The hypocrisy of the religious.
LibMind
you looked around that church that your parents had dragged you to,
saying to yourself "what a bunch of hypocrites." Or perhaps it occured
to you when trying to befreind certain other youths. They were
obnoxious or cruel, eventhough they professed love for all humanity or
holiness.
Indeed, it is undeniable that hypocrisy is a weakness of the
religious. Let me tell you of my experience. As a twelve year old boy
and an introvert, I had peculiar habits. I liked to keep my jacket
with me, on, wherever I went. It had to be blustery hot before I
forsook the tattered old thing. Once when visiting a friend's church I
refused to give it up to some adults that asked if I wanted them to
take it. Later, during the sermon the preacher was talking about
people hiding behind material things. He looked at me when naming off
some things and said "or even jackets." He referrenced me and in an
obvious way! To me, an introvert, this was a horrific experience.
Thinking back on the event I often thought, "What a hypocrite."
Doubtlessly this preacher had made multiple sermons about not passing
judgement and respecting other human beings, yet there he was passing
judgement on me -- a boy who he did not even know, just to make a
minor point. And don't even get me going about my experiences with
other youths who claimed to be the servants of God.
Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
Timoleon
Luna
LibMi...@cs.com (LibMind) wrote:
Good point. Good example. Good reasoning and logic in the last paragraph.
I do not reject the claims of people who say there is a god because of any
characteristic of the person saying it, but because the idea itself does
not make sense.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.
Josef Balluch
...
> If nothing was true that had ever been
> betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
> could be considered valid.
Supernatural morality is invalid, regardless of any hypocrisy or lack
thereof.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:josef+author:balluch&start=100
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3D13DA5E.2B617251%
40sympatico.ca&rnum=112&filter=0
> Just because human beings fail an idea,
> therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue.
And the fact that humans uphold an ideal does not guarantee the validity
of that ideal.
> It is unfortunate that
> so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
> truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
> weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
The truth of an idea is always quite independent of the actions of
humans.
Regards,
Josef
Whoever supermoralizes unmoralizes.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
LP
>Did you ever have that moment when you were a child (or teenager) when
>you looked around that church that your parents had dragged you to,
>saying to yourself "what a bunch of hypocrites." Or perhaps it occured
>to you when trying to befreind certain other youths. They were
>obnoxious or cruel, eventhough they professed love for all humanity or
>holiness.
>
>Indeed, it is undeniable that hypocrisy is a weakness of the
>religious. Let me tell you of my experience. As a twelve year old boy
>and an introvert, I had peculiar habits. I liked to keep my jacket
>with me, on, wherever I went. It had to be blustery hot before I
>forsook the tattered old thing. Once when visiting a friend's church I
>refused to give it up to some adults that asked if I wanted them to
>take it. Later, during the sermon the preacher was talking about
>people hiding behind material things. He looked at me when naming off
>some things and said "or even jackets." He referrenced me and in an
>obvious way! To me, an introvert, this was a horrific experience.
>Thinking back on the event I often thought, "What a hypocrite."
>Doubtlessly this preacher had made multiple sermons about not passing
>judgement and respecting other human beings, yet there he was passing
>judgement on me -- a boy who he did not even know, just to make a
>minor point. And don't even get me going about my experiences with
>other youths who claimed to be the servants of God.
Concerning his denouncement of those who hide behind material
things.....
I would be willing to bet, if you visited that preacher in his home,
you would really see what a hypocrite he was.
>Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
>fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
>among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
>to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
>betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
>could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
>therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
>so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
>truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
>weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
Hypocrisy is a reason that many give up religion.
Logic is a reason that many give up gods.
Whirl_pool
#1439
Thomas P.
snip
>
>Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
>fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
>among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
>to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
>betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
>could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
>therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
>so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
>truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
>weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
>
I guess that explains your repeated lies about what atheism is. Don't
worry though, the dishonesty and hypocrisy of people like you is not
why I am an atheist.
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
email ton...@get2net.dk
[matt]
decided to sprout forth:
[snip]
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
Ā§Ā»fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
Ā§Ā»among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
Ā§Ā»to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
Ā§Ā»betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
Ā§Ā»could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
Ā§Ā»therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
Ā§Ā»so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
Ā§Ā»truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
Ā§Ā»weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Timoleon
Not everyone is hypocritical, though it does seem that it is a
pre-requisite for the 'pious'
In my dealings with religionists, they have all seemed to claim that
their 'god' is one of those 'omni' creatures...More knowledgeable,
loving, powerful etc than man (whom he/she allegedly made in his/her
own image). It would stand to reason then that, following the path of
logic, that this 'god' was also omnihypocritical.
It would follow then, that this 'god' was also omnievil, omnilazy,
omnienvious.
This not being the case would point to an inherent hypocrisy within
the doctrines of all religions who claim to have an 'omni' god that
created humankind in its own image.
How?
The definition of hypocrisy is:
hypocrisy
// noun (plural -sies) 1. the act of pretending to have a
character or beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not possess. 2.
pretence of virtue or piety; false goodness.
By the above definition, hypocrisy could not exist in a world created
by an 'omni' god. To create a thing, one must first have the source
materials. You cannot create a wooden chair if you do not have wood,
nails, a hammer and some glue.
The god of the Xtians in particular is said to have created man in
his/her image, to be the creator of all, and to be omnipotent and
omniscient. Despite the fact that omniscience and omnipotence cancel
one and other out, a god that can create a being which can, in his/her
name act in a hypocritical manner, rules out the possibility of that
god being omniscient or omnipotent even if they were not to cancel one
and other out.
Why? - Because an all powerful being with knowledge of all that is and
ever will be would certainly not create such a possibly character flaw
(or people with the ability to possess it) and at the same time, claim
to be omnibenevolent.
Hence, by definition, a god that claims to be omniscient, omnipotent
and omnibenevolent is also omnihypocritical.
It would then follow that the doctrines of all cults set up to worship
that phantasm would be inherently hypocritical...
I think that I have confused myself, but.. yeah, that is what I think
:-)
[matt]
__
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"
Comentarii De Bello Gallico, III.18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
robert parker
>Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
>fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
>among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
>to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
>betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
>could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
>therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
>so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
>truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
>weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
>
>Timoleon
Many atheist in fact admit to being atheist to avoid being
identified as a christian. I most certainly do not wish to be
thought of as a christian. Believe me I am a far better person
than the average christian, who is a self righteous, bigoted
anus.
LibMind
Why do you think that it does not make "sense?"
Timoleon
LibMind
> Supernatural morality is invalid, regardless of any hypocrisy or lack
> thereof.
Oh really, and why do you think this? What do you mean by "supernatural morality?"
Timoleon
LibMind
> Hypocrisy is a reason that many give up religion.
Yes, quite unfortunately and unnecessarily.
> Logic is a reason that many give up gods.
There is no logical construct that can unequivically prove the
existence or non-existence of any God, gods or spirits. Believing in
God's existence or non-existence is purely a matter of faith -- an
emotional choice.
Timoleon
Therion Ware
-0800, LibMi...@cs.com (LibMind) brought the total lines of text
written about "Re: The hypocrisy of the religious." to 50. I decided
to observe the following about them:
>Luna <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message news:<lunachick-E2453...@news.mindspring.com>...
[snip]
>> Good point. Good example. Good reasoning and logic in the last paragraph.
>> I do not reject the claims of people who say there is a god because of any
>> characteristic of the person saying it, but because the idea itself does
>> not make sense.
>
>
>Why do you think that it does not make "sense?"
Depends on the God concept in particular of course, but many God
concepts are incoherent, others meaningless, others
self-contradictory, while still others make no claims for the God in
question apart from His existence (and so are undecidable). And so on
and so forth. A specific answer would, I suppose, require that you
define your God with sufficient precision!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
** atheist poster child #1 **
LibMind
> 宸Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
> 宸fact a problem of all human beings.
> Not everyone is hypocritical.
Yes, they are. Every human being is guilty of either not living up to
some of their own statements or the obvious implications of those
statements. If anyone does not think that they are guilty of some
hypocrisy then they lack self-analysis.
> By the above definition, hypocrisy could not exist in a world created
> by an 'omni' god. To create a thing, one must first have the source
> materials. You cannot create a wooden chair if you do not have wood,
> nails, a hammer and some glue.
No, creation by definition is to make something out of nothing. To
make one thing out of another is "manipulation" or "innovation" or
"invention." Only God can truly create. Do you reject the idea of
something coming out of nothing? If so then you must reject the
contemporary big bang theory -- a great explosion of energy coming out
of a "0 point."
Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
contradictory.
Incidentally, God is "good" to man because God loves mankind. But in
fact God is objectively above such labels as "good" and "evil" because
God is the one, most valid source of distinction between such
attributes. There is no higher court of judgement or moral law. The
law of sin is applicable to mortal beings only, not God, for example.
And what God admonishes homo sapients to do is not necessarily the
same as what God admonishes other beings in this universe to do. For
whatever the reason, God has made a universe of living beings with
free wills and it is impossible to determine why God chose to create
the universe. This is what all of your questions boil down to, and the
answers are beyond human comprehension.
In the end, you must know that your attempt to judge the morality of
God, even hypothetically, is follysome and self-destructive. God MAKES
what is moral; God MAKES judgement -- God is not the receiver of these
things.
Timoleon
Incenjucar
> make one thing out of another is "manipulation" or "innovation" or
> "invention."
generation would be more what you would call 'popped out of nothing'.
> Only God can truly create.
And you know this for a fact because...?
> Do you reject the idea of something coming out of nothing?
I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'nothing'.
>If so then you must reject the
> contemporary big bang theory -- a great explosion of energy coming out
> of a "0 point."
False statement: Big bang theory does not assume a zero point. Most
contemporary students of the theory assume that the 'Big Bang' is not a
unique event.
> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
> contradictory.
Omni-anything of that nature is fictitous to begin with.
> Incidentally, God is "good" to man because God loves mankind.
Claims to. Huge difference between claims and reality.
> But in
> fact God is objectively above such labels as "good" and "evil" because
> God is the one, most valid source of distinction between such
> attributes.
So if Lucifer was the Creator, than everything he said was good would
automatically be good? What if God says, one day "And all mothers shall
have daughters of their sons, and those daughters will have sons of their
fathers". Would that be good all the sudden? You seem to assume that your
God does not have omnipotence enough to lie or be immoral.
> There is no higher court of judgement or moral law.
Might makes right then? I know I'm impressed.
> The
> law of sin is applicable to mortal beings only, not God, for example.
Clearly. Only slaves can be immoral, masters are immune to it.
> And what God admonishes homo sapients to do is not necessarily the
> same as what God admonishes other beings in this universe to do.
So he's a bigot?
> For
> whatever the reason, God has made a universe of living beings with
> free wills and it is impossible to determine why God chose to create
> the universe.
If omnipotence exists, impossible does not.
> This is what all of your questions boil down to, and the
> answers are beyond human comprehension.
How do you know whether or not humans can comprehend something?
> In the end, you must know that your attempt to judge the morality of
> God, even hypothetically, is follysome and self-destructive.
Clearly, God has every right to force children to be fed to the lions,
pregnant women to be raped to death by their fathers, and men to breed with
trees, and it will all thus be holy.
> God MAKES
> what is moral; God MAKES judgement
Power and Law do not make morality.
> -- God is not the receiver of these
> things.
If he's not accountable, why should anyone else be? God's a hypocrite, eh?
Don Kresch
(LibMind) let us all know that:
Wrong.
When a word signifies nothing in actuality or
factuo-conceptually, not believing in it isn't faith.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Josef Balluch
> Josef Balluch <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.186f0aa64...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
>> Supernatural morality is invalid, regardless of any hypocrisy or
>> lack thereof.
>
>
> Oh really, and why do you think this?
The link I supplied gives my argument. Did you make the effort to read it?
> What do you mean by "supernatural morality?"
A morality that is claimed to be of supernatural origin.
Regards,
Josef
When a society is in decline people are bound to turn to belief in gods;
when a man is foolish he eagerly prays for good luck.
-- Wang Chong
Gideon's Host
> > No, creation by definition is to make something out of nothing. To
> > make one thing out of another is "manipulation" or "innovation" or
> > "invention."
> Creation is for one 'noun' to create another 'noun', I think spontanious
> generation would be more what you would call 'popped out of nothing'.
no; 'spontaneous generation' is when something is "created" from a bunch
of materials just laying around -- all by it's lonesome. That's the
stuff that had (snort!) to happen for abiogenesis to take place, and for
life to form. You know; where a pile of lumber struck by wind, suddenly
decides to become a house? Well, according to y'alls bizarre theories
anyway. 8-)
What we are speaking about here would be called, "creation ex nihilo" or
'creation from nothing.' A thing which is solely, the province of God.
Don Kresch
<psalm...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>"Incenjucar" <Firew...@sierratel.com> wrote:
>
>> > No, creation by definition is to make something out of nothing. To
>> > make one thing out of another is "manipulation" or "innovation" or
>> > "invention."
>> Creation is for one 'noun' to create another 'noun', I think spontanious
>> generation would be more what you would call 'popped out of nothing'.
>
>no; 'spontaneous generation' is when something is "created" from a bunch
>of materials just laying around -- all by it's lonesome. That's the
>stuff that had (snort!) to happen for abiogenesis to take place, and for
>life to form. You know; where a pile of lumber struck by wind, suddenly
>decides to become a house?
