is almost every usenet xtian, that we have met, and those who are
not confused, those who do not believe that threats of things we do not believe
in, and insults, feeble as they might be, are the way to win our hearts,
those who try to be loving and compassionate, you call "atheists".
Dubh Ghall
>On 25 Oct 2005 06:25:32 -0700, firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Well, look at it this way - you atheists need to present an argument to argue
>>> against.
>
>>Your claim Duke, burden of proof is on you. "It is obvious"
>>is insufficient on it's face, since if it were obvious we
>>wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
>Then try the burden of proof that Christianity means hatred.
>
I take it that you have never read your bible.
>>> Most of you are fully lacking in knowledge of God and of the message
>>> that he sent us.
>
>>How is your message from your god any different from the messages
>>sent by every other god?
>
>There are no other gods.
>
You have no evidence of that. Support your assertion.
>>> When you understand that, and elevate your argument above the
>>> level of fairy tale created by atheists, then we can discuss.
>
>>You've yet to show that your message is elevated above the level
>>of fairy tale, compared to every other message out there.
>
>Or that you are capable of consuming that message.
>
Consuming?
>>> That's just the problem - you best is a joke.
>
>>Duke, your best is "god said so".
>
>Nope, sorry. I don't use, and never have used, that argument. See, you're
>accusing me without knowing what I did say.
>
Semantics: You may not have used those exact words, but it is your constant
argument.
>> That's all you've ever
>>had, but I suspect that the nature of your faith is such
>>that "god said so" is all you've ever needed.
>
>You suspect wrong.
>
In what way: You're scared to question what you believe, yet you have admitted
that it is only a belief.
>> Realize
>>that not everyone has such faith, and that the vast
>>majority of the people on the planet don't have such
>>faith in *your* god.
>
>I know. You believe matter and energy created themselves, but deny the actions
>of a supreme being.
>
Much like your god, then.
>>> When you start by referring to
>>> "sky pixie", there's no point is further comment from me.
>
>>OK, no "sky pixie" - just you telling me why yours is true,
>>and all the others are false.
>
>The message: Love one another.
>
But hate your families, your brothers, your sisters, your parents, and buy
swords.
Okay, I can see how loving that is.
>> I'll even make it easy for
>>you, you can just start by telling me why all, or even some
>>of the others are false.
>
>None ever so much as lifted a wooden finger.
>
Your god has wooden fingers?
I always thought that those monstrosities that catholics do so love to hang
everywhere, were plaster casts.
You live and learn.
...But I am sure that the bible has something to say about "graven images", like
not making them.
Jim07D5
>Jim07D5 wrote:
>
>> wbarwell <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> said:
<...>
>Theology has ben backing off from such problems
>for millenia and sweeping them under the theological rug.
>The lumpiest rug in history.
>
>Questionsabout god, omnibenevolence and omnipotence were
>resurrected by R.L. Mackie in 1954. As I started thinking
>about such things, I was unknown to me, going along the same
>route Mackie had gone.
>
At about that time I was being taught in catholic grade school that
some articles of faith are mysteries that are true even if they seem
paradoxical. Basically, I finally concluded, the mystery of the
trinity was the "trump card" which, if could always be played, if all
else failed. This made entering into analysis of a doctrinal tenet to
be a waste of time. So, just don't bother, was the real message.
>
>........
--- Jim07D5
Dubh Ghall
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:33:35 +0100, Les Hellawell
><myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>The reason we do not believe your gods exist is precisely because we
>>do not have sufficient information or justification to form such
>>belief. Yes you hit the nail right on the head there!
>
>And I do, and I have the same information you have.
>
>I win.
>
>I don't believe matter and energy created themselves as you do.
>
We don't believe in gods, that create them selves, as you do.
Dubh Ghall
He gets to live for all eternity,
with not even the hope of death.
Les Hellawell
You certainly would if you elminated all threads that were originated
by Christians coming here to denigrate us
Neil Kelsey
some articles of faith are mysteries that are true even if they seem
paradoxical. Basically, I finally concluded, the mystery of the
trinity was the "trump card" which, if could always be played, if all
else failed. This made entering into analysis of a doctrinal tenet to
be a waste of time. So, just don't bother, was the real message."
And how did you react to that message of "don't bother?" Did you accept
it?
Neil Kelsey
"You certainly have yours confused. Atheists would offer true love
through helping the girl rid the burden of sin and guilt put in her
head by wicked people. Perverse Religion - not gods - is to blame
here."
I don't think theism or atheism is of any help to a schizphrenic.
