Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dear Human !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
145 views
Skip to first unread message
BV BV
Apr 20, 2013, 3:11:41 PM4/20/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dear Human!
The lecturer says at the beginning of the video, "I am talking to
you as a human; it does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew,
Buddhist or Hindu. It does not matter whether you are a worshipper of
idols, atheist, religious, secularist, a man or woman. I talk and
address you as a human. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself one
day the reason why you believe in what you believe in? Have you ever
thought about
the reason for which you chose the religion you practice?"
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/-PcxpUGSmK0?rel=0
thank you
The lecturer says at the beginning of the video, "I am talking to
you as a human; it does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew,
Buddhist or Hindu. It does not matter whether you are a worshipper of
idols, atheist, religious, secularist, a man or woman. I talk and
address you as a human. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself one
day the reason why you believe in what you believe in? Have you ever
thought about
the reason for which you chose the religion you practice?"
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/-PcxpUGSmK0?rel=0
thank you
Leigh Johnston
Apr 20, 2013, 6:07:16 PM4/20/13
to
thank you
jacob navia
Apr 21, 2013, 3:47:01 AM4/21/13
to
Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a �crit :
>>
>> thank you
>>
>
> There is no god.
>
> thank you
Religion is a mental illness. It leads to violence, reject of
"non-believers", and delusions like believing in the existence of
invisible gods, angels, demons, and all kind of creatures that no one
besides the sick person can see or detect anywhere.
Some religions go through a specially violent phase, where they start
waging war against "the infidels", for example christians with their
crusades, or now islamists with their "jihad".
In the last month, buddhists killed musulmans in Birmania, islamists
killed christians in Egypt, Jews killed musulmans in Gaza, etc. All
those religious conflicts are manifestations of this mental illness.
Those wars can go for decades, even centuries, with people killing each
other because some invisible god tells them to do so.
The Boston terrorists were deeply religious people, as their 9/11
counterparts, and many many others that killed their fellow beings
to satisfy their god. In ancient times religion led people to kill
children (sacred offerings) for their gods or to do all kinds of hideous
acts because it is often the case that god needs human blood.
Let's stop this illness. Let's see the reality face to face:
THERE IS NO GOD!
Proof:
-----
It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
an all powerful being.
Then:
Can this being forget?
EITHER:
He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
thing he can't do: forget.
OTHERWISE:
He can forget. But then, he can't remember what he has forgotten then he
is not "all powerful" either!
CONCLUSION:
The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
But logic will never convince the sick. They need religion as the drug
addict needs opium.
We are too tolerant with this illness. It must be neutralized, religious
people need to understand that they are SICK!!!
Thank you and pass the word: There is no god in the heavens, no devil
at the center of the earth. There are no angels nor demons, there is
NO JUSTIFICATION for any crime since there isn't any god to die for.
> On 20/04/2013 20:11, BV BV wrote:
>> Dear Human!
>>
[snip]
>> Dear Human!
>>
>>
>> thank you
>>
>
> There is no god.
>
> thank you
"non-believers", and delusions like believing in the existence of
invisible gods, angels, demons, and all kind of creatures that no one
besides the sick person can see or detect anywhere.
Some religions go through a specially violent phase, where they start
waging war against "the infidels", for example christians with their
crusades, or now islamists with their "jihad".
In the last month, buddhists killed musulmans in Birmania, islamists
killed christians in Egypt, Jews killed musulmans in Gaza, etc. All
those religious conflicts are manifestations of this mental illness.
Those wars can go for decades, even centuries, with people killing each
other because some invisible god tells them to do so.
The Boston terrorists were deeply religious people, as their 9/11
counterparts, and many many others that killed their fellow beings
to satisfy their god. In ancient times religion led people to kill
children (sacred offerings) for their gods or to do all kinds of hideous
acts because it is often the case that god needs human blood.
Let's stop this illness. Let's see the reality face to face:
THERE IS NO GOD!
Proof:
-----
It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
an all powerful being.
Then:
Can this being forget?
EITHER:
He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
thing he can't do: forget.
OTHERWISE:
He can forget. But then, he can't remember what he has forgotten then he
is not "all powerful" either!
CONCLUSION:
The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
But logic will never convince the sick. They need religion as the drug
addict needs opium.
We are too tolerant with this illness. It must be neutralized, religious
people need to understand that they are SICK!!!
Thank you and pass the word: There is no god in the heavens, no devil
at the center of the earth. There are no angels nor demons, there is
NO JUSTIFICATION for any crime since there isn't any god to die for.
Nick Keighley
Apr 21, 2013, 5:41:14 AM4/21/13
to
Nick Keighley
Apr 21, 2013, 5:46:05 AM4/21/13
to
nonsense
> It leads to violence, reject of "non-believers",
it is also a source of comfort to many people and important element in
our history and culture. It provides structures to people's lives and
acts as a social safety net. Many religious groups such as Quakers and
Amish are expressly non-violent.
I consider people like you to be more of a risk than the ordinary
people you seem to hate so deeply.
> It leads to violence, reject of "non-believers",
our history and culture. It provides structures to people's lives and
acts as a social safety net. Many religious groups such as Quakers and
Amish are expressly non-violent.
people you seem to hate so deeply.
jacob navia
Apr 21, 2013, 2:41:26 PM4/21/13
to
Le 21/04/13 11:46, Nick Keighley a �crit :
Inquisition to paedophilic priests. It is an integral part of the
worst aspects of our history.
True, many people are sedated by their belief in an invisible "god".
They feel better, like the drug addict feels better after taking
his drug.
> It provides structures to people's lives
Yes, the "community". The rest of the human race are the "infidels".
Many nonsense commandements are established: do not eat pork, do not
work on (you name it), all with the goal of separating the "believers"
from the rest of mankind.
> and
> acts as a social safety net.
Only for the people of the specific religion concerned. Others do not
have access to that safety net.
> Many religious groups such as Quakers and
> Amish are expressly non-violent.
Yes, they are the exceptions that confirm the rule.
Note:
I am not for policing people's beliefs. Everybody is free to
believe whatever he/she wishes. I am against *religion*, i.e;
the ORGANIZED cult of an invisible god with social institutions
like the catholic church, the imams of islam, etc.
It is those institutions that organize crimes "in the name of god".
It is the catholic church, for instance, that covers up and
defends paedophilic priests, not the people that go to church
on sundays to hear those priests.
I do make the disctinction between the religious folks
(that have only a mild form of this sickness) and the priests
(that prey on society in general)
Why it is a sickness?
Because religious people believe in things nobody sees: god,
devil, angels, daemons, heaven, hell, etc.
There isn't any single proof of all that nonsense. But for them
it is OK if some book (bible khoran, whatever) tells them so, to believe
all the nonsense written in those books.
Religion is always opposed to science since science destroys its
foundation: *IGNORANCE*.
If there weren't ignorant people, priests couldn't start talking about
the earth being created 5 000 years ago, or that women ate some
forbidden fruit (and therefore are guilty), etc.
Isn't this too hard against those religious people?
Yes, it is. But without trying to put a STOP into religious nonsense,
they manage to always recruit more and more people and cause
more and more damage!
It is time to say STOP to bigotry, intolerance, and organized religion.
And NO, I am not intolerant. If anybody wishes to believe in the earth
being created by some "god" 5 000 years ago it is OK with me.
But if a social institution preys upon the ignorants to spread a message
of hate I am AGAISNT it. And all religions reduce to two basic pillars:
VIOLENCE and IGNORANCE.
jacob
> it is also a source of comfort to many people and important element in
> our history and culture.
I would never deny the influence of religion in our culture, from
> our history and culture.
Inquisition to paedophilic priests. It is an integral part of the
worst aspects of our history.
True, many people are sedated by their belief in an invisible "god".
They feel better, like the drug addict feels better after taking
his drug.
> It provides structures to people's lives
Many nonsense commandements are established: do not eat pork, do not
work on (you name it), all with the goal of separating the "believers"
from the rest of mankind.
> and
> acts as a social safety net.
have access to that safety net.
> Many religious groups such as Quakers and
> Amish are expressly non-violent.
Note:
I am not for policing people's beliefs. Everybody is free to
believe whatever he/she wishes. I am against *religion*, i.e;
the ORGANIZED cult of an invisible god with social institutions
like the catholic church, the imams of islam, etc.
It is those institutions that organize crimes "in the name of god".
It is the catholic church, for instance, that covers up and
defends paedophilic priests, not the people that go to church
on sundays to hear those priests.
I do make the disctinction between the religious folks
(that have only a mild form of this sickness) and the priests
(that prey on society in general)
Why it is a sickness?
Because religious people believe in things nobody sees: god,
devil, angels, daemons, heaven, hell, etc.
There isn't any single proof of all that nonsense. But for them
it is OK if some book (bible khoran, whatever) tells them so, to believe
all the nonsense written in those books.
Religion is always opposed to science since science destroys its
foundation: *IGNORANCE*.
If there weren't ignorant people, priests couldn't start talking about
the earth being created 5 000 years ago, or that women ate some
forbidden fruit (and therefore are guilty), etc.
Isn't this too hard against those religious people?
Yes, it is. But without trying to put a STOP into religious nonsense,
they manage to always recruit more and more people and cause
more and more damage!
It is time to say STOP to bigotry, intolerance, and organized religion.
And NO, I am not intolerant. If anybody wishes to believe in the earth
being created by some "god" 5 000 years ago it is OK with me.
But if a social institution preys upon the ignorants to spread a message
of hate I am AGAISNT it. And all religions reduce to two basic pillars:
VIOLENCE and IGNORANCE.
jacob
jacob navia
Apr 21, 2013, 2:42:50 PM4/21/13
to
Le 21/04/13 11:46, Nick Keighley a �crit :
> I consider people like you to be more of a risk than the ordinary
> people you seem to hate so deeply.
I am a risk because I am against VIOLENCE?
> people you seem to hate so deeply.
Excuse me but somehow I can't parse that.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
Apr 22, 2013, 3:26:07 AM4/22/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:kl05hk$flo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a écrit :
also a religion.
>
>Some religions go through a specially violent phase, where they start
>waging war against "the infidels", for example christians with their
>crusades, or now islamists with their "jihad".
The same can be said of atheism.
>In the last month, buddhists killed musulmans in Birmania, islamists
>killed christians in Egypt, Jews killed musulmans in Gaza, etc. All
>those religious conflicts are manifestations of this mental illness.
>Those wars can go for decades, even centuries, with people killing each
>other because some invisible god tells them to do so.
How many people were killed by atheists? Think of Stalin, Pol Pot.
In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by all
regimes with other beliefs together.
In North Korea atheistic believers are still persecuting and killing
"non-believers".
By the way, what is the link with C++?
>
>Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a écrit :
>> On 20/04/2013 20:11, BV BV wrote:
>>> Dear Human!
>>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>> thank you
>>>
>>
>> There is no god.
>>
>> thank you
>
>Religion is a mental illness. It leads to violence, reject of
>"non-believers", and delusions like believing in the existence of
>invisible gods, angels, demons, and all kind of creatures that no one
>besides the sick person can see or detect anywhere.
You don't define religion. Atheism is also a belief. For many people it is
>>> Dear Human!
>>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>> thank you
>>>
>>
>> There is no god.
>>
>> thank you
>
>Religion is a mental illness. It leads to violence, reject of
>"non-believers", and delusions like believing in the existence of
>invisible gods, angels, demons, and all kind of creatures that no one
>besides the sick person can see or detect anywhere.
also a religion.
>
>Some religions go through a specially violent phase, where they start
>waging war against "the infidels", for example christians with their
>crusades, or now islamists with their "jihad".
>In the last month, buddhists killed musulmans in Birmania, islamists
>killed christians in Egypt, Jews killed musulmans in Gaza, etc. All
>those religious conflicts are manifestations of this mental illness.
>Those wars can go for decades, even centuries, with people killing each
>other because some invisible god tells them to do so.
In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by all
regimes with other beliefs together.
In North Korea atheistic believers are still persecuting and killing
"non-believers".
By the way, what is the link with C++?
Stuart
Apr 22, 2013, 4:11:39 AM4/22/13
to
Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a �crit :
>> There is no god.
>>
>> thank you
Proof?
>>
>> thank you
On 04/21/13, jacob navia wrote:
> Religion is a mental illness.
("Irre! Wir behandeln die Falschen", "Crazy! We treat the wrong ones")
that was confronted with the thesis that Francis of Assisi suffered from
schizophrenia because he had acustic hallucinations of imperative
character (he heard voices from the cross that told him to re-build some
church).
However, Francis of Assisi was a communicative and open-minded man who
did not break his connections with other people. Quite in contrast, he
founded a world-wide movement of poverty (Armut, don't know whether this
is the correct translation) and charity.
So from the perspective of a psychologist, Francis of Assisi would not
be considered ill because he did not suffer from his state. By that
definition, only very few religios people would be considered ill, and I
doubt that the percentage of ill religious people should be higher than
the percentage of mentally ill non-religious people.
> It leads to violence, reject of
> "non-believers", and delusions like believing in the existence of
> invisible gods, angels, demons, and all kind of creatures that no one
> besides the sick person can see or detect anywhere.
Napoleon", he is very likely taken to the next hospital. If he instead
said that he could see the arch-angel Michael, people would most likely
leave him alone. A bit unfair, isn't it?
> Some religions go through a specially violent phase, where they start
> waging war against "the infidels", for example christians with their
> crusades, or now islamists with their "jihad".
religious ambitions. I think most people joined the crusade for
commercial reasons.
> In the last month, buddhists killed musulmans in Birmania, islamists
> killed christians in Egypt, Jews killed musulmans in Gaza, etc. All
> those religious conflicts are manifestations of this mental illness.
> Those wars can go for decades, even centuries, with people killing each
> other because some invisible god tells them to do so.
religious conflicts while secular interests are the driving force.
> The Boston terrorists were deeply religious people, as their 9/11
> counterparts, and many many others that killed their fellow beings
> to satisfy their god. In ancient times religion led people to kill
> children (sacred offerings) for their gods or to do all kinds of hideous
> acts because it is often the case that god needs human blood.
motivation but the religious. In that regard, sacrifice should be
condemned. However, there is one form of sacrifice that gives us some
headache: self-sacrifice. Apparently lots of people had been waiting in
line in order to get sacrificed for the Aztecan gods.
Is that bad? After all, it seems as if those people _wanted_ to be
sacrified of their own free will.
I don't know. It may be similar to the situation in World War I and II
where many people joined the forces because "everybody else did". It
would be interesting to know what would happen if one of the Aztecan
refused to be sacrificed. If he would then be sacrificed forcefully, the
whole aspect of the own free will would be moot.
> Let's stop this illness. Let's see the reality face to face:
>
> THERE IS NO GOD!
>
> Proof:
> -----
>
> It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
> an all powerful being.
often be described as "all powerful" it does not mean that divine beings
actually have to be "all powerful". Maybe those prophets who described
their deity as "all powerful" actually meant that the deity is far more
powerful than ordinary human beings.
> Then:
>
> Can this being forget?
>
> EITHER:
> He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
> thing he can't do: forget.
not be able to decide to forget things. After all, Jehova's Witnesses
believe that people don't have a soul but are will be re-create by God
in paradise "from memory". If God decides to leave out people, He simply
forgets them.
> OTHERWISE:
>
> He can forget. But then, he can't remember what he has forgotten then he
> is not "all powerful" either!
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
Adams' Babel fish. The saddest one from Rolf Hochhuth's "Der
Stellvertreter" / "The Deputy".
> But logic will never convince the sick. They need religion as the drug
> addict needs opium.