Only in your strawman view.
>What we are speaking about here would be called, "creation ex nihilo" or
>'creation from nothing.' A thing which is solely, the province of God.
Show that nothing is an ontologically valid concept.
stoney
ID: <7dfbf389.02122...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>Did you ever have that moment when you were a child (or teenager) when
>you looked around that church that your parents had dragged you to,
>saying to yourself "what a bunch of hypocrites." Or perhaps it occured
>to you when trying to befreind certain other youths. They were
>obnoxious or cruel, eventhough they professed love for all humanity or
>holiness.
Probably, but I wouldn't have heard the term hypocrite at that time.
>Indeed, it is undeniable that hypocrisy is a weakness of the
>religious. Let me tell you of my experience. As a twelve year old boy
>and an introvert, I had peculiar habits. I liked to keep my jacket
>with me, on, wherever I went. It had to be blustery hot before I
>forsook the tattered old thing. Once when visiting a friend's church I
>refused to give it up to some adults that asked if I wanted them to
>take it. Later, during the sermon the preacher was talking about
>people hiding behind material things. He looked at me when naming off
>some things and said "or even jackets." He referrenced me and in an
>obvious way! To me, an introvert, this was a horrific experience.
>Thinking back on the event I often thought, "What a hypocrite."
>Doubtlessly this preacher had made multiple sermons about not passing
>judgement and respecting other human beings, yet there he was passing
>judgement on me -- a boy who he did not even know, just to make a
>minor point. And don't even get me going about my experiences with
>other youths who claimed to be the servants of God.
That passing of judgement, etc., happens often.
>Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
>fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
>among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
>to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
>betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
>could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
>therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue.
When the idea is nothing but unsupported assertions and handwaving
mixed with lies, errors, broken logic, and lack of reality there's
no substance to it.
> It is unfortunate that
>so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
>truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
>weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
What is there to 'reject?' The assertion of 'god' is on the same
level as the person selling tin foil hats with a propellor on top
that 'protects against mind control rays.' The hat salesperson is
much more humane than many brands of theism, after all s/he won't
kill you or torture you forever (because he "loves") you if you
don't buy a hat.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
BDK
psalm...@yahoo.com says...
Failed or ditched science class, eh?? (Snort!!)
BDK
Amos Keppler
This has become an annual tradition and here it is again.
Some of you have experienced this before, but the rest still haven't
had the pleasure.
Enjoy.......
CHRISTMAS IS FINALLY OVER
Christmas is over
Now we can laugh again
Christmas is over
Now we can live again
We that try to celebrate every day
the rest of the year
All this for a birth of one man
that probably never have been born
a son of a god that doesn't exist
Oh, how he would have laughed
at worshippers of this sadistic god
A god cruel among cruel gods
Who's really the fool, cries the jester
Who's putting their faith in an insane mirage
All this for the life of greedy men
that probably laugh their false hearts out
They cheat people the whole year around
How demented they must laugh
at worshippers of the mammon god
A god cruel among cruel gods
Who's really the fool, cries the jester
Who's putting their faith in an insane venture
Civilization...
Civilization...
Religion...
Yes, call it opium for the masses
But for you that don't appreciate irony
I'll call it bullshit, call a spade a spade
Christmas is over, thank God
Or... I should perhaps thank the devil
God probably wants it to last the whole year
Loving his subjects deaf, mute and blind
Christmas is finally over
My friend, you smiled with all the gifts
under the tree, inside your warm house
Why don't you anymore, my friend?
Is there now a season for smiling, too
Or do you dislike my smile
Who's really the fool, cries the jester
Who's putting all their faith in this world's glitter
Civilization is over
No more belief in saviors outside ourselves
No more denial of our inner, unique self
Both our strength and weakness are our own
No power from the devil, no submission before any god
One more mile beyond the next mountain
We're sitting next to the fire
Each new day is a celebration
Now we can laugh again...
Now we can live again...
http://midnight-fire.net/finally.html
Amos Keppler 1993-12-24/25
--
========================================
ShadowWalk http://midnight-fire.net/sw
One of the most controversial novels
ever written.
========================================
[matt]
decided to sprout forth:
Ā§Ā»"[matt]" <ab...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3f3b0v05nhq45kt9j...@4ax.com>...
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»> Ā§Ā»Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
Ā§Ā»> Ā§Ā»fact a problem of all human beings.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»> Not everyone is hypocritical.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Yes, they are. Every human being is guilty of either not living up to
Ā§Ā»some of their own statements or the obvious implications of those
Ā§Ā»statements. If anyone does not think that they are guilty of some
Ā§Ā»hypocrisy then they lack self-analysis.
Why are religionists always to pro guilt?
So basically you are saying that even the innocent child who dies of
leukemia at age say 1 or 2 is a hypocrite. Interesting theory though
not one which melds in too well with the 'compassion' that the
religious are supposed to have.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»> By the above definition, hypocrisy could not exist in a world created
Ā§Ā»> by an 'omni' god. To create a thing, one must first have the source
Ā§Ā»> materials. You cannot create a wooden chair if you do not have wood,
Ā§Ā»> nails, a hammer and some glue.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»No, creation by definition is to make something out of nothing. To
Ā§Ā»make one thing out of another is "manipulation" or "innovation" or
Ā§Ā»"invention." Only God can truly create. Do you reject the idea of
Ā§Ā»something coming out of nothing? If so then you must reject the
Ā§Ā»contemporary big bang theory -- a great explosion of energy coming out
Ā§Ā»of a "0 point."
Creation, by definition actually means 'to create' or the 'act of
creating'.
Nothing can be made from 'nothing'. A creator needs raw materials with
which to work.
How the universe got here is beyond both your own and my
comprehension. I however, am prepared to admit that there are things
that man does not yet know and have no need to try to justify
existence through preposterous allegations of a supernatural nature
which have no basis in reality. I am comfortable with my own
mortality.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
Ā§Ā»know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
Ā§Ā»contradictory.
How can omniscience possibly be a category of omnipotence if omnievil,
omnilazy and omnihypocritical are not?
If those latter omni's are not a part of omnipotence then omnipotence
cannot reasonably exist - for if your god *cannot* be a hypocrite,
then it cannot be all powerful.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Incidentally, God is "good" to man because God loves mankind. But in
Oh... right. That would explain why 'good' priests molest children,
because 'good' is really a persons own whimsical interpretation.
Ā§Ā»fact God is objectively above such labels as "good" and "evil" because
Ā§Ā»God is the one, most valid source of distinction between such
Ā§Ā»attributes. There is no higher court of judgement or moral law. The
Excuse me? First you claim omnipotence and then 'objectively' place
this deity above certain attributes?
Ā§Ā»law of sin is applicable to mortal beings only, not God, for example.
That would make your god hypocritical, for if it will not subject
itself to that which it expects its creations to submit to, then it is
acting in a manner which is not only arrogant, but highly hypocritical
as well.
To quote : "[hypocrisy is] Acting in a way inconsistent with one's
claims"
Such a being cannot be omnibenevolent if it is not willing to
experience that which it forces its own creations to experience.
Ā§Ā»And what God admonishes homo sapients to do is not necessarily the
Ā§Ā»same as what God admonishes other beings in this universe to do. For
Ā§Ā»whatever the reason, God has made a universe of living beings with
Ā§Ā»free wills and it is impossible to determine why God chose to create
Ā§Ā»the universe. This is what all of your questions boil down to, and the
Ā§Ā»answers are beyond human comprehension.
No - we don't have questions - you do.
It is not the atheist who turns up uninvited at your
doorstep/newsgroup/place of work and asks:
"Have you heard that man is all alone in this universe and ultimately
responsible for his own deeds?"
It is you who put forth subjections which can only validly be called
questions.
"God created the universe" is not a fact - it is a subjective
statement made by a fallible human being with no evidence on which to
base his claims. Such statements, without supporting evidence become
hypothesis. A hypothesis, until objectively proven and observed to
work in a controlled environment is just a question.
By the way - omniscience/free will - think about it.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»In the end, you must know that your attempt to judge the morality of
Ā§Ā»God, even hypothetically, is follysome and self-destructive. God MAKES
Ā§Ā»what is moral; God MAKES judgement -- God is not the receiver of these
Ā§Ā»things.
Ā§Ā»
Ā§Ā»Timoleon
Ok - so this deity is no longer creating, just making? - Make up your
mind please, it is not easy for those of us not 'divinely inspired' to
reconcile such whimsical twists and turns in the 'facts'
I am afraid that you still have not satisfied me. You made the
assertion that there is a creator of humankind who is not responsible
for the actions of its creations.
A creator which is indeed, above the actions of its creations though
who mysteriously retains a thing called omniscience and omnipotence.
Have another crack at it - without reverting to subjective statements
this time.
LP
The following is from
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But
surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith,
like religion is?"
Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something
one actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or
assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we
experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as
possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience
throws them into doubt.
Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at
least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core
assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of
faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in
something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are
certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or
scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming
that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however;
there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty
that the universe exists.
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or
proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as
sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still
doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to
refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God
does not exist.
The above text is from:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Here are some other good resources:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking, James Lett
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
The Atheism Web, Logic & Fallacies
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
The Improbability of God, by Richard Dawkins
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.htm
CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Baloney Detection - How to draw boundaries
between science and pseudoscience
By MICHAEL SHERMER
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
Whirl_pool
#1439
itis...@webtv.net
it is called : Our sinful nature. The example you gave with that Pastor
singleing you out because of your jacket is a shame , and he was very
much in error. Keep in mind that, people who do things in the NAME of
God are not always OF God (ie : this Pastor, Pedophile Priests,
Televangelists who fall, et al...) . As for the ones who are termed
'religious' in thier dedication...they are on a constant road to
improvement and shall not be perfected until they die ; there are some
who take that walk insincerely , and those who take it very seriously
... even though they fail sometimes. Conversely, the irreligious /
refuse-to-believers...enjoy taking potshots at those who profess to love
God yet fail....but they find justification in not changing from thier
aberrant and God-less lifestyles which has molded our current cultures
moral decay. I wonder which is TRULY worse .
Apostate
>
>> Logic is a reason that many give up gods.
>
>There is no logical construct that can unequivically prove the
>existence or non-existence of any God, gods or spirits.
Utterly irrelevant.
A thing as yet unproven requires no disproof, as a prerequisite for
declining belief in it.
>Believing in
>God's existence or non-existence is purely a matter of faith -- an
>emotional choice.
Illogical claim.
Belief is indeed an emotional choice.
Withholding belief is a logical one.
It's one of those 'instant' recipes, you know: just add proof and Voila! Belief.
>Timoleon
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Apostate
>
>What we are speaking about here would be called, "creation ex nihilo" or
>'creation from nothing.' A thing which is solely, the province of God.
Or perhaps, not at all the province of any god(s), but solely the province
of the universe. Or perhaps, not any bloody province whatsoever.
About matters insusceptible of any certainty, honest people say, "I don't know."
Theists, otoh, say "gawddiddit!"
stoney
>LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6bta0vo7oc2t3digb...@4ax.com>...
Multiple bearing of false witness. So much for obeying "God."
stoney
(snip)
>In the end, you must know that your attempt to judge the morality of
>God, even hypothetically, is follysome and self-destructive. God MAKES
>what is moral; God MAKES judgement -- God is not the receiver of these
>things.
IOW "might makes right" which means there is no morality.
Paul Murray (home)
> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think next?
--
Atheism: the belief that there is *some* truth in all religions.
Paul Murray (home)
> Yes, they are. Every human being is guilty of either not living up to
> some of their own statements or the obvious implications of those
> statements. If anyone does not think that they are guilty of some
> hypocrisy then they lack self-analysis.
You mean like a God who tells people to return not evil for evil, and
then throws his enemies into hell to be burnt alive forever? That kind
of hypocritical?
Jerry Sturdivant
> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
If you are omniscient (all-knowing), then you know the future as well as the
past and present. But if you are omnipotent (all-powerful), you should be
able to change the future at will. But if you have the ability to change the
future - that is, if you have the power to make decisions in the future,
then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome. Conversely, if you really
do know the future with absolute certainty, then you cannot make any choices
which change that future without violating your characteristic of
omniscience.
So your god can't be both. Which do you believe he is?
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
John McComb
Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations of his
own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
Let's pretend that your attempt to construct a logical paradox was not
flawed. Then what you end up with is an argument that contains two
or more necessary results from some initial assumption that are in conflict
with each other. Therefore you conclude that the assumption cannot be
true. But that is only true for those who live under the constraints that
lead to the result. God exists outside of the creation therefore he is not
subject to these constraints. The creator must be more than the creation.
The logical axioms that you start with to lead to any argument are, in fact,
provided to you by God. It is impossible for you to know anything about
the limitations that God faces (if, in fact, such a concept has any meaning
at all from God's frame of reference) unless God himself reveals it to you.
In any case, it would probably be impossible for you to fathom any such
revelation because your ability to understand is constricted by the laws
governing your own reality.
Put it this way. X=X, for all X is a universal truth. X is not equal to X for
any X is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make any sense. But this doesn't
necessarily have to be the case for God. God created the universe such
that for all that exists in that creation then X=X for all X is always true.
We can't imagine the alternative because we are limited by the rule. But
that only says something about our own limitations. Not God's.
