Why Only God's Morality Is Objective
ohoe
LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the
reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they
have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
objective purpose or meaning. Instead, such a life can only have a
self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned
meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can
only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent. We may have
different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned,
subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy
was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor
and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the
self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his
life would have very little meaning. For 6 years, this self-assigned
purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill
and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very
handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life
meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman;
without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately,
his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of
marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley,
because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man.
That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with
the wind. Then he wrecked it...so he turned to chess...he would become
the best chess player in the world...
The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see
the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
purpose created by man?
I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the
instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
instrument was created.
God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer
designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his
intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For
example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board
game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be
played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its
designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the
game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his
intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is
the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because
only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make
that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to
interpretation. But to agree that the designer's expressed intentions
as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as one's
own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We
know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean
it."
Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
debate. Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity, and,
therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our
God is real, and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
MORALITY
This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of
morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or
'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is
the designer of Life.
OBJECTIONS
Some may say that they refuse to play the game that God has designed.
The game that He has designed, however, is the Game of Life. If you
are alive, you are already in the game, like it or not. It isn't a
question, then, of refusing to play, but if you are going to play to
win or play to lose.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"ohoe" <oo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:d0507f0b.04091...@posting.google.com...
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning. Instead, such a life can only have a
> self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned
> meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can
> only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
> a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
> objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent.
And what is that objective purpose/meaning?
So you say there is an objective purpose but you
don't know what it is?
> example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board
> game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be
> played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its
> designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the
> game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his
> intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is
> the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because
> only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make
> that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to
> interpretation. But to agree that the designer's expressed intentions
> as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as one's
> own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We
> know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean
> it."
>
> Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
> that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
> purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
> debate. Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity, and,
> therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
> but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
> that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our
> God is real,
All you have is a possibility?
> and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
But if only the creator knows the meaning aren't
you just pretending?
>
> MORALITY
>
> This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of
> morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or
> 'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is
> the designer of Life.
So we should be stoning to death people who work on
the sabath, people who don't believe in God, adulterers, etc?
--
RB
aa#2187
raven1
>At least there is the possibility that our
>God is real
There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
possibility more likely than the other.
block
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com...
Bearing in mind the Bible and Christianity and several other factors, I
would vote God as being more likely. I have yet to see a document or any
kind of philosophy or following that believe in the likelihood of flying
monkeys popping out of our asses. Mind you, they always say that you
eliminate everything that is possible, and whatever is remaining, however
impossible, must be the truth.
See you in the coconut tree then!
Christopher A. Lee
And "they" (actually Sherlock Holmes in Conan Doyle's novel) are wrong
because you have to check all possibilities no matter how unlikely.
Which those using the maxim never do.
Citing a novel isn't often a good idea.
>See you in the coconut tree then!
If you don't already believe in it, there is no way whatsoever to
derive it as a conclusion. It is at most a rationalisation of a
pre-existing belief.
raven1
<no.b...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>
>> >At least there is the possibility that our
>> >God is real
>>
>> There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
>> ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
>> possibility more likely than the other.
>>
>
>Bearing in mind the Bible and Christianity and several other factors, I
>would vote God as being more likely.
Non Sequitur.
> I have yet to see a document or any
>kind of philosophy or following that believe in the likelihood of flying
>monkeys popping out of our asses.
Completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of either proposition.
> Mind you, they always say that you
>eliminate everything that is possible, and whatever is remaining, however
>impossible, must be the truth.
Quoting fiction to support fiction is unproductive, to say the least.
Alan Truelove
Loogie
"Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
prove it
--
hawktooie
Loogie out
Jez
> "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
>
>>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
>
>
> prove it
Why bother ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Milan
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> meaning is purely imaginary!
It is not imaginary. It is the only one you have and is real. Is your
purpose to study or work or go to the movies or have children or write a
book or travel imaginary? What is imaginary is your sky pixie and the idea
that this sky pixie made you for a reason. Think again before posting such
inanities.
regards
Milan
Clayton May Appear To Be Closer Than He Actually Is
"Loogie" <loo...@snot.com> wrote in message
news:2r128iF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> > Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
>
> prove it
You prove there isn't an Easter Bunny or Santa Clause first!
Realityis
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
I like the story Anne Druyan told in her speach to the Freedom from Religion
Foundation's annual convention in 1997. It was a story about Carl Sagan and
the reaction one person in the audience had to one of his talks:
We fear science. And for good reason. It has a kind of secret language and a
methodology which is very ungiving, which is saying that it's not what makes
you feel good, it's what's true that matters.
I think that Carl's voice in this regard was a great, great service to our
culture and to our society, because not only did he convey the importance of
skepticism, but also the importance of wonder, too, to have both wonder and
skepticism at the same time. People think that if you are a scientist you
have to give up that joy of discovery, that passion, that sense of the great
romance of life. I say that's completely opposite of the truth. The fact is
that the real thing is far more dazzling, far more goose-bump-raising, than
any myth or childish story that we can make up.
I think, in fact, that the idea that our species has begun to do science
earnestly and consistently only in the very recent past is an indication of
a kind of adulthood maturity, that we can bear to receive the great
demotions that science offers us. We're not at the center of the universe.
We're not even at the center of our tiny solar system. We're very young,
very new to the universe and to our investigations of nature. But the fact
that we are willing to accept these great blows to our narcissism, to our
need to be the center of the universe, is a sign that we are growing much
more secure. It's something that gives me a lot of hope for the human
future.
I remember that one time Carl was giving a talk, and he spelled out, in a
kind of withering succession, these great theories of demotion that science
has dealt us, all of the ways in which science is telling us we are not who
we would like to believe we are. At the end of it, a young man came up to
him and he said: "What do you give us in return? Now that you've taken
everything from us? What meaning is left, if everything that I've been
taught since I was a child turns out to be untrue?" Carl looked at him and
said, "Do something meaningful."
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/jan_feb98/druyan.html
Philippic
>
> I think, in fact, that the idea that our species has begun to do science
> earnestly and consistently only in the very recent past is an indication
of
> a kind of adulthood maturity, that we can bear to receive the great
> demotions that science offers us. We're not at the center of the universe.
> We're not even at the center of our tiny solar system. We're very young,
> very new to the universe and to our investigations of nature.
But there's *more*: not only are we 'not at the centre of the universe', but
we're not even the 'goal' of the merely evolutionary process that produced
our bodies and our consciousness. On top of that, our feeble 'conscious
mind' *isn't even the seat of our real psychological being*...
Yup. Copernicus, Darwin, Freud: three fucking big smacks across the face for
human narcissism. *Get over it*, children: the facts ain't gonna go away...
> But the fact
> that we are willing to accept these great blows to our narcissism, to our
> need to be the center of the universe, is a sign that we are growing much
> more secure. It's something that gives me a lot of hope for the human
> future.
Nah. The vast and (literally) overwhelming majority of human beings and
sub-beings simply *isn't psychologically strong enough* to accept these
'great blows to our narcissism'. Most assuredly, this idiotic and infantile
majority *will eventually kill us and themselves* rather than look this
unflattering reality in the face.
>
> I remember that one time Carl was giving a talk, and he spelled out, in a
> kind of withering succession, these great theories of demotion that
science
> has dealt us, all of the ways in which science is telling us we are not
who
> we would like to believe we are. At the end of it, a young man came up to
> him and he said: "What do you give us in return? Now that you've taken
> everything from us? What meaning is left, if everything that I've been
> taught since I was a child turns out to be untrue?" Carl looked at him and
> said, "Do something meaningful."
Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
Zarathustra.
Philippic
Robibnikoff
"block" <no.b...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:G3H2d.1195$U%2....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
> news:l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>
>> >At least there is the possibility that our
>> >God is real
>>
>> There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
>> ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
>> possibility more likely than the other.
>>
>
> Bearing in mind the Bible and Christianity and several other factors, I
> would vote God as being more likely.
So what? Doesn't meant that he/she/it's real.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Albert
<snip>
> Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
> Zarathustra.
Too late for you though, isn't it? Tough luck, returning to dirt.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
John Baker
<bullshit snipped>
Before we can take you seriously, you must first; A) demonstrate that
God exists and B), demonstrate that God is moral.
Philippic
news:10kn7rf...@corp.supernews.com...
> Philippic wrote:
> <snip>
> > Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
> > Zarathustra.
>
> Too late for you though, isn't it? Tough luck, returning to dirt.
Ah, I see: this is the point where our society's credulous and delusional
dirt-bags start to pretend that they are somehow in a position to despise
dirt!! LOL!!!
And anyhow, what's so wrong with 'returning to dirt'? Doesn't bother me
overmuch. After all:
"Die liebe Erde allüberall
Blüht auf im Lenz und grünt aufs neu!