>
> We are too tolerant with this illness. It must be neutralized, religious
> people need to understand that they are SICK!!!
>
> Thank you and pass the word: There is no god in the heavens, no devil
> at the center of the earth. There are no angels nor demons, there is
> NO JUSTIFICATION for any crime since there isn't any god to die for.
conclusive proof from you. I think that there can be things that are not
perceivable by me (after all I do not claim that there can be no
gravitional waves because _I_ haven't seen them yet). Who knows.
Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
Regards,
Stuart
Juha Nieminen
Apr 22, 2013, 5:16:26 AM4/22/13
to
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 21/04/13 11:46, Nick Keighley a ?crit :
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
> Le 21/04/13 11:46, Nick Keighley a ?crit :
>> I consider people like you to be more of a risk than the ordinary
>> people you seem to hate so deeply.
>
> I am a risk because I am against VIOLENCE?
>
> Excuse me but somehow I can't parse that.
Religion reverses everything.
>> people you seem to hate so deeply.
>
> I am a risk because I am against VIOLENCE?
>
> Excuse me but somehow I can't parse that.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Juha Nieminen
Apr 22, 2013, 5:22:29 AM4/22/13
to
So the lack of belief is a belief?
That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
practicing physical exercise is a sport.
> In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by all
> regimes with other beliefs together.
And Hitler ate sugar, therefore eating sugar is evil.
That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
practicing physical exercise is a sport.
> In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by all
> regimes with other beliefs together.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
Apr 22, 2013, 7:06:07 AM4/22/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kl2vgl$joo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
that there is a God.
Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
>> In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by
>> all
>> regimes with other beliefs together.
>
>And Hitler ate sugar, therefore eating sugar is evil.
So, I hope that you understand that the examples of fanatic religious people
killing other people were not to the point and that that is the reason that
you did not quote them anymore. If my examples does not prove that atheism
leads to killing, then, similarly, the other examples do not prove that
religion leads to killing.
The question remains, what is the link with C++?
>
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>> Atheism is also a belief.
>
>So the lack of belief is a belief?
>
>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
Atheism is believing that there is no God. That differs from not believing
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>> Atheism is also a belief.
>
>So the lack of belief is a belief?
>
>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
that there is a God.
Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
>> In the 20st century more people were killed by atheistic regimes than by
>> all
>> regimes with other beliefs together.
>
>And Hitler ate sugar, therefore eating sugar is evil.
killing other people were not to the point and that that is the reason that
you did not quote them anymore. If my examples does not prove that atheism
leads to killing, then, similarly, the other examples do not prove that
religion leads to killing.
The question remains, what is the link with C++?
Melzzzzz
Apr 22, 2013, 7:08:18 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:06:07 +0200, Fred Zwarts \(KVI\) wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message
> news:kl2vgl$joo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>
>>So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>
>>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
>
> Atheism is believing that there is no God. That differs from not
> believing that there is a God.
> Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
No, agnostic may believe( or not) in God, but agnostic thinks that
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message
> news:kl2vgl$joo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>
>>So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>
>>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
>
> Atheism is believing that there is no God. That differs from not
> believing that there is a God.
> Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
knowing/proving that there is/not God is impossible.
Stuart
Apr 22, 2013, 10:14:30 AM4/22/13
to
On 04/22/2013, Melzzzzz wrote:
> No, agnostic may believe( or not) in God, but agnostic thinks that
> knowing/proving that there is/not God is impossible.
I think you meant to say that agnostics think that proving the
> No, agnostic may believe( or not) in God, but agnostic thinks that
> knowing/proving that there is/not God is impossible.
non-/existence of God _may_ be impossible. IOW, agnostics are true
non-believers, they only accept statements that can be proven.
However, if some entity suddenly appears that can split the Red Sea,
turn water into wine, and make Eclipse run longer than two hours without
crashing, an agnostic would certainly fall on his knees.
Regards,
Stuart
Melzzzzz
Apr 22, 2013, 10:18:07 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:14:30 +0200, Stuart wrote:
> On 04/22/2013, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> No, agnostic may believe( or not) in God, but agnostic thinks that
>> knowing/proving that there is/not God is impossible.
>
> I think you meant to say that agnostics think that proving the
> non-/existence of God _may_ be impossible. IOW, agnostics are true
> non-believers, they only accept statements that can be proven.
You are wrong. There are theistic and atheistic agnostics...
> On 04/22/2013, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> No, agnostic may believe( or not) in God, but agnostic thinks that
>> knowing/proving that there is/not God is impossible.
>
> I think you meant to say that agnostics think that proving the
> non-/existence of God _may_ be impossible. IOW, agnostics are true
> non-believers, they only accept statements that can be proven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
Leigh Johnston
Apr 22, 2013, 2:21:39 PM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 09:11, Stuart wrote:
> Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a écrit :
otherwise he couldn't forget. If he cannot remember what he forgot then
he is not all powerful. No God. QED.
/Leigh
> Le 21/04/13 00:07, Leigh Johnston a écrit :
>> Let's stop this illness. Let's see the reality face to face:
>>
>> THERE IS NO GOD!
>>
>> Proof:
>> -----
>>
>> It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
>> an all powerful being.
>
> And this is where the proof goes wrong: Even though divine beings are
> often be described as "all powerful" it does not mean that divine beings
> actually have to be "all powerful". Maybe those prophets who described
> their deity as "all powerful" actually meant that the deity is far more
> powerful than ordinary human beings.
>
>> Then:
>>
>> Can this being forget?
>>
>> EITHER:
>> He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
>> thing he can't do: forget.
>
> That doesn't hold water. I don't see why the deity in question should
> not be able to decide to forget things. After all, Jehova's Witnesses
> believe that people don't have a soul but are will be re-create by God
> in paradise "from memory". If God decides to leave out people, He simply
> forgets them.
If he simply forgets them then he can't remember what he forgot
>>
>> THERE IS NO GOD!
>>
>> Proof:
>> -----
>>
>> It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
>> an all powerful being.
>
> And this is where the proof goes wrong: Even though divine beings are
> often be described as "all powerful" it does not mean that divine beings
> actually have to be "all powerful". Maybe those prophets who described
> their deity as "all powerful" actually meant that the deity is far more
> powerful than ordinary human beings.
>
>> Then:
>>
>> Can this being forget?
>>
>> EITHER:
>> He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
>> thing he can't do: forget.
>
> That doesn't hold water. I don't see why the deity in question should
> not be able to decide to forget things. After all, Jehova's Witnesses
> believe that people don't have a soul but are will be re-create by God
> in paradise "from memory". If God decides to leave out people, He simply
> forgets them.
otherwise he couldn't forget. If he cannot remember what he forgot then
he is not all powerful. No God. QED.
/Leigh
Melzzzzz
Apr 22, 2013, 3:21:05 PM4/22/13
to
of Job, He must tempt/torture Job, in order to find out, if Job
is faithful or not. This proves that God is not all knowing...
Other illogical thing is that Jesus was in secret hideout (Romans needed
inner circle traitor to find out where/who is he;) ), while in the same
time being famous prophet ;)
Stuart
Apr 23, 2013, 4:43:26 AM4/23/13
to
Thanks,
Stuart
Öö Tiib
Apr 23, 2013, 2:10:29 PM4/23/13
to
On Monday, 22 April 2013 11:11:39 UTC+3, Stuart wrote:
> On 04/21/13, jacob navia wrote:
> > CONCLUSION:
> >
> > The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
>
> I have seen lots of such "proofs". Probably the funniest is Douglas
> Adams' Babel fish. The saddest one from Rolf Hochhuth's "Der
> Stellvertreter" / "The Deputy".
Yes, there is major flaw with such demands of proofs. If the "Mistress of
> On 04/21/13, jacob navia wrote:
> > CONCLUSION:
> >
> > The existence of an "all powerful" being is a contradiction in itself.
>
> I have seen lots of such "proofs". Probably the funniest is Douglas
> Adams' Babel fish. The saddest one from Rolf Hochhuth's "Der
> Stellvertreter" / "The Deputy".
Universe" wants everybody to know that she wears pink socks and wants to
be so awed, then everybody will know without doubt. So she either does
not exist or does not want to be worshiped.
> > Thank you and pass the word: There is no god in the heavens, no devil
> > at the center of the earth. There are no angels nor demons, there is
> > NO JUSTIFICATION for any crime since there isn't any god to die for.
>
> You seem to be very sure about that (like Leigh), even though I see no
> conclusive proof from you. I think that there can be things that are not
> perceivable by me (after all I do not claim that there can be no
> gravitional waves because _I_ haven't seen them yet). Who knows.
option is that she does not care about those crimes. Both ways she is not
so all-caring as has been always told.
> Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
> that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
> because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
> only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
that those are fake. Otherwise I can only _complain_ that you tell stories
but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
superior beings. What is here to prove if we have _nothing_?
jacob navia
Apr 23, 2013, 4:09:38 PM4/23/13
to
Le 23/04/13 20:10, Öö Tiib a écrit :
> It is not_belief_. It is_complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
Nothing.
There isn't ANY hint at the existence of any god, angel, demon, devil
or whatever nonsense this sick people believe in!
Why it is a sickenss?
Because they are DELUSIONAL of course!
Anybody that says:
"I saw a pink elephant flying over your house"
will end in an asylum EXCEPT if he/she says:
"I saw god in the heavens"
But it is the SAME delusion: "seeing" beings that do not exist!
> It is not_belief_. It is_complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
> have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
> that those are fake. Otherwise I can only_complain_ that you tell stories
> but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
> superior beings. What is here to prove if we have_nothing_?
Exactly.
> superior beings. What is here to prove if we have_nothing_?
Nothing.
There isn't ANY hint at the existence of any god, angel, demon, devil
or whatever nonsense this sick people believe in!
Why it is a sickenss?
Because they are DELUSIONAL of course!
Anybody that says:
"I saw a pink elephant flying over your house"
will end in an asylum EXCEPT if he/she says:
"I saw god in the heavens"
But it is the SAME delusion: "seeing" beings that do not exist!
Stuart
Apr 23, 2013, 5:02:26 PM4/23/13
to
On 04/22/2013, Stuart wrote:
>> Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
>> that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
>> because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
>> only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
>> Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
>> that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
>> because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
>> only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
On 04/23/13, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> It is not _belief_. It is _complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
> have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
> that those are fake. Otherwise I can only _complain_ that you tell stories
> but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
> superior beings. What is here to prove if we have _nothing_?
There is a slight difference between the claim "there is no god" and
> It is not _belief_. It is _complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
> have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
> that those are fake. Otherwise I can only _complain_ that you tell stories
> but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
> superior beings. What is here to prove if we have _nothing_?
"whatever entity you present to me, I will always be able to show that
it is not God" because this shifts the burden of proof to me. This is
like claiming that P != NP by because I am not able to give an algorithm
from P that solves NP-hard problems. The simple fact that I am not able
to do so does not mean that anybody is unable to do so (that is the
universal quantifier once again).
Stuart
PS: To stop this thread before it gets futile: It may as well be that
all those people who claim to have any encounters with God have actually
talked to Him. Just because their experience could not be reproduced by
others does not mean that it cannot have happened (it is just no proof
of God's existence because proofs must be visible to everyone).
However, any deity that chooses to talk exclusively to single persons
(like Om in Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods") would IMHO be a real s.o.b.
Juha Nieminen
Apr 24, 2013, 5:03:41 AM4/24/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
>
> Atheism is believing that there is no God. That differs from not believing
> that there is a God.
> Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
That's a category error.
>>That's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not
>>practicing physical exercise is a sport.
>
> Atheism is believing that there is no God. That differs from not believing
> that there is a God.
> Someone with a lack of belief in God is called agnostic, not atheistic.
Theism vs. atheism is a true dichotomy: If you are not a theist, then you
are an atheist ("not theist") by definition. There's no "in-between."
Gnosticism vs. agnosticism is a completely different category of
philosophy. It deals with knowledge, not with theistic gods. They
can be related to both theism and atheism, but can be related to
many other things as well.
Öö Tiib
Apr 24, 2013, 5:38:03 AM4/24/13
to
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 00:02:26 UTC+3, Stuart wrote:
> On 04/22/2013, Stuart wrote:
> >> Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
> >> that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
> >> because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
> >> only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
>
> On 04/22/2013, Stuart wrote:
> >> Unless you can present some facts, I would say that you only _believe_
> >> that there is no God. Of course, your claim is much harder to prove
> >> because it involves a universal quantificator, whereas religious people
> >> only have to deal with an existential quantificator ;-)
>
> On 04/23/13, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > It is not _belief_. It is _complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
> > have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
> > that those are fake. Otherwise I can only _complain_ that you tell stories
> > but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
> > superior beings. What is here to prove if we have _nothing_?
>
> There is a slight difference between the claim "there is no god" and
> "whatever entity you present to me, I will always be able to show that
> it is not God" because this shifts the burden of proof to me.
What burden of proof? The stories are basically that we play some
> > It is not _belief_. It is _complaint_. Why should I prove that you do not
> > have golden unicorns? Bring those out of your stables and then I can prove
> > that those are fake. Otherwise I can only _complain_ that you tell stories
> > but do not present any superior beings. Even no used pink socks of
> > superior beings. What is here to prove if we have _nothing_?
>
> There is a slight difference between the claim "there is no god" and
> "whatever entity you present to me, I will always be able to show that
> it is not God" because this shifts the burden of proof to me.
multiplayer RPG with very active game master who demands us to follow
strong rules. We see no acts of game master and we see no rules. That
game master does not act and even those rules he supposedly forwards
using lunatics. How is that no evidence that the story does not hold?
> This is
> like claiming that P != NP by because I am not able to give an algorithm
> from P that solves NP-hard problems. The simple fact that I am not able
> to do so does not mean that anybody is unable to do so (that is the
> universal quantifier once again).
measurable, non-delusional. Like the evidence provided to Noah. The rainbow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow does not even mention Noah because it
is so impossible story to believe. They *may* believe, it is their
human right, but what is here left for me to prove?
> PS: To stop this thread before it gets futile: It may as well be that
> all those people who claim to have any encounters with God have actually
> talked to Him.
using their nonsense as excuse. Such demands and crimes are what proves
that there are no sane superior beings behind such claims. Only usual
jealousy and greediness leads them to their crimes.
Rosario1903
May 11, 2013, 12:40:06 PM5/11/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
<nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>> Atheism is also a belief.
>
>So the lack of belief is a belief?
yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
<nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>> Atheism is also a belief.
>
>So the lack of belief is a belief?
say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
Rosario1903
May 11, 2013, 12:48:18 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:40:06 +0200, Rosario1903
<Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
He not exist
Juha Nieminen
May 13, 2013, 3:21:51 AM5/13/13
to
Everything is a belief, apparently.
jacob navia
May 13, 2013, 7:41:36 AM5/13/13
to
Le 13/05/13 09:21, Juha Nieminen a �crit :
Of course!
The belief that atheism is a belief is wrong for your health. You can
develop bad breath, itchings and insomnia.
Prescription:
Do NOT try to ouwit atheists. It has been proven impossible.
:-)
jacob
The belief that atheism is a belief is wrong for your health. You can
develop bad breath, itchings and insomnia.
Prescription:
Do NOT try to ouwit atheists. It has been proven impossible.
:-)
jacob
Leigh Johnston
May 13, 2013, 12:34:00 PM5/13/13
to
On 13/05/2013 08:21, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Rosario1903 <Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
>> <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>>
>>> So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>
>> yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>> say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
>
> So by the same logic not having a belief in unicorns is a belief.
> Everything is a belief, apparently.
There are two types of atheism: negative and positive. Negative atheism
> Rosario1903 <Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
>> <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>>
>>> So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>
>> yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>> say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
>
> So by the same logic not having a belief in unicorns is a belief.