Yours in Christ
John
Ichimusai
> Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations
> of his own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
Why is that so?
Can you show with a coherent logical argument why it has to be so and
why?
--
AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai AOL: Ichimusai1972 MSN: Ichimusai
IRC: Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet URL: http://www.ichimusai.org/
I doubt, therefore I might be.
-- Apostate, alt.atheism
John McComb
> John McComb <jmc...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> > Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations
> > of his own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
>
> Why is that so?
>
> Can you show with a coherent logical argument why it has to be so and
> why?
Well, sure. Just go back to the post you are replying to and
read past the part that you have quoted above.
Yours in Christ
John
stoney
<pmu...@bigpond.com>, Message ID:
<yYVN9.9312$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>LibMind wrote:
>
>> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
>> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
>
>If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think next?
And can think of nothing other than what was scripted.
Ichimusai
Maybe my server is missing a post or something. I found nothing there
that would qualify unfortunately. Which Message-ID would that be?
--
AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai AOL: Ichimusai1972 MSN: Ichimusai
IRC: Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet URL: http://www.ichimusai.org/
Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime
to examine the laws of heat.
-- Christopher Morley
Jerry Sturdivant
"John McComb" <jmc...@shaw.ca> wrote
>>> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
>>> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
>> If you are omniscient (all-knowing), then you know the future as well as
the
>> past and present. But if you are omnipotent (all-powerful), you should be
>> able to change the future at will. But if you have the ability to change
the
>> future - that is, if you have the power to make decisions in the future,
>> then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome. Conversely, if you
really
>> do know the future with absolute certainty, then you cannot make any
choices
>> which change that future without violating your characteristic of
>> omniscience.
>>
>> So your god can't be both. Which do you believe he is?
> Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations
> of his own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
> Let's pretend that your attempt to construct a logical paradox
> was not flawed.
[Snip BS)
Pretend all you want, but by definition, it's true. If he's blue he can't be
orange. If he's omniscient he can't be omnipotent. Don't dodge, use the
actual definitions to attempt to prove your point.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
Apostate
>LibMind wrote:
>
>> Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
>> know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
>
>If God is omniscient, does he already know what he is going to think next?
It's clear that god cannot think, because then he would change, which contradicts
his eternal immutability attribute.
<blows chalk dust off fingers>
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
stoney
Message ID: <3E08F7E3...@shaw.ca> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>
>Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
>> > Omniscience is a catagory of omnipotence. Omniscience is the power to
>> > know anything or everything at will. These concepts are not
>>
>> If you are omniscient (all-knowing), then you know the future as well as the
>> past and present. But if you are omnipotent (all-powerful), you should be
>> able to change the future at will. But if you have the ability to change the
>> future - that is, if you have the power to make decisions in the future,
>> then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome. Conversely, if you really
>> do know the future with absolute certainty, then you cannot make any choices
>> which change that future without violating your characteristic of
>> omniscience.
>>
>> So your god can't be both. Which do you believe he is?
>
>Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations of his
>own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
(laughter) Fictional characters have no restraints.
(snip horse apples)
Rob Brown
<itis...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24892-3E0...@storefull-2198.public.lawson.webtv.net...
to cast stones at others with such ease and assurance. That aside, would you
present the data on which your assertions regarding "our current cultures
moral decay" are based? Or is unsupported assertion enough to satisfy you?
If so I have almost unlimited power over your beliefs. Or is it only
yourself that you exempt from supporting assertions with evidence? The only
"moral" issues that atheists, by definition, automatically disagree with you
on are those which dictate belief in a god. Preach on Dave, but understand
that not everyone accepts unsupported assertion as fact.
Rob Brown
Not a member of anyone's choir.
John McComb
Ichimusai wrote:
> John McComb <jmc...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
> > Ichimusai wrote:
> >
> > > John McComb <jmc...@shaw.ca> writes:
> > >
> > > > Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations
> > > > of his own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
> > >
> > > Why is that so?
> > >
> > > Can you show with a coherent logical argument why it has to be so and
> > > why?
> >
> > Well, sure. Just go back to the post you are replying to and
> > read past the part that you have quoted above.
>
> Maybe my server is missing a post or something. I found nothing there
> that would qualify unfortunately. Which Message-ID would that be?
The concept is a difficult thing to grasp, I know. Sometimes it takes
several tellings with clever metaphors to strike a chord. It requires one
to think outside of universal laws and experience. It also requires a
willingness on the part of the listener to see the point.
However, the words 'go back to the post you are replying to and
read past the part that you have quoted' are simple and can easily
be understood by even a small child. It is kind of you to include me
in your game of 'let's be deliberately obtuse'. I don't think I want
to play, though. Thanks anyway.
Yours in Christ
John
John McComb
Jerry, the 'pretend' part wasn't a statement about your inability to
say anything about God. It was about your failure to construct a
logical paradox. I'm not saying that a logical paradox cannot be
constructed. It's done all the time. But you have not done so. You
have inserted an arbitrary assertion into your argument that is not
proven. You can't just say " if you have the ability to change
the future then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome". You
have to prove it first. All this statement does is deny the predicate.
At any rate, while what you wrote was not a proof of anything,
neither was what I wrote. Your belief in the notion that God
cannot be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent is irrelevant
to me. You can think whatever you like. It's not a crime to be
wrong. I was only trying to impress upon you that anything you
say about God based on empirical evidence is going to fall short
because you are missing information. Even if you have access to
every bit of information knowable (and have the ability to comprehend
it all) you still can't use it to say anything about God. Because God
is more than the sum total of all that information. God created the
rules that allow you to generate logical constructs. You are bound
and restricted by those rules. God is not.
It's like a filament trying to prove something about Thomas Edison.
The entire sum of all things in the filament's universe is confined
to the light bulb. Thomas Edison can put something into the light
bulb that says something about Thomas Edison. But the filament
can't.
Yours in Christ
John
stoney
<stu...@lvcm.com>, Message ID:
<6jkO9.67668$vb3.2...@news2.west.cox.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
Jerry, that would require some gonads and integrity on Ms. McComb
would ever see in her lifetime. The ladies in aa have more balls
than John ever will.
Jerry Sturdivant
"John McComb" <jmc...@shaw.ca> wrote
>> If you are omniscient (all-knowing), then you know the future
>> as well as the past and present. But if you are omnipotent
>> (all-powerful), you should be able to change the future at
>> will. But if you have the ability to change the future -
>> that is, if you have the power to make decisions in the future,
>> then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome. Conversely,
>> if you really do know the future with absolute certainty,
>> then you cannot make any choices which change that future
>> without violating your characteristic of omniscience.
>>
>> So your god can't be both. Which do you believe he is?
> Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations
> of his own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
[Lack of explanation to my point is noted]
> You can't just say " if you have the ability to change the
> future then you can't automatically 'know' the outcome".
Of course I can. You just said it too. And without valid argument.
> Your belief in the notion that God cannot be simultaneously
> omniscient and omnipotent is irrelevant to me.
Obviously.
> You can think whatever you like.
Thank you.
> It's not a crime to be wrong. I was only trying to impress
> upon you that anything you say about God based on empirical
> evidence is going to fall short because you are missing information.
And this from a person unable to prove, or even show evidence, of a god or
gods.
> Even if you have access to every bit of information knowable
> (and have the ability to comprehend it all) you still can't
> use it to say anything about God.
Sure I can. Note the above statement.
> Because God is more than the sum total of all that information.
And your proof (or ever evidence) is?
> God created the rules that allow you to generate logical
> constructs. You are bound and restricted by those rules.
No I'm not.
> God is not.
Evidence that there is no god.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
Apostate
Here's a KleenexĀ©. Go clean yourself up.
Michael Moore
> Of course he can. The creator is not constrained by the limitations of his
> own creation. Only those that exist within it are.
>
> Let's pretend that your attempt to construct a logical paradox was not
> flawed. Then what you end up with is an argument that contains two
> or more necessary results from some initial assumption that are in conflict
> with each other. Therefore you conclude that the assumption cannot be
> true. But that is only true for those who live under the constraints that
> lead to the result. God exists outside of the creation therefore he is not
> subject to these constraints. The creator must be more than the creation.
> The logical axioms that you start with to lead to any argument are, in fact,
> provided to you by God. It is impossible for you to know anything about
> the limitations that God faces (if, in fact, such a concept has any meaning
> at all from God's frame of reference) unless God himself reveals it to you.
> In any case, it would probably be impossible for you to fathom any such
> revelation because your ability to understand is constricted by the laws
> governing your own reality.
>
> Put it this way. X=X, for all X is a universal truth. X is not equal to X for
> any X is a logical fallacy. It doesn't make any sense. But this doesn't
> necessarily have to be the case for God. God created the universe such
> that for all that exists in that creation then X=X for all X is always true.
> We can't imagine the alternative because we are limited by the rule. But
> that only says something about our own limitations. Not God's.
A god that is beyond the rules of logic is a god that is
incomprehensible, impossible to discuss, and beyond any
definition of truth (which bears a relation to the rules of
logic). I no of no church that traps itself with this
impossible thinking; why do you?
--
M2
Jerry Sturdivant
From: "steve" <luvth...@shaw.ca>
> well that was very well put..... well said
Not sure what post you're referring to but, thank you.
> but He does know whats goign to happen on this
> planet tommorow the next day..... or 20 yrs from now...
This is what you've been taught to believe. Just as other religions teach
their followers the same. Even the Egyptians thought the same of all their
gods. But then that leaves you the problem of prayer. If he knows, and it's
all prearranged ("20-years in advance"), what use is prayer (begging)? See
the logical loop it puts you in? Is he omniscient or omnipotent? If there
were a god he couldn't be both.
> His word is filled with prophicies from thousands of yrs
> ago that are being fufilled in our generation with such mind
> boggling precision.....
And that, of course, is a religious fallacy. All those "prediction" are
generalities and interpretations. I can tell you there will be wars, it will
rain, people will die. You can dial a 900 number and get all the predictions
you want. It's all in the interpretations.
> that any rational minded person who observed the evidence
> would have to agree that some form of higher power or force
> is at work.....
Wrong. It's what fools eat. That's why those 900 numbers make so much money.
> You forgot a key ingredient in your post... Yes being omniscience
> like He is if He willed it i'm sure He could change the future...
You're 'sure' huh? Then he can't tell the future for sure if he can change
it at will, can he?
> u could say it would violate His omniscience to go ahead
> and change the future... but He doesnt have to. Its already
> been determined.....
They it can't be changed. See your problem? If you use just a little logic,
you'll see you've been lied to.
> God gave man "FREEWILL" therefore MAN is the one steamrolling
> ourselves towards certain destruction... Not God.
How many times have we heard that?
> Death was not part of His plan for us... but our freewill
> and our decision to use it to disobey him and sin against
> Him is what brought death into the picture. Ironic isnt it??
The irony is people deluding themselves into believing it.
> God gives man frewill and man uses that freewill to deny
> His existence. Thats ok though..... He made a promise a long
> long time ago that one day...... Every eye would see, and
> every knee would bow, and every tongue will confess that
> He is God... amen
Every religion holds out that fantasy. And folks like you believe it. It's
salesmanship. The door to door selling of religion. It's been happening for
centuries. All the things you mention above have been selling points to
other religions.
I'll sell you a religion and you'll buy it:
How about a leader that was born of a virgin. His mother was given the title
Mother of God. He remained celibate throughout his life. He was a member of
a Holy Trinity. His followers referred to him as "the light of the world."
His followers held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal
hell. His followers believed their god would grant them immortality and
eternal salvation in the world to come. His followers looked forward to a
final day of judgment in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final
conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about
the triumph of light over darkness. He required purification through
baptism. He took part in a Last Supper. His followers took part in a
ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the blood and
body of their god. Sundays were sacred. The birth of the god was celebrated
annually on 25 December (along with a few other gods: Dionysius, Helios,
Apollo, Hercules, Horus, Osiris and Perseus). After the Last Supper, he
ascended to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above. He was
considered a great traveling teacher and master. He had 12 companions or
disciples. He performed miracles. He was buried in a tomb. After three days
he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year. He was called
"the Good Shepherd." He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light,
the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah." He was identified with both the Lion
and the Lamb. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." He had his
principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was
resurrected. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Sounds like a great religion, huh? Well that's what religions did back then.
They took, from other religions, whatever sounded good, or supernatural, and
used it to sell their religion. And you bought it. Well, not this one I just
mentioned. This one is Mithraism. It predated Christianity by over 400
years. (So guess where Christianity got most of their magical stuff?).
Even the Christmas we just finished having was stolen. Originally it was
celebrated as Winter Solstice. A time when the sun stopped traveling south
and began coming back. The promise of Spring and new life. It was, and still
is, a pagan holiday. But the religious folks hated to see people celebrating
anything not religious, so they stole it and made it their god's birthday.
(The ones I mentioned above, the god-men and saviors -- Dionysius, Helios,
Apollo, Hercules, Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus and others). Under the
Roman Emperor Aurelian (270-275 BCE), these were combined into the "Feast of
Sol Invicta," or birthday of the unconquered Sun on December 25.
This cultural residue with roots in ancient human history survived even into
the so-called "Christian era" and the alleged birth of your Jesus Christ.
Some early Christians celebrated the nativity feast in the spring.