Schizophrenia is a MEDICAL condition, and MEDICATION seems to help,
depending on the case. As I said elsewhere, my sister has
schizophrenia, and she has been taking medication for years, which has
saved her life. She is the sweetest person you'll ever meet, smart as
hell (she was on her way to two university degrees when it struck - in
biology and physics), she still hears voices (audial hallucinations
seem to be symptomatic of schizophrenia) but the medication helps her
realize that the voices aren't real and she doesn't respond to them
anymore.
By the way, my schizophrenic sister makes WAY more sense than duke. And
duke still hasn't explained why another schizophrenic I worked with
(Bruce Blackburn, Vancouver, BC, around 1979) read the Bible, which
inspired him to slaughter his ENTIRE FAMILY. But I have more compassion
for this CHRISTIAN MASS MURDERER than duke has for my sweet sister who
wouldn't harm a fly.
Bruce Blackburn was a nice little guy who contracted a disease, and did
not take medications for it. After the murders, he was simultaneously
diagnosed as schizophrenic, put in prison, and given medication. It
soon became apparent that it was inappropriate to keep him in prison,
so they put him in a halfway house, much to the dismay of the general
public. He was interviewed in papers at the time, and was quite
articulate about his condition. As long as he took medication, he was
fine. I suspect this woman in San Francisco is exactly the same. So if
there weren't superstitious morons like duke screaming hysterically
because of their lack of understanding and fear, maybe these people
would have a better chance of being diagnised and treated earlier and
these tragedies could be prevented.
Jim07D5
I actively defended it in arguments with my older brother up until I
was about 13. Then I started realizing he was winning the arguments,
making the point that on this basis, nobody would ever have to change
their religion so I couldn't expect to succeed in converting or
"saving" anybody by argumentation -- including him. ;-)
--- Jim07D5
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
[snips]
> I did not say Hitler was a Christian though he did follow Christian
> tradition and persecute Jews.
Mr. Kahana and another
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128911062.573907.279240%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Did "Hitler... follow Christian tradition" in persecuting Catholics and
Protestants?
Churches resisted Hitler
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128561942.412167.145530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
theological disputes among German Protestants; Nazi concentration camps
for Catholics and Protestants
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129228612.176548.107730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> From where did he get this hatred of
> jews but from Christian teachings forced on him by devout Roman
> Catholic Parents?
Hitler's father wasn't a Catholic.
Hitler's mother was a "devout Roman Catholic."
Hitler attended a Catholic school.
Compare:
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"From where did he [Hitler] get this hatred of jews"
Antisemitism was prevalent in educated circles in the early years of
the 1900s. The wildly popular 1899 _Foundations of the Nineteenth
Century_ by Houston Stewart Chamberlain contained antisemitism and much
opposition to conservative Jews' theology and moral values. Also, Karl
Marx and numerous other socialists were strongly antisemitic throughout
the 1800s.
Ref:
Prager, Dennis and Joseph Telushkin. 1983. _Why the Jews?: The
Reason for Antisemitism_ (NY: Simon & Schuster), 238pp., 159-161,
137-142.
I discussed other material in Prager's book in
secular leftist individuals having Jewish ancestors
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1129867015.194883.157910%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I have a copy of
Marx, Karl. 1959. _A World without Jews_, translated from the
original
German, with an introduction and an epilogue by Dagobert D. Runes,
fourth, enlarged edition (New York: Philosophical Library), 83pp.
Speaking of socialists:
who is a "socialist"?; some atheism adherents' development and use of
brutal terror tactics
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128703737.434501.234400%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> RC hatred of jews was still very strong in the
> first quarter of the 20th C. The dictator of one German ally in
> eastern Europe was also a Roman catholic priest and he pro-actively
> assisted the holocaust.
What's the name of this "dictator of one German ally in eastern
Europe," and of which country was he dictator?
Ben
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:35:29 +0100, Les Hellawell wrote:
>
>
>>You certainly would if you elminated all threads that were originated
>>by Christians coming here to denigrate us
>
>
> I eliminate most of these by scoring articles that are cross-posted
> lower. I score cross-posts to some newsgroups particularly low.
>
> - --
> Ken
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFDX9pyi2ZgbrTULjoRAgAcAKC3YlAA7TYj2wBaDKEA92Xh8Xv16wCfa9g0
> GWaoI3hGfCaQYEj+QHsmOhk=
> =jz+x
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
If I could figure out how to hide all posts that have been posted to
more than one group then reading a.a would be much more fun.
Ben
--
Squirting rubbing alcohol up your
nose is rather unpleasant.
-Sanford, ABSFG
ianpa...@gmail.com
first. In 1918 the Germans were facing a communist revolt. Ludendorff
signed the armistice on November 11th because he had no real
alterntaive. The German armies themselves however still stood on
conquered territory.