> Everything is a belief, apparently.
is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Positive atheism is a belief
that a god or gods do not exist.
A new born baby is a negative atheist; it is unaware of the god concept.
I am a positive atheist as I believe that god does not exist.
Sometimes "negative" is replaced with "weak" and "positive" is replaced
with "strong".
/Leigh
jacob navia
May 13, 2013, 4:04:39 PM5/13/13
to
Le 13/05/13 18:34, Leigh Johnston a �crit :
angels or demons.
This is not a *belief*, it is (for me) a fact of life: I have never had
in my whole existence any hint at the existence of some "god".
The same for unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and many other things. For
instance I am convinced that snow-white doesn't exist really. Or even
Santa Claus.
If I follow your reasoning I have an infinite number of "beliefs", since
for each and every posible imaginary being I have a "belief" in its
inexistence.
No. I just believe in the existence of objects/beings where I have a
*proof* that they exist, either from my senses, or from indirect
measurement or from mathematical deductions, etc.
For instance I have never seen the companion of Sirius. It is a white
dwarf, invisible to the eye and to many telescopes. But observing Sirius
I could deduce that an invisible companion exists because of the
perturbations in its movement. Or, another example, I think that it is
established that at the center of our galaxy there is a black hole,
even if we will never see it directly.
I haven't experienced ever anything that would lead me to the existence
of god, devil or whatever. That's the problem with religion.
In the "sacred" books it is written that god appears to many people,
does miracles, split oceans, resurrects the dead, and many other
fables.
In my own life however, I have NEVER seen anything like that. No
miracles, nothing.
I think then, that those stories are just legends, and like the beings
of the legends (ogres, witches, what have you) they exist ONLY in the
imagination of the people that believe in them.
jacob
> On 13/05/2013 08:21, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> Rosario1903 <Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
>>> <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>>>
>>>> So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>>
>>> yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>>> say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
>>
>> So by the same logic not having a belief in unicorns is a belief.
>> Everything is a belief, apparently.
>
> There are two types of atheism: negative and positive. Negative atheism
> is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Positive atheism is a belief
> that a god or gods do not exist.
>
I do not see any *evidence* for the existence of a god, heaven , hell,
>> Rosario1903 <Ros...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
>>> <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Atheism is also a belief.
>>>>
>>>> So the lack of belief is a belief?
>>>
>>> yes, because it is a belief God not exist too, you can not logically
>>> say Gos not exist, u have not a test for say it not exist
>>
>> So by the same logic not having a belief in unicorns is a belief.
>> Everything is a belief, apparently.
>
> There are two types of atheism: negative and positive. Negative atheism
> is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Positive atheism is a belief
> that a god or gods do not exist.
>
angels or demons.
This is not a *belief*, it is (for me) a fact of life: I have never had
in my whole existence any hint at the existence of some "god".
The same for unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and many other things. For
instance I am convinced that snow-white doesn't exist really. Or even
Santa Claus.
If I follow your reasoning I have an infinite number of "beliefs", since
for each and every posible imaginary being I have a "belief" in its
inexistence.
No. I just believe in the existence of objects/beings where I have a
*proof* that they exist, either from my senses, or from indirect
measurement or from mathematical deductions, etc.
For instance I have never seen the companion of Sirius. It is a white
dwarf, invisible to the eye and to many telescopes. But observing Sirius
I could deduce that an invisible companion exists because of the
perturbations in its movement. Or, another example, I think that it is
established that at the center of our galaxy there is a black hole,
even if we will never see it directly.
I haven't experienced ever anything that would lead me to the existence
of god, devil or whatever. That's the problem with religion.
In the "sacred" books it is written that god appears to many people,
does miracles, split oceans, resurrects the dead, and many other
fables.
In my own life however, I have NEVER seen anything like that. No
miracles, nothing.
I think then, that those stories are just legends, and like the beings
of the legends (ogres, witches, what have you) they exist ONLY in the
imagination of the people that believe in them.
jacob
Juha Nieminen
May 14, 2013, 3:18:14 AM5/14/13
to
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> This is not a *belief*, it is (for me) a fact of life: I have never had
> in my whole existence any hint at the existence of some "god".
>
> The same for unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and many other things. For
> instance I am convinced that snow-white doesn't exist really. Or even
> Santa Claus.
The argument that "atheism is also a belief" seems to be some kind of
> This is not a *belief*, it is (for me) a fact of life: I have never had
> in my whole existence any hint at the existence of some "god".
>
> The same for unicorns, dragons, hobbits, and many other things. For
> instance I am convinced that snow-white doesn't exist really. Or even
> Santa Claus.
psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 14, 2013, 6:38:47 AM5/14/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kmsofm$20fo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
better than other believes?
That does not surprise me. Just like all other believers, they really don’t
want to be on the same level of other believers. They really think that only
they are right. Even though they can not logically prove their believe. What
makes them different from others? It is a logical defense for all believers
to think that their believe is better than that of others and to refuse to
be on the same level.
better than other believes?
That does not surprise me. Just like all other believers, they really don’t
want to be on the same level of other believers. They really think that only
they are right. Even though they can not logically prove their believe. What
makes them different from others? It is a logical defense for all believers
to think that their believe is better than that of others and to refuse to
be on the same level.
jacob navia
May 14, 2013, 7:25:51 AM5/14/13
to
Le 14/05/13 12:38, Fred Zwarts (KVI) a écrit :
Here is one (of many) proofs that "god" can't exist:
Thesis: THERE IS NO GOD
Proof:
-----
It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
an all powerful being.
He can forget. But then, he can't remember what he has forgotten then he
is not "all powerful" either!
> Even though they can not logically prove their believe.
Sorry but that is not true.
Here is one (of many) proofs that "god" can't exist:
Thesis: THERE IS NO GOD
Proof:
-----
It is said that god is "all powerful". Let's assume that: there exists
an all powerful being.
Then:
Can this being forget?
EITHER:
He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
thing he can't do: forget.
OTHERWISE:
Can this being forget?
EITHER:
He can't forget, then he is not "all powerful" since there is one
thing he can't do: forget.
He can forget. But then, he can't remember what he has forgotten then he
is not "all powerful" either!
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 14, 2013, 7:55:07 AM5/14/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:kmt6vt$vp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Sorry, It only proves that your definition of "all powerful" is wrong.
jacob navia
May 14, 2013, 5:19:20 PM5/14/13
to
Le 14/05/13 13:55, Fred Zwarts (KVI) a écrit :
> Sorry, It only proves that your definition of "all powerful" is wrong.
Ahh OK.
Please tell me then...
Can god forget or not?
Logic is not the strong side of religius people. Their invisible god
can be bent to anything and to please anyone. Important is only that
the fidels pay their dues.
Actually, god exists. It is a merchandise sold since thousands of years
by organized criminal organizations called "churches", that sell
their product to ignorant masses everywhere.
In the middle ages, priests sold property in the heavens. Easy: you
pay now, and then after you die you would go into your parcel of the
heavens that you bought here on earth.
Clever!
But during ALL ages, being a priest has been a good business.
Specially if you are in the higher positions of the church.
God has never done anything against this stuff, so, implicitely,
he agrees that those people represent him isn't it?
He never stopped the aztec priests to forbid them to sacrifice
children either.
Actually I can't see ANY action from this invisible being anywhere.
jacob
> Sorry, It only proves that your definition of "all powerful" is wrong.
Please tell me then...
Can god forget or not?
Logic is not the strong side of religius people. Their invisible god
can be bent to anything and to please anyone. Important is only that
the fidels pay their dues.
Actually, god exists. It is a merchandise sold since thousands of years
by organized criminal organizations called "churches", that sell
their product to ignorant masses everywhere.
In the middle ages, priests sold property in the heavens. Easy: you
pay now, and then after you die you would go into your parcel of the
heavens that you bought here on earth.
Clever!
But during ALL ages, being a priest has been a good business.
Specially if you are in the higher positions of the church.
God has never done anything against this stuff, so, implicitely,
he agrees that those people represent him isn't it?
He never stopped the aztec priests to forbid them to sacrifice
children either.
Actually I can't see ANY action from this invisible being anywhere.
jacob
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 15, 2013, 5:09:51 AM5/15/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:kmu9ok$mgf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
this is your conclusion?
Sorry, but if you cannot be reasonable, it won't help to argue.
>
>Logic is not the strong side of religius people.
I show the flaw in your logic of the "proof" that God does not exists and
>Logic is not the strong side of religius people.
this is your conclusion?
Sorry, but if you cannot be reasonable, it won't help to argue.
Juha Nieminen
May 16, 2013, 4:01:57 AM5/16/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>The argument that "atheism is also a belief" seems to be some kind of
>>psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
>>any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
>>effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
>>the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
>
> Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
> better than other believes?
No. Where are you reading that? Between the lines?
>>psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
>>any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
>>effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
>>the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
>
> Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
> better than other believes?
You are also begging the question. And you don't even see how.
Juha Nieminen
May 16, 2013, 4:03:57 AM5/16/13
to
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Thesis: THERE IS NO GOD
>
> Proof:
> -----
>
> It is said that god is "all powerful".
Sorry, but that just doesn't work. There's no correlation between
> Thesis: THERE IS NO GOD
>
> Proof:
> -----
>
> It is said that god is "all powerful".
"exists" and "is all powerful." Disproving the latter does nothing
to the former.
(Hey, I'm on your side, but I try to avoid flawed arguments regardless
of which position they are trying to defend.)
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 16, 2013, 6:20:45 AM5/16/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kn23pl$169s$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>> Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
>> better than other believes?
>
>No. Where are you reading that? Between the lines?
"It's effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into the
same level as those who do, as if they were all the same."
This suggest to me that the writer thinks that "those who have no theistic
beliefs" are not in "the same level as those who do". Your are right that he
does not say that the former are at a higher level, maybe that is something
that I read between the lines.
Perhaps my mistake is caused by the fact that most people think that their
views are at a higher level than the conflicting views of other people. I
assumed that atheists were no exception to that rule.
>
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>The argument that "atheism is also a belief" seems to be some kind of
>>>psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
>>>any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
>>>effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
>>>the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
I did not write this. I quoted this.
>"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>>The argument that "atheism is also a belief" seems to be some kind of
>>>psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
>>>any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
>>>effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
>>>the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
>>
>> Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
>> better than other believes?
>
>No. Where are you reading that? Between the lines?
"It's effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into the
same level as those who do, as if they were all the same."
beliefs" are not in "the same level as those who do". Your are right that he
does not say that the former are at a higher level, maybe that is something
that I read between the lines.
Perhaps my mistake is caused by the fact that most people think that their
views are at a higher level than the conflicting views of other people. I
assumed that atheists were no exception to that rule.
Qu0ll
May 16, 2013, 6:25:57 AM5/16/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:kmu9ok$mgf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Reply at the end...
--------------------------
Jacob, I detect an enormous degree of ill-feeling towards religion and
churches in particular.
I am not going to speculate as to what the cause of that resentment is but I
suspect that it may be colouring your judgement a little and perhaps it has
robbed you of the ability to be aware of things that others can detect.
BTW, your "logic" to prove that God does not exist is really quite
laughable! I hope you don't really think that it satisfies any of the rigid
criteria applied to actual "proofs".
--
And loving it,
-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
Qu0llS...@gmail.com
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
Reply at the end...
Jacob, I detect an enormous degree of ill-feeling towards religion and
churches in particular.
I am not going to speculate as to what the cause of that resentment is but I
suspect that it may be colouring your judgement a little and perhaps it has
robbed you of the ability to be aware of things that others can detect.
BTW, your "logic" to prove that God does not exist is really quite
laughable! I hope you don't really think that it satisfies any of the rigid
criteria applied to actual "proofs".
--
And loving it,
-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
Qu0llS...@gmail.com
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
jacob navia
May 16, 2013, 7:41:04 AM5/16/13
to
Le 16/05/13 12:25, Qu0ll a écrit :
In general I detest religions, fanatic people, abnd all their associated
stuff: intolerance violence, obscurantism, etc
> I am not going to speculate as to what the cause of that resentment is
> but I suspect that it may be colouring your judgement a little and
> perhaps it has robbed you of the ability to be aware of things that
> others can detect.
>
The reason is obvious: religion is one of the most active sources of
violence in this world. "Jihad" is a religious war. Religious wars are
inherent to religion. Each one has its "crusades" against the infidels,
i.e. all the rest of mankind.
"God" told them to kill, so they are just following orders, they say.
For instance in the Bible it is written how the Jewish people return to
Palestine and kill everybody there (even babies) because "God" told them
to do so. Read the Levithicus, and see what religion is all about.
> BTW, your "logic" to prove that God does not exist is really quite
> laughable! I hope you don't really think that it satisfies any of the
> rigid criteria applied to actual "proofs".
I see that you do not answer my argument anyway. How could you?
Just hand waving :-)
>
> --------------------------
>
> Jacob, I detect an enormous degree of ill-feeling towards religion and
> churches in particular.
>
Yes.
> --------------------------
>
> Jacob, I detect an enormous degree of ill-feeling towards religion and
> churches in particular.
>
In general I detest religions, fanatic people, abnd all their associated
stuff: intolerance violence, obscurantism, etc
> I am not going to speculate as to what the cause of that resentment is
> but I suspect that it may be colouring your judgement a little and
> perhaps it has robbed you of the ability to be aware of things that
> others can detect.
>
violence in this world. "Jihad" is a religious war. Religious wars are
inherent to religion. Each one has its "crusades" against the infidels,
i.e. all the rest of mankind.
"God" told them to kill, so they are just following orders, they say.
For instance in the Bible it is written how the Jewish people return to
Palestine and kill everybody there (even babies) because "God" told them
to do so. Read the Levithicus, and see what religion is all about.
> BTW, your "logic" to prove that God does not exist is really quite
> laughable! I hope you don't really think that it satisfies any of the
> rigid criteria applied to actual "proofs".
Just hand waving :-)
Qu0ll
May 16, 2013, 8:37:46 AM5/16/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:kn2gkf$ovb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Yes.
>
> In general I detest religions, fanatic people, abnd all their associated
> stuff: intolerance violence, obscurantism, etc
This "stuff" you refer to has nothing to do with religion.
> The reason is obvious: religion is one of the most active sources of
> violence in this world. "Jihad" is a religious war. Religious wars are
> inherent to religion. Each one has its "crusades" against the infidels,
> i.e. all the rest of mankind.
>
> "God" told them to kill, so they are just following orders, they say.
Religion is not an active source of violence. I have never heard of anyone
being killed by "religion".
And even for the Islamic fundamentalists, I doubt it's really a case of "God
told them to kill". This is just an excuse. These people are driven by
hatred, envy and other emotions which are more cultural than anything else
and they would find some other excuse for their violence if there was no
such thing as religion.
> I see that you do not answer my argument anyway. How could you?
Your argument is so manifestly flawed that it did not really need me to
point out those flaws. To say God is not "all powerful" because he cannot
forget is just ludicrous. To forget is to not remember so t's like saying
he isn't "all powerful" because he cannot not love or not feel compassion.
As has been pointed out, your interpretation of "all powerful" is simply
wrong. Besides, as also has been pointed out, this argument was more about
whether God exists, not his omnipotence.
> Yes.
>
> In general I detest religions, fanatic people, abnd all their associated
> stuff: intolerance violence, obscurantism, etc
> The reason is obvious: religion is one of the most active sources of
> violence in this world. "Jihad" is a religious war. Religious wars are
> inherent to religion. Each one has its "crusades" against the infidels,
> i.e. all the rest of mankind.
