| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Cor blimey mate" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 02:06:03 PM |
| Object: |
A proof of why God cannot exist |
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some point he
must have created other life. Surely a God would create other God-like
beings and not primitive humans. If a God did create primitive humans then
this would mean he was doing it for amusement only and this would make God
fallable and even vindictive.Therefore he could not be a God.
However, by these arguments a God COULD exist provided he had nothing to do
with creation in the physical world. We have however no proof and even what
we consider to be God-like now may not be in 1000 years. After all,
stone-age man may consider us to be Gods. God could be an Alien therefore
but we are left with the problem of how the Alien came into being.
I conclude the whole God thing is bollocks and I have not even started on
the Bible or Quoran.
Tam
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 07:07:06 PM |
|
|
Cor blimey mate wrote:
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some point he
It is pointless to debate about God based upon
what we think he could do and he could not do.
God has already explained why we should know
certain things and why certain things
are left unknown to us
must have created other life. Surely a God would create other God-like
beings and not primitive humans. If a God did create primitive humans then
this would mean he was doing it for amusement only and this would make God
fallable and even vindictive.Therefore he could not be a God.
However, by these arguments a God COULD exist provided he had nothing to do
with creation in the physical world. We have however no proof and even what
we consider to be God-like now may not be in 1000 years. After all,
stone-age man may consider us to be Gods. God could be an Alien therefore
but we are left with the problem of how the Alien came into being.
I conclude the whole God thing is bollocks and I have not even started on
the Bible or Quoran.
Tam
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 11:44:12 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" wrote:
Cor blimey mate wrote:
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some point he
It is pointless to debate about God based upon
what we think he could do and he could not do.
God has already explained why we should know
certain things and why certain things
are left unknown to us
Rather delusional if you ask me. No god, nowhere, nohow has ever explained
'anything'.
All we hear are the voices of a certain brand of human that loves to preach to
others.
Very different
must have created other life. Surely a God would create other God-like
beings and not primitive humans. If a God did create primitive humans then
this would mean he was doing it for amusement only and this would make God
fallable and even vindictive.Therefore he could not be a God.
However, by these arguments a God COULD exist provided he had nothing to do
with creation in the physical world. We have however no proof and even what
we consider to be God-like now may not be in 1000 years. After all,
stone-age man may consider us to be Gods. God could be an Alien therefore
but we are left with the problem of how the Alien came into being.
I conclude the whole God thing is bollocks and I have not even started on
the Bible or Quoran.
Tam
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 10:38:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Cor blimey mate wrote:
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some
point he
It is pointless to debate about God based upon
what we think he could do and he could not do.
Good. Stop 'debating' stuff you admittedly know nothing
about.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 09:14:36 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet
(Codebreaker@bigsecret.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
God has already explained why we should know
certain things and why certain things
are left unknown to us
That's a lie. Just thought you'd like to know.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 11:47:17 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet
(Codebreaker@bigsecret.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
God has already explained why we should know
certain things and why certain things
are left unknown to us
That's a lie. Just thought you'd like to know.
Reminds me of the lies on TV last night. 'Televangelist' "And it was the
Lord god that said......"
Lying through his teeth, with thousands, sitting mouths agape, swallowing
it.
Funny ?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 12:23:11 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet bob young
(alaspectrum@netvigator.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet
codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Codebreaker@bigsecret.com) made the light
shine upon us with this:
God has already explained why we should know
certain things and why certain things
are left unknown to us
That's a lie. Just thought you'd like to know.
Reminds me of the lies on TV last night. 'Televangelist' "And it was
the Lord god that said......"
Lying through his teeth, with thousands, sitting mouths agape,
swallowing it.
Funny ?
No. Frightening.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors
of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this
same God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Dec 2005 11:21:01 PM |
|
|
Cor blimey mate wrote:
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some point he
must have created other life. Surely a God would create other God-like
beings and not primitive humans. If a God did create primitive humans then
this would mean he was doing it for amusement only and this would make God
fallable and even vindictive.Therefore he could not be a God.
However, by these arguments a God COULD exist provided he had nothing to do
with creation in the physical world. We have however no proof and even what
we consider to be God-like now may not be in 1000 years. After all,
stone-age man may consider us to be Gods. God could be an Alien therefore
but we are left with the problem of how the Alien came into being.
I conclude the whole God thing is bollocks and I have not even started on
the Bible or Quoran.
Tam
religions are man made and they make up their gods to cement them together.
religions are simply 'large, or in many cases, small, clubs'
Bob
humanist brit.