Allüberall und ewig,
ewig blauen licht die Fernen,
ewig, ewig..."
Philippic
nemo
>"Die liebe Erde allüberall
> Blüht auf im Lenz und grünt aufs neu!
> Allüberall und ewig,
> ewig blauen licht die Fernen,
> ewig, ewig..."
>
>Philippic
I thought the "masked mahler" was a professional wrestler :-)
Regards,
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
[snip]
What really puzzles me is why one (ohoe) would continue to post messages
that God may have intended only for him (her?) and a relatively small
minority of Christians.
God endowed me with an ability to make value judgments and as a result,
He has permitted me to take a more subjective view of morality. However,
God has not given the same gifts to all of his children. No doubt, some
who lack these abilities must be given an absolute code by which to
live. In much the same way as I must give a three year old child an
ultimatum not to cross the street. No explanation, no conditions for
exceptions. Fortunately, three-year-olds develop skills as they age and
soon, they can be permitted more responsibility.
God has plans for each of us, but they may not be the same plan. So it
is naive to think that a message given to some will be the same as that
for everyone else. In this case, both philosophies may be equally valid.
Morality is objective for some while it is subjective for others. To
argue that only one point of view is valid is the same as my kid telling
an adult not to cross the street because I told him not to do so.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson
James A. Donald
On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that
> concern the reality of life that must be accepted as illusion
> because, without God, that is the only thing they can be. We
> live our lives as if they have a real and genuine purpose.
> Most people will say that their lives have meaning,
> regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is created by
> chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning.
Bullshit.
Purpose and meaning is an effective survival mechanism. If
you compare at species that are in danger of going extinct,
with species that flourish in alarming numbers despite our best
attempts to exterminate them, you will notice that a very
common difference is that survivors act as if they are having
fun, they act as if they love to do the things they need to do
to survive as individuals and as a species, they love eating
food, they love finding food, they love their work, they love
sex, and they love their children, whereas the ones that die
off despite our best efforts to preserve them, for example the
panda bear, act as if they are suffering from purposelessness,
anomie, and ennui.
> Instead, such a life can only have a self-assigned,
> subjective meaning.
One cannot help having a purpose, as one cannot help falling in
love. People that must artificially concoct a purpose have
something wrong with them that religion is unlikely to help.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1Uw4mm4RLmx4+ZafpkaEdbrCl2EovuvY5173ScA9
4ecFB6Qemv6ZnaARUDI+vzBZbgCJRIMhlJrHbLWeS
Kermit
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy,
Atheism isn't a philosophy. I'm afraid that this diatribe isn't
starting off well.
> there are certain things that concern the
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be.
So, God is real because you don't like the conclusions if he's not?
I must be rich then. Otherwise, my wealth is imiginary.
> We live our lives as if they
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning.
And your problem with that is...
> Instead, such a life can only have a
> self-assigned, subjective meaning.
Yes. It's liberating. You don't *have to be a slave.
> A non-objective, self-assigned
> meaning is purely imaginary!
Why? Is a house I build imaginary? Is the garden I grow imaginary? Why
would a meaning I give my own life be an illusion? How can a *meaning
be imaginary?
> It is a subjective opinion of what can
> only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
> a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
> objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent.
Unless, of course, your god is a creation of timid men or men who
lusted after power.
> We may have
> different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
> are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
How can opinions be *other than subjective?
>
> As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned,
> subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy
> was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor
> and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the
> self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his
> life would have very little meaning. For 6 years, this self-assigned
> purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill
> and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very
> handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life
> meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman;
> without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately,
> his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of
> marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley,
> because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man.
> That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with
> the wind. Then he wrecked it...so he turned to chess...he would become
> the best chess player in the world...
>
> The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
> self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose.
Too freakin' bad. Try this on for size.
A man raised as a fundamentalist Christian hid under the security
blankets of his familiar theology his entire life. He died, and did
not go to Heaven, because noone does. He wasted his entire life,
hiding from himself and uncertainty. Isn't that sad?
Your pathetic "Andy" cartoon above is a braver man; at least he *seeks
purpose, and had some lofty goals before he died. Or did he become
that great chess player? Do youknow that the sucessful average home
business owner tried and failed three times before succeeding? Are
you preaching a doctrine of whiney fatalism here? ("What's the use?")
> I see
> the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
> attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
Keep telling yourself that. You'll never entirely convince yourself,
but there will be times you can pretend you have.
>
> What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
> purpose created by man?
>
> I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
> the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
> If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
> and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
> purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
> opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the
> instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
> around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
> decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
> however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
> instrument was created.
Unless there is no designer. There's no evidence for one.
>
> God is, by definition, the author or designer of life.
So... your God is circumscribed by your definitions, eh? I'm sure he's
greatful that you give him so much power. Or is he annoyed that you
limit him to your own powers of creation?
> A designer
> designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his
> intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For
> example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board
> game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be
> played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its
> designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the
> game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his
> intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is
> the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because
> only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make
> that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to
> interpretation. But to agree that the designer's expressed intentions
> as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as one's
> own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We
> know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean
> it."
But the maker is often not the best at the use. The greatest
swordmakers were not the best swordsmen. Stradivarius was not the best
violinist. The designer of poker wasn't necessarily the best gambler.
Many artists will say that they don't know what they are creating
ahead of time. Authors often say that the characters in their novels
speak for themselves; the authors don't always know how the story
will turn out.
What does our peurile analogy have to do with anything?
>
> Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
> that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
> purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
> debate.
As do Santa and Pegasus.
> Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity,
I don't. I have no more trouble with the concept of Yahweh than I do
with King Kong.
> and,
> therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
Why do you think we need a purpose. Why do you think *you need a
purpose? Please define "objective purpose". You haven't yet.
> but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
> that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our
> God is real, and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
Right. You instead have to pretend that God is real, so you can
pretend you are not pretending that your life's purpose is ...what?
How can a purpose *not be real?
You life is what you make of it, whether you like it or not. If you
want to wallow in self-deception, so be it.
>
> MORALITY
>
> This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of
> morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or
> 'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is
> the designer of Life.
Uh-huh. Kill people because they work on Saturday morning. Enslave
your neighbors. Kill the woman next door because she was caught (you
think) committing adultry. At war? Take some girl children as sex
slaves. Kill you eldest son because he talked back to you.
I'm sorry, I have higher standards of behavior than that. If the
church has become more civlized over the centuries, it's because it
has accepting recent secular influences (the Enlightenment, Humanism,
Democracy).
>
> OBJECTIONS
>
> Some may say that they refuse to play the game that God has designed.
*Who has designed? Some may say that you are sound asleep and will
never realize that you are Brahma, dancing the dance of illusion.
Others say you are serving the devil. <shrug>
> The game that He has designed, however, is the Game of Life.
Or not. Have any evidence?
> If you
> are alive, you are already in the game, like it or not. It isn't a
> question, then, of refusing to play, but if you are going to play to
> win or play to lose.
When you find a good fit for yourself, you have won.
>
> http://www.ex-atheist.com/game-designer-argument.html
Kermit
bob young
Loogie wrote:
> "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> > Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
>
> prove it
Do I have to prove that there is no such thing a a pig with
wings that flies?
Why not make up something else and ask me to 'prove it' does
not exist
Tell yer what, I'll have problem proving that you are a nut
case!
>
>
> --
>
> hawktooie
> Loogie out
bob young
raven1 wrote:
Well there ARE monkeys and maybe one CAN fly, and he does have an ass,
so I reckon this is a slightly more likely scenario than a real god!
Olrik
> "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
>
>>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
>
>
> prove it
Theists came up with the idea of god or gods first. *You* prove there is
such a thing as a god or gods.
Have fun.
> hawktooie
> Loogie out
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Jim E
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be.
My god says your god is full of shit, so there.
Michael Gray
>THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
>LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
>In an atheistic philosophy,
There is no such animal.
Just as there no such thing as a "non stamp collecting" philosophy.
>there are certain things that concern the
>reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
>God, that is the only thing they can be.
:
I get off your bus right here.
It has one strident ignorant moron too many.
Just because you are terminally unable to think of any other
explanation for phenomena than inventing a sky pixie to shift the
burden of action far enough away from you that you can pretend that
the problem has gone away, doesn't mean that every one else in the
world is as thick as you.
"...must be accepted as illusion..."
Arrogant prick telling me what I MUST ACCEPT as a thought process.
Typical God-bot.
Go Away.
Don Kresch
<loo...@snot.com> let us all know that:
>
>"Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
>> Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
>
>prove it
No need to disprove the unproven.