>
> "God" told them to kill, so they are just following orders, they say.
being killed by "religion".
And even for the Islamic fundamentalists, I doubt it's really a case of "God
told them to kill". This is just an excuse. These people are driven by
hatred, envy and other emotions which are more cultural than anything else
and they would find some other excuse for their violence if there was no
such thing as religion.
> I see that you do not answer my argument anyway. How could you?
point out those flaws. To say God is not "all powerful" because he cannot
forget is just ludicrous. To forget is to not remember so t's like saying
he isn't "all powerful" because he cannot not love or not feel compassion.
As has been pointed out, your interpretation of "all powerful" is simply
wrong. Besides, as also has been pointed out, this argument was more about
whether God exists, not his omnipotence.
Öö Tiib
May 16, 2013, 10:22:56 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:20:45 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kn23pl$169s$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> >"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kn23pl$169s$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> >>"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kmsofm$20fo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
Fixed quoting.
> >>>The argument that "atheism is also a belief" seems to be some kind of
> >>>psychological defense mechanism that's effectively saying "you are not
> >>>any better than me; your view is as much a belief as mine." It's
> >>>effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into
> >>>the same level as those who do, as if they were all the same.
>
> I did not write this. I quoted this.
> >> Do I understand you correctly that atheists think that their believe is
> >> better than other believes?
> >
> >No. Where are you reading that? Between the lines?
>
> "It's effectively trying to drag those who have no theistic beliefs into the
> same level as those who do, as if they were all the same."
>
> This suggest to me that the writer thinks that "those who have no theistic
> beliefs" are not in "the same level as those who do".
better however.
> Your are right that he does not say that the former are at a higher level,
> maybe that is something that I read between the lines.
There are "priests" who spread some piece of fiction as true story. It is
sometimes well-written fiction, sometimes crap but it is always simple to
prove that nothing of it holds. Whoever does that is "heretic". Some people
believe the fiction is true story. They are "believers".
Whatever superior being should not have any trouble to present himself
clearly enough and at least ask for ending such nonsense on his name.
So He is apparently missing from picture.
The "priests" always scam "believers" into buying something. Like holy tears
that they take from ordinary sources of water or the like. Our equipment
just is not supposedly sophisticated enough to detect the inter-dimensional
connection to tear glands of superior beings. Again very odd that it can be
believed somehow.
> Perhaps my mistake is caused by the fact that most people think that their
> views are at a higher level than the conflicting views of other people. I
> assumed that atheists were no exception to that rule.
and "free will" of "believers" must save the asses of such scammer "shamans"
of whatever religion from each other and from "heretics" as long we honor
free will and do not attempt to satisfy our torturous nature by burning
someone alive. Now whoever can be "prophet" with whatever nonsense
and major godly acts like "apocalypses" are predicted every few years
during my not that short life.
Yes I feel I am worse than those "shamans" (their scam is legal) and worse
than those "believers" (they are innocent victims). I see it and I let it to be.
So I feel like shit, nothing of it is superior, it is no way same "level" as
those others, sorry, do not even try to drag me up there. Oh how I wish
there was really a God.
jacob navia
May 16, 2013, 10:31:21 AM5/16/13
to
Le 16/05/13 14:37, Qu0ll a écrit :
Deuteronomy 2:34
At that time we took all his towns, and gave them over to complete
destruction, together with men, women, and children; we had no mercy on any:
Did you read that?
"together with men, women, and children; we had no mercy on any"
I remember in the religion class when I asked when reading this:
WHAT DID THE CHILDREN DO TO GET KILLED?
And I remember the priest answering
"The ways of god are unknowable" and all the stuff.
*Let's go on reading:*
Deuteronomy 3:3
So the Lord our God gave up Og, king of Bashan, and all his people into
our hands; and we overcame him so completely that all his people came to
their end in the fight.
Deuteronomy 3:4
At that time we took all his towns; there was not one town of the sixty
towns, all the country of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which we
did not take.
Deuteronomy 3:5
All these towns had high walls round them with doors and locks; and in
addition we took a great number of unwalled towns.
Deuteronomy 3:6 ^
And we put them to the curse, every town together with men, women, and
children.
Here "god" promotes GENOCIDE.
LET'S GO ON READING
Deuteronomy 7:1
When the Lord your God takes you into the land where you are going,
which is to be your heritage, and has sent out the nations before you,
the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and
the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater
and stronger than you;
Deuteronomy 7:2
And when the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have
overcome them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement
with them, and have no mercy on them:
NO MERCY ON THEM!
KILL THE INFIDELS!
And I can show you the same in the Quran, and all "sacred" texts.
Because religion is a PLAGUE of mankind.
THAT IS WHY I detest religion and I have no god.
Beacause for me EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS SACRED!
EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS TO BE RESPECTED!
There is NO GOD THAT JUSTIFIES ANY VIOLENCE!
jacob
>> "God" told them to kill, so they are just following orders, they say.
>
> Religion is not an active source of violence. I have never heard of
> anyone being killed by "religion".
No?
>
> Religion is not an active source of violence. I have never heard of
> anyone being killed by "religion".
Deuteronomy 2:34
At that time we took all his towns, and gave them over to complete
destruction, together with men, women, and children; we had no mercy on any:
Did you read that?
"together with men, women, and children; we had no mercy on any"
I remember in the religion class when I asked when reading this:
WHAT DID THE CHILDREN DO TO GET KILLED?
And I remember the priest answering
"The ways of god are unknowable" and all the stuff.
*Let's go on reading:*
Deuteronomy 3:3
So the Lord our God gave up Og, king of Bashan, and all his people into
our hands; and we overcame him so completely that all his people came to
their end in the fight.
Deuteronomy 3:4
At that time we took all his towns; there was not one town of the sixty
towns, all the country of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which we
did not take.
Deuteronomy 3:5
All these towns had high walls round them with doors and locks; and in
addition we took a great number of unwalled towns.
Deuteronomy 3:6 ^
And we put them to the curse, every town together with men, women, and
children.
Here "god" promotes GENOCIDE.
LET'S GO ON READING
Deuteronomy 7:1
When the Lord your God takes you into the land where you are going,
which is to be your heritage, and has sent out the nations before you,
the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and
the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater
and stronger than you;
Deuteronomy 7:2
And when the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have
overcome them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement
with them, and have no mercy on them:
NO MERCY ON THEM!
KILL THE INFIDELS!
And I can show you the same in the Quran, and all "sacred" texts.
Because religion is a PLAGUE of mankind.
THAT IS WHY I detest religion and I have no god.
Beacause for me EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS SACRED!
EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS TO BE RESPECTED!
There is NO GOD THAT JUSTIFIES ANY VIOLENCE!
jacob
Paavo Helde
May 16, 2013, 1:54:05 PM5/16/13
to
"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:crWdnbt3GJy4TgnM...@westnet.com.au:
> Religion is not an active source of violence. I have never heard of
> anyone being killed by "religion".
>
> And even for the Islamic fundamentalists, I doubt it's really a case
> of "God told them to kill". This is just an excuse. These people are
> driven by hatred, envy and other emotions which are more cultural than
> anything else and they would find some other excuse for their violence
> if there was no such thing as religion.
So do I understand correctly that in your viewpoint, whenever people do
something in the name of god which you don't like, then this is all the
fault of those people and their culture and nothing to do with the
religion; and whenever they do anything in the name of god which you like,
then this is all due to the god and religion?
Very convenient, I have to say!
Paavo
news:crWdnbt3GJy4TgnM...@westnet.com.au:
> Religion is not an active source of violence. I have never heard of
> anyone being killed by "religion".
>
> And even for the Islamic fundamentalists, I doubt it's really a case
> of "God told them to kill". This is just an excuse. These people are
> driven by hatred, envy and other emotions which are more cultural than
> anything else and they would find some other excuse for their violence
> if there was no such thing as religion.
something in the name of god which you don't like, then this is all the
fault of those people and their culture and nothing to do with the
religion; and whenever they do anything in the name of god which you like,
then this is all due to the god and religion?
Very convenient, I have to say!
Paavo
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 17, 2013, 3:27:51 AM5/17/13
to
"Paavo Helde" wrote in message
news:XnsA1C2D49D67915m...@216.196.109.131...
This hold for all views, including the atheistic view. Most atheists I heard
told me that the atheists view should not be held responsible for the
millions of people killed in the past century by fanatic atheists that
wanted to remove all religion from their country.
Another point in which atheists are not different from people with other
views.
news:XnsA1C2D49D67915m...@216.196.109.131...
told me that the atheists view should not be held responsible for the
millions of people killed in the past century by fanatic atheists that
wanted to remove all religion from their country.
Another point in which atheists are not different from people with other
views.
Juha Nieminen
May 17, 2013, 7:17:49 AM5/17/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>>So do I understand correctly that in your viewpoint, whenever people do
>>something in the name of god which you don't like, then this is all the
>>fault of those people and their culture and nothing to do with the
>>religion; and whenever they do anything in the name of god which you like,
>>then this is all due to the god and religion?
>>
>>Very convenient, I have to say!
>
> This hold for all views, including the atheistic view.
Incorrect. When an atheist does something good, such as helping people,
>>something in the name of god which you don't like, then this is all the
>>fault of those people and their culture and nothing to do with the
>>religion; and whenever they do anything in the name of god which you like,
>>then this is all due to the god and religion?
>>
>>Very convenient, I have to say!
>
> This hold for all views, including the atheistic view.
nobody is proclaiming that he or she did the good *because* of atheism.
However, whenever a religious person does something good, other religious
people like to spout he or she did the good *because* of the religion.
It's debatable whether some of those soviet leaders were motivated
precisely because of atheism (Hitler certainly was not, and that can be
clearly demonstrated), but even if they did, we are talking about the
commonality of heinous things done because of, or motivated by, atheism
versus the commonality of heinous things done because of, or motivated
by, religion. The latter is way, way more common.
It has been said that to make a good person do evil things you need
religion, and you can certainly see that all the time.
Do some people do evil things primarily *because* they are atheists,
because their atheistic views motivate them to do those things? Those
people certainly do exist. However, is it as common as people doing
evil things *because* they are religious, because their religious
views motivate them? Most certainly not.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 17, 2013, 9:46:12 AM5/17/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:kn53ks$303p$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
You say a lot of "common" and "most certainly" without any proof. That is
your belief.
You split the world in atheists and religious people. Christians will split
the world in Christians and other believers (including atheists). Muslims
will split the world in Muslims and non-Muslims, etc. For the rest they will
probably agree with you.
This is also a point in which atheist are not different from most people
with other views.
It is common for people to see other people with different views,
convictions and motivations as dangerous and evil. As soon as people with a
certain view have the power, they may misuse the power to strengthen their
own view and to limit the rights of other views. They think that they have
the right to do so, because the other view is evil, or dangerous. If the
other view is seen as very evil, this may even grow out to persecution and
war.
History shows that this has happened with Christians, with Muslims, with
Atheists, etc., when they acquired power.
There are no indications that there is any difference between them. It is
the fear for the other view that motivates them.
Fortunately, there are also Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. who, even if
they have the power, try to live in peace with other people.
your belief.
You split the world in atheists and religious people. Christians will split
the world in Christians and other believers (including atheists). Muslims
will split the world in Muslims and non-Muslims, etc. For the rest they will
probably agree with you.
This is also a point in which atheist are not different from most people
with other views.
It is common for people to see other people with different views,
convictions and motivations as dangerous and evil. As soon as people with a
certain view have the power, they may misuse the power to strengthen their
own view and to limit the rights of other views. They think that they have
the right to do so, because the other view is evil, or dangerous. If the
other view is seen as very evil, this may even grow out to persecution and
war.
History shows that this has happened with Christians, with Muslims, with
Atheists, etc., when they acquired power.
There are no indications that there is any difference between them. It is
the fear for the other view that motivates them.
Fortunately, there are also Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. who, even if
they have the power, try to live in peace with other people.
Paavo Helde
May 17, 2013, 1:55:21 PM5/17/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> wrote in
news:kn4m5n$6kr$1...@news.albasani.net:
This fallacy is otherwise known as "No true Scotsman fallacy"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), and even if both
believers and atheists have fallen into this in the past, this does
not justify its use now and in the future.
Cheers
Paavo
news:kn4m5n$6kr$1...@news.albasani.net:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman), and even if both
believers and atheists have fallen into this in the past, this does
not justify its use now and in the future.
Cheers
Paavo
Puppet_Sock
May 23, 2013, 10:18:16 AM5/23/13
to
On Apr 21, 5:46 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[speaking of religion]
> it is also a source of comfort to many people and important element in
> our history and culture.
So is heroin. I don't care to try either.
Socks
wrote:
[speaking of religion]
> it is also a source of comfort to many people and important element in
> our history and culture.
So is heroin. I don't care to try either.
Socks
jacob navia
May 23, 2013, 11:47:51 AM5/23/13
to
None of the religious zealots dared to answer my post.
The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
And then they speak about "love that god gives us" and other nonsense.
jacob
The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
And then they speak about "love that god gives us" and other nonsense.
jacob
Qu0ll
May 23, 2013, 4:32:00 PM5/23/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:knldn5$ft6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> None of the religious zealots dared to answer my post.
If you are referring to me, I am not a "religious zealot" and take offence
at that remark.
> The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
No, it doesn't. The Old Testament of the Bible was written by people many
thousands of years ago as they tried to make sense of God and life and is a
reflection of their understanding of those things at that time. I do not
believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
The New Testament is the story of Jesus who in many respects came to Earth
to correct the false understandings of the people of the time and of those
who came before Him. He taught us to love everyone, even our enemies. He
preached that violence is *never* the answer and it is His teachings that
Christians follow.
Christianity is about Christ. The Old Testament contains passages which are
in conflict with His teachings but not because God has ever preached
violence but because they had not had the benefit of a personal relationship
with Him that Christians have been able to have since the birth of Jesus.
> And then they speak about "love that god gives us" and other nonsense.
In my experience, this is certainly not nonsense.
I am fortunate to have met God. You will dismiss this as either mental
illness or some other form of delusion but had you experienced what I have
experienced then I think you would feel differently.
The problem with people like you is that they often do not believe anything
unless it happens to them. This is arrogant and is also a form of delusion
in my thinking.
> None of the religious zealots dared to answer my post.
at that remark.
> The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
thousands of years ago as they tried to make sense of God and life and is a
reflection of their understanding of those things at that time. I do not
believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
The New Testament is the story of Jesus who in many respects came to Earth
to correct the false understandings of the people of the time and of those
who came before Him. He taught us to love everyone, even our enemies. He
preached that violence is *never* the answer and it is His teachings that
Christians follow.
Christianity is about Christ. The Old Testament contains passages which are
in conflict with His teachings but not because God has ever preached
violence but because they had not had the benefit of a personal relationship
with Him that Christians have been able to have since the birth of Jesus.
> And then they speak about "love that god gives us" and other nonsense.
I am fortunate to have met God. You will dismiss this as either mental
illness or some other form of delusion but had you experienced what I have
experienced then I think you would feel differently.
The problem with people like you is that they often do not believe anything
unless it happens to them. This is arrogant and is also a form of delusion
in my thinking.
Qu0ll
May 23, 2013, 4:33:35 PM5/23/13
to
"Qu0ll" wrote in message
news:hsmdnb-C7O5A4QPM...@westnet.com.au...
Anyway, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for a discussion of
this nature. Let's talk C++ here.
If you would like to continue this conversation offline (as I strongly
recommend), my email is in my sig.
news:hsmdnb-C7O5A4QPM...@westnet.com.au...
Anyway, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for a discussion of
this nature. Let's talk C++ here.