Hitler and Ludendorf formed the legend of the stab in the back
(Hinterrucks eingestossen) the Armies of the Fatherland were defeated
by a consiracy of the Jews. Total nonsense, but no more nonsense than
9/11 was done by the Pentagon, or the Moon landings were faked.
Hitler as an unknown with no means. Ludendorf was an eminent general
who backed Hitler in military and aristocratic circles. Meanwhile
industrialists like Professor Winniker of Hoechst saw advantages in a
managed arms cenered economy and provided Hitler with funds.
As the Nazis had got to power on "Hinterrucks eingestossen" it was
inevitable that the Nazi party would turn on the Jews. True it was the
Germans who had revolted in 1918 but that was not part of the script.
Christianity had very little to do with it. Hitler was first and
foremost the man who would reverse 1918 and get rid of the traitors in
her midst.
Christopher A. Lee
>Les Hellawell wrote:
>
>[snips]
>
>> I did not say Hitler was a Christian though he did follow Christian
>> tradition and persecute Jews.
>
>Mr. Kahana and another
>http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128911062.573907.279240%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>Did "Hitler... follow Christian tradition" in persecuting Catholics and
>Protestants?
The dishonest Christian equates "Some Christians" with "all
Christians".
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> Les Hellawell wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>I did not say Hitler was a Christian though he did follow Christian
>>tradition and persecute Jews.
>
>
> Mr. Kahana and another
> http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128911062.573907.279240%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> Did "Hitler... follow Christian tradition" in persecuting Catholics and
> Protestants?
Given that there's a long history of them persecuting each other....oh
man, this is too easy.
-- Kizhe
[snip the usual puffery]
Neil Kelsey
you just stop trying to argue doctrine and keep your catholicism or did
you abandon your faith?
Denis Loubet
supporting evidence.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Jim07D5
I know, you're Terry Gross. (NPR interviewer par excellence).
Actually, Homer Smith's "Man and His Gods" had a lot to do with it,
but the theme was, if there is no good reason to believe an article of
faith, then it's just by circumstances of birth that we are in the
faith we are in.
--- Jim07D5
John Harshman
> Les Hellawell wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>I did not say Hitler was a Christian though he did follow Christian
>>tradition and persecute Jews.
>
>
> Mr. Kahana and another
> http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128911062.573907.279240%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> Did "Hitler... follow Christian tradition" in persecuting Catholics and
> Protestants?
You bet he did. He followed Protestant tradition in persecuting
Catholics (think of England before and after Mary Tudor), and Catholic
and Protestant tradition in persecuting Protestants (think of St.
Bartholemew's Day and Calvin's Swiss). And for both of them, have you
ever heard of the Thirty Years War?
You have to start thinking before you write (what little you do write,
as opposed to endlessly recycled quote mines). If you do, you will be
able to avoid obvious straight lines like this one.
Neil Kelsey
good at interviewing posters (the human kind) on this NG. It's made me
curious about what YOU think. Nothing sinister, just curious. I'm still
wondering.
I don't get the conclusion of your sentence: "if there is no good
reason to believe an article of
faith, then it's just by circumstances of birth that we are in the
faith we are in." If there is no good reason to believe an article of
faith, why not abandon the faith? Why remain with the faith simply
because of arbitrary circumstances surrounding birth? Or is that what
you mean? And finally,Homer Smith had a lot to do with what? And, if
you don't mind my asking, are you still catholic?
Les Hellawell
Sorry If I am repeating this as I am not sure if my previous reply got
sent.
The puppet state was Slovakia
The President of Slovakia was the Quisling Monseignor Joseph Tiso
Actually he was probably more dictated to than dictated.
My source was "The History Of World War II edited by Barry Pitt
and published by Purnell in 1968.
I seem to remember reading something about Heydrich commenting
on his fanatic hatred of Jews and willing cooperation but cannot
remember know where I saw it.
Accodring to one Google hit searching on {"Joseph Tiso" holocaust}
he was an ordained priest still in Holy Orders at the time
You might also check the RC involvement in the holocaust in the
Baltic States.
janos...@hotmail.com
claim that they were Satanic or possessed, and that God instructed her
to do so in order to save them.
Mass suicides and murders have been committed in Christian cults for as
long as I can remember. I don't think I've ever read of an atheist
killing a person because he/she didn't disbelieve.
Dubh Ghall
>>You can suggest any answer you wish,
>>and you'll be just as accurate as me.
>>
>
>But you see, Earl, we make no claims to know what happened before 1x10^-34,
>seconds of the universe, our physics aint that good. ...Yet.
Sorry, that should read 1x10^-43, seconds.