You got a lot to learn, pal. And your church sure isn't going to tell you
about Mithraism. But don't believe me, ask your religious leader about it.
Watch the double talk you'll get. Educate yourself and quit wasting your
life in religious superstition. Go live the only life there is.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
John Flaugher
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:7dfbf389.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Did you ever have that moment when you were a child (or teenager) when
> you looked around that church that your parents had dragged you to,
> saying to yourself "what a bunch of hypocrites." Or perhaps it occured
> to you when trying to befreind certain other youths. They were
> obnoxious or cruel, eventhough they professed love for all humanity or
> holiness.
>
> Indeed, it is undeniable that hypocrisy is a weakness of the
> religious. Let me tell you of my experience. As a twelve year old boy
> and an introvert, I had peculiar habits. I liked to keep my jacket
> with me, on, wherever I went. It had to be blustery hot before I
> forsook the tattered old thing. Once when visiting a friend's church I
> refused to give it up to some adults that asked if I wanted them to
> take it. Later, during the sermon the preacher was talking about
> people hiding behind material things. He looked at me when naming off
> some things and said "or even jackets." He referrenced me and in an
> obvious way! To me, an introvert, this was a horrific experience.
> Thinking back on the event I often thought, "What a hypocrite."
> Doubtlessly this preacher had made multiple sermons about not passing
> judgement and respecting other human beings, yet there he was passing
> judgement on me -- a boy who he did not even know, just to make a
> minor point. And don't even get me going about my experiences with
> other youths who claimed to be the servants of God.
>
> Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
> fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
> among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
> to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
> betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
> could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
> therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
> so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
> truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
> weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
>
> Timoleon
I have in times past felt exactly like you. To see a bunch of church goers
sitting on there gossip pew pointing at everyone elses mistakes and yet
falling short to view there own.
This is a great tragedy that not only happens to you but to alot of people.
Maybe that is why Jesus had so much to say to the Pharasises and the Scribes
who were just that hypocrites. Would you think that it would be fare to
judge the body of Christ based on what you have experienced.
There are people out there like me who once was an atheist or a diest too.
I renounced God when I found out that I could not have what I wanted most,
Children. For 5years I did what most do and that is to roll in the mud of
self pitty and denial to the one true God who want to take my pain and bear
it Himself. I would not give it to Him partly becasue of the disfunctional
family that I was rasied in and the other part was becasue I was not going
to have a church full of people condemn me. I did eventually give my life
to Him and just by asking Him to open my eyes to allow me to see His Glory
and His grace that He wanted to freely give me.
I wish that I could say that I was the perfect Christian for you to look at
but I am not. I only serve a God who is and is always helping me not to
beocome the offense but to show a blinded world His free and never ending
grace. After His word tells us that in John 3:16 (which you proballly have
heard before but please go on and read the 17th verse too)
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world: but
that the world through him might be saved.
So you see there are people out there like you who have found Jesus and not
only made him Saviour but Lord over their life?
Can I help you find Him?
John "Tony" Flaugher
Denis Loubet
"John Flaugher" <inch...@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:mzydnaqbzMh...@ctc.net...
And how do you feel now when you see that?
Do you point at their mistakes?
> This is a great tragedy that not only happens to you but to alot of
people.
Are you sure you are not one of them?
> Maybe that is why Jesus had so much to say to the Pharasises and the
Scribes
> who were just that hypocrites. Would you think that it would be fare to
> judge the body of Christ based on what you have experienced.
One's experiences are all one has to judge anything. The only alternative is
to make something up.
> There are people out there like me who once was an atheist or a diest too.
> I renounced God when I found out that I could not have what I wanted most,
> Children.
Renounced. What does that mean? Did you lack belief in the existence of the
god, or were you just mad at it?
> For 5years I did what most do and that is to roll in the mud of
> self pitty and denial to the one true God who want to take my pain and
bear
> it Himself.
I've never done that. It's never even occured to me. Ever.
Why would one want someone else to take on their pain? That's a horrible,
selfish, and obscene concept.
Would you want a loved one to shoulder your pain so you could be happy
again? I wouldn't.
Why would you want your supposed god to suffer your pain? Don't you love the
god? Why do you want it to suffer at your hand?
> I would not give it to Him partly becasue of the disfunctional
> family that I was rasied in and the other part was becasue I was not going
> to have a church full of people condemn me.
As far as I'm concerned, you were doing the right thing for the wrong
reasons.
> I did eventually give my life
> to Him and just by asking Him to open my eyes to allow me to see His Glory
> and His grace that He wanted to freely give me.
So you transfer your pain and suffering to another being. Is that what you
do to everything you love? Is that how you show love?
> I wish that I could say that I was the perfect Christian for you to look
at
> but I am not.
Why not. It seems you have successfully escaped the pain and suffering that
are the consequences of your actions, and heaped the pain and suffering on
someone else so you can be happy again.
> I only serve a God who is and is always helping me not to
> beocome the offense but to show a blinded world His free and never ending
> grace.
And calling us blinded is not an offense exactly how? It implies that we
deliberately refuse to accept an obvious aspect of reality, and that would
mean we're deliberately ignorant.
Being called deliberately ignorant is an offense.
> After His word tells us that in John 3:16 (which you proballly have
> heard before but please go on and read the 17th verse too)
> John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
> that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
> life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world:
but
> that the world through him might be saved.
There is no reason for us to believe any of that.
> So you see there are people out there like you who have found Jesus and
not
> only made him Saviour but Lord over their life?
So not only do they seek to cause the Jesus character to suffer more, they
abdicate personal responsibility for their lives.
Is there anything at all GOOD about your beliefs?
> Can I help you find Him?
Sorry no. I am not trying to find some poor sap on which to dump my pain and
suffering. I also do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions.
I am not like you.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Jerry Sturdivant
From: "steve" <luvth...@shaw.ca>
> listen pal, i just responded to a post on "christian newsgroup"
> as non offensively as i could. i wasnt seeking a battle,
> as your response is obviously trying to stir.
Don't cry to me if you can't answer the questions or see Christianity for
what it is.
> Why, if your such a staunch atheist, do u choose
> to subscribe to such a newsgroup?
I don't; it's cross posted from your group to alt.christnet.atheism
> Well i think that question has just been awnsered.
I know, I just answered it.
> you know as well as I, there are so many athiest newsgroups
> out there..... why dont u subscribe to them?
I am.
> Well i guess that wouldnt be any fun eh??
Sure it is. It's you Xians entering our discussion, trying to convert us to
your superstitions, that causes the ruckus. We show you things you didn't
know and ask questions you can't answer.
> I mean, talking to ppl out in the world who share your point
> of view... that would be to boring for u??
You're just embarrassing yourself, pal. (Along with not understanding how to
write the English language).
> I should let u know I have plenty of atheist friends i get
> along with just fine...
Spare me the, "I have lots of Atheist, gay, friends," crap.
> Its is very clear from your response.... you have done a
> significant amount of research.......
Sure. One doesn't take, "Burning in hell forever" lightly. My research has
proved to me there are no gods. You should try some research yourself.
> unforutnatley...... only retaining what siuts your personal
> stand......
Right. There are no gods.
> i know very well the fallicies and failings of religion in
> this world.....
Yet you believe in one of them anyway.
> Mankind has been twisting and
> distorting His Word for centuries.....
That's because they aren't the words of any god. They are words written and
interperted by man.
> Did u know that evolutionary theory is now
> being renounced by the science community??
Bull shit and you know it.
> Thats right, the big bang theory and all the other garbage
> we were fed thru school, is now being recanted.
That's BS too. Who feeds you this stuff?
> You see, the discovery of DNA and genetics is proven well
> beyond reasonable doubt that the human body is waaaaaaay
> too complex to have ever evolved by random chance.
Baloney! It's the discovery of DNA that has convinced the doubters that
evolution is true. They see useless DNA strands. They see the development of
the embryo as more proof. Where the embryo actually develops a tail and
gills, then they disappear. That along with other developments proves
evolution. (And upsets you Xian folks).
> So now science is saying there must
> be a "higher form of intelligence".
In your dreams.
> The sad thing is they now "believe" that alien life forms
> left our dna here..... and we evolved from that. They still
> wont give the concept of a God any credence at all. Too bad.
So first you say the scientists are right, now they're wrong? Having
trouble, are you? I notice you couldn't answer anything in my previous post
either.
> Anyway I would just like to finish this by saying 2 things..
> a) if u wanted to there is plenty of reseaech and work done
> out there u can study that can prove the existence a God,,,
Wait a minute! You said there's research, yet you can't even direct me to
your "proof?" And if there were "proof' they wouldn't be any discussing it.
> or at least make the most logically sound mind wonder..
Wonder? What about your 'proof of the existence of a god'?
> The Living Son of God disclosed Himself to me,
> i dont know why..... but He did....
So you saw him, did you? What did he look like? What did he say to you? Did
he have an accent? What language did he speak?
> i would like to add something else...
You said you'd finish with 2 more things. But go ahead.
> How is it someone 25 centuries ago could predict the Jewish
> ppl would be dispersed and exiled from thier homeland.....
> and have it restored to the exact year, month, day, and even
> hour that he predicted??
Simple. That's BS.
> In 1948?? now that my friend...... is precision.
No, it's more religious BS you fell for. Show me where the exact year,
month, day and hour was written 2500 years ago.
And I see no response about Mithraism; the prequel to Christianity.
Something else you didn't know.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
Dream Weaver
Hello Jerry ! That was a great post. It just amazes me how seemingly
intelligent people believe in the fairy tales in the bible. The first
page of the king james version in it's self is a crock. At the age of
five, I began to question the bullshit they were trying to feed me.
You post cleared up a few things I have wondered about. I know exactly
what you are trying to convey to these superstious numskulls. Go to
the park and play with your kids instead of
wasting the only life they have for some nonexistant after life.
Thanks again,It is comforting to know I am not alone among all these
fools.
Desiree, Another American Athiest
Terry Ingram
you. Remember the parable of talents he judged the wicked and lazy servant
out of his own mouth. You should never call any christian a hypocrite or put
them down no matter how they fall or what they're shortcoming because you
open yourself up to judgement before God. When you stand before him your
words spoken against them will be there unless you repent and get them
covered in the blood of Jesus. Basically all your saying is I know how a
christian should be and unless you repent Jesus will ask you why then
weren't you like that.
Paul Murray (home)
> This is a great tragedy that not only happens to you but to alot of people.
> Maybe that is why Jesus had so much to say to the Pharasises and the Scribes
> who were just that hypocrites.
Were they? Or were they ordinary church people that the gospel writers
chose to demonise to make a point?
> There are people out there like me who once was an atheist or a diest too.
> I renounced God when I found out that I could not have what I wanted most,
> Children.
That's not the same as being atheist. What does it mean to "renounce
god"? To renounce your church involvement or the practises of your
religion? To renounce your *allegiance* to god? What has this to do with
being of the opinion that there is no god? Indeed, it's impossible to
renounce allegiance to god unless you belive that he exists - to an
atheist, there is no god to be an ally of, so allegiance becomes a non
issue.
Perhaps you mean that you renounced your belif in god. But this makes no
sense - belief in the sense of being convinced that a proposition is
*true* or not is not a matter of will. As Robert Ingersoll says,
evidence will have its weight, regardless of what we might like to belive.
Indeed, this is a central point which christians don't get. You see
belief as a matter of "belief *in*", wheras I see it s a matter of
"belief *that*". I do not think *that* there is a god. Thinking that, it
is a non-issue as to whether or not I shall belive *in* him. There
simply is no him in whom to give or withold my trust.
> I would not give it to Him partly becasue of the disfunctional
> family that I was rasied in and the other part was becasue I was not going
> to have a church full of people condemn me. I did eventually give my life
> to Him and just by asking Him to open my eyes to allow me to see His Glory
> and His grace that He wanted to freely give me.
You are not helping your case, dude. If you wish me to be persuaded by
your personal experiences, I would be more inclined to trust the word of
someone who did not come from a disfunctional home.
> So you see there are people out there like you who have found Jesus and not
> only made him Saviour but Lord over their life?
>
> Can I help you find Him?
> John "Tony" Flaugher
Been there, done that.
--
Atheism: the position that each religion is right about all the others.
Paul Murray (home)
> If you saw all that in others God was just trying to show you what was in
> you. Remember the parable of talents
A perfect blank cheque allowing the authorities to behave however they
like. Those guys that wrote the bible were geniuses, in their own
twisted way. You think your preacher is avaricious because he has 12
gold-plated caddilacs? Brother, it's *you* that is avaricious - you only
think that of the man of god because of your own greed and envy. Your
pastor is a control freak? No brother, it's *you* that has issues - you
need to learn submission.
And so on. A perfect tool for quelling criticism. Is that the debate
tactic called "poisoning the well"? I've heard the phrase, but I'm not
quite sure what it means.
Christopher A. Lee
As far as I'm concerned it's called "slander". It's a common
stock-in-trade that combines falsehood, insult, dishonesty, tu quoqe
("well, you do it too" even though the listener doesn't), red herring
(explaining why the falsehood is wrong) and possibly a few others.
It's one of the reasons why it's impossible to hold a meaningful
discussion with them - and it's obviously deliberate on their part to
avoid answeing points raised..
robert parker
>Incidentally, God is "good" to man because God loves mankind. But in
>fact God is objectively above such labels as "good" and "evil" because
>God is the one, most valid source of distinction between such
>attributes. There is no higher court of judgement or moral law. The
>law of sin is applicable to mortal beings only, not God, for example.