If you would like to continue this conversation offline (as I strongly
recommend), my email is in my sig.
jacob navia
May 24, 2013, 1:14:00 AM5/24/13
to
Le 23/05/13 22:32, Qu0ll wrote :
this universe.
I told you in my last message:
Because for me EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS SACRED
You see the difference?
I do not have "infidels" as atheist. All mankind (religious zealots
included) is important to me.
Each and every one.
And I told you also:
EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS TO BE RESPECTED
This means that no violence should ever be used against another human
being for whatever reasons. No violence meaning that the skin of my
brother humans should be respected. No blessing, no blood, not any
destruction of the body of another human being is to be tolerated.
For whatever reason since:
There is NO GOD THAT JUSTIFIES ANY VIOLENCE
We have a small time here. Very small.
In this very small rock circling a run-of-the-mill star in the suburbs
of the milky way.
Why waste our time?
Let's explore the heavens instead of praying to some god in there.
Let's live in peace here, in this small rock for a short time.
Let's see reality in the face and discover how beautiful it is. Our
destiny is ours to build.
What could be better?
Let's believe in ourselves.
> The problem with people like you is that they often do not believe
> anything unless it happens to them. This is arrogant and is also a form
> of delusion in my thinking.
No. My atheism comes from profound convictions about the place of man in
> anything unless it happens to them. This is arrogant and is also a form
> of delusion in my thinking.
this universe.
I told you in my last message:
Because for me EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS SACRED
You see the difference?
I do not have "infidels" as atheist. All mankind (religious zealots
included) is important to me.
Each and every one.
And I told you also:
EACH MAN AND WOMAN IS TO BE RESPECTED
being for whatever reasons. No violence meaning that the skin of my
brother humans should be respected. No blessing, no blood, not any
destruction of the body of another human being is to be tolerated.
For whatever reason since:
There is NO GOD THAT JUSTIFIES ANY VIOLENCE
In this very small rock circling a run-of-the-mill star in the suburbs
of the milky way.
Why waste our time?
Let's explore the heavens instead of praying to some god in there.
Let's live in peace here, in this small rock for a short time.
Let's see reality in the face and discover how beautiful it is. Our
destiny is ours to build.
What could be better?
Let's believe in ourselves.
Qu0ll
May 24, 2013, 1:50:25 AM5/24/13
to
"jacob navia" wrote in message news:knmsun$ij1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Reply at the end...
----------------------------------
------------------------------
Jacob I think we have the same beliefs about violence and the sacred nature
of the human being as each other and, as I said, this is exactly what Jesus
preaches. Have you read the New Testament? Do you find any fault in the
teachings of Jesus?
I think we only differ on the point of whether God exists. For me, I
believe He does because I have had a very personal encounter. Obviously you
have had no such encounter. I suspect that you would have different beliefs
had you shared my experience.
I am a very deep thinker and do not believe in things just because of a book
or because other people do. My belief in God and in the validity of the
story of Christ comes only after intense analysis and, as indicated, a very
personal encounter with God Himself. I really hope you get to share
something similar one day.
Anyway, I again suggest that if you would like to continue this discussion
(which I am very open to) then we should take it offline. Most folk here
want to talk C++ (only) given the name of this group and I think that's very
understandable.
Reply at the end...
----------------------------------
Jacob I think we have the same beliefs about violence and the sacred nature
of the human being as each other and, as I said, this is exactly what Jesus
preaches. Have you read the New Testament? Do you find any fault in the
teachings of Jesus?
I think we only differ on the point of whether God exists. For me, I
believe He does because I have had a very personal encounter. Obviously you
have had no such encounter. I suspect that you would have different beliefs
had you shared my experience.
I am a very deep thinker and do not believe in things just because of a book
or because other people do. My belief in God and in the validity of the
story of Christ comes only after intense analysis and, as indicated, a very
personal encounter with God Himself. I really hope you get to share
something similar one day.
Anyway, I again suggest that if you would like to continue this discussion
(which I am very open to) then we should take it offline. Most folk here
want to talk C++ (only) given the name of this group and I think that's very
understandable.
David Brown
May 24, 2013, 6:12:17 AM5/24/13
to
On 23/05/13 22:33, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Qu0ll" wrote in message
> news:hsmdnb-C7O5A4QPM...@westnet.com.au...
>
> Anyway, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for a discussion of
> this nature. Let's talk C++ here.
>
> If you would like to continue this conversation offline (as I strongly
> recommend), my email is in my sig.
>
There is nothing wrong with a bit of off-topic discussion in a
> "Qu0ll" wrote in message
> news:hsmdnb-C7O5A4QPM...@westnet.com.au...
>
> Anyway, I do not think this is the appropriate forum for a discussion of
> this nature. Let's talk C++ here.
>
> If you would like to continue this conversation offline (as I strongly
> recommend), my email is in my sig.
>
newsgroup. People who are not interested will simply kill the thread.
Having a discussion about religion in a group like this avoids the kinds
of biases you inevitably get in a group where it is on-topic. So don't
take such public discussions into private unless other people in the
group complain.
David Brown
May 24, 2013, 6:49:10 AM5/24/13
to
On 23/05/13 22:32, Qu0ll wrote:
> "jacob navia" wrote in message news:knldn5$ft6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> None of the religious zealots dared to answer my post.
>
> If you are referring to me, I am not a "religious zealot" and take
> offence at that remark.
>
>> The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
>
> No, it doesn't. The Old Testament of the Bible was written by people
> many thousands of years ago as they tried to make sense of God and life
> and is a reflection of their understanding of those things at that
> time. I do not believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is
> indeed a loving being.
>
> The New Testament is the story of Jesus who in many respects came to
> Earth to correct the false understandings of the people of the time and
> of those who came before Him. He taught us to love everyone, even our
> enemies. He preached that violence is *never* the answer and it is His
> teachings that Christians follow.
>
> Christianity is about Christ. The Old Testament contains passages which
> are in conflict with His teachings but not because God has ever preached
> violence but because they had not had the benefit of a personal
> relationship with Him that Christians have been able to have since the
> birth of Jesus.
>
What you seem to suggest here is that it is the New Testament that is
> "jacob navia" wrote in message news:knldn5$ft6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> None of the religious zealots dared to answer my post.
>
> If you are referring to me, I am not a "religious zealot" and take
> offence at that remark.
>
>> The Bible ITSELF calls for murder of the infidels!
>
> No, it doesn't. The Old Testament of the Bible was written by people
> many thousands of years ago as they tried to make sense of God and life
> and is a reflection of their understanding of those things at that
> time. I do not believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is
> indeed a loving being.
>
> The New Testament is the story of Jesus who in many respects came to
> Earth to correct the false understandings of the people of the time and
> of those who came before Him. He taught us to love everyone, even our
> enemies. He preached that violence is *never* the answer and it is His
> teachings that Christians follow.
>
> Christianity is about Christ. The Old Testament contains passages which
> are in conflict with His teachings but not because God has ever preached
> violence but because they had not had the benefit of a personal
> relationship with Him that Christians have been able to have since the
> birth of Jesus.
>
relevant, while the Old Testament should be viewed mainly as a history
lesson of a people who did not understand their god, and which was
"modernized" by the New Testament.
I think that is quite an enlightened view, and is shared by many
"thinking Christians". However, it opens a huge can of worms as far as
the religious establishment is concerned. If everyone picks and chooses
what they want to believe, then there is no standard and no religion -
just a lot of people with personal beliefs. The early church went to a
great deal of trouble to burn or crucify such thinkers.
And of course, most Christians follow the established view of their
particular fork of the church - which puts more relevance in the Old
Testament, especially some of the old rules. Thus a majority of
Christians will tell you that practising homosexuality is against God's
will - just because of a couple of passages in the OT.
So while it is fair to say that /your/ beliefs do not allow you to use
God or the Bible to justify violence, it is certainly fair to say that
the Christian /religion/ uses it in this way. /Religion/ is not a
matter of personal beliefs, but of an organised church, a set of
standardised beliefs and rules, and a group of people who represent that
church and who teach (and perhaps enforce) these beliefs and rules.
History is full of examples of the Christian churches pushing for
violence that they consider "justified" by God or the Bible, such as the
Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or that crackpot American general who
claimed the USA would beat Iraq because his god was bigger than their god.
(Note that all of this applies to other religions as well. People have
even used Buddhism as an excuse for violence, even though most Buddhists
are very peaceful.)
>> And then they speak about "love that god gives us" and other nonsense.
>
> In my experience, this is certainly not nonsense.
>
> I am fortunate to have met God. You will dismiss this as either mental
> illness or some other form of delusion but had you experienced what I
> have experienced then I think you would feel differently.
>
> The problem with people like you is that they often do not believe
> anything unless it happens to them. This is arrogant and is also a form
> of delusion in my thinking.
>
personally experienced. It is a matter of how much you trust the
sources, and how well it fits everything else you know and understand.
There is also no precise line between "belief" and "knowledge" - it's
just a matter of degree. After all, while I might say I know I am
typing this at a computer, I cannot ultimately prove that as a fact -
perhaps I am living in a Matrix-like dreamworld. If I can point to
reliable sources ("reliable" being a chain of trust), and provide
rational and logical explanations for something (or know that a source I
trust has such explanations), then I can "know" a "fact". If I think
that something is true, but cannot justify it properly to other people
in a concrete way, then it is a "belief".
Thus I /know/ that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon - without being
there to see it myself. And I /believe/ Roosevelt knew of a likely
attack on Pearl Harbour before the event - but I cannot prove it. A
person can /know/ there is no god, because that is the rational and
logical conclusion from the rules and laws of science. Alternatively, a
person can /believe/ in a god - but they cannot /know/ there is a god,
as they cannot provide any proof or justification that is not
immediately self-referential, or that is not highly personal (that /you/
have "met God" is good enough for you, but it is not good enough to
convince /me/ or anyone else of the existence of God - thus it implies
belief but not knowledge). Even weirder, I think it is perfectly
possible to know there is no god, but believe in Him just the same.
Melzzzzz
May 24, 2013, 11:06:00 AM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:50:25 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
>
> I am a very deep thinker and do not believe in things just because of a
> book or because other people do. My belief in God and in the validity
> of the story of Christ comes only after intense analysis and, as
> indicated, a very personal encounter with God Himself. I really hope
> you get to share something similar one day.
What proof do you have it was God Himself?
>
> I am a very deep thinker and do not believe in things just because of a
> book or because other people do. My belief in God and in the validity
> of the story of Christ comes only after intense analysis and, as
> indicated, a very personal encounter with God Himself. I really hope
> you get to share something similar one day.
Juha Nieminen
May 26, 2013, 2:57:31 PM5/26/13
to
Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not
> believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
Do you understand the concept of "criminal negligence"?
> I do not
> believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
It's, for example, when you have a child under your care, and you neglect
to feed and care for that child even though you could perfectly well do it,
and the child starves to death. You are as guilty of a crime as if you had
killed the child with your own hands. "But I didn't do anything" is not an
excuse. It's *precisely* the fact that you didn't do anything that makes
you guilty of a heinous crime. When you could help but do nothing.
It's called criminal negligence. And if God does really exist, he is the
biggest criminal in existence, for this very reason. This "God" is not
good nor loving. This "God" is evil to the core.
Or, you know, this "God" doesn't actually exist, which is more plausible.
Paavo Helde
May 26, 2013, 4:12:10 PM5/26/13
to
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote in
news:kntlur$qvn$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
> It's called criminal negligence. And if God does really exist, he is
> the biggest criminal in existence, for this very reason. This "God" is
> not good nor loving. This "God" is evil to the core.
Not necessarily. Its ethics and reasons would might just not cover us. For
example, we love ants but we do not take any action if another colony of
ants attacks the former and destroys their nest. I would think this would
qualify as a criminal negligence in the viewpoint of the former colony,
after all we could have easily prevented the attack.
Of course, this viewpoint would totally ruin the Christ stories. I have
never even heard about any fairy-tale featuring somebody's son as a
slightly more enlightened ant.
Cheers
Paavo
news:kntlur$qvn$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
> It's called criminal negligence. And if God does really exist, he is
> the biggest criminal in existence, for this very reason. This "God" is
> not good nor loving. This "God" is evil to the core.
example, we love ants but we do not take any action if another colony of
ants attacks the former and destroys their nest. I would think this would
qualify as a criminal negligence in the viewpoint of the former colony,
after all we could have easily prevented the attack.
Of course, this viewpoint would totally ruin the Christ stories. I have
never even heard about any fairy-tale featuring somebody's son as a
slightly more enlightened ant.
Cheers
Paavo
Juha Nieminen
May 27, 2013, 4:37:29 AM5/27/13
to
Paavo Helde <myfir...@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote in
> news:kntlur$qvn$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> It's called criminal negligence. And if God does really exist, he is
>> the biggest criminal in existence, for this very reason. This "God" is
>> not good nor loving. This "God" is evil to the core.
>
> Not necessarily. Its ethics and reasons would might just not cover us. For
> example, we love ants but we do not take any action if another colony of
> ants attacks the former and destroys their nest. I would think this would
> qualify as a criminal negligence in the viewpoint of the former colony,
> after all we could have easily prevented the attack.
We don't care much about ants because we don't understand them, we don't
> Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote in
> news:kntlur$qvn$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> It's called criminal negligence. And if God does really exist, he is
>> the biggest criminal in existence, for this very reason. This "God" is
>> not good nor loving. This "God" is evil to the core.
>
> Not necessarily. Its ethics and reasons would might just not cover us. For
> example, we love ants but we do not take any action if another colony of
> ants attacks the former and destroys their nest. I would think this would
> qualify as a criminal negligence in the viewpoint of the former colony,
> after all we could have easily prevented the attack.
know what they feel (if they feel anything, given how simple their nervous
system and primitive brains are) nor what kind of suffering they might
experience. If ants were self-aware and intelligent enough to express
emotions, pain and desires in a manner that we would clearly hear and
undestand, I'm sure the situation would be quite different, especially
if we couldn't help but constantly hear about it.
According to Christian theology, the latter *is* the case with God and us.
He is everywhere and is always aware of every thought and every feeling
that every single person has, and knows exactly what's going on everywhere
at every time. Plus he is alleged to be capable of doing anything at any
moment without any limitation, and there's absolutely nothing that could
prevent him from doing so. After all, he's allegedly all-powerful.
Yet this alleged god does nothing. He is just being "mysterious".
If there is a god like you describe, a god that doesn't see us, understand
us, know what we are feeling and/or powerless to help us, that god doesn't
deserve any respect nor adulation. That god, if it existed, would merely
be an interesting scientific curiosity, but most certainly not something
to be worshipped.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 27, 2013, 5:47:49 AM5/27/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:knv609$1k3h$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
It have the impression that your problem is that you do not accept a God
that is beyond your comprehension. You seem to accept only a God that you
can fully understand and who fully explains the reasons why he does the
things in the way he does. Have you considered that, if there is a God, that
he can be too big for your understanding?
It is simply not true that God does not care about the suffering in this
world and that he did nothing. He came into this world and he himself
suffered a lot for our rescue. Why he did it this way and not in another
way, I don't know, but he surely has good reasons for it. He is not obliged
to explain his reasons to us, maybe we would not be able to understand them,
but even if we could, we are not in the position ask him to account.
It might be better to accept the rescue from the suffering as he offers it,
instead of refusing to accept it, because you think that he should have done
it in another way.