Hong Kong
"People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God
first and worship him afterwards."
[Oscar Wilde]
"The Ethiop gods have Ethiop lips, Bronze cheeks, and woolly hair; The Grecian
gods are like the Greeks, As keen-eyed, cold and fair."
[Walter Bagehot
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 04:52:51 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2005 23:21:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
religions are man made and they make up their gods to cement them together.
religions are simply 'large, or in many cases, small, clubs'
Bob
humanist brit.
Hong Kong
Then that means that atheism itself is nothing more than a very small club
(1/50) of the religious sects.
But, to make your claim, you have to understand religion, and you don't basis
your words. It's hard to see your definitional basis for religion in your
choice of words.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 11:19:04 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 23:21:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
religions are man made and they make up their gods to cement them together.
religions are simply 'large, or in many cases, small, clubs'
Bob
humanist brit.
Hong Kong
Then that means that atheism itself is nothing more than a very small club
(1/50) of the religious sects.
Your reply fails to take into account 1.1 billion out of 1.3 billion Chinese.
Compared to two centuries ago almost everyone prayed to a god, nowadays the
percentage is very much lower. [Europe, excluding Italy, has less than 20% these
days]
No true figure is possible so it means your prognoses above is just wishful
thinking. Something religionists are good at.
"Cheers and have a Happy New Year.
[by the time we reach the end of it there will be more 'non believers' than
ever]
But, to make your claim, you have to understand religion, and you don't basis
your words. It's hard to see your definitional basis for religion in your
choice of words.
Well I do my best, for humanity as a whole
Bob
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
29 Dec 2005 02:37:09 AM |
|
|
On 28 Dec 2005 23:19:04 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 23:21:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
religions are man made and they make up their gods to cement them together.
religions are simply 'large, or in many cases, small, clubs'
Bob
humanist brit.
Hong Kong
Then that means that atheism itself is nothing more than a very small club
(1/50) of the religious sects.
Your reply fails to take into account 1.1 billion out of 1.3 billion Chinese.
You would have been more accurate, as well as succinct, if you had
abbreviated it to:
"Your reply fails."
Compared to two centuries ago almost everyone prayed to a god, nowadays the
percentage is very much lower. [Europe, excluding Italy, has less than 20% these
days]
No true figure is possible so it means your prognoses above is just wishful
thinking. Something religionists are good at.
"Cheers and have a Happy New Year.
[by the time we reach the end of it there will be more 'non believers' than
ever]
But, to make your claim, you have to understand religion, and you don't basis
your words. It's hard to see your definitional basis for religion in your
choice of words.
Well I do my best, for humanity as a whole
Bob
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
29 Dec 2005 10:44:02 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 28 Dec 2005 23:19:04 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 23:21:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
religions are man made and they make up their gods to cement them together.
religions are simply 'large, or in many cases, small, clubs'
Bob
humanist brit.
Hong Kong
Then that means that atheism itself is nothing more than a very small club
(1/50) of the religious sects.
Your reply fails to take into account 1.1 billion out of 1.3 billion Chinese.
You would have been more accurate, as well as succinct, if you had
abbreviated it to:
"Your reply fails."
A WARM WELCOME TO THE '4C's Club'
'The Clever Cynical Comments Club'
[Entry is free of charge]
Usual stuff we get when the intelligence level is not high enough to provide a
cogent answer
Compared to two centuries ago almost everyone prayed to a god, nowadays the
percentage is very much lower. [Europe, excluding Italy, has less than 20% these
days]
No true figure is possible so it means your prognoses above is just wishful
thinking. Something religionists are good at.
"Cheers and have a Happy New Year.
[by the time we reach the end of it there will be more 'non believers' than
ever]
But, to make your claim, you have to understand religion, and you don't basis
your words. It's hard to see your definitional basis for religion in your
choice of words.
Well I do my best, for humanity as a whole
Bob
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Explainer" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Dec 2005 02:17:13 PM |
|
|
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 10:50:00 AM |
|
|
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons, having sexual lusts for
his mother, hasn't a clue about anything.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lörd Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 07:59:13 AM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> astounded us with: news:Ygesf.1425
$D43.618@trndny06:
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons,
"Perverted lust demons"!!! Oh Dore! You're a CLASSIC!!!!
Are they those big tall guys, glowing red, with cocks the size of baseball
bats covered in spikes? (You know, the kind written about by fundy fuckwits)?