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"
Loogie
news:hqP2d.67236$4P6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
I pray to him every day and I have had my prayers answered...many
times...therefore he must exist...I have FAITH!
--
hawktooie
Loogie out
Mark K. Bilbo
<d0507f0b.04091...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
oo...@lycos.com (ohoe):
> Why God's Morality is Objective
Except it isn't and Christian morality is as relative as any.
(Plonk goes the troll)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
Realityis
news:UbO2d.36769$%S.22052@pd7tw2no...
> In article <XEN2d.9$cC...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, "Philippic"
<slxo...@slxoxgxr.com> wrote:
>
> >"Die liebe Erde allüberall
> > Blüht auf im Lenz und grünt aufs neu!
> > Allüberall und ewig,
> > ewig blauen licht die Fernen,
> > ewig, ewig..."
The dear earth all everywhere flowers on in spring and becomes green on new!
All everywhere and eternally, eternally blue light the far ones, eternally,
eternally ?????
Realityis
news:XEN2d.9$cC...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:10kn7rf...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Philippic wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
> > > Zarathustra.
> >
> > Too late for you though, isn't it? Tough luck, returning to dirt.
>
> Ah, I see: this is the point where our society's credulous and delusional
> dirt-bags start to pretend that they are somehow in a position to despise
> dirt!! LOL!!!
>
> And anyhow, what's so wrong with 'returning to dirt'? Doesn't bother me
> overmuch.
Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the very
molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead star.
They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with them.
Its a kind of immortality.
Richard Smol
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned
> meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can
> only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
> a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
> different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
> are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
The issue of purpose will not be solved by invoking some god. It
only gets shifted, since one would have to point out what the purpose
of this god is then. If it is simply to exist, then it could very well
be the universe's purpose to just be.
RS
Albert
<snip>
> Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the very
> molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead star.
> They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with them.
> Its a kind of immortality.
Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
marginalizing the spiritually stillborn.
block
> Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
> will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
> marginalizing the spiritually stillborn.
>
You really make me sick Albert - what right have YOU to decide or declare or
state who is "spiritually dead" or "spiritually stillborn". You are full of
complete and utter sanctimonious religious shit, and I don't know what "God"
you subscribe to, but I hope for everyone's sake He is not the same as mine.
No one is either spiritually dead, or spiritually stillborn, and you can be
sure, that any merciful God would HELP anyone in trouble, not grind noses
into the dirt the way you do.
You are a classic example of what I call SHIT!
QED
Robibnikoff
Albert
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:10komrt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
>>will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
>>marginalizing the spiritually stillborn.
>
> You really make me sick Albert - what right have YOU to decide or declare or
> state who is "spiritually dead" or "spiritually stillborn".
Being on usenet, I am of course limited to posts. The posts of
those I was referring to do in fact give every indication of one
who is spiritually dead. They can at anytime come alive, which
is, of course, far preferable to remaining dead.
> You are full of
> complete and utter sanctimonious religious shit, and I don't know what "God"
> you subscribe to, but I hope for everyone's sake He is not the same as mine.
You have a God?
> No one is either spiritually dead, or spiritually stillborn, and you can be
> sure, that any merciful God would HELP anyone in trouble,
True, unless they insist that they not in trouble and deny his
existence. But you are right in this sense: the rain falls on
the just and unjust alike.
> not grind noses
> into the dirt the way you do.
I am trying to make it clear that God is not only merciful; He
is also Just.
>
> You are a classic example of what I call SHIT!
Classic, huh.
The Immortalist
> >
> > LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
> >
> > meaning is purely imaginary!
>
> purpose to study or work or go to the movies or have children or write a
> book or travel imaginary? What is imaginary is your sky pixie and the idea
> that this sky pixie made you for a reason. Think again before posting such
> inanities.
>
Kant might say that we never know things-in-themselves but can only
know things-as-they-appear, in this sense everything could be
considered imaginary.
> regards
> Milan
Philippic
> "Philippic" <slxo...@slxoxgxr.com> wrote in message
> news:XEN2d.9$cC...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> > "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> > news:10kn7rf...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Philippic wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
> > > > Zarathustra.
> > >
> > > Too late for you though, isn't it? Tough luck, returning to dirt.
> >
> > Ah, I see: this is the point where our society's credulous and
delusional
> > dirt-bags start to pretend that they are somehow in a position to
despise
> > dirt!! LOL!!!
> >
> > And anyhow, what's so wrong with 'returning to dirt'? Doesn't bother me
> > overmuch.
>
> Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the very
> molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead
star.
Yup! Didn't I once hear dear old Sagan say: "We are made of star-stuff..."?
> They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with them.
> Its a kind of immortality.
You know, I gather there's a *reasonable probability* that certain carbon
molecules currently residing in my body were long ago part of a T-Rex; that
others once acted alongside Shakespeare at the Globe; and that at least one
other helped shag Marilyn Monroe in a hotel room in 1957! *Jeez*, I've been
having a good time!!
:-)
Bests,
Philippic
Philippic
Well, kind of! My own shy suggestion might be:
"Everywhere the dear earth blossoms forth in Spring and grows green afresh!
Everywhere and eternally, eternally the horizon shines blue and bright!
Eternally, eternally..."
My point being that as posthumous 'dirt', I shall be perfectly happy to take
part in all that! (Do have a listen to the last bit of Mahler's 'The Song of
the Earth', if you don't know it already: it will make my choice of text
rather less mystifying!).
Philippic
nemo
Solipsism wanders even further down the same path. However,
since the position does not seem to be falsifiable, it holds
little interest for me except as a curiosity.
Regards,
Bob's Boyfriend
Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
> Loogie wrote:
>
> > "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> >
> >>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
> >
> >
> > prove it
>
> Theists came up with the idea of god or gods first. *You* prove there is
> such a thing as a god or gods.
>
> Have fun.
I cannot see your thoughts, therefore, I cannot prove that they exist.
I cannot see their god, therefore, I cannot prove that it exists.
Bob's Boyfriend
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>
> >At least there is the possibility that our
> >God is real
>
> There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
> ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
> possibility more likely than the other.
There is? Wouldn't that possibility require some evidence?
Christopher A. Lee
Why? It's a possibility, but an extremely unlikely one. Which makes it
no different than ohoe's deity.
Bob's Boyfriend
However, i think the evidence is to the contrary, therefore, the
possible converts to an impossibility. You might fit one flying monkey
into my ass, but more than that is a stretch. You might get it in there,
but without oxygen for more than a short time, I submit that the ability
to fly would be greatly impeded. Further, given the muscles involved, I
suspect it wouldn't get out until I wanted it out.
Now, you've stated this as a possiblilty, would you mind elaborating on
why possibility don't require evidence.
Philippic
> Realityis wrote:
> <snip>
> > Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the
very
> > molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead
star.
> > They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with
them.
> > Its a kind of immortality.
>
> Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
> will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
> marginalizing the spiritually stillborn.
And with that parade of piffle we see the origin of this nitwit's 'faith':
his own pitifully self-obsessed ego is so *terrified* of its own extinction
that it tries to convince itself that a Magic Sky Pixie is going to forever
look after some 'essence' or other. Thus he tries to wound you, R, by
threatening you with the prospect of what *he* actually fears most; and
then - in a highly revealing final sentence! - he shows how he manages to
explain to himself how his own undistinguished and insignificant little
personality can be felt to qualify for such astonishingly grand treatment in
perpetuity: he fondly caresses the idea of his own 'spiritual' vitality as
the justification! As if the notion of such 'spirituality' was ever anything
more than a way of making weakness seem powerful; self-deception seem
realistic; listlessness seem potent; and credulousness seem noble!!
LOLOL!!!
Who *are* these fucking cretins...? Are they actually allowed out *without
nurses*...?
Philippic
iHĞ
Not only that, but the form this stardust takes while it is *you* is a
form it will never again take, irreplacable and unique; a uniqueness
that will span all of time, and moreover one to which you, through
conscious thought and action, may contribute.
Isn't *uniqueness* immortality enough?
--
iHĞ
Christopher A. Lee
<toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
Eh? Quantum mechanics allows for it. It also says that this would be
extremely unlikely. Behaviour at the quantum level is statistically,
realio trulio random. The reason things like that don't happen at the
macro level is that all the randomnesses tend to cancel each other
out. But there is an incredibly tiny chance of randomnesses all "being
in the same direction".
But all this is a red herring from ohoe's original remark and raven1's
response.
Bob's Boyfriend
HUH? Flying monkeys coming out of my ass could happen because quantum
mechanics states it as a possiblity?
sto...@the.net
>THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
Congradulations on begging many questions and lying your stupid ass
off. Christian ignorance and dishonesty is legion.