If someone in the water is almost drowned and somebody else throws a rope,
one can trust it and take the rope and get safely out of the water, or
refuse the rope and start arguing that it would be better to send a boat,
even though from the water there is no good overview of the possibilities
and associated risks of alternative methods.
that is beyond your comprehension. You seem to accept only a God that you
can fully understand and who fully explains the reasons why he does the
things in the way he does. Have you considered that, if there is a God, that
he can be too big for your understanding?
It is simply not true that God does not care about the suffering in this
world and that he did nothing. He came into this world and he himself
suffered a lot for our rescue. Why he did it this way and not in another
way, I don't know, but he surely has good reasons for it. He is not obliged
to explain his reasons to us, maybe we would not be able to understand them,
but even if we could, we are not in the position ask him to account.
It might be better to accept the rescue from the suffering as he offers it,
instead of refusing to accept it, because you think that he should have done
it in another way.
If someone in the water is almost drowned and somebody else throws a rope,
one can trust it and take the rope and get safely out of the water, or
refuse the rope and start arguing that it would be better to send a boat,
even though from the water there is no good overview of the possibilities
and associated risks of alternative methods.
Qu0ll
May 27, 2013, 6:57:58 AM5/27/13
to
"Fred Zwarts (KVI)" wrote in message news:knva45$ka1$1...@news.albasani.net...
Reply at the end...
-----------------------------------
Fred, I think you have nailed it.
I do believe that God is so great, so massive, so complex, so powerful, so
loving, so out-of-this world that we as mere mortals are not fully capable
of understanding Him and His ways. I know that for sure I cannot explain
why He does the things He does or the way He does them but I do believe that
one day I will understand when I join Him in heaven.
This kind of statement and realisation just doesn't sit well with atheists
as many of them *need* to *fully* understand everything and have things
happen to *them* before they will accept any thing as even existing. They
need *absolute proof* that something exists before they accept it. They
then extend this *need* for a *absolute* understanding or encounter to
*prove* that anything which does not fit these criteria must be a figment of
our imagination or a hoax etc.
In many ways, I feel sad for these people just as they may feel sad for
people like me.
Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ? In
a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
there.
Reply at the end...
Fred, I think you have nailed it.
I do believe that God is so great, so massive, so complex, so powerful, so
loving, so out-of-this world that we as mere mortals are not fully capable
of understanding Him and His ways. I know that for sure I cannot explain
why He does the things He does or the way He does them but I do believe that
one day I will understand when I join Him in heaven.
This kind of statement and realisation just doesn't sit well with atheists
as many of them *need* to *fully* understand everything and have things
happen to *them* before they will accept any thing as even existing. They
need *absolute proof* that something exists before they accept it. They
then extend this *need* for a *absolute* understanding or encounter to
*prove* that anything which does not fit these criteria must be a figment of
our imagination or a hoax etc.
In many ways, I feel sad for these people just as they may feel sad for
people like me.
Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ? In
a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
there.
Öö Tiib
May 27, 2013, 7:45:29 AM5/27/13
to
On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:47:49 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
>
> It have the impression that your problem is that you
> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
Wrong impression.
>
> It have the impression that your problem is that you
> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
We ask "why God does not act 2000 years?".
Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
We ask "why did God let His priests to torture and
burn alive thousands of women in His name?"
Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
> You seem to accept only a God that you
> can fully understand and who fully explains the
> reasons why he does the things in the way he does.
not understand why. Most apparent explanation to doing
nothing is that because He *does* *not* *exist*.
There *is* difference between *requiring absolute
proof* and *asking for slightest observable evidence*.
It feels easier to believe that Merlin was really
powerful wizard or that Odysseus did defeat Cyclops than
that God who did lot of things and even took to born and live and die as mortal Jesus does nothing remarkable
for thousands of years after that.
Rosario1903
May 27, 2013, 7:51:26 AM5/27/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 18:57:31 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
<nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do not
>> believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
>
>Do you understand the concept of "criminal negligence"?
Do you understand time?
<nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do not
>> believe God has ever killed "innocent" people and is indeed a loving being.
>
>Do you understand the concept of "criminal negligence"?
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 27, 2013, 9:08:39 AM5/27/13
to
"Öö Tiib" wrote in message
news:cc5b4eec-2fac-4dac...@googlegroups.com...
Answer is "He acted. He even sacrificed his own son."
Even nowadays he acts, although not always in a way we understand.
But you refuse to believe it, notwithstanding the testimony of many
eyewitnesses, such as Qu0ll now and the evangelists in earlier times and
many, many others in the past 2000 years.
news:cc5b4eec-2fac-4dac...@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:47:49 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
>>
>> It have the impression that your problem is that you
>> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
>
>Wrong impression.
>
>We ask "why God does not act 2000 years?".
>Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
Wrong! That was not the answer.
>On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:47:49 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
>>
>> It have the impression that your problem is that you
>> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
>
>Wrong impression.
>
>We ask "why God does not act 2000 years?".
>Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
Answer is "He acted. He even sacrificed his own son."
Even nowadays he acts, although not always in a way we understand.
But you refuse to believe it, notwithstanding the testimony of many
eyewitnesses, such as Qu0ll now and the evangelists in earlier times and
many, many others in the past 2000 years.
Melzzzzz
May 27, 2013, 9:27:52 AM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:57:58 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
>
> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ?
> In a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I
> was there.
>
Perhaps that was all in your head... What is important if he told
>
> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ?
> In a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I
> was there.
>
you purpose of visit and perhaps message that your or anyone else wouldn't
possibly know. Hallucination itself is not important.
Melzzzzz
May 27, 2013, 9:35:47 AM5/27/13
to
they just lie like a priests....
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 27, 2013, 10:17:51 AM5/27/13
to
"Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvnfj$bkk$3...@news.albasani.net...
I won't deny that it happens. But, people also ignore testimonies, because
those testimonies do not fit their belief.
If witnesses are worthless, then we should stop using them in the courts.
As said earlier in this thread, we may differ in judging which witnesses we
find trustworthy and which not. We all depend on such witnesses for our
beliefs.
those testimonies do not fit their belief.
If witnesses are worthless, then we should stop using them in the courts.
As said earlier in this thread, we may differ in judging which witnesses we
find trustworthy and which not. We all depend on such witnesses for our
beliefs.
Melzzzzz
May 27, 2013, 10:21:24 AM5/27/13
to
Or to ressurect from grave after being executed and ascend to sky like a
rocket?
There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
Robert Wessel
May 27, 2013, 11:21:15 AM5/27/13
to
*both* positions. For example, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, Luke 24:27 and
Matthew 5:17-20 pretty strongly support the case that the Old
Testament is fully relevant (Mark: "Do not think that I have come to
abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these
things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and
earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will
pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks
one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be
called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and
teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the
experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom
of heaven.")
On the flip side, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25 and Ephesians 2:15
are often cited to imply the historical status of the OT. (Galatians:
"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned
until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our
guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by
faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a
guardian".)
Textually, the first position seems stronger. The second position is
usually bolstered by the argument that the OT is a single complete and
indivisible object (James 2:10), and since Christ fulfilled some parts
of it, he (implicitly?) fulfilled all of it, the making it (mostly)
irrelevant going forward.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 27, 2013, 11:49:30 AM5/27/13
to
"Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
That they are liars is only your belief, which you cannot prove.
How can you prove that it did not happen what they saw? If there is a God
that created the world, then these examples are only small things for him.
It is clear that it is not easy to believe when such a thing happens. Even
the eyewitnesses of the resurrection needed a few weeks to believe what they
saw repeatedly before there eyes.
It is remarkable that even Jesus' enemies did not deny that these miracles
were real. Their excuses was that these miracles did not come from God, but
from the devil. Apparently, these miracles were too clear to be denied.
There is always an excuse for not believing. If things happens frequently,
then we call it a law of nature and we think that it is sufficient reason to
deny the existence of God. If things happen occasionally, then we try to
deny them and call the witnesses liars. If it is impossible to deny, then we
say that it was not God's work, but some other force.
Pascal said already that in nature there is too much to deny God's
existence, but too little to assure us. Then it comes to the choice of
witnesses which claim that they have seen more then we did.
How can you prove that it did not happen what they saw? If there is a God
that created the world, then these examples are only small things for him.
It is clear that it is not easy to believe when such a thing happens. Even
the eyewitnesses of the resurrection needed a few weeks to believe what they
saw repeatedly before there eyes.
It is remarkable that even Jesus' enemies did not deny that these miracles
were real. Their excuses was that these miracles did not come from God, but
from the devil. Apparently, these miracles were too clear to be denied.
There is always an excuse for not believing. If things happens frequently,
then we call it a law of nature and we think that it is sufficient reason to
deny the existence of God. If things happen occasionally, then we try to
deny them and call the witnesses liars. If it is impossible to deny, then we
say that it was not God's work, but some other force.
Pascal said already that in nature there is too much to deny God's
existence, but too little to assure us. Then it comes to the choice of
witnesses which claim that they have seen more then we did.
Stuart
May 27, 2013, 11:57:13 AM5/27/13
to
On 05/27/2013, Qu0ll wrote:
>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who
>> identified himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who
>> left in a beam of light through the ceiling and who changed
>> my life forever *was* Jesus Christ? In a very strict sense,
>> no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was there.
>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who
>> identified himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who
>> left in a beam of light through the ceiling and who changed
>> my life forever *was* Jesus Christ? In a very strict sense,
>> no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was there.
On 05/27/13, Melzzzzz wrote:
> Perhaps that was all in your head... What is important if he
> told you purpose of visit and perhaps message that your or anyone
> else wouldn't possibly know. Hallucination itself is not important.
Yeah, if He would have dictated Qu0ll a short and comprehensible
> Perhaps that was all in your head... What is important if he
> told you purpose of visit and perhaps message that your or anyone
> else wouldn't possibly know. Hallucination itself is not important.
solution to the P-NP problem or the Riemann hypothesis, we would
not have so much problems to believe Qu0ll's encounter.
That's humans for you: Not only do they demand that you do show up every
once in a while but also that you had better do something original in
order to prove that you are indeed a divine being.
Regards,
Stuart
Melzzzzz
May 27, 2013, 12:24:47 PM5/27/13
to
prove that hallucination is not just in your head?
Melzzzzz
May 27, 2013, 12:28:36 PM5/27/13
to
If there is a
> God that created the world, then these examples are only small things
> for him.
It is clear that it is not easy to believe when such a thing
> happens.
Even the eyewitnesses of the resurrection needed a few weeks
> to believe what they saw repeatedly before there eyes.
> It is remarkable that even Jesus' enemies did not deny that these
> miracles were real. Their excuses was that these miracles did not
> come from God, but from the devil. Apparently, these miracles were
> too clear to be denied. There is always an excuse for not believing.
Never happens in reality...
> If things happens frequently, then we call it a law of nature and we
> think that it is sufficient reason to deny the existence of God. If
> things happen occasionally, then we try to deny them and call the
> witnesses liars. If it is impossible to deny, then we say that it was
> not God's work, but some other force. Pascal said already that in
> nature there is too much to deny God's existence, but too little to
> assure us. Then it comes to the choice of witnesses which claim that
> they have seen more then we did.
else written but the Bible....
Gerhard Fiedler
May 27, 2013, 1:36:19 PM5/27/13
to
Fred Zwarts (KVI) wrote:
> It have the impression that your problem is that you do not accept a
> God that is beyond your comprehension.
I can't speak for Juha, but here's what I think about this: I can accept
> It have the impression that your problem is that you do not accept a
> God that is beyond your comprehension.
a god that is beyond my comprehension. However, if he/she/it is beyond
my comprehension, I'm pretty much convinced that he/she/it is beyond
your comprehension, too -- even though you may know or have experienced
a few things that I don't know or don't have experienced, I don't think
that your comprehension is a whole category above mine. Or anybody
else's, for that matter, including the writers of the various books that
are considered holy by some.
So we get to a point where we can say that it is possible that there's
something out there that is beyond our comprehension. Fine; if that's
what you mean, I agree, and I even have no problem with calling this
entity "god". However, being beyond our comprehension also means that we
have no way to predict any behavior, or even to attribute with any
certainty any effects that we can comprehend to any behavior of that
god.
Including that we can't know whether this god (which we seem to agree is
beyond our comprehension) has anything to do with the book called the
Holy Bible by some.
Including also that we don't have any way to infer what this god deems
good and bad, or whether it even has a concept of good and bad, and if
it does, whether it cares where any of us stands with respect to that.
Either we can comprehend he/she/it, then we need to get into the
nitty-gritty of the comprehension (where the contradictions lie as soon
as you generalize from your own personal opinion and experience). Or we
can't comprehend he/she/it, then we just can't know anything about
he/she/it... Can't have it both ways: claiming that he/she/it is beyond
our comprehension, but at the same time come up with a whole bunch of
concepts based on that god that you say you have understood,
"comprehended".
Gerhard
Gerhard Fiedler
May 27, 2013, 1:42:17 PM5/27/13
to
Fred Zwarts (KVI) wrote:
> If witnesses are worthless, then we should stop using them in the
> courts.
Google for "criminal justice eyewitness" if you want to know more about
> If witnesses are worthless, then we should stop using them in the
> courts.
the reliability of eyewitnesses.
From
<http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php>:
"Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful
convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions
overturned through DNA testing."
Gerhard
Öö Tiib
May 27, 2013, 3:20:38 PM5/27/13
to
On Monday, 27 May 2013 16:08:39 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
> "Öö Tiib" wrote in message
> news:cc5b4eec-2fac-4dac...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:47:49 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
> >>
> >> It have the impression that your problem is that you
> >> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
> >
> >Wrong impression.
> >
> >We ask "why God does not act 2000 years?".
> >Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
>
> Wrong! That was not the answer.
It was. See your own words quoted above. Juha told long story how that
> "Öö Tiib" wrote in message
> news:cc5b4eec-2fac-4dac...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:47:49 UTC+3, F.Zwarts wrote:
> >>
> >> It have the impression that your problem is that you
> >> do not accept a God that is beyond your comprehension.
> >
> >Wrong impression.
> >
> >We ask "why God does not act 2000 years?".
> >Answer is "that is beyond your comprehension".
>
> Wrong! That was not the answer.
God does nothing and how he considers it criminal. You answered that
it is beyond comprehension.
> Answer is "He acted. He even sacrificed his own son."
called "sacrifice". Even your own Holy Bible describes total lack of any
activities of God in described events. The same acts I observe every
day. He does *nothing*.
> Even nowadays he acts, although not always in a way we understand.
> But you refuse to believe it, notwithstanding the testimony of many
> eyewitnesses, such as Qu0ll now and the evangelists in earlier times and
> many, many others in the past 2000 years.
Is that the only way how that God acts?
jacob navia
May 28, 2013, 4:26:08 AM5/28/13
to
Le 27/05/13 19:36, Gerhard Fiedler a �crit :
When I asked why the Bible says that god ordered all those children
slain, I was told that "the ways of the Lord are unknowable". So, we
can't know why god decided to slain those children.
At that moment I decided to become an atheist. I had seen through the
veil of confusion the horrible truth behind religion: naked violence
against innocents.
What does it say the book actually?
That the Jewish people, when returning to Israel from Egypt were given a
permit to murder by their god that allowed killing women and children
without any remorse or after-thoughts.
And no, I am not antisemitic since I am a Jew. An atheist Jew. And yes,
they exist. Not all Jews like the bible.
Again I cite the bible: (Deutoronomy 7:1)
... when the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have
overcome them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement
with them, and have no mercy on them.
So, after they are defeated, i.e. they are prisoners of war, the bible
says that those people should be killed anyway, together with their
children!
And I should believe in this "god"???
Here are the roots of my conviction: Religion is a catastrophe for mankind.
And please, do not tell me that Islam is better, or that other religions
are better.