>And what God admonishes homo sapients to do is not necessarily the
>same as what God admonishes other beings in this universe to do. For
>whatever the reason, God has made a universe of living beings with
>free wills and it is impossible to determine why God chose to create
>the universe. This is what all of your questions boil down to, and the
>answers are beyond human comprehension.
>
>In the end, you must know that your attempt to judge the morality of
>God, even hypothetically, is follysome and self-destructive. God MAKES
>what is moral; God MAKES judgement -- God is not the receiver of these
>things.
>
>Timoleon
There is no god to judge, what we have is a man made concept of
god, this I can and do judge. My decision based on my judgement
is to not worship the god concept of men. Because that god
concept is a evil monster.
Jerry Sturdivant
From: "steve" <luvth...@shaw.ca>
> I dont recall telling you, you would burn in hell forever.
Must'a been some other loving Xian. But it is one of your Xian rules.
> If you asked me questions you were waiting for a response
> on, i'm sorry, i don't recall those either.
That's okay. I'm used to Xians skipping those.
> My athiest friends aren't gay.
My turn: I don't believe it said your Atheist friends were gay. I believe I
was referring to the oft stated, "I have lots of Atheist, gay, friends."
> I am not superstitous.
Religion is a superstition.
> Right, there are no gods, there is only One.
Actually, there aren't any. But if you, like people of other religions, are
going to state there is only one god, you're going to have to tell us which
one. Or at least which religion you are so we can tell which "only god" you'
re talking about.
(Doesn't that tell you something, when a number of different religions each
state, theirs is the "only" god?)
> Research done, simply out of my own awe
> and fasination for Him after meeting Him.
There is one of the questions you said you didn't see. Here is what I asked
(It's right there in the quoted section of your post. Here, I'll show you):
>>> The Living Son of God disclosed Himself to me,
>>> i dont know why..... but He did....
>> So you saw him, did you? What did he look like?
>> What did he say to you? Did he have an accent?
>> What language did he speak?
Those question mark things are like questions. And I really am interested in
what he looks like and his voice and stuff. Please make an attempt to
answer.
> Prior to that I didnt give any view much thought.
Yea, me either.
> I dont blame Him for mans inability to take Him for what
> He is, nor do i blame Him for the insane compulsive desire
> of people like you to spend their valuable short time here,
> twisting His words, and distorting Him in any way possible.
You got me mixed up with your fellow Xians. Those words were written by man.
And it's you Xians that keep twisting the words. I'll give you a 'for
instance' or two. Like when you (not YOU, you, but Christians you) used the
bible to kill and torture during the Crusades. Now you use the bible to say
it was wrong. In colonial times the bible was used to justify hanging
'witches' in Salem. Now you use the bible to show how that was wrong. You
used the bible to justify slavery. Now you use it to show slavery's wrong.
You used scriptures to prevent interracial marriages. Now it's okay. You
used it to justify suppressing women's rights. Now you used it to say that's
okay now too (except for some medical procedures they don't want women to
have). Presently you use the bible to say homosexuality is wrong. But now
science is finding possible genetic reasons; and homosexuality in many
animals. Soon the Christians will be changing their morals on this too. You
make the bible say anything you want. THERE is the "twisting" of the words.
It's done by Xians, not we Atheists.
> Maybe you might want to look into the laws of thermodynamics
> your scientists have established.
MY scientists? You don't use medicines? You don't use modern technology?
(How about that computer you're using? Built by MY scientists?)
> Every form of matter after a period of time,
> begins to degenerate, decay, [snip]
Okay. You're one of those folks that believe that if something is real
complicated, it means there's a god, right? Like when there was lighting and
folks didn't understand it, they said it was a god thing. And as science
goes through the list of Magic Things, they swap over to the "There Isn't A
God Because We Can Explain It," column. You're still dealing in the "I Can't
Figure It Out So There Must Be A God," column.
> I am a christian so i try not to talk like that.
Yea, I've seen that before...
> I never said scientists were always wrong or right. They
> have done a lot of amazing things. No trouble here. Gills??
> Who's feeding you this stuff??
Those scientists that do "lot(s) of amazing things." The above reference to
gills being that those scientists found that during the embryonic state of
man (as in humans) the embryo actually develops a tail and gills. Then they
disappear.
As to "Who's feeding" me that stuff. It's called science. You'll find it
hidden in "Scientific" books and journals. You might try putting down that
fiction book (bible) and pick up on the facts you're living in. It might
even save you and make you understand the superstitious spell you're under.
> I said He "disclosed Himself to me". I never said I saw Him.
> He says all kinds of things to me. It wasn't a one time deal,
> its been going on for almost 3 yrs.
Sorry to hear than. Hope you get better. That's a hell of a spell you're
under.
> He spoke to me in english. It is the only language i know.
Okay. So did he have an accent? Did he use any unusual words, like from
thousands of years ago? Was he loud and did he interrupt you during the
conversation? How about writing some of the dialogue so we can see?
> Perhaps if I was bilingual He would have chose french.
Perhaps, if French was the other part of your bilingualness. It would be
quite a mess if your other language was Spanish.
> The rebirth of Isreal in 1948, there was nothing simple about
> it. It was discovered through a lot of study on time lines,
> biblical years vs. our calendar years, combined with a very
> careful study of God's laws in the old testament.
You might try quoting so I know what the hell you're talking about. I
presume this has to do with your statement that it was known, from 2500
years ago, that, down to the hour, somebody knew something would happen. And
I challenged you to show that. And from your above statement, it was from
"careful study" of the old testament. Which means, of course,
INTERPERTATION. Which means, again, making the bible say anything you want.
Like my above descriptions of slavery being A-Okay, et cetera.
In other words, the bible doesn't say the year, day, hour and all that,
right?
> Sorry I have never heard of Mithraism.
I know. They don't teach that in Xian churches.
> But you have stirred my curiousity, so I will punch the
> word into a search engine and have a look
Good. Your education is about to begin.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
--- Educating Christians since 1957
LibMind
>
> Indeed, this is a central point which christians don't get. You see
> belief as a matter of "belief *in*", wheras I see it s a matter of
> "belief *that*". I do not think *that* there is a god. Thinking that, it
> is a non-issue as to whether or not I shall belive *in* him. There
> simply is no him in whom to give or withold my trust.
Sophistry if ever there was, or Im afraid that you do not get the
point. To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
there is God." The later is simply better English, but it is
substantially the same. If you were unaware of the concept of God then
either could be said in description of your indifference. However,
since you do know the concept of "God" then to say either is to
positively decide that you "believe that God does not exist." This
belief is purely belief, and is as much "faith" as a belief in the
existence of God. And of course, being that the concept of God is what
it is, the notion of "burden of proof" is erroneous in relationship to
God. Face it -- your atheism is as purely "faith" as is Flaughter's
Christianity.
Christopher A. Lee
>"Paul Murray (home)" <pmu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<B5DP9.12171$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>>
>> Indeed, this is a central point which christians don't get. You see
>> belief as a matter of "belief *in*", wheras I see it s a matter of
>> "belief *that*". I do not think *that* there is a god. Thinking that, it
>> is a non-issue as to whether or not I shall belive *in* him. There
>> simply is no him in whom to give or withold my trust.
>
>Sophistry if ever there was, or Im afraid that you do not get the
>point. To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
>there is God."
No. The first presumes there is one. Paul Murray was right - to
theists its existence is a given and they believe IN it, they trust it
to be there when they need it, etc. However a lot of them
unconsciously equivocate between the two.
Instead of dismissing what he says as sophistry (it isn't), how about
explaining why you think it is?
> The later is simply better English, but it is
>substantially the same.
No, they're not. Unfortunately around a lot of US believers, English
has been dumbed down to remove a lot of the subtleties and differences
in meaning.
> If you were unaware of the concept of God then
>either could be said in description of your indifference. However,
>since you do know the concept of "God" then to say either is to
>positively decide that you "believe that God does not exist." This
>belief is purely belief, and is as much "faith" as a belief in the
>existence of God. And of course, being that the concept of God is what
>it is, the notion of "burden of proof" is erroneous in relationship to
>God. Face it -- your atheism is as purely "faith" as is Flaughter's
>Christianity.
Bullshit. It's no different than not believing in Santa Claus. There
is no debate about this. You have to accept that there is no single
"the concept of God" - everybody has their own concept, and ours is as
"something theists believe". It's a belief they have and we don't.
You also have to understand that when a theist mentions it, it does
not take it into the realm of "something to be believed to exist or
not to exist". All it tells us is that the theist believes something.
The world doesn't revolve around your religion and its doctrinal
premises. Heck, they don't even apply to us because we're outside your
religion.
It is disingenuous to pretend that not believing in something as
irrelevant as the deity from somebody else's religion (ie we see "God"
the same way you see Zeus, Mithras, Odidn, Osiris etc) is some kind of
faith. And it is extremely nasty to insist it is after you have been
corrected.
Because when we describe our own position, common courtesy dictates
that you accept that it actually is what we describe rather than
repeatedly insisting it is something else, which implicitly accuses us
of lying about it. But you're not a mind-reader. And when you use
spurious logic, equivocation, non-sequiturs and other fallacies to
"prove" it, you reveal more about yourself than you could ever grasp
about us.
>> You are not helping your case, dude. If you wish me to be persuaded by
>> your personal experiences, I would be more inclined to trust the word of
>> someone who did not come from a disfunctional home.
>>
>> > So you see there are people out there like you who have found Jesus and not
>> > only made him Saviour but Lord over their life?
Who SAY that. Do you understand the difference? Moslems, Hindus etc
say exactly the same about their equivalents.
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
> To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
> there is God." The later is simply better English, but it
> is substantially the same.
I don't believe in the No Left Turn law.
v.
I don't believe there is a No Left Turn law.
Substantially different.
> This belief is purely belief, and is as much
> "faith" as a belief in the existence of God.
I presume you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) that
actually controls the universe. Do you call that disbelief a faith?
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
Paul Murray (home)
>>Indeed, this is a central point which christians don't get. You see
>>belief as a matter of "belief *in*", wheras I see it s a matter of
>>"belief *that*". I do not think *that* there is a god. Thinking that, it
>>is a non-issue as to whether or not I shall belive *in* him. There
>>simply is no him in whom to give or withold my trust.
>
>
> Sophistry if ever there was, or Im afraid that you do not get the
> point. To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
> there is God." The later is simply better English, but it is
> substantially the same.
Not the way christians use the phase, or at least not the way I used it
when I was a christian. After all, James points out that the demons
"believe that there is a god". This isn't the same as having faith in
him. To belive *in* god, as I used the phrase, was to put your trust in
him, to have faith on him.
My original point was that a christian's renouncing their faith in God
is not the same thing as an atheist's not having a belief that there is
a god at all. Christians who equate their own times of backsliding with
atheism are making a mistake - a mistake that I did not make when I went
though "valley experiences" as a christian. My atheism now is not the
same thing as those experiences then, when I still belived but
temporarily turned my back on him.
> If you were unaware of the concept of God then
> either could be said in description of your indifference. However,
> since you do know the concept of "God" then to say either is to
> positively decide that you "believe that God does not exist." This
> belief is purely belief, and is as much "faith" as a belief in the
> existence of God.
Not nessesarily. A christains god-belief may be based on evidence that
seems reasonable to them, and an atheist's may also be based on evidence
that seems good to them. Neither is nessesarily a matter of pure belief,
as you make out.
> And of course, being that the concept of God is what
> it is, the notion of "burden of proof" is erroneous in relationship to
> God. Face it -- your atheism is as purely "faith" as is Flaughter's
> Christianity.
No, I disagree. "There is a god" and "there is not a god" are each
positive assertions, and each requires backing or one is entilted to
reserve judgment. For me, the position that there is no god makes better
sense of the world I find, and for that reason I am comfortable with the
positive assertion "there is no god". I may be wrong, but as it stands I
don't think I am.
But unless you are aopting some weirdo philosopphical definition - "God
is the ineffable" or something - I don't see that the phrase "There is a
God" does not require backing like any other assertion.
Apostate
Pbuh!
The IPU is Binky's Bitch, and you know it.
Confess it, or pay!!
>Jerry Sturdivant
>American Atheist
LibMind
> "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
> > there is God." The later is simply better English, but it
> > is substantially the same.
>
> I don't believe in the No Left Turn law.
> v.
> I don't believe there is a No Left Turn law.
>
> Substantially different.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Second, it depends on what one
means by "I don't believe in the No Left Turn law." The implication
can vary, because the statement is not specific. If one really means
"I don't believe in the justice of the No Left Turn law" then you
would be right, there would be a difference. If, however, one means to
say "I don't believe in the existence of the No Left Turn law" then
there is no difference as you have presented it. You know full well,
as I do, that when someone says that "I believe in God." they imply
that they "believe in the existence of God." They are only wantant of
better English.
> > This belief is purely belief, and is as much
> > "faith" as a belief in the existence of God.
>
> I presume you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) that
> actually controls the universe. Do you call that disbelief a faith?
>
>
> Jerry Sturdivant
> American Atheist
Yes, I do have faith that there is no IPU that controls the universe.