[]
sto...@the.net
<no.b...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>
>> >At least there is the possibility that our
>> >God is real
>>
>> There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
>> ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
>> possibility more likely than the other.
>>
>
>Bearing in mind the Bible and Christianity and several other factors
The bible is bullshit from start to finish as is christianity.
>, I would vote God as being more likely.
Gosh. There's the effectively undefined g-o-d letter string again.
> I have yet to see a document or any
>kind of philosophy or following that believe in the likelihood of flying
>monkeys popping out of our asses. Mind you, they always say that you
>eliminate everything that is possible, and whatever is remaining, however
>impossible, must be the truth.
No, moron. Please learn to separate fact from fiction.
>See you in the coconut tree then!
>
>
>
Mani Deli
>Realityis wrote:
><snip>
>> Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the very
>> molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead star.
>> They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with them.
>> Its a kind of immortality.
>
>Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
>will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
>marginalizing the .
Albert knows what god's ways are. He has a huge god-on, but he is
plagued by doubt and has to tell himself that all who disagree with
him on god are as he says "spiritually stillborn."
Albert is spiritually constipated.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
theBeaver
ohoe wrote:
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
>
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning. Instead, such a life can only have a
> meaning is purely imaginary!
Of course, if God does not exist, then a theist's "meaning" is purely
imaginary, also.
>
> The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
> self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see
> the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
> attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
>
You are only demonstrating how Man's desire for meaning leads him to
imagine objective meaning where there is none, the same as your craving
brought you your God.
> What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
> purpose created by man?
>
> I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
> the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
> If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
> and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
> purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
> opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the
> instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
> around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
> decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
> however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
> instrument was created.
>
The purpose for which something is created has no relevance to anything.
Parents may create children to serve a purpose, but it is not imperative
that the children respect this. Clearly the parents did not invent
objective meaning. Seems to me the argument applies if God is the
creator, too.
An ant is happy serving its queen, but if it decided to serve another
queen, or determined that it could live and die happily as my slave,
what is the difference? Did the ant have objective meaning, conferred
by birth, that was really any different from an occupation of its own
choosing?
Seems to me, an ant should follow its own nature, the way an atheist
feels compelled to follow his own nature. His resulting unhappiness is
not necessarily evidence of the "wrong" choice. If you think so, then
you are assuming that there is always a right choice that results in
happiness. This would not be surprising, since this is a common
assumption and error of theists and other believers in various kinds of
utopia. There is not necessarily a path that results in total happiness.
>
> Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
> that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
> purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
> debate. Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity, and,
> therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
> but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
> that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our
> God is real, and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
First off, your God is not possible, since you probably consider Him to
be all-knowing, all-powerful, and Good, but a good being does not stand
by watching and doing nothing when little girls get sawed in half. So
your "good" God is contradicted by the existence of evil. All theists
have one or another rationalization of this contradiction. It is this
constant rationalization of contradictions that, over the long term,
fouls your thinking to the point where you can't think at all.
I think most atheists would agree that all meaning is subjective. I
certainly don't presume objective meaning. I have personally identified
things which I think matter, and I address them to the extent that I
can. No pretense at all, here. So explain to me again how I am
logically compromised?
Man likes to imagine himself ruler of the world, smiting all his
enemies, or living happily ever after with Kirsten Dunst. This is our
evolutionary inheritance. None of these things are remotely likely, but
we still persist, since dreaming and hoping give us respite from our
toils.
You insist on ascribing objective meaning to your chosen path, while us
atheists must get by with subjective meaning. It is you who has veered
off that path of truth.
Dixit
Is the existence of thought (neuron activity in the brain) in question?
Since when?
Why don't you give up trying to create a diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Dixit
It's the same evidence there is a possibility God is real.
Dixit
> In article <4m2pk0lgsijnnuqd2...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:11:37 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
>><toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com>,
>>>raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>At least there is the possibility that our
>>>>>God is real
>>>>
>>>>There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
>>>>ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
>>>>possibility more likely than the other.
>>>
>>>There is? Wouldn't that possibility require some evidence?
>>
>>Why? It's a possibility, but an extremely unlikely one. Which makes it
>>no different than ohoe's deity.
>
>
> However, i think the evidence is to the contrary, therefore, the
> possible converts to an impossibility. You might fit one flying monkey
> into my ass ...
How about a squadron of magically invisible flying monkeys so mystical
they are imperceptible to human perception, something on the same order
as the hypothetical magically invisible God thingy you are championing?
The probability is exactly the same.
Bob's Boyfriend
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>
> > In article <hqP2d.67236$4P6.1...@wagner.videotron.net>,
> > Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Loogie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>prove it
> >>
> >>Theists came up with the idea of god or gods first. *You* prove there is
> >>such a thing as a god or gods.
> >>
> >>Have fun.
> >
> >
> > I cannot see your thoughts, therefore, I cannot prove that they exist.
> > I cannot see their god, therefore, I cannot prove that it exists.
>
> Is the existence of thought (neuron activity in the brain) in question?
> Since when?
Nope. The mode of reasoning that you are using is though. As I've
pointed out, you utilize the same means as the theist.
Bob's Boyfriend
wrote:
Yawn. Once again, you are attributing statement to me that I have not
made. Please supply your evidence that I am championing a god.
> The probability is exactly the same.
I cannot perceive your thoughts.
1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
Alan Hobson
> >
> > >At least there is the possibility that our
> > >God is real
> >
> > There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
> > ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
> > possibility more likely than the other.
> >
>
> would vote God as being more likely. I have yet to see a document or any
> kind of philosophy or following that believe in the likelihood of flying
> monkeys popping out of our asses. Mind you, they always say that you
> eliminate everything that is possible, and whatever is remaining, however
> impossible, must be the truth.
No, in reality, the monkey/ass scenario is more plausible. It is
actually possible to make monkeys fly out of someone's butt. (I
didn't say it would be pretty, though.)
1) Monkeys exist
2) Butts exist
3) A monkey sailing through the air could be said to be flying.
Now, show me a god.
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
Alan Hobson
> "Olrik" <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote in message
> news:hqP2d.67236$4P6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> > > "Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> > >
> > >>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
> > >
> > >
> > > prove it
> >
> > Theists came up with the idea of god or gods first. *You* prove there is
> > such a thing as a god or gods.
> >
> > Have fun.
> >
> > > Loogie out
> >
> > --
> > Olrik
> > aa #1981
> > Qualified SMASH member
> > EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
>
> I pray to him every day and I have had my prayers answered...many
> times...therefore he must exist...I have FAITH!
I have a key in my hand at this very moment. It has a six digit
number engraved on it. Ask god to tell you the number and post it
here. You have a one in a million chance of getting the number right
if you were to simply guess. That's better odds than winning the big
jackpot in the lottery.
Let me guess... it's against the rules to "test" god. Pffft, right.
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
Enkidu
news:d1d6cbe3.04091...@posting.google.com:
Pick a relly big butt and a really small monkey, and it could be done, no
problem! An elephant, lots of milk of magnesia, a small space suit for
the monkey. Not pretty, though!
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Johnny Cash - I`m Leaving Now
That wall, embodied in the First Amendment, is perhaps
America's most important contribution to political progress
on this planet.
Lowell Weicker
Republican Senator 1971-1989
Bob's Boyfriend
al...@earthlink.net (Alan Hobson) wrote:
That's all the evidence you require to believe in a god? What if he
states the number correctly?
Virgil
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>
> > In article <hqP2d.67236$4P6.1...@wagner.videotron.net>,
> > Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Loogie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Alan Truelove" <alan_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1095453083.DOvk89RxV6q94huLsiI1CA@teranews...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Don't be daft - there's nosuch thing as god.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>prove it
> >>
> >>Theists came up with the idea of god or gods first. *You* prove there is
> >>such a thing as a god or gods.
> >>
> >>Have fun.
> >
> >
> > I cannot see your thoughts, therefore, I cannot prove that they exist.
> > I cannot see their god, therefore, I cannot prove that it exists.
>
> Is the existence of thought (neuron activity in the brain) in question?
> Since when?
Since Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed that anything one
couldn't point to couldn't exist.
>
> Why don't you give up trying to create a diversion?
One has to divert discussions from Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's
attempts at diversion back to real issues, instead of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's phonies.
>
> "The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
> characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
> genuinely under discussion." --
> http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Those fallacies of diversion by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, are
clearly more improper and fallacious than any of the many valid points
from which Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is trying to divert
attention.
Virgil
wrote:
Nor so! Persuasive, but not conclusive, evidence for the possibility of
a god is the lack of evidence for the impossibility of a god. Which
gives the possibility at least as much validity as the impossibility.
Virgil
wrote:
> > However, i think the evidence is to the contrary, therefore, the
> > possible converts to an impossibility. You might fit one flying monkey
> > into my ass ...
