to be fair
Firstname Lastname
you are human beings. However,
the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
1) Jump over the empire state building
2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
using the verb "is" in any form.
I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
in many cases when someone asks for
proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
form.
From another angle, take an infinite set in mathematics. We are told that
the number of elements in the union of an infinite
set with another infinites set is the same as that of the original set.
Isn't that absurd? If we take any (nonempty) finite set and
unite it with another finite set, the cardinality will be different. This is
a fallacy of kinds - to say that this is absurd is to fault
infinite sets for not being finite. In general, infinite sets behave
differently from finite sets and the same rules don't necessarily
apply. In short, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
The same sort of reasoning can be applied to God. God is not in the same
category as a scientific law or material object,
or mathematical principle. So to fault God for not admitting of empirical
proof, or logical proof, is meaningless.
So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
However, from a rational point of view,
it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
your best theory of the world and has no
useful alternative. How so?
Intellectually, ethical realism is explained by God. If you believe as I do
that moral decisions can be tested to be correct
or incorrect on the basis of something transcending human decisions, then it
makes sense that God exists. Why not
just have pure moral laws floating out there, in that case? Because
meaningful moral laws require intentionality, which
would be interpreted in the context of intentional beings. The source of
intentional entities would seem to be an
intentional entity.
At a certain emotional level, meaning is explained by God. It has been said
many times that people who require
meaning in life are weaker than those who don't. I agree. I find no shame in
the fact that I could not continue living unless
I believed that there was some purpose to my actions. Meaning in life
reqires God. How so?
In what sense can we say that anything has purpose? Take the monitor on my
computer screen. This monitor has the
purpose of displaying information to a human viewer, and it can be judged
objectively as to whether or not it
is a good monitor or a bad monitor by virtue of that fact. The reason why is
because it was created by a human being
or beings who imbued it with that purpose in mind when they designed it, and
that purpose was carried in it's
design. Purpose is meaningless without intentionality. So if human beings
have meaning at all, they must have been
given it by 1) an intentional entity which 2) created human beings.
Specifically, the Bible provides us with information about God and I believe
that it explains the human condition. I
won't go into this in detail and it seems that most of the readers of this
forum hate Bible quotes, so you can read
the Bible on your own if you want to know why I think this is true.
Finally, some of you may have caught an apparent alternative to God in all
of the above. Why not human beings?
Why can't we create our own purpose, our own ethical laws, interpret reality
however we want? If you don't find
anything wrong with that theory, then I can only say this: I am sure that
I'm not perfect, and I can't come up with
moral laws I believe are true that I can also satisfy all of or even most of
the time. And I sometimes get pissed off
at myself, and I have to explain why. So if you are ever dissatisfied with
your self, in some sense you owe yourself
an explanation of that fact, especially if you are God.
-Tim Wang
ClaySkye
>you are human beings. However,
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
>1) Jump over the empire state building
>2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
>3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
>using the verb "is" in any form.
>
>I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
>in many cases when someone asks for
>proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
>form.
Humans don't claim that other humans can do these things, but they do claim
that gods can.
ClayeSkye
#4
I still believe that I cannot be saved-Smashing Pumpkins
Quowong P Liu
"Firstname Lastname" <NetworkL...@wrs.com> writes,
>Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
>you are human beings. However,
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>1) Jump over the empire state building [...]
If you don't want to believe that I'm a human being,
so fucking what?
>I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
>in many cases when someone asks for
>proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
>form.
I don't think your god is worth believing in. If
that's a problem for you, then it's up to you to
prove (to my satisfaction) that it is worth
believing in.
Is there anything unfair about that?
[many lines of unconvincing argument deleted]
>So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
I agree there. I have no choice but to not believe
in your or any other god, since I cannot help but
find descriptions of them to be either ridiculous
or meaningless. Your god, since you point to the
Bible to characterize it, I find ridiculous.
--
qpliu+s...@born.ph.utexas.edu Athiness cannot be ordered.