The same ones that, after they've reamed ALL of your orifices to a bloody
pulp, cast you into a lake o' farr, and then jump in after you, to ***** you
some more, and for the rest of eternity? THOSE perverted lust demons???
YOU are certifiably insane!!!
--
Lörd Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 10:00:05 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism, Lörd Phÿltêr
<phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:59:13 GMT
<RSwsf.122222$V7.73771@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> astounded us with: news:Ygesf.1425
$D43.618@trndny06:
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons,
"Perverted lust demons"!!! Oh Dore! You're a CLASSIC!!!!
Are they those big tall guys, glowing red, with cocks the size of baseball
bats covered in spikes? (You know, the kind written about by fundy fuckwits)?
The same ones that, after they've reamed ALL of your orifices to a bloody
pulp, cast you into a lake o' farr, and then jump in after you, to ***** you
some more, and for the rest of eternity? THOSE perverted lust demons???
YOU are certifiably insane!!!
Well now I for one am confused. Is there a non-perverted lust demon,
or a perverted non-lust demon?
Surely someone knows the answer... :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 02:54:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In alt.atheism, Lörd Phÿltêr
<phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:59:13 GMT
<RSwsf.122222$V7.73771@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> astounded us with: news:Ygesf.1425
$D43.618@trndny06:
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons,
"Perverted lust demons"!!! Oh Dore! You're a CLASSIC!!!!
Are they those big tall guys, glowing red, with cocks the size of baseball
bats covered in spikes? (You know, the kind written about by fundy fuckwits)?
The same ones that, after they've reamed ALL of your orifices to a bloody
pulp, cast you into a lake o' farr, and then jump in after you, to ***** you
some more, and for the rest of eternity? THOSE perverted lust demons???
YOU are certifiably insane!!!
Well now I for one am confused. Is there a non-perverted lust demon,
or a perverted non-lust demon?
Surely someone knows the answer... :-)
Ask Miss Lewinsky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 10:00:05 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:24:04 +1030
<tqu5r198shl1ipkerjl73f483digce5f0o@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In alt.atheism, Lörd Phÿltêr
<phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:59:13 GMT
<RSwsf.122222$V7.73771@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> astounded us with: news:Ygesf.1425
$D43.618@trndny06:
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons,
"Perverted lust demons"!!! Oh Dore! You're a CLASSIC!!!!
Are they those big tall guys, glowing red, with cocks the size
of baseball bats covered in spikes? (You know, the kind written
about by fundy fuckwits)?
The same ones that, after they've reamed ALL of your orifices
to a bloody pulp, cast you into a lake o' farr, and then jump
in after you, to ***** you some more, and for the rest of
eternity? THOSE perverted lust demons???
YOU are certifiably insane!!!
Well now I for one am confused. Is there a non-perverted lust demon,
or a perverted non-lust demon?
Surely someone knows the answer... :-)
Ask Miss Lewinsky.
No, William Clinton was a non-perverted non-lust non-demon.
:-) Monica was an intern. Both had a moment. Hillary had
apoplexy, presumably, some time later.
Of course, the Republicans would have loved to
tar and feather the then-President as a perverted,
egotistical, opportunistic, gutless but frenetic
make-love-not-war-machine. They didn't quite do it,
though they were able to tar -- or at least impeach -- him.
But, according to most Scripture inteprretations that I
know of, Billy "Scape Goat" Clinton will burn forever in
hell, lapping his member -- plus the rest of his soul -- in
hot, never-ending flames for having the temerity to have an
erection around a woman who was not his Church-sanctioned
wife, and then have her do things to it. Certain things.
Lust-inducing things. Sin things. Who knows, they might
even have danced.
And those flames are hot, too; just ask any fundie. :-)
Even though the soul has no corporeal matter whatsoever
and there's no evidence of Heaven *or* Hell...but never
mind that, burn, sinner, burn! Burn until the arms
shrivel off and the head pops like a kernel of a popular
moviegoing confectionary. Roast until the blood flows
out and converts into hot, sticky, sweet-smelling steam.
Fry like a tempura cheeseball, only without the breaded
coating. And then do it all over again. For you have sinned
and I have not; I'm pure as the driven snow...until I go
into a confessionary or some such I guess, I'm not sure.
But they won't burn me. Will they?
Yeeeha...gonna have us a heretic BBQ tonight! Bring the family
and marshmellows, everyone...
Erm...*ahem*...sorry about that. :-)
We are all sinners before the eyes of what most people
consider the $DEITY, for whatever reason -- but that
doesn't mean $DEITY exists; it's an idealism, as far as I
can tell, much like an ideal shade of red or the perfect
place to spend one's honeymoon -- or tryst, if one prefers.
For whatever reason we personify idealism. Idealism is
OK, but the personification takes on a life of its own,
and we get Yet Another Mythos, apparently.
Some take that mythos farther than others, obviously, and
then give it attributes that make it want to control other's
lives, for they have no control over their own.
Such is my guess, anyway. A bit like Dorian Gray.
It's not a pretty picture.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
29 Dec 2005 02:35:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In alt.atheism, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:24:04 +1030
<tqu5r198shl1ipkerjl73f483digce5f0o@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In alt.atheism, Lörd Phÿltêr
<phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:59:13 GMT
<RSwsf.122222$V7.73771@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> astounded us with: news:Ygesf.1425
$D43.618@trndny06:
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons,
"Perverted lust demons"!!! Oh Dore! You're a CLASSIC!!!!
Are they those big tall guys, glowing red, with cocks the size
of baseball bats covered in spikes? (You know, the kind written
about by fundy fuckwits)?
The same ones that, after they've reamed ALL of your orifices
to a bloody pulp, cast you into a lake o' farr, and then jump
in after you, to ***** you some more, and for the rest of
eternity? THOSE perverted lust demons???
YOU are certifiably insane!!!
Well now I for one am confused. Is there a non-perverted lust demon,
or a perverted non-lust demon?
Surely someone knows the answer... :-)
Ask Miss Lewinsky.
No, William Clinton was a non-perverted non-lust non-demon.
:-) Monica was an intern. Both had a moment. Hillary had
apoplexy, presumably, some time later.
Of course, the Republicans would have loved to
tar and feather the then-President as a perverted,
egotistical, opportunistic, gutless but frenetic
make-love-not-war-machine. They didn't quite do it,
though they were able to tar -- or at least impeach -- him.
But, according to most Scripture inteprretations that I
know of, Billy "Scape Goat" Clinton will burn forever in
hell, lapping his member -- plus the rest of his soul -- in
hot, never-ending flames for having the temerity to have an
erection around a woman who was not his Church-sanctioned
wife, and then have her do things to it. Certain things.
Lust-inducing things. Sin things. Who knows, they might
even have danced.
And those flames are hot, too; just ask any fundie. :-)
Even though the soul has no corporeal matter whatsoever
and there's no evidence of Heaven *or* Hell...but never
mind that, burn, sinner, burn! Burn until the arms
shrivel off and the head pops like a kernel of a popular
moviegoing confectionary. Roast until the blood flows
out and converts into hot, sticky, sweet-smelling steam.
Fry like a tempura cheeseball, only without the breaded
coating. And then do it all over again. For you have sinned
and I have not; I'm pure as the driven snow...until I go
into a confessionary or some such I guess, I'm not sure.
But they won't burn me. Will they?
Yeeeha...gonna have us a heretic BBQ tonight! Bring the family
and marshmellows, everyone...
Erm...*ahem*...sorry about that. :-)
What an eloquent outburst! ;)
I must say, I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition...
We are all sinners before the eyes of what most people
consider the $DEITY, for whatever reason -- but that
doesn't mean $DEITY exists; it's an idealism, as far as I
can tell, much like an ideal shade of red or the perfect
place to spend one's honeymoon -- or tryst, if one prefers.
For whatever reason we personify idealism. Idealism is
OK, but the personification takes on a life of its own,
and we get Yet Another Mythos, apparently.
Some take that mythos farther than others, obviously, and
then give it attributes that make it want to control other's
lives, for they have no control over their own.
Such is my guess, anyway. A bit like Dorian Gray.
It's not a pretty picture.
He was my great grandson, twice removed.
(Once for disorderly conduct during a "Coming Out" ball.
I don't recall what the other was for, but I do remember that it
occurred in a mausoleum.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 11:32:10 AM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ygesf.1425$D43.618@trndny06...
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons, having sexual lusts for
his mother, hasn't a clue about anything.
And you, crazy lady, who has fantasies about being fucked up the ***** by
demons while your Santa/God watches, does?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
28 Dec 2005 04:40:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:32:10 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ygesf.1425$D43.618@trndny06...
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Freud, who was possessed by perverted lust demons, having sexual lusts for
his mother, hasn't a clue about anything.
And you, crazy lady, who has fantasies about being fucked up the ***** by
demons while your Santa/God watches, does?
[peals of mirth]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 12:51:28 PM |
|
|
Explainer wrote:
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
As Bertrand Russell showed long ago, the proposition that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause is summarily rejected due to the inherent
logical fallacy (special pleading) in it:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one
day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography,
and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question
'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the
further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me,
as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,
so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
"How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the
subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no
reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have
always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really
due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not
waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." --
Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might
be a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell
points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 01:08:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1135709488.381207.163500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Explainer wrote:
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
As Bertrand Russell showed long ago, the proposition that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause is summarily rejected
Septic is lying again! Bertrand Russell took exception to an argument
that there MUST be a first cause, but quite carefully did not try to
refute the possibility that there MIGHT be one.
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience
I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN
PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.'
Which leaves Septic's phony claims in tatters and exposes Septic's LIE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SquareKnot" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 01:58:12 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN PROVE THAT
THERE IS NOT A GOD.
Therefore there might be a God anyway, even though there is nothing you can
point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about'? Isn't that argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (the fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to the
negative)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 05:19:04 PM |
|
|
In article <vsWdnQxxh9RIASzeRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN PROVE
THAT
THERE IS NOT A GOD.
Actually, it was Bertrand Russell who wrote "I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE
IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A
GOD."
I merely quoted Russell, but as it happens, I to agree with Russell on
this point.
Therefore there might be a God anyway, even though there is nothing you can
point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about'? Isn't that argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (the fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to the
negative)?
NO!. In the first place Russell did not say what Septic is saying.
In the second place, what Septic is trying to misrepresent as an
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam isn't one at all.
For an actual example of an ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM , one can turn to
one of Septic's own arguments in which he argues that god(s) MUST BE
impossible because there is no proof that any exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 10:42:59 PM |
|
|
SquareKnot wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE CAN
PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.
Therefore there might be a God anyway, even though there is nothing
you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about'?
Isn't that argument _ad ignorantiam_ (the fallacy of trying to shift
the burden of proof to the negative)?
Virgil killlfiled me because he keeps saying that and I keep
proving him wrong. He'd rather be wrong.
Virgil is one of the truely dishonest people on the net.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Dec 2005 11:22:02 PM |
|
|
Explainer wrote:
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses......
.....that is true and it has been going on for a very loooong
time
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Dec 2005 06:42:22 PM |
|
|
I think you are absolutely correct that gods exist only in peoples minds.
However, I believe the real reason for these beliefs are peoples inherent
fear
of death and the hereafter.
Most people can not mentally accept the reality and finality of death so
they
create a life after death in some magical and wondrous heaven.
"Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135628233.228308.56920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
27 Dec 2005 10:31:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:42:22 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
I think you are absolutely correct that gods exist only in peoples minds.
However, I believe the real reason for these beliefs are peoples inherent
fear of death and the hereafter.
Disagree such is inherent. Such is induced from infantcy.
Most people can not mentally accept the reality and finality of death so
they create a life after death in some magical and wondrous heaven.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Dec 2005 04:48:57 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2005 12:17:13 -0800, "Explainer" <x660y@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gods are just metaphors for parents,
used by confused adults seeking prescriptions
on how to live, as Freud said in _Totem and Taboo_,
and therefore gods only exist in people's brains
and not in the real world. However, for people
in power, gods are very useful for controlling
the gullible masses.
Good, succint summary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LAWRENCE BROWN" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof of why God cannot exist |
26 Jul 2006 02:14:14 PM |
|
|
Nope. Faulty logic.
1. Assumed 'who created God' is spurious and argumentative.
2. Assumed 'creation of other life and god-like beings' is also spurious
and argumentative.
3. Assumed 'creation for amusement' is...stop. All your assumptions lead
to the same
thing. Nothing. And I haven't even started on reality.
"Cor blimey mate" <FU2@yahoo.co.zpr> wrote in message
news:g8Yrf.10656$vH5.516509@news.xtra.co.nz...
Let us assume there is a God. Then if this is the case who created
him(her?). If we assume that God has always existed then at some point he
must have created other life. Surely a God would create other God-like
beings and not primitive humans. If a God did create primitive humans then
this would mean he was doing it for amusement only and this would make God
fallable and even vindictive.Therefore he could not be a God.
However, by these arguments a God COULD exist provided he had nothing to
do
with creation in the physical world. We have however no proof and even
what
we consider to be God-like now may not be in 1000 years. After all,
stone-age man may consider us to be Gods. God could be an Alien therefore
but we are left with the problem of how the Alien came into being.
I conclude the whole God thing is bollocks and I have not even started on
the Bible or Quoran.
Tam
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