>
> How about a squadron of magically invisible flying monkeys so mystical
> they are imperceptible to human perception, something on the same order
> as the hypothetical magically invisible God thingy you are championing?
As the only one championing a hypothetical invisible God thingy is
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, trying to put his hypothetical
invisible thingy into a hypothetical invisible Aphrodite's thingy.
Rob Duncan
"theBeaver" <theB...@nowhere.net> wrote
> You insist on ascribing objective meaning to your chosen path, while us
> atheists must get by with subjective meaning. It is you who has veered
> off that path of truth.
I think you failed on this point. A "believer" can believe too the point of
"knowing." That realm contains objective truth. (in error or not)
Thoughts? In other words, its the knower who maintains objective meaning.
Rob
Puck Greenman
>THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
>LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
>In an atheistic philosophy,
What is that, when you are writing home?
>there are certain things that concern the
>reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
>God, that is the only thing they can be.
Why?
> We live our lives as if they
>have a real and genuine purpose.
Our lives have the purpose/meaning that we give them.
Your statements would suggest that you are incapable of finding
purpose and meaning, in your life, on your own.
>Most people will say that their lives
>have meaning, regardless of their philosophy.
I would suggest that "most people", never give any thought to it,
being too busy enjoying life to it's fullest.
I would farther suggest that, if you were to ask "most people", "What
gives your life meaning?", they would, in a great many words, tell you
that it is their families, and friends.
> But a life that is
>created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
>objective purpose or meaning.
Oh but it does, a single purpose, shared by all life, from the least,
to the greatest, *survive*.
>Instead, such a life can only have a
>self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned
>meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can
>only be a subjective reality.
Maybe it is my poor diction, and/or grammar, but I am having great
difficulty in understanding what you are trying to say.
If you were to give us an example of an "objective" meaning, WRT life,
it might make things clearer.
>Conversely, a life created by design and
>a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
>objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent. We may have
>different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
>are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
Assuming your conclusion, is not really logical; is it?
You are assuming that 1: There is a god, and 2: that, that god is the
Judeo/xtian god.
If those whom you address, do not agree with that premise, then the
rest of your argument is meaningless.
>
>As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned,
>subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy
>was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor
>and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the
>self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his
>life would have very little meaning.
I think that is called "The binary argument, fallacy".
>For 6 years, this self-assigned
>purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill
>and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very
>handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life
>meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman;
>without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately,
>his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of
>marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley,
>because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man.
>That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with
>the wind. Then he wrecked it...so he turned to chess...he would become
>the best chess player in the world...
That is just a variation on the above fallacy.
>
>The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
>self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see
>the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
>attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
>
>What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
>purpose created by man?
>
Assuming your conclusion, again; another fallacy.
>I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
>the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
Show that there is a designer, or indeed, a need for one.
>If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
>and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
>purpose.
I think that you are confusing "purpose" with "function", or at least,
"intended function".
The designer has purpose, tools have function.
>The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
>opinion,
Rubbish. The opinion of the designer is simply that, an opinion.
> but rather it becomes the objective purpose
You are now playing silly semantic games.
You are using "objective", as in "the opposite of subjective", to
simultaneously mean " a purpose, or target.
Also, you are using "purpose" to simultaneously mean "intent" and
"use, or function".
Perhaps it is not my diction which is at fault, after all.
>of the
>instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
>around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
>decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
>however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
>instrument was created.
Irrelevant.
>
>God is, by definition, the author or designer of life.
Again, you assume your conclusion.
If you are going to base your argument on this assumed conclusion,
then you are going to have to show that the conclusion is objective,
that is, show that this god, exists.
> A designer
>designs with intention.
Agreed, he has an "objective", a target.
... And just to confuse the issue farther, in this case, "objective"
is subjective.
>Only the designer is in a position to know his
>intention;
Demonstrability false.
>all others can only speculate concerning his intention.
Unless of course, it was "the others", who set the specifications for
the design.
> For
>example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board
>game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be
>played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its
>designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the
>game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his
>intention.
More and more, I am convinced that you are someone who needs to be
told everything, someone who cannot, or will not, deduce at least some
part of the designer's intent, from the available evidence.
> The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is
>the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because
>only he can know, with certainty, its purpose.
Never heard of "table rules"?
While it may be true that the designer, assuming that the object
created is it original idea of that designer, is the only person who
knows for sure what the function of his creation is intended to be, it
is the user who determines the function it will be given.
> He may attempt to make
>that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to
>interpretation.
> But to agree that the designer's expressed intentions
>as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as one's
>own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We
>know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean
>it."
Irrelevant.
>
>Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
>that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
>purpose.
They would say that of *some* xtians do that, but I think that the
general consensus would be that *most* theists, not just xtians, have
*been* deceived into belief, by people who were themselves deceived,
and are therefore unaware of the deception.
> Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
>debate.
No, it is open to evidence, debate will not settle it.
>Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity,
Ludicrous statement. We *know* that the *concept* of deity, exists.
It is deity, it's self which we do not accept.
>and,
>therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
>but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
>that can only be imaginary.
You have still not explained what an "objective purpose" is.
> At least there is the possibility that our
>God is real,
Assuming an infinity of time and space, yes, I suppose that anything
is possible.
Extremely improbable, but possible.
>and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
So basing your life on something that *might* be, is *not* pretending
that your life has meaning?
Interesting.
>
>MORALITY
>
>This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of
>morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or
>'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is
>the designer of Life.
>
>OBJECTIONS
>
>Some may say that they refuse to play the game that God has designed.
>The game that He has designed, however, is the Game of Life. If you
>are alive, you are already in the game, like it or not. It isn't a
>question, then, of refusing to play, but if you are going to play to
>win or play to lose.
>
>
Irrelevant. There is only one objection: You, that is all theists,
have consistently failed to offer any objective evidence for the
existence of a god, of any kind.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:10:18 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>>Realityis wrote:
>><snip>
>>> Not just dirt! I find it somewhat comforting to contemplate how the very
>>> molecules we are made of were cooked into existence in some long dead star.
>>> They will continue on to form something else when I am finished with them.
>>> Its a kind of immortality.
>>
>>Sort of, and the only kind you are likely to achieve. But no one
>>will remember you, not even yourself. It's God's way of
>>marginalizing the .
What a remarkably stupid thing to say to atheists, ewspecially when
you cross-post it to an atheist newsgroup.
He still doesn't get it.
Only a complete moron attempts to justify anything by talking about
his deity as though it were real, to anybody outside his religion.
>Albert knows what god's ways are. He has a huge god-on, but he is
>plagued by doubt and has to tell himself that all who disagree with
>him on god are as he says "spiritually stillborn."
>
>Albert is spiritually constipated.
He'll accuse you of name-calling, being a lousy prosetyliser for
atheism, and a bad arguer for atheism.
Michael Gray
<pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>
>>THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>>
>>LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>>
>>In an atheistic philosophy,
>
>What is that, when you are writing home?
>
>>there are certain things that concern the
>>reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
>>God, that is the only thing they can be.
>
>Why?
:
I asked the same question.
All I got by way of reply was the philosophical equivalent of "Huh?"
I have removed the "rec.org.mensa" group from this post, as "ohoe"
clearly doesn't belong there.
Perhaps I should have excised "alt.philosophy.debate" as well...
Toby
advantage, if we take the number of people who profess to believe in God
over those who don't...DNA's little joke on its vehicles...
Toby
"A scholar is a library's way of creating another library."
--Daniel Dennett
"Philippic" <slxo...@slxoxgxr.com> wrote in message
news:XEN2d.9$cC...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:10kn7rf...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Philippic wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Indeed. The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. Thus spake
>> > Zarathustra.
>>
>> Too late for you though, isn't it? Tough luck, returning to dirt.
>
> Ah, I see: this is the point where our society's credulous and delusional
> dirt-bags start to pretend that they are somehow in a position to despise
> dirt!! LOL!!!
>
> And anyhow, what's so wrong with 'returning to dirt'? Doesn't bother me
> overmuch. After all:
>
> "Die liebe Erde allüberall
> Blüht auf im Lenz und grünt aufs neu!
> Allüberall und ewig,
> ewig blauen licht die Fernen,
> ewig, ewig..."
>
> Philippic
>
>
Toby
we can only know things as-they-appear.
I see you and raise...
Toby
"The Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9353ae8c.04091...@posting.google.com...
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2r16m6F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "ohoe" <oo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0507f0b.04091...@posting.google.com...
>> > THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>> >
>> > LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>> >
>> >A non-objective, self-assigned
>> > meaning is purely imaginary!