Dr. Necrophage
"Firstname Lastname" <NetworkL...@wrs.com> wrote:
<special pleading deleted>
The only proof of my being human which is required is if you encounter
me experientially. I ask the same for your 'god' or any other
mythological entity. Is that too much to ask? I want to see, hear,
and touch it, not read some silly book about it. To dodge the issue by
claiming that 'God is special, you can't see, hear taste or touch it,
just believe what I say,' is ludicrous in the extreme. If I said there
is an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my den wouldn't you want to see
evidence for it? If upon your not seeing it I say: 'Well she is
invisible after all, how dare you question me?' wouldn't you think I
was crazy? Why shouldn't I think you're crazy?
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Nothing is True, everything is permissible.'
-Hassan ibn Sabbah
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dave Haas
> Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
> you are human beings. However,
> the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
> 1) Jump over the empire state building
> 3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
> using the verb "is" in any form.
>
> in many cases when someone asks for
> proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
> form.
That's not the word I would use to describe your mental condition.
> From another angle, take an infinite set in mathematics. We are told that
> the number of elements in the union of an infinite
> set with another infinites set is the same as that of the original set.
> Isn't that absurd? If we take any (nonempty) finite set and
> unite it with another finite set, the cardinality will be different. This is
> a fallacy of kinds - to say that this is absurd is to fault
> infinite sets for not being finite. In general, infinite sets behave
> differently from finite sets and the same rules don't necessarily
> apply. In short, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
What does this got to do with anything?
> The same sort of reasoning can be applied to God. God is not in the same
> category as a scientific law or material object,
> or mathematical principle. So to fault God for not admitting of empirical
> proof, or logical proof, is meaningless.
Yes but apples and oranges are fruit. What is God? Math is an
abstraction. It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of sanity.
Normally people like to deal with things they can see, feel, hear, etc.
We like to be able to use our senses to evaluate them. How do you
evaluate something that is in the mind. If God were real there ought to
be something besides the word of some ancient deranged romantics.
Superstitious people, who saw animals in the sky and believed in magic.
Any person can who hear, talk to or see the effects of invisible things
acting on our puny planet are either deranged or fooling themselves for
some unknown reason.
> So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
> However, from a rational point of view,
YOU have no choice. What about the 3 or 4 billion people who don't
believe in your God? They are stupid?
> it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
> your best theory of the world and has no
> useful alternative. How so?
You mean. YOU see no alternative. Why is that?
> Intellectually, ethical realism is explained by God. If you believe as I do
> that moral decisions can be tested to be correct
> or incorrect on the basis of something transcending human decisions, then it
> makes sense that God exists.
What culture do you subscribe to?
> Why not
> just have pure moral laws floating out there, in that case? Because
> meaningful moral laws require intentionality, which
> would be interpreted in the context of intentional beings. The source of
> intentional entities would seem to be an
> intentional entity.
>
> At a certain emotional level, meaning is explained by God. It has been said
> many times that people who require
> meaning in life are weaker than those who don't. I agree. I find no shame in
> the fact that I could not continue living unless
> I believed that there was some purpose to my actions. Meaning in life
> reqires God. How so?
> In what sense can we say that anything has purpose? Take the monitor on my
> computer screen. This monitor has the
> purpose of displaying information to a human viewer, and it can be judged
> objectively as to whether or not it
> is a good monitor or a bad monitor by virtue of that fact. The reason why is
> because it was created by a human being
> or beings who imbued it with that purpose in mind when they designed it, and
> that purpose was carried in it's
> design. Purpose is meaningless without intentionality. So if human beings
> have meaning at all, they must have been
> given it by 1) an intentional entity which 2) created human beings.
You are not aware of what you are. Your purpose is dictated by your DNA.
You are a host. You behave the way you do because your genes direct you
to behave that way. Eventually you will reproduce or take care of
individuals who share your genes. Not of your own volition but because
you have no choice. You believe you are special because your DNA wants
you to believe that. Try to act in a way your mind will not allow to
act. What happens?
D. Haas
Frank Wustner
> Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
> you are human beings.
My response would be along the lines of, "If you want to think
that I'm not a human being, be my guest. I couldn't care less
what you believe. If you try to hurt me in any way because of
that belief, *then* we will have some words. Otherwise, think
whatever you want."