That is unless it is purported non-ethereal and extant in a specific
place, if so then I could test for its existence -- at least in the
said place. LOL. Realize your limitations Sturdivant, because I
realize them to be my own. We are both mortal men with limited
abilities to percieve and reason.
Timoleon
LibMind
> LibMind wrote:
>
> Not the way christians use the phase, or at least not the way I used it
> when I was a christian. After all, James points out that the demons
> "believe that there is a god". This isn't the same as having faith in
> him. To belive *in* god, as I used the phrase, was to put your trust in
> him, to have faith on him.
Well, actually I am a Christian but I would not use the phrase at all.
I think it is better to be specific. The difference between you and a
"demon" (I dispise this term) is that you love God and can have hope
through God. A demon sees no hope and can only hate God (whom they
KNOW to exist.) These are the spiritual legions of the Adversary.
> My original point was that a christian's renouncing their faith in God
> is not the same thing as an atheist's not having a belief that there is
> a god at all. Christians who equate their own times of backsliding with
> atheism are making a mistake - a mistake that I did not make when I went
> though "valley experiences" as a christian. My atheism now is not the
> same thing as those experiences then, when I still belived but
> temporarily turned my back on him.
>
> > If you were unaware of the concept of God then
> > either could be said in description of your indifference. However,
> > since you do know the concept of "God" then to say either is to
> > positively decide that you "believe that God does not exist." This
> > belief is purely belief, and is as much "faith" as a belief in the
> > existence of God.
>
> Not nessesarily. A christains god-belief may be based on evidence that
> seems reasonable to them, and an atheist's may also be based on evidence
> that seems good to them. Neither is nessesarily a matter of pure belief,
> as you make out.
Yes, they are pure belief. Show me your proof and I can show you how
it is to be refuted or how it is incapable of demonstration.
> > And of course, being that the concept of God is what
> > it is, the notion of "burden of proof" is erroneous in relationship to
> > God. Face it -- your atheism is as purely "faith" as is Flaughter's
> > Christianity.
>
> No, I disagree. "There is a god" and "there is not a god" are each
> positive assertions, and each requires backing or one is entilted to
> reserve judgment. For me, the position that there is no god makes better
> sense of the world I find, and for that reason I am comfortable with the
> positive assertion "there is no god". I may be wrong, but as it stands I
> don't think I am.
They would require backing, if backing was possible, but it is not.
Both are issues of pure faith and cannot be afforded demonstratable
proof. God does give "evidence" to those who already believe, which I
generally call "signs" in order to distinguish them from "proof" as
moderns understand it. Signs are sent to reinforce belief or draw over
those with a completely open mind, a heart hardened to God is
incapable of seeing them for what they are, and many signs are meant
for only one of a few in any case. Signs therefore are not necesarily
demonstratable to anyone else -- they are not "proof" in the modern,
secular sense.
Timoleon
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>>> To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
>>> there is God." The later is simply better English, but it
>>> is substantially the same.
>> I don't believe in the No Left Turn law.
>> v.
>> I don't believe there is a No Left Turn law.
>>
>> Substantially different.
> You are comparing apples and oranges.
So how were you able to explain the analogy with my comparison?
> Second, it depends on what one means by "I don't believe
> in the No Left Turn law." The implication can vary, because
> the statement is not specific. If one really means "I don't
> believe in the justice of the No Left Turn law" then you
> would be right, there would be a difference.
Of course I'm right. "Substantially different." And exactly the same
explaining the original example at the top of the post.
> Realize your limitations Sturdivant,
> because I realize them to be my own.
As I showed by your incorrect (and "not specific") statement at the top,
using your own explanation of my example.
Jerry Sturdivant
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
> God does give "evidence" to those who already believe, which
> I generally call "signs" in order to distinguish them from
> "proof" as moderns understand it. Signs are sent to reinforce
> belief or draw over those with a completely open mind [.]
And therein lies the rub. It is I, the Atheist, that has the open mind. It
is the theist, which doesn't. Now where are you?
> a heart hardened to God is incapable of seeing them for what
> they are, and many signs are meant for only one of a few
> in any case.
And I can as easily say: "A heart hardened to facts is incapable of seeing
them for what they are."
As long as there is even one other religion, you can't have the high ground.
Jerry Sturdivant
LibMind
> "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>
> > God does give "evidence" to those who already believe, which
> > I generally call "signs" in order to distinguish them from
> > "proof" as moderns understand it. Signs are sent to reinforce
> > belief or draw over those with a completely open mind [.]
>
> And therein lies the rub. It is I, the Atheist, that has the open mind. It
> is the theist, which doesn't. Now where are you?
The atheist does not have an open mind in relationship to anything
deific because atheists, by definition of what they are, have already
decided that they believe all gods not to exist (and usually believe
that there is no spirit world to boot.) Theists have made the opposite
choice. They have chosen to believe in a deity that interacts with the
world. Deists have chosen to believe in a deity that does not interact
with the world. And spiritualists have chosen to believe in a spirit
world. What all of the above have in common is that, in relationship
to the implied subjects of their labeling, they have made up their
minds -- their minds have ceased to be open. Only the agnostic can,
theoretically, be said to have an open mind by definition, because the
agnostic is paradoxically decidedly undecided.
> > a heart hardened to God is incapable of seeing them for what
> > they are, and many signs are meant for only one of a few
> > in any case.
>
> And I can as easily say: "A heart hardened to facts is incapable of seeing
> them for what they are."
>
> As long as there is even one other religion, you can't have the high ground.
Oh, and why is that?
Timoleon
LibMind
LOL! No. It shows that, like any sophist, you can wiggle through
non-specific statements. And my ascertion stands unchallenged, there
is no difference between "believing in no God" and "believing that
there is no God." In either case a positive FAITH is represented that
God does not exist. Atheism is a faith and you have not shown it to
the contrary.
Timoleon
Don Kresch
(LibMind) let us all know that:
...it is an idiot without any hope of redemption.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
The Holy Kafir
There is a difference, to say there is not is equivocation. The context of
the word 'believe' is very different between the theist and the anti-theist.
The theist 'believes' in a god in the same context that a small child might
'believe' in the tooth fairy or Santa.
The anti-theist 'believes' there is no god in the same context that a
mathematician 'believes' that 2 + 2 = 5 is false. The meaning of the word
'believe' is different in both cases.
To say they have the same meaning is equivocation and a fallacy.
AckbarJedi
Why don't theists read about atheism first? Anybody have an answer?
Okay, Timoleon, here's the difference (as I just explained a few seconds ago
in another post).
Positive (Strong) Atheism maintains that god DOES NOT exist.
Weak Atheism simply lacks belief in a God. It does not affirm that one
cannot and does not exist. It simply says that a person does not happen to
have belief in one.
Most atheists are weak atheists and lack belief. Lack of belief in a God is
no different that lack of belief that the sun will explode tomorrow. There
is no evidence indicating that the sun *will* explode and there is no
logical reason to believe that it will.
Make sense? I hope so.
-AckbarJedi
Christopher A. Lee
That's true, but the explanation fails because the theist listener
interprets it using _his_ understanding of the word "God" which
includes self-evident existence, supreme importance etc.
They see us like people arguing the difference between believing the
Sun doesn't exist, and not believing the Sun exists - it's that real
to them.
Instead of the meaning you intended: something somebody else believes.
In cultural or anthropological terms.
It is the rare theist who can interpret it that way because it has a
level of indirection their thought processses won't allow them.
I don't know how to get this rather obvious point across to them.
We've all of us explained how we see it in the same way they see Odin,
Zeus, Santa Claus or even (their own words) false gods and they
usually explain "why" it's not - to them. Completely missing the point
that we're explaining how _we_ see it, not how they do.
Karl E. Taylor
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <stu...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<p7KQ9.24212$oy5.1...@news2.west.cox.net>...
>
>>"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>God does give "evidence" to those who already believe, which
>>>I generally call "signs" in order to distinguish them from
>>>"proof" as moderns understand it. Signs are sent to reinforce
>>>belief or draw over those with a completely open mind [.]
>>
>>And therein lies the rub. It is I, the Atheist, that has the open mind. It
>>is the theist, which doesn't. Now where are you?
>
>
> The atheist does not have an open mind in relationship to anything
> deific because atheists, by definition of what they are, have already
> decided that they believe all gods not to exist (and usually believe
> that there is no spirit world to boot.) Theists have made the opposite
> choice. They have chosen to believe in a deity that interacts with the
> world. Deists have chosen to believe in a deity that does not interact
> with the world. And spiritualists have chosen to believe in a spirit
> world. What all of the above have in common is that, in relationship
> to the implied subjects of their labeling, they have made up their
> minds -- their minds have ceased to be open. Only the agnostic can,
> theoretically, be said to have an open mind by definition, because the
> agnostic is paradoxically decidedly undecided.
>
Atheists are very open minded people. They look for answers. They
study new data. They are willing to change their minds should evidence
point to mistaken ideologies. All that is required is evidence. You
and others like you have provided none. Ergo, we see no reason or
evidence to believe in gods, devils, angels, demons, heavens, hells or
after life's.
Theists on the other hand, are notorious for answering ever tough
question with "god did it". You and your kind are the ones that time
and again ask us, "what would it take to make you believe in god?", to
which, we usually give a long lists of things that your gods should be
able to do. So far zippo. We present evidence that your sacred text is
flawed and silly, you run away, or call us blind. We show you evidence
that your myths could not possibly have happened, you say you'll pray
for us. Any thing we present that shakes your card house of faith, you
run from and refuse to investigate fully.
Now, explain again how the people willing to investigate and study are
the ones with the closed minds.
>
>
>>>a heart hardened to God is incapable of seeing them for what
>>>they are, and many signs are meant for only one of a few
>>>in any case.
>>
>>And I can as easily say: "A heart hardened to facts is incapable of seeing
>>them for what they are."
>>
>>As long as there is even one other religion, you can't have the high ground.
>
>
> Oh, and why is that?
>
Simple, you'll find something wrong with it, and it with yours. Both of
the religions will claim that they are the only way to the gods, and
both would be wrong.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Karl E. Taylor
claims of theists that gods are indeed real and fact."
There is my statement of atheism. Care to try and counter it?
Without objective evidence to support your claim of this magical sky
fairy of yours, the default position is, there ain't none. No faith is
required, just as you appear to not need any faith in not believing in
my 40 foot green dragon. Whom by the way is very pissed at your lack of
faith in him.
When you claim there is something in existence, you must support that
claim. Do you think it takes faith and a real belief for you to deny
the existence of my dragon? If so, how? And why?
Does it now sound foolish that you have the faith and belief in
nodragon, when I have only stated that I have a dragon, and yet
presented you with absolutely no evidence to support this claim?
When you realize why you don't believe in my dragon, then you'll
understand why I don't believe in any gods. Yours included.
Rob Brown
> deific because atheists, by definition of what they are, have already
> decided that they believe all gods not to exist (and usually believe
> that there is no spirit world to boot.) Theists have made the opposite
> choice. They have chosen to believe in a deity that interacts with the
> world. Deists have chosen to believe in a deity that does not interact
> with the world. And spiritualists have chosen to believe in a spirit
> world.
Did you choose to believe in dirt? Can you choose not to?
Did you choose to believe in rocks? Can you choose not to?
Did you choose to believe in baseball bats? Can you choose not to?
Did you choose to believe in computers? Can you choose not to?
I assume you do not believe in the existence of Odin.Could you choose to
believe in Odin and actually believe? If not, why not. If you can then why
don't you? I believe you apply different criteria for your god belief than
you do to belief in anything else including other gods.
> What all of the above have in common is that, in relationship
> to the implied subjects of their labeling, they have made up their
> minds -- their minds have ceased to be open.
No, my mind is not closed. I am waiting for your god show itself to exist.
Dirt, no problem. Baseball bat, OK. Computer, right here at my fingertips.
God............still waiting for it to show that it exists. My only
experience with god/gods is unsupported assertion by another human that
their god exists. Far short of sufficient evidence to cause belief. In fact
the very same humans will not accept the assertion that a god other than
their own exists.
Rob Brown
Rob Brown
"AckbarJedi" <DeathtoSpa...@DeathtoSpamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e_8R9.167$j22.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:7dfbf389.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Jerry Sturdivant" <stu...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> news:<i_JQ9.24208$oy5.1...@news2.west.cox.net>...
> > > "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> To "not believe in God" is the same as to "not believe that
> > > >>> there is God." The later is simply better English, but it
> > > >>> is substantially the same.
> > >
> > > >> I don't believe in the No Left Turn law.
> > > >> v.
> > > >> I don't believe there is a No Left Turn law.
> > > >>
> > > >> Substantially different.
> > >
> > > > You are comparing apples and oranges.
A) I don't believe the biblical Jesus existed.
B) It is impossible for the biblical Jesus to have existed.
A) I don't believe North Korea has nuclear weapons.
B) It is impossible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons.
A) I don't believe you have climbed Mount Everest solo.
B) It is impossible for you to climb Mount Everest solo.
Do you believe A implies B in every case? If not then why would
A) I don't believe in the existence of your god
imply
B) It is impossible for a god to exist. ?
> >
> > LOL! No. It shows that, like any sophist, you can wiggle through
> > non-specific statements. And my ascertion stands unchallenged, there
> > is no difference between "believing in no God" and "believing that
> > there is no God." In either case a positive FAITH is represented that
> > God does not exist. Atheism is a faith and you have not shown it to
> > the contrary.
> >
> > Timoleon
>
> Why don't theists read about atheism first? Anybody have an answer?
>
> Okay, Timoleon, here's the difference (as I just explained a few seconds
ago
> in another post).
>
> Positive (Strong) Atheism maintains that god DOES NOT exist.
> Weak Atheism simply lacks belief in a God. It does not affirm that one
> cannot and does not exist. It simply says that a person does not happen
to
> have belief in one.
The usual response to this is, in essence, " It is impossible to think as
you describe above." There will be no support offered for this position.
What will be offered is semantic arguments. LibMind, from above - "And my
ascertion stands unchallenged, there is no difference between "believing in
no God" and "believing that there is no God." The reason no argument
directly addressing why it is impossible to believe as described is that it
cannot be shown to be impossible. The only argument available is in the form
of " When you say those words what you really mean by them is.........".
The mind reader argument.
Why is it impossible for a human mind to exist in a state that does not
hold a belief in a god or gods and also does not hold the belief that it is
impossible for a god or gods to exist?
Rob Brown
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>>> God does give "evidence" to those who already believe, which
>>> I generally call "signs" in order to distinguish them from
>>> "proof" as moderns understand it. Signs are sent to reinforce
>>> belief or draw over those with a completely open mind [.]
>> And therein lies the rub. It is I, the Atheist, that has the open
>> mind. It is the theist, which doesn't. Now where are you?
> The atheist does not have an open mind in relationship to
> anything deific because atheists, by definition of what they
> are, have already decided that they believe all gods not
> to exist (and usually believe that there is no spirit world
> to boot.) Theists have made the opposite choice.
<sigh> The theists does not have an open mind in relationship to anything
logical because theists, by definition of what they are, have already
decided that they believe in god(s). (And that theire is a spirit world to
boot, consisting of ghosts, souls, charms, angels, devils, goblins, spirits
(holy or otherwise), heavens, hells, fairies and demons)(not sure about the
'fairies' part). Atheists have no such beliefs.
My point being, you work from a frame of reference of you being right and
Atheists not. Were you to view from the middle, you might see better.
> What all of the above have in common is that, in relationship
> to the implied subjects of their labeling, they have made
> up their minds -- their minds have ceased to be open.
Whoa! Look who's made up THEIR mind..!
>> As long as there is even one other religion,
>> you can't have the high ground.
> Oh, and why is that?
You can't prove you're right and the others wrong.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
> No. It shows that, like any sophist, you can wiggle
> through non-specific statements.
Which is what your statement, and challenge, was.
> And my ascertion stands unchallenged,
Whoa! I challenged it, you admitted I 'wiggled through the explanation' and
was right.
> Atheism is a faith and you have not shown it to the contrary.
Who's doing the 'wiggling' now? All you have to do is look it up in the
dictionary. A disbelief is not a faith and you can't prove that it is.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
LibMind
I'm happy to note that you are the one who is incorrect. As I have
already pointed out, atheism is a faith in the non-existence of God --
or at least requires such a faith. Atheism therefore has already "made
up its mind" on the particular issue. On that issue therefore it is
not "open-minded." There is no more demonstratable proof of the
non-existence of God than the existence of God. Why do you not
"require evidence" of God's non-existence? Simple. Atheism requires no
proof. Atheists are atheists because they feel like being atheists --
end of story. Theists are theists because they feel like being
theists.
If you wish to believe otherwise and incorrectly, then that is up to
you.
Timoleon
LibMind
> "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:7dfbf389.03010...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The atheist does not have an open mind in relationship to anything
> > deific because atheists, by definition of what they are, have already
> > decided that they believe all gods not to exist (and usually believe
> > that there is no spirit world to boot.) Theists have made the opposite
> > choice. They have chosen to believe in a deity that interacts with the
> > world. Deists have chosen to believe in a deity that does not interact
> > with the world. And spiritualists have chosen to believe in a spirit
> > world.
>
> Did you choose to believe in dirt? Can you choose not to?
> Did you choose to believe in rocks? Can you choose not to?
> Did you choose to believe in baseball bats? Can you choose not to?
> Did you choose to believe in computers? Can you choose not to?
All of the above items are by definition material objects. As such
they are observable by the five senses and demonstratable proof can be
supplied for their existence or non-existence in any particular
instance -- faith is not required. If you ask me "Is there dirt in the
green room next door?"i can test for it, and if it is there I can
expect to find it. Not finding it will be strong evidence that "dirt"
does not exist in the green room (a miraculously clean room, no?)
However, God by definition is not necessarily observable by any of our
five senses, and cannot be expected to yeild demonstratable proof. The
absence of demonstratable evidence cannot, therefore, be seen as proof
of God's non-existence. The concept of God, either as extant or
non-existent is a matter of pure faith and the choice is virtually
inescapable by anyone who has been introduced to the concept of God --
it is a compulsive choice in faith. Atheists only fool themselves by
believing that their notion of God's non-existence has any foundation
in demonstratable evidence.
> I assume you do not believe in the existence of Odin.Could you choose to
> believe in Odin and actually believe? If not, why not. If you can then why
> don't you? I believe you apply different criteria for your god belief than
> you do to belief in anything else including other gods.
My believe necessitates the belief that Odin does not exist, atleast
not as a deity. One cannot think something both wet and dry in the
same moment and space because "wet" and "dry" are contradictions. I
cannot believe in one exclusive God in this universe and believe in
others because this would be a contradiction. As far as why I have
chosen to believe in what I believe, it is probably beyond the scope
of what you accept is reality. Do you even know what I believe?
> No, my mind is not closed. I am waiting for your god show itself to exist.
> Dirt, no problem. Baseball bat, OK. Computer, right here at my fingertips.
> God............still waiting for it to show that it exists.
> Rob Brown
LOL. It will not be in this life, friend, atleast if by "show itself"
you mean a demonstratable act evident to anyone with the five standard
human senses and moderate IQ.
Timoleon
LibMind
> "LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
> You can't prove you're right and the others wrong.
No I can't and neither can the other religious or the atheist. This is
of course my very point. It is not an issue of demonstratable proof,
it is an issue of faith. LOL.
>
> Jerry Sturdivant
> American Atheist
Timoleon
Denis Loubet
And we've already responded that that's hogwash.
I lack belief in a god. It is a report of the state of my belief, and
nothing more. I make no assertion about the existence or non-existence of
such a thing.
> Atheism therefore has already "made
> up its mind" on the particular issue.
Our minds can be changed in an instant. Just provide us unambiguous evidence
that a god exists.
> On that issue therefore it is
> not "open-minded."
Being willing to change our mind means we're close minded?
> There is no more demonstratable proof of the
> non-existence of God than the existence of God.
This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
> Why do you not
> "require evidence" of God's non-existence?
Because absent any reason to even posit a god, there's no reason to consider
its existence.
Must one believe in all arbitrary claims until evidence shows they are not
true?
> Simple. Atheism requires no
> proof.
Because we're not making any assertions.
> Atheists are atheists because they feel like being atheists --
> end of story.
No. We're atheists because we're not theists.
> Theists are theists because they feel like being
> theists.
If you say so.
> If you wish to believe otherwise and incorrectly, then that is up to
> you.
Says the troll.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Karl E. Taylor
How is not seeing evidence, evidence of faith? You provide no evidence
to support your claim that there is a god, but you expect evidence for
the none existence of said god from us. Do you also require that people
who do not believe in unicorns to provide evidence to support their lack
of faith in said creatures?
You also provide no evidence for your lack of faith in the dragon.
Ergo, you are an adragonist. Someone that has seen no evidence of the
dragon, therefor does not believe in it. It does not require faith for
you to not believe in the dragon, any more then it does not require
faith for me to not believe in your god. It does require faith however
to believe in something that has no evidence to support it's existence.
Show me your evidence that the dragon does not exist, and you'll have
your evidence for why gods do not exist. However, if you have objective
evidence for the existence of your god, present it. I'll be happy to
review it and change my mind should that evidence be valid.
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, are you?
ank
something is not faith just the lack of. Strange, you can't seem to back
up any of your arguments with evidence.
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>> You can't prove you're right and the others wrong.
> No I can't and neither can the other religious or the atheist.
> This is of course my very point. It is not an issue of demonstratable
> proof, it is an issue of faith. LOL.
Your cheap ploy of the misuse of 'faith' is transparent.
Jerry Sturdivant
Peter Maurice Cram
"John Flaugher" <inch...@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:mzydnaqbzMh...@ctc.net...> news:7dfbf389.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > Did you ever have that moment when you were a child (or teenager) when
> > you looked around that church that your parents had dragged you to,
> > saying to yourself "what a bunch of hypocrites." Or perhaps it occured
> > to you when trying to befreind certain other youths. They were
> > obnoxious or cruel, eventhough they professed love for all humanity or
> > holiness.
> >
> > Indeed, it is undeniable that hypocrisy is a weakness of the
> > religious. Let me tell you of my experience. As a twelve year old boy
> > and an introvert, I had peculiar habits. I liked to keep my jacket
> > with me, on, wherever I went. It had to be blustery hot before I
> > forsook the tattered old thing. Once when visiting a friend's church I
> > refused to give it up to some adults that asked if I wanted them to
> > take it. Later, during the sermon the preacher was talking about
> > people hiding behind material things. He looked at me when naming off
> > some things and said "or even jackets." He referrenced me and in an
> > obvious way! To me, an introvert, this was a horrific experience.
> > Thinking back on the event I often thought, "What a hypocrite."
> > Doubtlessly this preacher had made multiple sermons about not passing
> > judgement and respecting other human beings, yet there he was passing
> > judgement on me -- a boy who he did not even know, just to make a
> > minor point. And don't even get me going about my experiences with
> > other youths who claimed to be the servants of God.
> >
> > Acting in a way inconsistent with one's claims -- hypocrisy -- is in
> > fact a problem of all human beings, however, though it is more galling
> > among those who claim holiness. But realize that hypocrisy has nothing
> > to do with truth and falsehood. If nothing was true that had ever been
> > betrayed by hypocrisy then no morality, whether religious or secular
> > could be considered valid. Just because human beings fail an idea,
> > therefore, cannot mean that the idea is untrue. It is unfortunate that
> > so many who reject God cite hypocrisy as thier reason, because the
> > truth of the idea of a God or God's grace has little to do with the
> > weakness of mortal beings in acting upon what they believe.
> >
> > Timoleon
>
>
>
>
> I have in times past felt exactly like you. To see a bunch of church
goers
> sitting on there gossip pew pointing at everyone elses mistakes and yet
> falling short to view there own.
>
> This is a great tragedy that not only happens to you but to alot of
people.
> Maybe that is why Jesus had so much to say to the Pharasises and the
Scribes
> who were just that hypocrites. Would you think that it would be fare to
> judge the body of Christ based on what you have experienced.
>
> There are people out there like me who once was an atheist or a diest too.
> I renounced God when I found out that I could not have what I wanted most,
> Children. For 5years I did what most do and that is to roll in the mud of
> self pitty and denial to the one true God who want to take my pain and
bear
> it Himself. I would not give it to Him partly becasue of the
disfunctional
> family that I was rasied in and the other part was becasue I was not going
> to have a church full of people condemn me. I did eventually give my life
> to Him and just by asking Him to open my eyes to allow me to see His Glory
> and His grace that He wanted to freely give me.
>
> I wish that I could say that I was the perfect Christian for you to look
at
> but I am not. I only serve a God who is and is always helping me not to
> beocome the offense but to show a blinded world His free and never ending
> grace. After His word tells us that in John 3:16 (which you proballly
have
> heard before but please go on and read the 17th verse too)
> John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
> that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
> life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world:
but
> that the world through him might be saved.
>
> So you see there are people out there like you who have found Jesus and
not
> only made him Saviour but Lord over their life?
>
> Can I help you find Him?
> John "Tony" Flaugher
>
> Ha,
hahaahahaahahahaahahhahhahahahahahahhhahahhahahahahahahhaahaaaahahahhahah.
No thanks, can't find what don't exist!
Jerry Sturdivant
From: "steve" <luvth...@shaw.ca>
> Oh ya...... mithraism...... very intresting.....it was a
> religion preceding christianity..... ok..... also very much
> in common with christianity......why did it cease to exist?
Who told you it didn't exist any longer? (Check India). What you need to
answer is why Christianity 'borrowed' some many of its tenets.
> well i guess that guy who was born in a manger
Try and keep up. They decided he (if he existed) wasn't born in a manger.
New transcriptions place that activity in a hotel. (For religious reasons,
folk like the symbolism of the CrĨche, and just kind of let the hotel
information slide).
> and growing up to preform numerous miracles and fufill dozens
> of prophecies and eventually be crucified on a cross, and
> rise from the dead 3 days after the fact as prophesied just
> may have had a major impact on the belief systems of other
> religions around that time.
Not really. Everything written about the presumed Jesus was started over
80-years after he presumably lived. Ergo, the mystifying history (stolen)
from other religions.
> Theres one thing your not seeing Jerry. Christianity
> is not a "religion". It is a "relationship"
You better rephrase who's not seeing what. You can't even sell that to
Xians.
> It is about knowing (like i said i do) and carrying out a
> friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
You call it a friendship? I though it was a "personal relationship?"
> Have i seen God Jerry? No I havent... you cant see Him....
> Have i heard Him ?Yes!!
So what does his voice sound like? Does it have a Jewish accent? Is it loud?
> Do i know Him?? Yes!!
Because you hear voices, right? Or is it that you talk to the voice and it
answers you? Next time you're talking to him, ask him about the hotel thing.
> It is the single most amazing and incredible thing any human
> being can experience. I feel bad for you that your missing
> out on this.
Don't feel bad for me. I'm mentally stable and enjoying the only life there
is.
> you ask for proof?? OK...... read the Signature of God.....by
> Grant Jeffreys...
Read the dictionary on what "Proof" is.
> lots of education there for ya... all kinds
> of scientific proof God does exist..
There is no scientific proof of a god. If there were, we'd all know it and
there would be no question.
> And i challenge you for the next 2 weeks... anytime something
> even remotely possible happens to you.....look up into the
> sky and say..... Thank U Jesus!! I dare you!! for two weeks......
Yea, right. One week won't do it, huh? (Hee)
> That is if your up to meeting Him!! more proof there than
> u could ever imagine...... take care!!!
You should try to get some help.
Jerry Sturdivant
American Atheist
-- Educating Christians since 1957
!
LibMind
If that is what you want to believe, Jerry. Have a good life.
steve
still have it u would like me to awnser?? I dont know. I havent given it a
lot of thought. i didn"t know i had to. They decided (if)
he was born it was in a hotel?? Who is they?? That sounds like the classic
cliche..."well THEY say..... The simple untwisted truth is Mary and Joseph,
tried to get a room at an inn, (to humor you we can call it a hotel) but
there was no room at the inn and they were turned away, so He was born in a
manger (stable). Ergo nothing.... Buddism never phrophesied
the coming of a Messiah or any of the tens of dozens of prophecies that were
associated with the said Messiah. Nor did any other religion. Presumably
written 80 yrs after He lived..... yes presumably...... (sigh).... cling to
what u can. Rephrase Christianity as a relationship?? None
of the christians i know nor I'm sure the ones on this NG would have much
trouble understanding that. I know you must not get out much ( what with
all the time u spend trying to dispell the existence of God, but if you have
any friends, why would it be so hard to define that friendship as a personal
relationship?? Your mixing apples with oranges now... come on.
You keep asking me about what His voice sounds like and if it has an
accent...... ( amusing) Is it loud?? No its very soft and quiet. I have
presented you with a book that is littered with all kinds of
scientific..archelogical... mathematical... prophetical proof of Gods
existence... and the best you can do is say......"There is no scientific
proof " ? What you really mean is you choose not to examine it for yourself
because you might run the risk of seeing or reading something you A) didnt
know..... or B) might shake your belief system and make you think twice
about what you've been devoting so much of your life to.
Then i present you with a challenge that would prove beyond anything that He
is alive and well right now...... and you dismiss that with some silly
comment about time lines...... maybe one week would do it....... maybe a day
would...... maybe one second would!! There simply is no greater proof you
could ask for than to meet God for yourself. Well if you really have
been trying to steer God's children away from Him since 1957 then i guess u
would have a lot to worry about, if u did confront Him. But i think He would
forgive you. (hee) Where did u come up with that "educating xians"
thing anyway?? it sounds like a slogan for the bottom half of the golden
arches!! lol!! Seriously though... we christians could never awnser
everything you throw at us, were only human. You should approach Him. He
holds all the awnsers... not us. And one last thing....... If this is ( not
my belief) the only life there is to live...... Then why on earth would you
spend so much of your life pursuing this!?!?!?!? 1957?? HOLY!!! Lifes to
short buddy... according to you that is. According to us xians and the
bible we read.. God has said... " everyone will have to give account for
every single word that they speak" So if your right .. and He doesnt
exist.. you can breathe easy. But Jerry..... what if were right?? You tell
me you spend all your time on this ..... all in a vain effort to prove some
point... over what i dont know........ and u tell me i should get some
help?? Pride is a killer buddy.news:EeuS9.96791$oy5.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
Ichimusai
> India still carries that religion?? Ok.. even if they do.. why do
> they still have it u would like me to awnser?? I dont know. I havent
> given it a lot of thought. i didn"t know i had to. They decided (if)
> he was born it was in a hotel?? Who is they?? That sounds like the
> classic cliche..."well THEY say..... The simple untwisted truth is
> Mary and Joseph, tried to get a room at an inn, (to humor you we can
> call it a hotel) but there was no room at the inn and they were
> turned away, so He was born in a manger (stable). Ergo nothing....
> Buddism never phrophesied the coming of a Messiah or any of the tens
> of dozens of prophecies that were associated with the said Messiah.
Man if you want anyone to even read what you post you seriously need
to - damn, that is just too obtuse to read.
a) learn to partition your text so that it is easy to follow
b) start using rather then abusing interpunctation
c) when answering a long post with specific, write your answers
interspersed with the quoted material so that it is easy to
understand what you are answering to.
d) stop top posting
e) repair your keboard because the dot gets stuck ever so often
--
AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai AOL: Ichimusai1972 MSN: Ichimusai
IRC: Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet URL: http://www.ichimusai.org/
Kazegusuri to rusuban denwa cat food to oki tegami sayonara mo iwanai
no!
Rob Brown
What do you mean by "not necessarily observable by any of our
five senses " ? Is your god observable by any of our 5 senses or not? If
your god is then your argument fails. If god is not then why the
"necessarily"? Do you mean it could be observable if it wants to? You seem
to know that it absolutely will not make itself observable. You wrote below
"LOL. It will not be in this life, friend, atleast if by "show itself" you
mean a demonstratable act evident to anyone with the five standard human
senses and moderate IQ." How do you know that? If it can be observable how
do you know it won't show itself in a way detectable by our senses? Why
wouldn't it?
> and cannot be expected to yeild demonstratable proof. The
> absence of demonstratable evidence cannot, therefore, be seen as proof
> of God's non-existence. The concept of God, either as extant or
> non-existent is a matter of pure faith and the choice is virtually
> inescapable by anyone who has been introduced to the concept of God --
> it is a compulsive choice in faith.
I describe an entity, entity X, not your god.The description of entity X
includes the qualification that the entity is "by definition is not
necessarily observable by any of our five senses" ."The concept of entity X,
either as extant or non-existent is a matter of pure faith and the choice is
virtually
inescapable by anyone who has been introduced to the concept of entity X--
it is a compulsive choice in faith." Correct?
Do you have faith in the existence of entity X or do you have faith in the
non existence of entity X? How do you make this decision ?
> Atheists only fool themselves by
> believing that their notion of God's non-existence has any foundation
> in demonstratable evidence.
All atheists do not believe that. You should know that. If you change it to
"some atheists" It would not look so much like sophistry.
Rob Brown
Jerry Sturdivant
"LibMind" <LibMi...@cs.com> wrote
>> Your cheap ploy of the misuse of 'faith' is transparent.
> If that is what you want to believe, Jerry. Have a good life.
I am, actually. I've been everywhere and done everything I could. I'm really
enjoying the only life there is. But when you say that Atheists have
"faith," it's a misuse of words.
When I saw a volcano go off, I said, "Cool!" We both know what I meant. And
it wasn't that the volcano was low temperature. It's the same with you using
'faith' to explain what Atheists don't believe.
Jerry (Who thinks Las Vegas is a cool place to live)
Jerry Sturdivant
"steve" <st...@shaw.ca> wrote
[mithraism......]
> India still carries that religion??
Yes. It's older than Christianity. (If seniority means anything to you).
> Ok.. even if they do.. why do they still have it u would
> like me to awnser?? I dont know.
Why do 'they' have any religion?
> I havent given it a lot of thought.
Most religious folks don't.
> They decided (if) he was born it was in
> a hotel?? Who is they??
The religious folks that interpret the bible from original languages.
> The simple untwisted truth is Mary and Joseph, tried to get
> a room at an inn, (to humor you we can call it a hotel) but
> there was no room at the inn and they were turned away, so
> He was born in a manger (stable).
That's the part that was wrong. And the manger was brought into the hotel
room. It's all in the translations.
> Buddism never phrophesied the coming of a Messiah or any
> of the tens of dozens of prophecies that were associated
> with the said Messiah.
And your point is?
By the way, I've a prophesy that a president of the United States will be
borne in the next 50-years. <Yawn>
> [statements about Jeusu] Presumably written 80 yrs
> after He lived..... yes presumably
Do you know of any writing of him prior to that?
> (sigh).... cling to what u can.
That's the Christian way.
> Rephrase Christianity as a relationship?? None of the christians
> i know nor I'm sure the ones on this NG would have much trouble
> understanding that.
Good. Explain his voice, any accent, et cetera.
> I know you must not get out much (what with all the time
> u spend trying to dispell the existence of God,
I don't have to. It's the Xians that spend time trying to convince other
there are ghosts, souls, charms, angels, devils, goblins, spirits, heavens,
hells, fairies, demons and gods. Not me.
> but if you have any friends, why would it be so hard to define
> that friendship as a personal relationship?? Your mixing
> apples with oranges now... come on. You keep asking me about
> what His voice sounds like and if it has an accent......
Do you not know what a relationship is? Let alone a personal one?
> Is it loud?? No its very soft and quiet.
So you have heard voices. Any accent? Use any odd words? Tell us about it.
> I have presented you with a book that is littered with all
> kinds of scientific..archelogical... mathematical... prophetical
> proof of Gods existence... and the best you can do is say......"There
> is no scientific proof " ?
That's right. There is no god. Regardless of you think some book says, if
there were proof, we'd all know and there would be no question. But why try
to kiss me off to a book? Give me the proof right here.
> What you really mean is you choose not to examine it for
> yourself because you might run the risk of seeing or reading
> something you A) didnt know..... or B) might shake your belief
> system and make you think twice about what you've been devoting
> so much of your life to.
No. I won't waste my time. I've read the bible twice and that was enough
waste of time. So let's see your proof, right here, right now.
> Then i present you with a challenge that would prove beyond
> anything that He is alive and well right now...... and you
> dismiss that with some silly comment about time lines......
> maybe one week would do it....... maybe a day would......
> maybe one second would!! There simply is no greater proof
> you could ask for than to meet God for yourself.
Right. But nobody has because there isn't one. How much simpler is it that
that?
> Well if you really have been trying to steer God's children
> away from Him since 1957 then i guess u would have a lot
> to worry about, if u did confront Him.
Not even then. But their ain't.
> Where did u come up with that "educating xians" thing anyway??
I've show a number of folks the fallacies of religion. Once they start
understanding the facts and start using logic, they understand they've been
hoodwinked. Did you read about Mithraism? Did you see the facts I showed?
Try to explain them away. The more you look into it, the sooner you will
realize that Christianity is just a copy of a previous
religion/superstition.
> Seriously though... we christians could never awnser everything
> you throw at us, were only human.
So just tell us about Mithraism.
> You should approach Him. He holds all the awnsers... not us.
So you've closed your eyes to facts? You refuse to look for answers? Are you
afraid of what you would find? Those that have looked have become educated
and free. I've been doing it since 1957.
> And one last thing....... If this is ( not my belief) the
> only life there is to live...... Then why on earth would
> you spend so much of your life pursuing this!?!?!?!?
To help others cast off the bonds of superstition, hate and discrimination.
The majority of the earth's murders are related to religions.
> 1957?? HOLY!!! Lifes to short buddy... according to you that is.
Yep. And I'm living every minute of it. Not attempting to prepare for a next
one that doesn't exist.
> According to us xians and the bible we read.. God has said...
> " everyone will have to give account for every single word
> that they speak" So if your right .. and He doesnt exist..
> you can breathe easy.
I am breathing easy.
> But Jerry..... what if were right??
Sure I've considered it. The first thing a god would have to justify, if it
turned out to be the Christian one (and that should be a concern of yours.
What if you picked the wrong one!), are its conflicting morals. Justifying
creating all the people in the world, then, if they never heard of
Christianity, or were never baptized, or joined another religion, that they
were created only to burn and suffer in hell forever; and then call itself a
"loving god."
Next, justify the threat. What kind of "moral character" would it take to
create a race of beings who are imperfect, then make those people feel
guilty about their imperfections by calling them sinners, and then tempt
them by saying, "I'll let you be perfect too if you bow before me and show
me unconditional love"? "BUT, if you DON'T show me unconditional love,
regardless of whatever else you do in life, I'm going to have you tortured
in the flames of hell FOREVER." Talk about a sales pitch. (Isn't this the
one you bought?)
So, if one of the gods is actually real and there I stand? What punishment
would you give to someone who does not believe that YOU exist? Would you
like to see him beaten, tortured, burned? And if you did feel that way,
wouldn't you be considered a sick sadistic psychotic?
So what does this make this god of yours who would plunge me into hell for
the simple reason that I do not believe he exists? (He's never even tried to
prove it). A sick sadistic psychotic! I question why you worship such an
evil god. I would rather go to hell than be in the company of such a
pathologically sick entity who cannot see that the "punishment" does not fit
the "crime."
But let's suppose that your god exists and he is concerned with human
affairs; he's a personal god; but that he is a just god. He's concerned with
justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest
error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved.
If this god is a creator god and he gave us reason as the basic means of
understanding our world, then he would take pride in the conscientious and
scrupulous use of reason the part of his creatures, even if they committed
errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take
pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors
from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely
nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us
for an honest error of belief.
So I go to heaven too.
Jerry Sturdivant