>>
>> It is not imaginary. It is the only one you have and is real. Is your
>> purpose to study or work or go to the movies or have children or write a
>> book or travel imaginary? What is imaginary is your sky pixie and the
>> idea
>> that this sky pixie made you for a reason. Think again before posting
>> such
>> inanities.
>>
>
> Kant might say that we never know things-in-themselves but can only
> know things-as-they-appear, in this sense everything could be
> considered imaginary.
>
>> regards
>> Milan
Paul Duca
ohoe wrote:
> THE GAME DESIGNER ARGUMENT Why God's Morality is Objective
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning. Instead, such a life can only have a
> self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned
> meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can
> only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
> a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
> objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent. We may have
> different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
> are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
>
> As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned,
> subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy
> was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor
> and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the
> self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his
> life would have very little meaning. For 6 years, this self-assigned
> purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill
> and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very
> handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life
> meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman;
> without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately,
> his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of
> marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley,
> because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man.
> That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with
> the wind. Then he wrecked it...so he turned to chess...he would become
> the best chess player in the world...
>
> The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
> self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see
> the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
> attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
>
> What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
> purpose created by man?
>
> I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
> the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
> If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
> and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
> purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
> opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the
> instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
> around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
> decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
> however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
> instrument was created.
>
> God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer
> designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his
> intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For
> example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board
> game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be
> played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its
> designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the
> game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his
> intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is
> the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because
> only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make
> that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to
> interpretation. But to agree that the designer's expressed intentions
> as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as one's
> own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We
> know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean
> it."
>
> Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing
> that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective
> purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to
> debate. Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity, and,
> therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives,
> but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose
> that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our
> God is real, and we don't have to pretend that our lives have meaning.
>
> MORALITY
>
> This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of
> morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or
> 'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is
> the designer of Life.
>
> OBJECTIONS
>
> Some may say that they refuse to play the game that God has designed.
> The game that He has designed, however, is the Game of Life. If you
> are alive, you are already in the game, like it or not. It isn't a
> question, then, of refusing to play, but if you are going to play to
> win or play to lose.
>
I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
God's terms.
Paul
Albert
<snip>
> I have removed the "rec.org.mensa" group from this post, as "ohoe"
> clearly doesn't belong there.
> Perhaps I should have excised "alt.philosophy.debate" as well...
Oh, please do. Throw us in that briar patch.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
Bob's Boyfriend
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> The real irony is that a belief in God might confer an evolutionary
> advantage, if we take the number of people who profess to believe in God
> over those who don't...DNA's little joke on its vehicles...
>
> Toby
How so? If we take the number of people with life-threatening illness
and those believed to have a genetic basis, it would seem to be the
believers who die off and keep these things alive within the gene pool.
Christopher A. Lee
>The real irony is that a belief in God might confer an evolutionary
>advantage, if we take the number of people who profess to believe in God
>over those who don't...DNA's little joke on its vehicles...
Make that any deity rather than just one called "God". It's a way of
explaining things that primitive people will accept.
A more observant caveman sees a correlation between washing hands
after wiping one's arse, and not getting ill eating food afterwards.
He can't explain it. How does he get the others to wash their hands?
"The Great Arkleseizure says that if you don't wash your hands after
taking a crap, you will be punished by being sick".
Up to a certain level it's a societal survival factor. Beyond another
level it's detrimental because the society can't compete with those
that have better explanations - unless they do so by military might.
But by this time it has become a meme with (almost) a life of its own.
Like a lot of other things it fights to survive. Sometimes it adapts
with the times. Sometimes it retreats into its own little world, and
sometimes it becomes virulent attacking other memes. Tautologically,
the ones that survive survive, whatever it is they do to survive.
>Toby
>
>"A scholar is a library's way of creating another library."
>--Daniel Dennett
Hehehehe...
theBeaver
By saying "objective truth ... in error or not", you've moved beyond
what I regard as reasonable. Isn't truth by definition not in error?
But "objective meaning" is a strange thing. "Meaning" implies someone
to sense meaning, so the term is intrinsically subjective, the way
beauty implies a beholder. So "objective meaning" is an oxymoron.
Try to imagine "meaning" without life. We'd all agree there must be at
least one life for there to be any meaning. But a theist would regard
any ephemeral being's subjective "meaning" as inconsequential. (The
theist then says "ergo there must be a God", but fails to mention his
requisite supportive axiom.)
If this same being were to be (at least potentially) immortal and
indestructible, this confidence in his inconsequentiality is diminished,
regardless of whether he is omniscient or omnipotent. Similarly, if the
one who presumes "meaning" is fully and completely satisfied with it,
then we have little ammunition when we try to tell him that his life has
no meaning. We then are left with trying to convince others that that
guy's life has no meaning (thus giving our own life meaning?).
The chink in the armor of someone who claims "meaning" is either that
his own life must end, the object of his meaning must end, or that he
has enough other doubts about his chosen "meaning" as to be
uncomfortable, so these are the focus of a theist's assault. The theist
promises what mortal life cannot provide: eternal life and absolute
knowledge, the universal salves of the soul. The original poster was
using the same tactic, trying to get his foot in a cracked door.
If you could promise eternal and ever-expanding life through science and
artificial intelligence, the core of the church would be forever broken.
People would abandon religion in droves for any credible alternative.
If a superscientist said that anyone capable of comprehending general
relativity would be allowed through the door opened by unlimited
artificial intelligence that his science offered, classes in the subject
would spring up almost instantaneously and their attendence would be so
huge it would leave the working world in ruin. Those who were incapable
of passing the test would resort to resuming their faith in God. Or
perhaps they would try to make hostages of class attendees by physically
or legally intervening in the superscientists offer. (Man instinctively
knows how to take hostages -- he examines a scheme's methodology, plants
himself in the way to confound its functioning, and counts on the envied
scheme to concede something to still achieve its ends. Ah, the wonders
of evolution!)
There are people with a particular deficiency in the parietal lobe who
are able to feel the presence of a benevolent protector. Some will call
it God. Electromagnets can induce this same feeling in non-believers.
If you could feel it all the time, regardless of whether you explicitly
attributed the feeling to God, I suspect you would have found all the
"meaning" you need. Life would be tolerable. You might then say that
you have confidence that God exists and will protect you, but what
really is happening is that you no longer require protection. Even
without the presumption of God, you have found Nirvana. "God" would be
an afterthought, a token concession to rationality.
"Meaning" is subjective, purpose without doubt. Its focus may change,
chameleon-like, from beauty, to love, to virtue or truth, to science or
God, and thus form a pattern of undependability. For theists, the
pattern gets stuck on God. An artist might get stuck on beauty, a
mathematician on exotic formula, or a sex-crazed pedophile on the
comfort of man-boy love. But once you're stuck, you've found your meaning.
>
> Rob
>
>
Toby
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:rscnk09382dgrhjm9...@4ax.com...
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Purpose and meaning is an effective survival mechanism. If
> you compare at species that are in danger of going extinct,
> with species that flourish in alarming numbers despite our best
> attempts to exterminate them, you will notice that a very
> common difference is that survivors act as if they are having
> fun, they act as if they love to do the things they need to do
> to survive as individuals and as a species, they love eating
> food, they love finding food, they love their work, they love
> sex, and they love their children, whereas the ones that die
> off despite our best efforts to preserve them, for example the
> panda bear, act as if they are suffering from purposelessness,
> anomie, and ennui.
What a particularly quaint idea. So would you impart volition to the flu
virus? Is it having fun do you think, in contrast to the smallpox virus? Do
you suppose that the E. Coli loves its work and its children, whereas the
syphilis spirochete is suffering from puropselessness, anomie and ennui?
I don't suppose you might consider that a changing environment (and
sometimes concomitant overspecialization) might have anything to do with the
failure of certain species to thrive? The Great Pandas were doing fine until
recently; now human overdevelopment has nearly wiped out their habitat.
Rhinos were doing great until poachers came along hunting rhino horn for
impotent human males, and the same sort of aphrodisical belief in tiger's
penis has all but wiped those big cats off the face of the earth. In fact
it looks like the activities of mankind will result in the loss of 50% of
the species on the planet within the next 100 years. Looks like half of
Gaia's flora and fauna just aren't having enough fun...can't get a rise out
of them anymore...
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
Your argument does nothing but misplace the responsibility for the present
mass extinction: it belongs squarely on the shoulders of the greatest
pestilence ever to befall this planet--mankind.
If there were a just and compassionate God he would wipe us off the face of
the earth. The fact that we are still here and thriving is proof of His
non-existence.
Toby
>
>> Instead, such a life can only have a self-assigned,
>> subjective meaning.
>
> One cannot help having a purpose, as one cannot help falling in
> love. People that must artificially concoct a purpose have
> something wrong with them that religion is unlikely to help.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 1Uw4mm4RLmx4+ZafpkaEdbrCl2EovuvY5173ScA9
> 4ecFB6Qemv6ZnaARUDI+vzBZbgCJRIMhlJrHbLWeS
>
Don Kresch
<toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
>1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
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"
Bob's Boyfriend
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
Misplaced responsibility indeed. I've never used these products. I don't
even live in these areas of the world. I don't engage in poaching, or
have the need for aprhodisiacs and antidotes to such problems. You seem
though, to hold everyone accountable for the actions of specific members
of our species.
I would argue that extinction because of poaching is the responsibility
of the poacher.
> If there were a just and compassionate God he would wipe us off the face of
> the earth. The fact that we are still here and thriving is proof of His
> non-existence.
That's rather extreme. I would assume that a just and compassionate god
would simply encourage those who poach to stop, or force them to stop.
Bob's Boyfriend
Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
> <toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
>
> >1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
>
> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
The notion that X can't exist until we as humans can perceive X would
then seem to be false.
Albert
<snip>
> I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
> God's terms.
Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
seems like a win to me.
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Paul Duca wrote:
> <snip>
> > I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
> > God's terms.
>
> Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
> seems like a win to me.
I just can't seem to find examples in nature where life is eternal and
death is without some type of pain and suffering.
Christopher A. Lee
<toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
>In article <7b8rk0p0h9v6rc8vl...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
>> <toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
>>
>> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
>
>Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
>existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
>we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
That is irrelevant.
He wasn't avoiding the question. There was no reason to even think of
them. Even though they existed without anybody's knowledge they may as
well not have.
Things were observed, which were then given the label quasars (an
abbreviation for quasi-stellar radio source).
They aren't belief objects which people insisted existed, which were
eventually found.
It is disingenuous to bait'n'switch from the hypothetical object of a
religious belief that people insist exists but never demoinstrate it,
to things which were once unknown but now known that were only given a
label after their discovery, as though the two are similar.
>The notion that X can't exist until we as humans can perceive X would
>then seem to be false.
Good thing that's a strawman then, isn't it?
That is _not_ why people say it doesn't exist. Those that do, do so as
a logical conclusion based on the implicit contradictions in what they
are told about it by its believers.
Others say it doesn't exist, as the falsifiable null hypothesis.
Dixit
> In article <7b8rk0p0h9v6rc8vl...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
>><toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>>1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
>>
>> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
>
>
> Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
> existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
> we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
Therefore, there might be a God? Non sequitur. Talk to Sniper about it.
He tried the same type of argument (ignoratio elenchi), he tried to get
away with arguing that since the planet Pluto existed before we
discovered it then there might be a God. Ignoratio elenchi argument like
that doesn't support your conclusion.
"Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
"The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically
nothing to do with that conclusion." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Dixit
> In article <_r63d.218079$mD.91079@attbi_s02>, Dixit <d...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>>In article <4m2pk0lgsijnnuqd2...@4ax.com>,
>>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:11:37 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
>>>><toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <l1fmk09pttc471pn2...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 17 Sep 2004 11:41:11 -0700, oo...@lycos.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's also the possibility that flying monkeys will pop out of your
>>>>>>ass in the next ten seconds, but I see no reason to think either
>>>>>>possibility more likely than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is? Wouldn't that possibility require some evidence?
>>>>
>>>>no different than ohoe's deity.
>>>
>>>
>>>However, i think the evidence is to the contrary, therefore, the
>>>possible converts to an impossibility. You might fit one flying monkey
>>>into my ass ...
>>
>>How about a squadron of magically invisible flying monkeys so mystical
>>they are imperceptible to human perception, something on the same order
>>as the hypothetical magically invisible God thingy you are championing?
>
>
> made. Please supply your evidence that I am championing a god.
see above. "There is the possibility that our God is real." You came
into this thread to help champion that proposition. If not, then what is
your ignoratio elenchi argument for?
>>The probability is exactly the same.
>
>
> I cannot perceive your thoughts.
The existence of neuron activity in the brain is not in question.
> 1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars.
Therefore there might be a God?
That's the logical fallacy of gnoratio elenchi argument, as you have
already been told. That isn't allowed.
Dixit
> ... you utilize the same means as the theist.
Balderdash. Theism is characterized by an irrational religious belief
like yours there might be a magically invisible space pixie.
Just as asymmetry is an absence of symmetry, atheism is simply an
absence of theism, an absence of your irrational religious belief there
might be a magically invisible space pixie.
Christopher A. Lee
>Paul Duca wrote:
><snip>
>> I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
>> God's terms.
>
>Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
>seem
Only if you demonstrate that this hypothetical new world actually
exists outside the pipe dreams if believers like you.
Bob's Boyfriend
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:26:41 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
> <toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7b8rk0p0h9v6rc8vl...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
> >> <toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
> >>
> >> >1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
> >>
> >> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
> >
> >Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
> >existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
> >we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
>
> That is irrelevant.
>
> He wasn't avoiding the question. There was no reason to even think of
> them. Even though they existed without anybody's knowledge they may as
> well not have.
A question that is asked and not answered is a question that is avoided.
It would seem then, that since they were able to exist without our
noticing and for so long that to spend time concerning ourselves with
them now is a waste.
Further, I'm left with the impression then, that only things that you
deem important are worthy of our attention. Frankly, I could care less
whether quasars exist or not, but this was an example that addressed a
point that was being made.
> Things were observed, which were then given the label quasars (an
> abbreviation for quasi-stellar radio source).
Which doesn't address my point. That they still existed, or so it would
seem, prior to our species having taken notice of their existence. It
seems rather arrogant of the species to discount anything and everything
because we don't see it.
> They aren't belief objects which people insisted existed, which were
> eventually found.
>
> It is disingenuous to bait'n'switch from the hypothetical object of a
> religious belief that people insist exists but never demoinstrate it,
> to things which were once unknown but now known that were only given a
> label after their discovery, as though the two are similar.
They are similar. They both show how we come to beliefs. People believe
in the existence of god, not because of evidence that a god exists, but
because we are all prone to the same process of acquiring beliefs. You
make it about the thing believed, I make it about the process of
believing.
> >The notion that X can't exist until we as humans can perceive X would
> >then seem to be false.
>
> Good thing that's a strawman then, isn't it?
I would find it helpful if your comments follow the thread that was
being discussed.
> That is _not_ why people say it doesn't exist. Those that do, do so as
> a logical conclusion based on the implicit contradictions in what they
> are told about it by its believers.
>
> Others say it doesn't exist, as the falsifiable null hypothesis.
How did you come to the position that the falsifiable null hypothesis
was correct?
Bob's Boyfriend
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> > In article <7b8rk0p0h9v6rc8vl...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
> >><toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
> >>
> >>
> >>>1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
> >>
> >> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
> > existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
> > we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
>
>
> Therefore, there might be a God? Non sequitur. Talk to Sniper about it.
> He tried the same type of argument (ignoratio elenchi), he tried to get
> away with arguing that since the planet Pluto existed before we
> discovered it then there might be a God. Ignoratio elenchi argument like
> that doesn't support your conclusion.
I made no such claim. You have, yet again, attributed things to me which
I have not claimed. I would appreciate it if you would stop doing this.
I was speaking to the point that something (like Pluto) can exist even
though it is outside of human perception at the moment. At this moment,
it is broad daylight and I cannot see Pluto. Yet, I am stilling willing
to believe that Pluto is there. The process through which I am willing
to trust that Pluto is still there while not seeing it, is the same
process that the theist experience in believing their god is there while
not being able to see it.
Bob's Boyfriend
wrote:
I didn't make the statement enclosed in quotation marks. To assume that
because I disagree with you means that I must agree with them leaves out
a third option -- that I have my own thoughts on the discussion of
beliefs and how they are acquired.
I clearly stated my position that I found similarities in modes of
thinking of atheists and theists.
> >>The probability is exactly the same.
> >
> >
> > I cannot perceive your thoughts.
>
> The existence of neuron activity in the brain is not in question.
But it is the same standard that you are requiring proof of their
beliefs. You have a double standard.
You have asked for theists to point out there god for you.
You will not point out your thoughts for me.
> > 1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars.
>
> Therefore there might be a God?
What? I made no such claim. I've already clearly stated that I don't
believe in the existence of a god. You are unwilling to believe this. I
find that curious.
> That's the logical fallacy of gnoratio elenchi argument, as you have
> already been told. That isn't allowed.
I see. I must follow your rules.
> Talk to Sniper about it. He tried the same type of argument (ignoratio
> elenchi), he tried to get away with arguing that since the planet Pluto
> existed before we discovered it then there might be a God. Ignoratio
> elenchi argument like that doesn't support your conclusion.
Clue: I am not Sniper.
Bob's Boyfriend
wrote:
I have clearly stated that I don't believe in the existence of a god or
gods. I have clearly stated that your definition of theism is contrary
to the one that i know. I have clearly stated why I believe that people
are willing to believe in the existence of a god despite any evidence. I
have clearly stated that I find similarities in how people think despite
their affiliation of being atheists or theists. And, I have provided
examples in support of that position.
Your unwillingness to believe me is your problem.
Further, asymmetry requires some conceptualization of what symmetry is.
So, you make yourself look foolish to deny this. Similarly, asexuality
requries a conceptualization of sexuality. Abnormal requires a
conceptualization of what normal is, and so on.
IOW, the proposition of "anti-gravity" is a tacit acknowledgement of the
inverse proposition of "gravity". Similarly, the descriptor
"non-believer" gives tacit agreement with the notion that the inverse
proposition of "believer" exists. It is through demanding proof of
existence of a god that you imply that one exists.
You've accomplished the same thing with the null premise and ETs. The
assumption that ETs don't exist tacitly implies that they do. Otherwise,
if the null premise was true -- that ETs don't exist, it would seem
foolish to go out and prove their non-existence -- a negative.
Albert
Nor will you.
Albert
You completely miss the point. If God could be scientifically
proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a part of Nature.
What is called for is a leap of faith.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:49:48 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul Duca wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
>>>>God's terms.
>>>
>>>Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
>>>seem
>>
>>
>> Only if you demonstrate that this hypothetical new world actually
>> exists outside the pipe dreams if believers like you.
>
>You completely miss the point. If God could be scientifically
>proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a part of Nature.
You completely miss the point. If you can't demonstrate that it
exists outside your overworked imagination then you have nothing to
say about it. It's all about having the common sense and courtesy to
either put up or shut up. Preferably the latter as you seem top have
realised you at last that you can't do the former.
> What is called for is a leap of faith.
There's nothing for us to have a leap of faith about, and your own
faith is worthless to anybody else.
Albert
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:34:01 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:49:48 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Paul Duca wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
>>>>>God's terms.
>>>>
>>>>Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
>>>>seem
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you demonstrate that this hypothetical new world actually
>>>exists outside the pipe dreams if believers like you.
>>
>>You completely miss the point. If God could be scientifically
>>proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a part of Nature.
>
>
> You completely miss the point. If you can't demonstrate that it
> exists outside your overworked imagination then you have nothing to
> say about it. It's all about having the common sense and courtesy to
> either put up or shut up. Preferably the latter as you seem top have
> realised you at last that you can't do the former.
You *still* completely miss the point. If God could be
scientifically proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a
part of Nature.
>> What is called for is a leap of faith.
>
> There's nothing for us to have a leap of faith about, and your own
> faith is worthless to anybody else.
True. Let each man work out his own salvation with fear and
trembling.
Jack
>
> LIFE'S PURPOSE AND MEANING
>
> In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the
> reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without
> God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they
> have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives
> have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is
> created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or
> objective purpose or meaning.
> Instead, such a life can only have a
> self-assigned, subjective meaning.
Hmm so subjective means it doesn't exist ? What's wrong with a subjective
life meaning anyway ?
> A non-objective, self-assigned
> meaning is purely imaginary!
No, subjective and imaginary mean two things,
> It is a subjective opinion of what can
> only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and
> a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an
> objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent. We may have
Well no it's only the subjective self assigned meaning of the supposed
creator that takes precedence over yours.
> different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these
> are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.
Reality is both objective and subjective you should at least understand
that.
>
> As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned,
> subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy
> was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor
> and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the
> self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his
> life would have very little meaning. For 6 years, this self-assigned
> purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill
> and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very
> handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life
> meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman;
> without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately,
> his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of
> marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley,
> because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man.
> That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with
> the wind. Then he wrecked it...so he turned to chess...he would become
> the best chess player in the world...
>
> The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective,
> self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see
> the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate
> attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.
Talk about a ridiculous story. What if the purpose had been to enjoy the
moment and stop worrying about the future ? Of course if you put all your
eggs in what basket (even the God basket), if that basket falls it will hurt
but I don't even see how this relate with whatever point you are struggling
to articulate incoherently.
>
> What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the
> purpose created by man?
Nothing.
>
> I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be
> the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
Actually no, a work of art can have no design.
> If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove
> and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective
Ok so humans are innanimate objects.... At least the screw driver doesn't
have to just rely on faith as to whether or not screws or mechanics
exist.....
> purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an
> opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the
> instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument
> around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to
> decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner),
> however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the
> instrument was created.
So what ?
> God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer
According to you.
> designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his
> intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For
You should talk to your parents and follow their design for you. At least
they exist objectively.
>
>
> http://www.ex-atheist.com/game-designer-argument.html
You were never an atheist you clearly lack the brain power.
Virgil
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> > In article <7b8rk0p0h9v6rc8vl...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:00 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
> >><toge...@wyoming.com> let us all know that:
> >>
> >>
> >>>1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars. Did they not exist?
> >>
> >> 1000 years ago, no one posited quasars.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for evading the question. Interestingly, they seem to have
> > existed for some time without our even knowing of their presence until
> > we developed technology that allowed us to perceive them.
>
>
> Therefore, there might be a God
Did Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, finally get it right?
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:34:01 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:49:48 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Duca wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
>>>>>>God's terms.
>>>>>
>>>>>Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
>>>>>seem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only if you demonstrate that this hypothetical new world actually
>>>>exists outside the pipe dreams if believers like you.
>>>
>>>You completely miss the point. If God could be scientifically
>>>proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a part of Nature.
>>
>>
>> You completely miss the point. If you can't demonstrate that it
>> exists outside your overworked imagination then you have nothing to
>> say about it. It's all about having the common sense and courtesy to
>> either put up or shut up. Preferably the latter as you seem top have
>> realised you at last that you can't do the former.
>
>You *still* completely miss the point. If God could be
>scientifically proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a
>part of Nature.
You *still* miss the point. You are still talking about your Santa
Claus equivalent as though it were as real outside your imagination as
it is inside it.
If you can't demonstrate it (and I never said "scientifically prove it
- that is another of your stupid strawmen), then you have nothing to
say about it.
But you have demonstrated that you would rather be an in-your-face
moron than either putting up or shutting up.
>>> What is called for is a leap of faith.
>>
>> There's nothing for us to have a leap of faith about, and your own
>> faith is worthless to anybody else.
>
>True. Let each man work out his own salvation with fear and
>trembling.
What "salvation", moron? What "fear and trembling"? What kind of idiot
threatens us with part of his fairy stories for not believing the rest
of them?
Virgil
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
> > Yawn. Once again, you are attributing statement to me that I have not
> > made. Please supply your evidence that I am championing a god.
>
> see above. "There is the possibility that our God is real."
That is hardly "championing".
>
> >>The probability is exactly the same.
> >
> >
> > I cannot perceive your thoughts.
>
> The existence of neuron activity in the brain is not in question.
The existence of neuron activity in the brain does not allow one to
perceive thoughts.
>
> > 1000 years ago, humans couldn't perceive quasars.
>
> Therefore there might be a God?
Only in the sense that what cannot be perceived today may be perceived
tomorrow, and no one knows for sure that that cannot include gods.
Can Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, prove, using logically convincing
evidence only instead of his usual farrago of nonsense, that it will
forever be impossible to perceive any gods?
NO, he cannot!
Virgil
wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend wrote:
>
>
> > ... you utilize the same means as the theist.
>
>
> Balderdash.
There you go using the same means as theists!
> Theism is characterized by an irrational religious belief
> like yours there might be a magically invisible space pixie.
The definition of theism held by the vast majority of those who use the
word is "belief in the actaul existence of some god or gods".
And in the matter of meanings, majority rules.
Bob's Boyfriend
Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:49:48 -0500, Albert <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Paul Duca wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>I just don't think you get all that much if you "win" under
> >>>God's terms.
> >>
> >>Continued existence in a new world without suffering and death
> >>seem
> >
> >
> > Only if you demonstrate that this hypothetical new world actually
> > exists outside the pipe dreams if believers like you.
>
> You completely miss the point. If God could be scientifically
> proven then he wouldn't be God at all but just a part of Nature.
> What is called for is a leap of faith.
I think I need more of an explanation on this point. I'm lost to
understand why the existence of your god and the science must be
mutually exclusive.
Religion has often turned to science to justify it's contentions. Two
examples that come to mind are the use of science in an attempt to prove
information about an Arc and a Shroud.