Look at the Hindu religion for instance. They believe that there are
people that can't be touched because they are so "dirty" that you risk
your afterlife if you do that. Those people are subject to incredible
discriminations ALL THEIR LIVES. They are forced by law to do the tasks
nobody wants to do: cleaning toilets or similar tasks. And they can't
have any other job.
Most of the violence in India comes from this underlying violence
promoted by this stupid religion, one of the main reasons India is in
its present desperate situation. And yes, India is coming out of this
obscurantism but it is surely because of outside influences, not because
of that horrible religion.
And I do not forget the Aztec religion that needed fresh blood from
children each year, or the other superstitions and stupid beliefs
promoted by idiotic priests all over the world and all over our tragic
history.
Enough is enough. Let's stop all those crimes and realize that there
isn't a single fact that points to some "god" over there.
And if god can't be understood, then why did he made us with an
intellect and reasoning and the power to see through lies?
By mistake?
:-)
slain, I was told that "the ways of the Lord are unknowable". So, we
can't know why god decided to slain those children.
At that moment I decided to become an atheist. I had seen through the
veil of confusion the horrible truth behind religion: naked violence
against innocents.
What does it say the book actually?
That the Jewish people, when returning to Israel from Egypt were given a
permit to murder by their god that allowed killing women and children
without any remorse or after-thoughts.
And no, I am not antisemitic since I am a Jew. An atheist Jew. And yes,
they exist. Not all Jews like the bible.
Again I cite the bible: (Deutoronomy 7:1)
... when the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have
overcome them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement
with them, and have no mercy on them.
So, after they are defeated, i.e. they are prisoners of war, the bible
says that those people should be killed anyway, together with their
children!
And I should believe in this "god"???
Here are the roots of my conviction: Religion is a catastrophe for mankind.
And please, do not tell me that Islam is better, or that other religions
are better.
Look at the Hindu religion for instance. They believe that there are
people that can't be touched because they are so "dirty" that you risk
your afterlife if you do that. Those people are subject to incredible
discriminations ALL THEIR LIVES. They are forced by law to do the tasks
nobody wants to do: cleaning toilets or similar tasks. And they can't
have any other job.
Most of the violence in India comes from this underlying violence
promoted by this stupid religion, one of the main reasons India is in
its present desperate situation. And yes, India is coming out of this
obscurantism but it is surely because of outside influences, not because
of that horrible religion.
And I do not forget the Aztec religion that needed fresh blood from
children each year, or the other superstitions and stupid beliefs
promoted by idiotic priests all over the world and all over our tragic
history.
Enough is enough. Let's stop all those crimes and realize that there
isn't a single fact that points to some "god" over there.
And if god can't be understood, then why did he made us with an
intellect and reasoning and the power to see through lies?
By mistake?
:-)
Juha Nieminen
May 28, 2013, 5:49:48 AM5/28/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
> It have the impression that your problem is that you do not accept a God
> that is beyond your comprehension.
No. It's a question of evidence, observation, measurement and testing.
> It have the impression that your problem is that you do not accept a God
> that is beyond your comprehension.
You may hypothesize as much as you want about some concept of "god" and
what it might perhaps be, but all that is completely meaningless without
any actual direct observation and measurement.
If we start hypothesizing about this "god" concept of Christianity, even
if it's completely imaginary, then I find it abhorrent. It's either an
evil or impotent god, or both. A god that just watches the suffering of
innocent people without lifting a finger to help.
You are better than this "god" concept of yours. Most certainly you would
help a family member of friend who is in grave danger, if you have the
means to do so. Your "god" does nothing.
Why would you worship this "god"? Even if he existed, he would most
certainly not deserve any praise or worship. He would deserve judgment.
The kind of judgment that we impose on the worst criminal scum in
existence. The kind of criminal scum that are responsible for the torture,
suffering and murder of millions of people.
Juha Nieminen
May 28, 2013, 5:52:59 AM5/28/13
to
Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do believe that God is so great, so massive, so complex, so powerful, so
> loving, so out-of-this world that we as mere mortals are not fully capable
> of understanding Him and His ways. I know that for sure I cannot explain
> why He does the things He does or the way He does them but I do believe that
> one day I will understand when I join Him in heaven.
Why, exactly, do you believe that?
> I do believe that God is so great, so massive, so complex, so powerful, so
> loving, so out-of-this world that we as mere mortals are not fully capable
> of understanding Him and His ways. I know that for sure I cannot explain
> why He does the things He does or the way He does them but I do believe that
> one day I will understand when I join Him in heaven.
> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ? In
> a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
> there.
kind of divinity?
Do you understand why eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable?
Juha Nieminen
May 28, 2013, 5:55:12 AM5/28/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
> How can you prove that it did not happen what they saw?
Do you in all honesty not understand why that's a flawed argument?
> Pascal said already that in nature there is too much to deny God's
> existence, but too little to assure us. Then it comes to the choice of
> witnesses which claim that they have seen more then we did.
wager by name...
Qu0ll
May 28, 2013, 6:50:47 AM5/28/13
to
"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:ko1upr$bhg$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
>> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
>> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ?
>> In
>> a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
>> there.
>
> How exactly does you being there prove that it was Jesus Christ, or any
> kind of divinity?
Well quite frankly, to you it doesn't prove anything. But then again I
don't need to prove this to you or anyone else. I was merely sharing my
experience. You can interpret/analyse it anyway you choose.
BTW When I said He knew my mother's name, I should have mentioned that she
had passed some years earlier and this "man" was someone I had never seen
before.
> Do you understand why eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable?
To you, obviously it is. But I don't really mind. As I said, you can do
what you please with this information I have presented you with.
To you it is probably either a hallucination or I am simply lying. You
simply cannot entertain the notion that I may just be telling the truth and
that I did indeed have Jesus standing in front of me. You do not want to
accept this because it would negate all your "beliefs" (and let's call a
spade a spade, your views are merely beliefs in another form) so you resist.
In fact I get the strong impression that even when Jesus does return to
Earth (as the Bible promises) you will be one of the many who will *never*
believe (again, as predicted by the Bible) even if He performs amazing
miracles in front of your eyes. You would then assume *you* were
hallucinating.
You may never believe until it's, sadly, too late.
>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
>> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
>> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus Christ?
>> In
>> a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
>> there.
>
> How exactly does you being there prove that it was Jesus Christ, or any
> kind of divinity?
don't need to prove this to you or anyone else. I was merely sharing my
experience. You can interpret/analyse it anyway you choose.
BTW When I said He knew my mother's name, I should have mentioned that she
had passed some years earlier and this "man" was someone I had never seen
before.
> Do you understand why eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable?
what you please with this information I have presented you with.
To you it is probably either a hallucination or I am simply lying. You
simply cannot entertain the notion that I may just be telling the truth and
that I did indeed have Jesus standing in front of me. You do not want to
accept this because it would negate all your "beliefs" (and let's call a
spade a spade, your views are merely beliefs in another form) so you resist.
In fact I get the strong impression that even when Jesus does return to
Earth (as the Bible promises) you will be one of the many who will *never*
believe (again, as predicted by the Bible) even if He performs amazing
miracles in front of your eyes. You would then assume *you* were
hallucinating.
You may never believe until it's, sadly, too late.
Qu0ll
May 28, 2013, 6:53:26 AM5/28/13
to
"Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:ko01cf$36c$2...@news.albasani.net...
> It was hallucination (people can fly through the roof). How you can
> prove that hallucination is not just in your head?
Why do I have to prove anything? Would you even accept the "proof" if I had
it?
I am relating an experience I was blessed to have. God gave you a free will
to interpret it any way you choose.
> It was hallucination (people can fly through the roof). How you can
> prove that hallucination is not just in your head?
it?
I am relating an experience I was blessed to have. God gave you a free will
to interpret it any way you choose.
Qu0ll
May 28, 2013, 6:58:16 AM5/28/13
to
"Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into wine?
Yes, Jesus did it and so did some of His disciples (re walking on water).
> Or to ressurect from grave after being executed and ascend to sky like a
> rocket?
Yes, Jesus did just this.
> There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
Precisely. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus ascend into Heaven *after*
He died on the cross and *after* he was resurrected.
> What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
Can you prove this? You seem to be big on requiring proof so where is
yours?
> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into wine?
> Or to ressurect from grave after being executed and ascend to sky like a
> rocket?
> There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
He died on the cross and *after* he was resurrected.
> What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
yours?
David Brown
May 28, 2013, 7:29:29 AM5/28/13
to
you are intentionally misrepresenting your experience, and I don't
believe that's the case. Of course, that does not implying that your
interpretation of the event has any basis in real-world fact - there are
many possible down-to-earth explanations. (There is no need to go into
details, as no one will convince you that it was a burglar making a
lucky guess about your mother's name - just as you won't convince the
atheists here that it was a supernatural event.)
So I accept without question that /you/ are convinced you saw someone
riding in on a beam of light, and identifying himself as Jesus. Fair
enough - you have a direct experience, proving to /your/ satisfaction
that Jesus is real.
But jumping from there to an unquestioning belief in statements in the
Bible is not rational or logical. You have evidence (in your eyes) of a
supernatural being that calls himself Jesus. I am sure there was more
to your experience than what you wrote, but I am equally sure that you
were not told that the rest of the theology and dogma of some variant of
Christianity is "true".
Remember, the Bible is a collection of stories written (for the most
part) long after the relevant eye witnesses were dead. The books in it
were picked out from a wide selection of equally qualified texts, with
the aim of making a Roman Catholic Church with a strong power over
people and "worldly" authorities. They were often badly translated,
perhaps intentionally (the Muslims learned from that one when they
decreed that the Koran stays in its original language). And there is
almost nothing in the Bible that is corroborated by other historical
sources or archaeology.
I can therefore fully understand that you put your faith in Jesus. But
I cannot see why you would put faith in the Bible.
Qu0ll
May 28, 2013, 8:01:30 AM5/28/13
to
"David Brown" wrote in message
news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
Reply at the end...
--------------------------------------
I appreciate David that you (at least) take me on my word.
As for the Bible, yes, this is not a "perfect" book or, more correctly, set
of books. The word "Bible" is a derivative of the word "biblio" meaning
"library" and the Bible is just that: a *collection* of books written by
many different authors at many different times and stages of history. The
fact that there are multiple authors, each one interpreting
life-the-universe-and-everything at their time, explains why some parts are
written as eye-witness accounts, some parts are meant to be taken literally
and others which are written in a more metaphorical style. The trick for
students of the Bible is to determine which parts fall into which category.
I agree that just because I met Jesus it doesn't necessarily follow that I
would believe the Bible, or at least that I would believe it in its
entirety. However, given that I did meet a clearly supernatural being and
he told me His name was Jesus and that a "character" named Jesus was written
about in the Bible and that the New Testament declared Him to be
God-as-a-man then I guess I have a tendency to believe that the *essence* of
the Bible is true.
Some describe the Bible as "the word of God" but, to me, the Bible is "the
message of God". It's written by humans and humans are inherently flawed so
it makes sense that there may be errors, inconsistencies or even omissions
in the book set.
I am not really troubled by this. I do believe the story of Jesus in the
New Testament and I believe there are things to be learned from the Old
Testament as well.
By word of example, do I believe that Noah managed to gather together
*every* species of life on earth and somehow look after them on an ark? No,
I don't. But I do believe there was man named Noah who was instructed by
God to build an ark and that there was a great flood etc. By my reckoning
he probably managed to gather most of the *obvious* animals of the
surrounding areas and did indeed herd them onto an ark. I do not rule out
divine assistance in this, why would I? Did the flood cover the entire
planet? Probably not, but who cares. What's important here is the essence
of the Noah's Ark story; not the minutiae of the catalogue of species or the
extent of the flooded areas.
My point is that it was never the intention of *all* the authors of the
Bible that every passage be interpreted literally. For me the most
important thing is that I *do* believe the story of Jesus and his time on
earth is as close to the actual facts of the matter that could be achieved
by people writing some time after the events.
Do I believe in the resurrection? Absolutely! After all, I met the living
Jesus. And besides, Jesus rising from the grave *dramatically* changed the
lives of many people who had become very depressed after his death. Some of
these people then travelled the world preaching about his resurrection.
That in itself is very strong evidence that they did experience Jesus after
he had been pronounced dead.
Anyway, I do not really like the role as "defender of the Christian faith"
as I am neither qualified or a very capable wordsmith or orator. I can only
really speak of my personal experiences. I would prefer someone with
theological credentials to speak on behalf of Christianity and answer some
of the very pertinent questions that have been raised in this thread. I am
bound to trip over myself if I try to pretend I am an expert on the Bible or
that I know everything there is about the religion.
I am very happy to talk about God as he has appeared to me but beyond that I
am just an average Joe who dabbles in C++ :-)
news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
Reply at the end...
I appreciate David that you (at least) take me on my word.
As for the Bible, yes, this is not a "perfect" book or, more correctly, set
of books. The word "Bible" is a derivative of the word "biblio" meaning
"library" and the Bible is just that: a *collection* of books written by
many different authors at many different times and stages of history. The
fact that there are multiple authors, each one interpreting
life-the-universe-and-everything at their time, explains why some parts are
written as eye-witness accounts, some parts are meant to be taken literally
and others which are written in a more metaphorical style. The trick for
students of the Bible is to determine which parts fall into which category.
I agree that just because I met Jesus it doesn't necessarily follow that I
would believe the Bible, or at least that I would believe it in its
entirety. However, given that I did meet a clearly supernatural being and
he told me His name was Jesus and that a "character" named Jesus was written
about in the Bible and that the New Testament declared Him to be
God-as-a-man then I guess I have a tendency to believe that the *essence* of
the Bible is true.
Some describe the Bible as "the word of God" but, to me, the Bible is "the
message of God". It's written by humans and humans are inherently flawed so
it makes sense that there may be errors, inconsistencies or even omissions
in the book set.
I am not really troubled by this. I do believe the story of Jesus in the
New Testament and I believe there are things to be learned from the Old
Testament as well.
By word of example, do I believe that Noah managed to gather together
*every* species of life on earth and somehow look after them on an ark? No,
I don't. But I do believe there was man named Noah who was instructed by
God to build an ark and that there was a great flood etc. By my reckoning
he probably managed to gather most of the *obvious* animals of the
surrounding areas and did indeed herd them onto an ark. I do not rule out
divine assistance in this, why would I? Did the flood cover the entire
planet? Probably not, but who cares. What's important here is the essence
of the Noah's Ark story; not the minutiae of the catalogue of species or the
extent of the flooded areas.
My point is that it was never the intention of *all* the authors of the
Bible that every passage be interpreted literally. For me the most
important thing is that I *do* believe the story of Jesus and his time on
earth is as close to the actual facts of the matter that could be achieved
by people writing some time after the events.
Do I believe in the resurrection? Absolutely! After all, I met the living
Jesus. And besides, Jesus rising from the grave *dramatically* changed the
lives of many people who had become very depressed after his death. Some of
these people then travelled the world preaching about his resurrection.
That in itself is very strong evidence that they did experience Jesus after
he had been pronounced dead.
Anyway, I do not really like the role as "defender of the Christian faith"
as I am neither qualified or a very capable wordsmith or orator. I can only
really speak of my personal experiences. I would prefer someone with
theological credentials to speak on behalf of Christianity and answer some
of the very pertinent questions that have been raised in this thread. I am
bound to trip over myself if I try to pretend I am an expert on the Bible or
that I know everything there is about the religion.