In other words, your analogy between this and god-belief is a
false analogy.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Baz Luhrrman |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Graeme Nattress
> the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
> 1) Jump over the empire state building
> 2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
> 3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
> using the verb "is" in any form.
>
> I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
> in many cases when someone asks for
> proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
> form.
>
> the number of elements in the union of an infinite
> set with another infinites set is the same as that of the original set.
> Isn't that absurd? If we take any (nonempty) finite set and
> unite it with another finite set, the cardinality will be different. This is
> a fallacy of kinds - to say that this is absurd is to fault
> infinite sets for not being finite. In general, infinite sets behave
> differently from finite sets and the same rules don't necessarily
> apply. In short, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
>
> category as a scientific law or material object,
> or mathematical principle. So to fault God for not admitting of empirical
> proof, or logical proof, is meaningless.
>
Dodgy analogy! God wouldnt' need to be prooved or disproved using logic if he'd
come and visit....
Instead, I give the God challenge: I say there is no God, you say there is. I
challenge you to call on your God to smote me with a bolt of lightning right
now....not in the future, but right now. God used to do this sort of thing to
unbelievers, so he could do it to me and it would prove he exists. Do you have
the faith in God to issue this challenge? Because if he doens't smote me
immediately it proves your faith is misfounded.
>
> So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
Bollocks. If we have no choice, you deny free will, and that means your god is
EVIL!!!!
> However, from a rational point of view,
> it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
> your best theory of the world and has no
> useful alternative. How so?
>
God is useless as a theory as it explains everything by saying "God did it". It
is not a testable theory, and neither does it predict anything. It certainly
doesn't tell you the right god to believe in! Anyway I'm not denying anything,
I have an absence of belief not a belief in the absence.
> Intellectually, ethical realism is explained by God.
Bollocks. If God defines right and wrong, right and wrong are therefore
meaningless to God, so he can't do good or bad and one of God's characteristics
is that he's all good.
> If you believe as I do
> that moral decisions can be tested to be correct
> or incorrect on the basis of something transcending human decisions, then it
> makes sense that God exists.
Why God? His moral decisions are abhorant to me. Any REAL father would
sacrifice him self to save his son, but God sacrifices his son to save us.
Also, God is immortal, and Jesus is God, so Jesus is immortal, so how the hell
does an immortal die to save us? Also, if Jesus did die, what meaning does it
have if he knew he'd come back to life and go to heaven - that's not a REAL
sacrifice. It's all bollocks.
> Why not
> just have pure moral laws floating out there, in that case? Because
> meaningful moral laws require intentionality, which
> would be interpreted in the context of intentional beings. The source of
> intentional entities would seem to be an
> intentional entity.
>
Why not just have what we have now- morals made by people to try and live
together in peace - something religion has completely failed at.
>
> At a certain emotional level, meaning is explained by God. It has been said
> many times that people who require
> meaning in life are weaker than those who don't. I agree. I find no shame in
> the fact that I could not continue living unless
> I believed that there was some purpose to my actions. Meaning in life
> reqires God. How so?
Bollocks. I have meaning in my life. I get it from helping people, creating
(art, programming etc.) and enjoying myself.
> In what sense can we say that anything has purpose? Take the monitor on my
> computer screen. This monitor has the
> purpose of displaying information to a human viewer, and it can be judged
> objectively as to whether or not it
> is a good monitor or a bad monitor by virtue of that fact. The reason why is
> because it was created by a human being
> or beings who imbued it with that purpose in mind when they designed it, and
> that purpose was carried in it's
> design. Purpose is meaningless without intentionality. So if human beings
> have meaning at all, they must have been
> given it by 1) an intentional entity which 2) created human beings.
NO, becasue we're intelligent. If we can give other things purpose, we can give
them to ourselves. I do.
>
> Specifically, the Bible provides us with information about God and I believe
> that it explains the human condition.
It tells us God is an evil git, who creates then destroys, makes mistakes and
is really nasty all round.
> I
> won't go into this in detail and it seems that most of the readers of this
> forum hate Bible quotes, so you can read
> the Bible on your own if you want to know why I think this is true.
I've read it. It's bollocks. We don't hate Bible quotes, it's just that half of
them contradict the other half, most show God to be nasty. Remember Jesus said
SLAVES should be beaten unil they have many stripes on their back. Not nice.
Not nice at all. I hope you beat YOUR slaves! Also, their's the circularity of
the Bible/God reasoning....
> Finally, some of you may have caught an apparent alternative to God in all
> of the above. Why not human beings?
> Why can't we create our own purpose, our own ethical laws, interpret reality
> however we want? If you don't find
> anything wrong with that theory, then I can only say this: I am sure that
> I'm not perfect, and I can't come up with
> moral laws I believe are true
Moral laws don't have to be true, they only have to work. Currently, a lot of
people live by Bible inspired laws and the world is full of war. Your morals
might be true, but they don't work! Ha Ha Ha!!!
> that I can also satisfy all of or even most of
> the time. And I sometimes get pissed off
> at myself, and I have to explain why. So if you are ever dissatisfied with
> your self, in some sense you owe yourself
> an explanation of that fact, especially if you are God.
>
> -Tim Wang
Graeme
--
"Expansion leaves the ashes of change."
Graeme Nattress: nattress at dircon dot co dot uk
www.nattress.dircon.co.uk
www.nattress.dircon.co.uk/hs
www.nattress.dircon.co.uk/Pixels
Jack Thornton
"Firstname Lastname" <NetworkL...@wrs.com> writes:
>Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
>you are human beings. However,
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>1) Jump over the empire state building
>2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
>3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
>using the verb "is" in any form.
<snip>
Let me sum your claim: "You're asking too much of me."
This may be. However, you god aint talking, and he aint walking. So if you
want to discuss him, please be prepared to drop frogs on me, or kill my
first born, to prove your claim.
Best
Jack
Jack Thornton, a.a. # 1499
Night Editor
EAC News Service
BAAWA; EAC Decryption Squad #49; EAC Seti Search Team #10
(The unicorn you must eliminate is not Her Pinkness!)
Colin R. Day
>
> From another angle, take an infinite set in mathematics. We are told that
> the number of elements in the union of an infinite
> set with another infinites set is the same as that of the original set.
> Isn't that absurd?
No. Actually, it will have the cardinality of the larger of the two
infinite sets, if the sets are of different sizes.
> If we take any (nonempty) finite set and
> unite it with another finite set, the cardinality will be different. This is
> a fallacy of kinds - to say that this is absurd is to fault
> infinite sets for not being finite. In general, infinite sets behave
> differently from finite sets and the same rules don't necessarily
> apply. In short, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
>
Not really. Unions of such sets are still commutative and associative,
as are intersections.
>
> The same sort of reasoning can be applied to God. God is not in the same
> category as a scientific law or material object,
> or mathematical principle. So to fault God for not admitting of empirical
> proof, or logical proof, is meaningless.
>
Your right, God isn't in the same category as material objects,
as there are material object and no God.
>
> So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
Psychologically yes, epistemologically no.
>
> However, from a rational point of view,
> it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
> your best theory of the world and has no
> useful alternative. How so?
>
And invoking God explains what?
>
> Intellectually, ethical realism is explained by God. If you believe as I do
> that moral decisions can be tested to be correct
> or incorrect on the basis of something transcending human decisions,
But ordinary reality is independent of human decisions as well.
> then it
> makes sense that God exists. Why not
> just have pure moral laws floating out there, in that case? Because
> meaningful moral laws require intentionality, which
> would be interpreted in the context of intentional beings. The source of
> intentional entities would seem to be an
> intentional entity.
Which intentional beings?
>
>
> At a certain emotional level, meaning is explained by God. It has been said
> many times that people who require
Invoking god doesn't explain anything. It (the invoking) might make people
feel better, but that's not a justifiaction.
>
> meaning in life are weaker than those who don't. I agree. I find no shame in
> the fact that I could not continue living unless
> I believed that there was some purpose to my actions. Meaning in life
> reqires God.
No.
> How so?
> In what sense can we say that anything has purpose? Take the monitor on my
> computer screen. This monitor has the
> purpose of displaying information to a human viewer, and it can be judged
> objectively as to whether or not it
> is a good monitor or a bad monitor by virtue of that fact. The reason why is
> because it was created by a human being
> or beings who imbued it with that purpose in mind when they designed it, and
> that purpose was carried in it's
> design. Purpose is meaningless without intentionality. So if human beings
> have meaning at all, they must have been
> given it by 1) an intentional entity which 2) created human beings.
If you mean the purpose of life, then maybe. But what about
purposes in life?
>
>
> Specifically, the Bible provides us with information about God and I believe
> that it explains the human condition. I
No, it doesn't explain anything.
>
> won't go into this in detail and it seems that most of the readers of this
> forum hate Bible quotes, so you can read
> the Bible on your own if you want to know why I think this is true.
>
> Finally, some of you may have caught an apparent alternative to God in all
> of the above. Why not human beings?
> Why can't we create our own purpose,
We can create purposes within our lives, but not of our lives.
> our own ethical laws,
Or discover ethical laws.
> interpret reality
> however we want?
No. We leave such epistemological lunacy to bleaters.
> If you don't find
> anything wrong with that theory, then I can only say this: I am sure that
> I'm not perfect,
We're sure that you're not perfect, too.
> and I can't come up with
> moral laws I believe are true that I can also satisfy all of or even most of
> the time. And I sometimes get pissed off
> at myself, and I have to explain why. So if you are ever dissatisfied with
> your self, in some sense you owe yourself
> an explanation of that fact, especially if you are God.
>
> -Tim Wang
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
What Linux and atheism have in common, that which their
advocates most energetically embrace and their detractors
most vociferously vilify, is that they both encourage
an independent view of the world.
-nemo-
> Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
> you are human beings. However,
> the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
> 1) Jump over the empire state building
> 2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
> 3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
> using the verb "is" in any form.
>
> I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
> in many cases when someone asks for
> proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
> form.
>
<snip attempt at logic>
Odd. I think we need *GAWD!* to do these things (and much more) because
the believers state that he's flipping all-powerful! Until this
all-powerful critter stops acting exactly like *nothing* I intend to treat
it like the *nothing* it acts like. I think this is a perfectly reasonable
way to handle this situation. It's called logic, doofus!
BTW, I'm about finished reading your blood book, and it's not what you
seem to think it is.
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
**************************************************
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Nothing works like prayer!
Corollary:
Prayer works like nothing! Exactly like it!
- me
**************************************************
Stephen Knight
<NetworkL...@wrs.com> wrote:
>Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
>you are human beings. However,
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
>1) Jump over the empire state building
>2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
>3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
>using the verb "is" in any form.
How 'bout I just slap you upside your head with a two by four.
Stupid christer maggot.
You believe in the magic pixie, you prove it.
Steve Knight #855
Knight of BAAWA
"Picking up Stix's slack."
Where'sTheBeef
> Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove
that
> you are human beings. However,
> the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
> 1) Jump over the empire state building
> 2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
> 3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being
without
> using the verb "is" in any form.
>
> I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems
that
> in many cases when someone asks for
> proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
> form.
>
"Unreasonable" would not be the word that comes to mind. "Unreasoning" would
be a better choice to describe your thought process.
unreasoning (ůn-rę´ze-nîng) adjective
Not governed or moderated by reason.
Your so-called challenge calls for a redefinition of the term "human being."
You cannot redefine terms to fit your own needs. To prove I am a human
being, I need only satisfy the requirements of the CORRECT definition.
human being noun
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: a fine human being.
So you see, not only have I just proved I am a human being, I have also
proved that all departed members of the species Homo Erectus were also human
beings.
> The same sort of reasoning can be applied to God. God is not in the same
> category as a scientific law or material object,
> or mathematical principle. So to fault God for not admitting of empirical
> proof, or logical proof, is meaningless.
>
You're a peach, Fn Ln. You find error in atheist thinking, calling it
"meaningless." Yet you so liberally redefine the English language. I've
observed christian thinking to display a profound inability to understand
the meaning of the word "meaning." In fact the whole religion can be
described as nothing more than a study in the misuse of words and language.
Why does the christian religion put such emphasis on words? Jesus is
referred to as "The living Word." Hell, you even capitalize "word." Yet
words are only tools in describing the more basal concept of thoughts (and
very inadequate tools they can be). It appears many christians lack even the
most rudimentary skills needed to use these tools. Rather, they pride
themselves in "having" these words, showing them off. Much like the 95% of
4WD vehicle owners who don't know the first thing about off-road driving.
>
> So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the
matter.
Excuse me?
> However, from a rational point of view,
> it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
> your best theory of the world and has no
> useful alternative. How so?
>
Pleeeese, take an English lesson. I know what you mean (do you?), but allow
me to point out the fact that theories explain something, not the other way
around. There is a useful alternative. It's called Science. And, besides,
not everyone needs a "theory of the world" anyway.
> Intellectually, ethical realism is explained by God.
Ethical realism? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Each individual
possesses his/her own ethical beliefs. And to each individual, those ethics
are very real.
> If you believe as I do
> that moral decisions can be tested to be correct
> or incorrect on the basis of something transcending human decisions, then
it
> makes sense that God exists.
Phew! Here you go again! You're asking me to perform a test, to come to a
decision. Yet you say that in order to come to this decision I must do so in
a way which precludes my ability to decide! What fkng nonsense! Do you not
see this? No, really, DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?
>
> At a certain emotional level, meaning is explained by God.
Wrong. Emotions can be explained by Science.
> It has been said
> many times that people who require
> meaning in life are weaker than those who don't.
IMHO, people who require meaning in life are LACKING meaning in their lives.
For me, meaning is not something I need to search for, it's standard
equipment. I no more need to think about meaning in my life than I need to
think about whether or not I am hungry.
> Meaning in life
> reqires God.
See above. If you feel such a need for "meaning," perhaps it's a genetic
defect. Maybe your god didn't do such a good job when he "created" you.
> In what sense can we say that anything has purpose? Take the monitor on my
> computer screen. This monitor has the
> purpose of displaying information to a human viewer, and it can be judged
> objectively as to whether or not it
> is a good monitor or a bad monitor by virtue of that fact. The reason why
is
> because it was created by a human being
> or beings who imbued it with that purpose in mind when they designed it,
and
> that purpose was carried in it's
> design. Purpose is meaningless without intentionality.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The ultimate purpose does not necessarily have any
connection with the original intent. Many discoveries have been made while
the researcher intended something entirely different. Many things have been
stumbled upon by people with no intent at all. Have you never set out with
the intention of improving something, some situation, only to find you
actually hurt your cause? Are you to say that since there was no
intentionality in hurting your cause that this effect was meaningless? I
think not.
<purposefully snipping the remaining drivel with great intentionality>
WtB
Forcas
missed one point:
<snip>
The same sort of reasoning can be applied to God. God is not in the same
category as a scientific law or material object,
or mathematical principle.
<snip>
That is precisely how to explain faith in something that cannot be proven.
Put your beliefs to an extreme so that when rationality comes around
knocking pious beliefs to extinction, your beliefs will be safe in your own
little closed in world of make believe. Place your statement of "God cannot
be proven by scientific means" right in front of "God works in mysterious
ways" so that you can believe blindly and pass off cruel and unjustified
acts as "God's will," even though there is no sense to it.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
Tukla Ratte
> Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
> you are human beings.
Well, this obviously doesn't concern me. Can I take the rest of the
day off?
< snip >
-- Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Calico Rat
Antonio Fanelli
<NetworkL...@wrs.com> wrote:
>So why believe in God? Ultimately, because we have no choice in the matter.
Really?
--
起^ ciao aa # 1286
\ toto
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5990
Oh, remove GOD for write me
William Barwell
Firstname Lastname <NetworkL...@wrs.com> wrote:
>Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
>1) Jump over the empire state building
>2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
>3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
>using the verb "is" in any form.
>
>I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
>in many cases when someone asks for
>proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
>form.
****************************************************************
Testing the Bible FAQ
Christianity is one of the few religions that can actually
be tested scientifically. Testing claims is the very essence
of science and is why science works so well. Testing discards
errors. The New Testament represents Jesus as making claims that
can readily be tested. Below are four NT texts that are testable,
and that fail such testing, showing that Christianity cannot be
true.
*******************************************************************
Mark 11:22-3
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have Faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto
this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe
that these things he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith.
Jesus promises obvious and spectacular miracle working abilities
to those who "shall not doubt in his heart". But it does not work.
Nobody gets "whatever he saith" merely from lacking doubt.
Nobody moves mountains or similar such tricks.
********************************************************************
Matthew 21:21
21 And all things, whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing,
you shall recieve.
Nobody gets all they ask in prayer, as promised by Jesus.
*********************************************************************
John 14:12-14
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me,
the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works shall
he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that
the Father may be glorified in the son.
14 If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Nobody changes water to wine, finds his tax money in a fish,
feeds thousands with a few fishes and loaves, walks on water.
Much less betters these works. Nobody gets "whatever ye shall
ask" despite this promise, even asking in the name of Jesus.
***********************************************************************
Matthew 18:18-19
19 Verily I say unto you, if two of you shall agree on earth
as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done
for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am
in the midst of them.
No two Christians get "any thing they shall ask" despite this
solemn promise from Jesus.
***********************************************************************
These are easily testable and unmistakable promises from
Jesus, alledged son of God, as found readily in the New
Testament. These promises are not attainable. Thus Jesus
was wrong, the New Testament is wrong, all of Christianity
is based on errors. If one cannot trust the solemn promises
of Jesus that can readily be tested, obviously, nobody can
trust those not so readibly testable, such as the existance
of heaven or the claim only through Jesus can one get there.
Seeing how badly readily testable claims of Jesus fail, it is
safe to assume all other promises are equally false, equally
erroneous.
Christianity is simply another superstition, nothing more.
These simple verses, easily tested, prove it.
William C. Barwell 4-6-96
************************************************************************
William Barwell
Firstname Lastname <NetworkL...@wrs.com> wrote:
>Suppose I made the following challenge. I challenge any of you to prove that
>you are human beings. However,
>the only proof I will accept is if you can accomplish the following tasks:
>
>1) Jump over the empire state building
>2) Derail a locomotive with your bare hands
>3) Furnish me with a formal logical proof that you are a human being without
>using the verb "is" in any form.
Well, this is nonsense. Atheists don't do stuff like this.
>
>I suppose you could say that I am being unreasonable. However, it seems that
>in many cases when someone asks for
>proof of the existence of God, they are looking for something in a similar
>form.
>
>However, from a rational point of view,
>it seems strange to me to deny the existence of something which explains
>your best theory of the world and has no
>useful alternative. How so?
God adds nothing to anything. It explains nothing.
It is empty wind, mouth music, baloney.
First of all, you say "God". Right off the bat
you are making an assertion. That there is but one god.
Why not 10, a hundred a billion?
You claim it explains something. It does not.
It NEEDS explaining, which you don't do.
Because if you do, you soon come up against the fact
you have nothing to base anything you might say about
god(s). It is all empty assertion.
What IS god(s)? How do they exist, what is the basic 'biology'
of a god? How do you know?
We see, hear, taste, sense in no way shape or form any supernatural
world, much less deities directly or indirectly.
So the burden is strictly on you.
First to define your terms, god, supernatural, ect.
And show why we should take any of your basic starting
terms seriously.
No assertions.
If you assert only there is a god, I can euqally assert there is
not and one empty assertion is as good as another.
When you have two empty assertions that oppose each other,
then you have nothing.
We see a Universe around us, we KNOW it exists.
We see no signs of a god and god does NOT explain
anything, much less the Universe.
If you define God as the cause of the Universe without
evidence this is so or that there is a god, one and only
one god, I am as entitled to tell you the Universe was created
by seven giant space rabbits for their Universe creating lab 201
course and you have to afford my empty assertion exactly the same
consideration as yours. If you can make definitions and offer no
evidence except emotional rhetoric, I get to do the same and you must
give my empty mouth music the same label of truth you demand for yours.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!