I am very happy to talk about God as he has appeared to me but beyond that I
am just an average Joe who dabbles in C++ :-)
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 28, 2013, 8:28:53 AM5/28/13
to
"David Brown" wrote in message
news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
> ...
news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
>Remember, the Bible is a collection of stories written (for the most
>part) long after the relevant eye witnesses were dead.
witnesses were still alive. Some of them even by the eye witnesses
themselves. Although we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the
oldest copies are from only a very short period after the generation of the
eyewitnesses. Compare that to other historical facts that we take for
granted, which often have only one written report, written several
generations after the fact and the oldest existing copy several generations
later than original report.
> The books in it were picked out from a
> wide selection of equally qualified texts,
had a very limited set of texts that was generally accepted. This set of
texts has changed very little until the time that it was laid down in an
official document of the old church.
> with the aim of making a Roman Catholic Church with a strong power
> over people and "worldly" authorities.
More than 1000 years after the event, it is not too difficult to start a
discussion about the aim. Of course, everyone will have an opinion about
this aim according to his view, where it is almost impossible to convince
one another.
Melzzzzz
May 28, 2013, 10:26:20 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:58:16 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into
>> wine?
>
> Yes, Jesus did it and so did some of His disciples (re walking on
> water).
>
>> Or to ressurect from grave after being executed and ascend to sky like
>> a rocket?
>
> Yes, Jesus did just this.
>
>> There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
>
> Precisely. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus ascend into Heaven
> *after*
> He died on the cross and *after* he was resurrected.
>
>> What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
>
> Can you prove this? You seem to be big on requiring proof so where is
> yours?
By the laws of physics, people can't fly or walk on water...
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into
>> wine?
>
> Yes, Jesus did it and so did some of His disciples (re walking on
> water).
>
>> Or to ressurect from grave after being executed and ascend to sky like
>> a rocket?
>
> Yes, Jesus did just this.
>
>> There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
>
> Precisely. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus ascend into Heaven
> *after*
> He died on the cross and *after* he was resurrected.
>
>> What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
>
> Can you prove this? You seem to be big on requiring proof so where is
> yours?
Also, people don't ressurect from the dead.
There is no Heaven in the sky... etc...
Melzzzzz
May 28, 2013, 10:28:21 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:53:26 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:ko01cf$36c$2...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> It was hallucination (people can fly through the roof). How you can
>> prove that hallucination is not just in your head?
>
> Why do I have to prove anything?
Because you claim you met Jesus Christ.
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:ko01cf$36c$2...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> It was hallucination (people can fly through the roof). How you can
>> prove that hallucination is not just in your head?
>
> Why do I have to prove anything?
Would you even accept the "proof" if I
> had it?
>
> I am relating an experience I was blessed to have. God gave you a free
> will to interpret it any way you choose.
Melzzzzz
May 28, 2013, 10:29:36 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:50:47 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
>
> You may never believe until it's, sadly, too late.
Too late for what?
>
> You may never believe until it's, sadly, too late.
David Brown
May 28, 2013, 11:33:04 AM5/28/13
to
On 28/05/13 14:28, Fred Zwarts (KVI) wrote:
> "David Brown" wrote in message
> news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
>
>> ...
>
>> Remember, the Bible is a collection of stories written (for the most
>> part) long after the relevant eye witnesses were dead.
>
> Note that almost all books of the new testament were written when the
> eye witnesses were still alive. Some of them even by the eye witnesses
> themselves. Although we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the
> oldest copies are from only a very short period after the generation of
> the eyewitnesses. Compare that to other historical facts that we take
> for granted, which often have only one written report, written several
> generations after the fact and the oldest existing copy several
> generations later than original report.
>
I am certainly no Biblical scholar myself, but as I understand it, the
> "David Brown" wrote in message
> news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
>
>> ...
>
>> Remember, the Bible is a collection of stories written (for the most
>> part) long after the relevant eye witnesses were dead.
>
> Note that almost all books of the new testament were written when the
> eye witnesses were still alive. Some of them even by the eye witnesses
> themselves. Although we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the
> oldest copies are from only a very short period after the generation of
> the eyewitnesses. Compare that to other historical facts that we take
> for granted, which often have only one written report, written several
> generations after the fact and the oldest existing copy several
> generations later than original report.
>
Gospels were probably written towards the end of the first century.
That does not preclude the possibility of eye witnesses being involved,
but it makes it unlikely.
Paul's letters were probably mostly written by Paul himself, who was an
eye witness to some of the events surrounding Jesus (and obviously more
than just a witness to the early Church).
I don't know that any of the NT was written by people who witnessed any
supernatural events, however. All the miracles, such as walking in
water, raising from the dead, etc., are hearsay. The nearest we have is
Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus - and it's not much
different from that described by Qu0ll here, nor is it more convincing
as factual evidence.
>> The books in it were picked out from a
>> wide selection of equally qualified texts,
>
> The true story is that already the first generation after the
> eyewitnesses had a very limited set of texts that was generally
> accepted. This set of texts has changed very little until the time that
> it was laid down in an official document of the old church.
texts, many of which were available to the Church in the 4th century
when the NT was basically fixed. A number of such early texts have
since been found, though the Church (from its earliest days right up to
modern times) has done its best to hide or destroy documents that
conflict with those chosen for the Bible.
>
>> with the aim of making a Roman Catholic Church with a strong power
>> over people and "worldly" authorities.
>
> The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church did not yet exist at that time.
> More than 1000 years after the event, it is not too difficult to start a
> discussion about the aim. Of course, everyone will have an opinion about
> this aim according to his view, where it is almost impossible to
> convince one another.
declared Christianity to be the single legal religion in the Roman
Empire. This was for purely political reasons - he was not even a
Christian himself. The Church was created to form a power structure for
controlling people, and to stop people fighting over different religious
beliefs. Much of this process is quite well documented (i.e., there are
historical sources other than the Bible which describe the Church meetings).
Leigh Johnston
May 28, 2013, 5:04:41 PM5/28/13
to
On 28/05/2013 11:50, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:ko1upr$bhg$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>
>>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
>>> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
>>> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus
>>> Christ? In
>>> a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
>>> there.
>>
>> How exactly does you being there prove that it was Jesus Christ, or any
>> kind of divinity?
>
> Well quite frankly, to you it doesn't prove anything. But then again I
> don't need to prove this to you or anyone else. I was merely sharing my
> experience. You can interpret/analyse it anyway you choose.
>
> BTW When I said He knew my mother's name, I should have mentioned that
> she had passed some years earlier and this "man" was someone I had never
> seen before.
But *you* know your mother's name so if you are hallucinating (which is
> "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:ko1upr$bhg$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>
>>> Can I prove that the man who stood at the end of my bed, who identified
>>> himself as Jesus, who knew my mother's name, who left in a beam of light
>>> through the ceiling and who changed my life forever *was* Jesus
>>> Christ? In
>>> a very strict sense, no I cannot. But I don't need to prove it - I was
>>> there.
>>
>> How exactly does you being there prove that it was Jesus Christ, or any
>> kind of divinity?
>
> Well quite frankly, to you it doesn't prove anything. But then again I
> don't need to prove this to you or anyone else. I was merely sharing my
> experience. You can interpret/analyse it anyway you choose.
>
> BTW When I said He knew my mother's name, I should have mentioned that
> she had passed some years earlier and this "man" was someone I had never
> seen before.
likely if the man disappeared through the ceiling) it is not surprising
that your hallucination also knows your mother's name; this is no
different to hearing voices. A delusion is not proof of god's existence.
/Leigh
john smith
May 28, 2013, 5:35:51 PM5/28/13
to
On May 28, 5:28 am, "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwa...@KVI.nl> wrote:
> "David Brown" wrote in message
>
> news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
>
> "David Brown" wrote in message
>
> news:C5ednV-cc82HCDnM...@lyse.net...
>
> Note that almost all books of the new testament were written when the eye
> witnesses were still alive. Some of them even by the eye witnesses
> themselves. Although we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the
> oldest copies are from only a very short period after the generation of the
> eyewitnesses. Compare that to other historical facts that we take for
> granted, which often have only one written report, written several
> generations after the fact and the oldest existing copy several generations
> later than original report.
This is contrary to well accepted facts by all biblical scholars. The
> witnesses were still alive. Some of them even by the eye witnesses
> themselves. Although we don't have the original manuscripts anymore, the
> oldest copies are from only a very short period after the generation of the
> eyewitnesses. Compare that to other historical facts that we take for
> granted, which often have only one written report, written several
> generations after the fact and the oldest existing copy several generations
> later than original report.
earliest gospel was written at earliest in roughly 70 AD, and other
gospels came a few decades later.
Also, I don't consider hundreds of years to be "a very short period
after the generation of eyewitnesses". It seems the earliest fragments
we have date to the second century, and if you want complete texts of
the new testament, IIRC the earliest known copies are from 300 AD or
later.
Finally, you're right that we accept as a matter of course other
historical figures on less evidence, but that misses some very
important subtly. I don't spend my time arguing with those who say
Socrates existed because it doesn't matter. No one bases their actions
and entire life around that obscure fact. We can learn from Socrates
teachings whether he was real or fiction. Socrates also didn't claim
to be a wizard. The same is not true of Jesus. That's why we hold you
to a higher standard of evidence. Whether we take action on what Jesus
said depends heavily on whether he actually existed, and whether he
actually was a person with magic powers.
john smith
May 28, 2013, 5:43:46 PM5/28/13
to
On May 28, 3:53 am, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixF...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do I have to prove anything? Would you even accept the "proof" if I had
> it?
I would stop being an atheist if you presented sufficient proof of
> Why do I have to prove anything? Would you even accept the "proof" if I had
> it?
some god.
However, I will never be a christian. If you presented sufficient
proof for the christian god then I would accept that the christian god
exists, but if it requires worship and obedience to be a christian,
then I would never be a christian. A creature matching the description
of the christian god in the christian bible is despicable and evil,
and if such a thing existed, then I would endeavor to learn how to
destroy it and destroy it. (Step 1: Get some chariots of iron.)
At best, if a creature that matched the christian god description came
down and apologized and said it got better, or if it explained that
all of those stories in the bible were inaccurate, and it was a
"pretty cool guy", then it might get my admiration, respect, thanks,
and friendship, but I would still never worship it. I will never
worship anything. Do you know what "Islam" roughly translates to?
Submission. Submission of oneself to the will of allah. Same thing in
christianity. That's what worship is. I will not be a slave. You
shouldn't want to be a slave either. It's bad for you. Take some pride
in yourself. Take some personal responsibility. Be happy for yourself.
Do good unto others for its own sake.
Fred Zwarts (KVI)
May 29, 2013, 4:04:39 AM5/29/13
to
"Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:ko2eqc$h2h$6...@news.albasani.net...
would start to argue with Harry Potter and claim that J.K.Rowling does not
exist, because by the law of physics the tricks of wizards are impossible
and there is no wizard school.
Maybe God has a similar humor. Remember that the laws of physics are his
creation, which limit his creatures, but do not limit himself.
>
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:58:16 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
>
>> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:58:16 +1000, Qu0ll wrote:
>
>> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>> What I want to say is that witnesses depicted in Bible are liars...
>>
>> Can you prove this? You seem to be big on requiring proof so where is
>> yours?
>
>By the laws of physics, people can't fly or walk on water...
>Also, people don't ressurect from the dead.
>There is no Heaven in the sky... etc...
I would find it very humorous if in one of the books of Harry Potter someone
>>
>> Can you prove this? You seem to be big on requiring proof so where is
>> yours?
>
>By the laws of physics, people can't fly or walk on water...
>Also, people don't ressurect from the dead.
>There is no Heaven in the sky... etc...
would start to argue with Harry Potter and claim that J.K.Rowling does not
exist, because by the law of physics the tricks of wizards are impossible
and there is no wizard school.
Maybe God has a similar humor. Remember that the laws of physics are his
creation, which limit his creatures, but do not limit himself.
john smith
May 29, 2013, 4:31:30 AM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 1:04 am, "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwa...@KVI.nl> wrote:
> I would find it very humorous if in one of the books of Harry Potter someone
> would start to argue with Harry Potter and claim that J.K.Rowling does not
> exist, because by the law of physics the tricks of wizards are impossible
> and there is no wizard school.
This is how I imagine the conversations:
> I would find it very humorous if in one of the books of Harry Potter someone
> would start to argue with Harry Potter and claim that J.K.Rowling does not
> exist, because by the law of physics the tricks of wizards are impossible
> and there is no wizard school.
Bob: Wizards don't exist. Magic is impossible by physics.
Harry: Oh yeah? What's this? (Uses some magic.)
Bob: Oh. I'm sorry. I was mistaken.
Claire: There's this woman in this other world who wrote about us, and
we're fictional characters in her book.
Harry: Oh yeah? Why do you think this? Can you demonstrate this? How
can I tell the difference between you telling the truth vs inventing
something out of whole cloth, or merely repeating the fiction of
someone else?
Claire: Oh. I'm sorry. You're right. I have absolutely no reason to
think that.
Gerhard Fiedler
May 29, 2013, 10:43:49 AM5/29/13
to
Melzzzzz wrote:
> By the laws of physics, people can't fly or walk on water...
Many other arguments notwithstanding, there are now "laws" of physics.
> By the laws of physics, people can't fly or walk on water...
Physics is a collection of models that we created that represent the
majority of our collective understanding at this point in time -- and
these models of course change over time. A few centuries ago, many of
the things we take for granted today were considered impossible by some,
according to their view of physics at the time.
Whatever our current "physics" is, it is temporary and subject to
modification -- and will always be (I assume). An argument that
something isn't possible according to physics (or the "laws" of physics)
shows a troubling misunderstanding of what science is about.
If something happens, there is no "law of physics" that could or would
say that it is not possible. If it has been (reliably) observed and that
observation is not in alignment with current models, the models simply
have to be updated -- that's all there is to it, and that's essentially
what science is about.
Now you can doubt that something has in fact been observed, but that's a
whole different argument. You must make it without the inexistent "laws
of physics".
Gerhard
Juha Nieminen
May 29, 2013, 1:14:37 PM5/29/13
to
Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To you it is probably either a hallucination or I am simply lying. You
> simply cannot entertain the notion that I may just be telling the truth and
> that I did indeed have Jesus standing in front of me.
So you want me to believe what you are saying for the simple reason that
> To you it is probably either a hallucination or I am simply lying. You
> simply cannot entertain the notion that I may just be telling the truth and
> that I did indeed have Jesus standing in front of me.
you are saying it? No corroborating evidence needed. No actual proof.
Just your word, and that's it? That's called gullibility.
Are you serious?
> You do not want to
> accept this because it would negate all your "beliefs"
I believe something for which there is no evidence?
> You may never believe until it's, sadly, too late.
Juha Nieminen
May 29, 2013, 1:16:03 PM5/29/13
to
"Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zw...@kvi.nl> wrote:
> Note that almost all books of the new testament were written when the eye
> witnesses were still alive.
How exactly do you know there were any eyewitnesses in the first place?
> witnesses were still alive.
Do you understand the concept that when someone is writing a story,
they can make things up? It's called fiction. You need more than just
a written story in order to corroborate the veracity of an event.
Juha Nieminen
May 29, 2013, 1:18:11 PM5/29/13
to
Qu0ll <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into wine?
>
> Yes, Jesus did it and so did some of His disciples (re walking on water).
And you know this how, exactly?
> "Melzzzzz" wrote in message news:knvq54$bkk$4...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> So you think that it is possible to walk on water or turn water into wine?
>
> Yes, Jesus did it and so did some of His disciples (re walking on water).
Do you understand the concept of fictional storytelling? Not everything
that's written in a book has to be a real event.
>> There are witnesses for that in the Bible...
>
> Precisely. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus ascend into Heaven *after*
> He died on the cross and *after* he was resurrected.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages