| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Thinkit" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 02:56:39 PM |
| Object: |
An answer to Pascal's wager |
Heard on the radio Tom Leykis doing Ask the Atheist, and he was
dumbfounded by someone pulling Pascals wager on him. I was thinking of
a nice answer (yes probably repeated endlessly before):
Suppose there is a God and I need to worship Him (tm) to go to
"heaven". Yet all indications are that there is no personal god, and
his supposed book is full of myths while reality seems undirected and
ordered. Well, then I wouldn't want to be with such a tormenter, and
by disbelieving now, I won't have to.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
18 Nov 2004 03:50:41 PM |
|
|
(Thinkit) wrote in
news:2db4f40b.0411181256.1008ecd6@posting.google.com:
Heard on the radio Tom Leykis doing Ask the Atheist, and he was
dumbfounded by someone pulling Pascals wager on him. I was thinking of
a nice answer (yes probably repeated endlessly before):
Suppose there is a God and I need to worship Him (tm) to go to
"heaven". Yet all indications are that there is no personal god, and
his supposed book is full of myths while reality seems undirected and
ordered. Well, then I wouldn't want to be with such a tormenter, and
by disbelieving now, I won't have to.
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
LK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
18 Nov 2004 05:07:48 PM |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon <llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov> wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as a wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
18 Nov 2004 05:59:52 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon <llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
19 Nov 2004 01:49:49 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:304rkrF2qsbjeU1@uni-berlin.de...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon
<llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if
the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as
a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
steve
You might not get an answer.
You could add it to Duke's " To Do List", though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
18 Nov 2004 09:58:45 PM |
|
|
In article <304rkrF2qsbjeU1@uni-berlin.de>, kmbs57
@hotmail.com says...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon <llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
steve
That would be his head, rock solid packed full of *****..
BDK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 08:10:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:59:52 +1100, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon <llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
That would be the bit between his ears.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
19 Nov 2004 04:26:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:59:52 +1100, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon <llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
19 Nov 2004 06:23:47 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:blssp0dj302qa0ctg93qqef1demfrfju6g@4ax.com...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:59:52 +1100, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hoaqp09sobkqhj6nopuac2c750m0ncf3vb@4ax.com...
On 19 Nov 2004 10:50:41 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon
<llanzlan@llurdiaxorb.gov>
wrote:
Which god of the millions would you choose. Chosing the wrong one
would
be a much worse position to be in than believing in none. Or what if
the
real god doesn't approve of worship. Pascal's wager is a total lamer.
Nah, there's only one. Now everyone that knows of the PW knows that as
a
wager it is
flawed, but it's premise is rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into
play if there is
no almighty God.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
My understanding of pascals wager is there are *two* possibilites
1) there is a god
2) there is no god
so for you to accept that PW has any foundation - you must admit that there
is a possibility that there is no god - do you admit this ?
If you do not then you must dismiss PW out of hand and admit that it has no
foundation whatsoever - it is not flawed but completely wrong. Do you admit
this ?
in one of your responses in this thread you have stated "I'm saying that God
likes gamblers that go with him. If you don't, bend over and kill
your ***** goodbye." Why would your god like someone who concedes the
possibilty that he doesnt exist and is only it it for a "possible" payoff ?
What kind of twisted logic have you used to arrive at this conclusion ?
(please *explain* - dont wave your hands and tell me you know things)
I look forward to your usual empty response and claim of triump
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
20 Nov 2004 07:46:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:23:47 +1100, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into
play if there is
no almighty God.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
My understanding of pascals wager is there are *two* possibilites
1) there is a god
2) there is no god
That's why it's called a wager. But one small correction to your possibilities: "There
is almighty God".
so for you to accept that PW has any foundation - you must admit that there
is a possibility that there is no god - do you admit this ?
That's why it's called a wager. But not me of course. I don't accept there is no God.
If you do not then you must dismiss PW out of hand and admit that it has no
foundation whatsoever - it is not flawed but completely wrong. Do you admit
this ?
Of course, you can't have a wager with only one option.
in one of your responses in this thread you have stated "I'm saying that God
likes gamblers that go with him. If you don't, bend over and kill
your ***** goodbye." Why would your god like someone who concedes the
possibilty that he doesnt exist and is only it it for a "possible" payoff ?
Because it is by faith and not fact that we proclaim his existence.
What kind of twisted logic have you used to arrive at this conclusion ?
(please *explain* - dont wave your hands and tell me you know things)
Done.
I look forward to your usual empty response and claim of triump
Steve
I win.
BTW, are you familiar with the french connection in this?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 06:30:38 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<18iup0him6ieuh39dufoupcr8rpa8mda9g@4ax.com>...
That's why it's called a wager. But one small
correction to your possibilities: "There
is almighty God".
There is zero evidence for any god, as you've demonstrated on many
occasions.
That's why it's called a wager. But not me of course.
I don't accept there is no God.
You lie to everyopne else, so it's no surprise that you also lie to
yourself.
Because it is by faith and not fact that we proclaim his existence.
Finally he openly admits something he's been demonstrating for months
- there is no evidence for any god, despite his lie here:
http://tinyurl.com/4rgxn that he had evidence.
I win.
Another lie. You've never won anything - you've lost every thread in
which you've ever challenged someone.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 08:32:06 AM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 04:30:38 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
That's why it's called a wager. But one small
correction to your possibilities: "There
is almighty God".
There is zero evidence for any god, as you've demonstrated on many
occasions.
Hey, if you choose to profess that even with all the evidence, do ahead bud. It's your
funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
That's why it's called a wager. But not me of course.
I don't accept there is no God.
You lie to everyopne else, so it's no surprise that you also lie to
yourself.
Of come on now. All you doing is resorting to meaningless words. Can't you offer
something concrete to talk about.
How about John 20:19-23
Because it is by faith and not fact that we proclaim his existence.
Finally he openly admits something he's been demonstrating for months
- there is no evidence for any god, despite his lie here:
No, no, no bud. Evidence drives my faith. If I had proof, I wouldn't need faith.
Haven't you learned the difference yet?
Another lie. You've never won anything - you've lost every thread in
which you've ever challenged someone.
Budikka
You're smoking bad rope, bud.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
27 Nov 2004 05:46:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:32:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
There is zero evidence for any god, as you've demonstrated on many
occasions.
Hey, if you choose to profess that even with all the evidence, do ahead bud. It's your
funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
You're ONLY 'evidence' is what is written in a book that was written
by men. Your book of 'evidence' says the world is flat, bats are
birds, rabbits chew cud, eatting shellfish is an abomination and it's
required to KILL women who have been raped if the rape happened in a
town or city.
You pick and choose your 'evidence' to serve your view and prejudices
of the world.
You wear your christianity on your sleeve like some sort of badge of
honor.
You ignore more of your 'god's' words than you obey, Duke, and yet you
like to brag about how holy you are.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
28 Nov 2004 01:14:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:46:57 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Hey, if you choose to profess that even with all the evidence, do ahead bud. It's your
funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
You're ONLY 'evidence' is what is written in a book that was written
by men.
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the bible.
You pick and choose your 'evidence' to serve your view and prejudices
of the world.
My evidence is based on factual evidence.
You wear your christianity on your sleeve like some sort of badge of
honor.
Now that's for sure. It's wonderful to be a Christian.
You ignore more of your 'god's' words than you obey, Duke, and yet you
like to brag about how holy you are.
James, Seattle
Nope. You're never heard me brag about how holy I am. What are you smoking anyway?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
29 Nov 2004 09:34:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:14:25 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:46:57 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Hey, if you choose to profess that even with all the evidence, do ahead bud. It's your
funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
You're ONLY 'evidence' is what is written in a book that was written
by men.
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the bible.
If it wasn't for the Bible and the biblical teachers of your past, you
wouldn't even believe in your Christian God. What evidence is there
for your god that is so compelling as to make all other gods obviously
false? Remember... you can't used Anything from your religious text
in the answer.
You pick and choose your 'evidence' to serve your view and prejudices
of the world.
My evidence is based on factual evidence.
Again, other than your Bible, please explain this FACTUAL evidence
that your Christian God exists, hense, all other gods must be false.
You wear your christianity on your sleeve like some sort of badge of
honor.
Now that's for sure. It's wonderful to be a Christian.
But you come across simply as a holier-than-thou braggart. I'm sure
you don't mean to, but that's how you seem in this very limited
context of the newsgroups.
You ignore more of your 'god's' words than you obey, Duke, and yet you
like to brag about how holy you are.
James, Seattle
Nope. You're never heard me brag about how holy I am. What are you smoking anyway?
Why throw in an insult at the end? I thought we were discussing
something here. You do ignore much of the bible and you do
selectively pickout specific parts of the bible that prefer to
concentrate on in these discussions.
For the record, I don't smoke anything, nor do I partake in any
illegal drugs, and even alcohol is consumed in laughable moderation
around here.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
30 Nov 2004 05:22:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:34:10 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the bible.
If it wasn't for the Bible and the biblical teachers of your past, you
wouldn't even believe in your Christian God.
That's like saying that if I couldn't see the sun, I wouldn't believe in it. It's there,
little buddy.
What evidence is there
for your god that is so compelling as to make all other gods obviously
false?
He's the only one to have been seen.
Remember... you can't used Anything from your religious text
in the answer.
Why not? Don't be so stupid. That's like saying I can't see the sun to believe in the
sun.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
30 Nov 2004 08:05:40 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:l00qq0tjvd6bkppau7oc76arrtmo3t6ejh@4ax.com:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:34:10 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the
bible.
If it wasn't for the Bible and the biblical teachers of your past, you
wouldn't even believe in your Christian God.
That's like saying that if I couldn't see the sun, I wouldn't believe
in it. It's there, little buddy.
So true the sun is most definitely there and is entirely indifferent to
human existence. After all it is the same sun that shines on the Hindus,
the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Jews, the Christians and even the atheists
and agnostics and "others" and it treats them all the same.
Nice analogy - there is one sun for everyone, and petty human
differences and writing of books doesn't change the fact - there's still
just one sun.
What evidence is there
for your god that is so compelling as to make all other gods obviously
false?
He's the only one to have been seen.
So there *are* others - interesting. I like the idea of multiple gods
just like I like the idea there are multiple "suns" like ours, and
multiple planets with life on them.
Cool - but I wouldn't mention that to any religious folks - they'll be
upset telling them there are lots of gods and they don't take the non-
uniqueness of earth terribly well either.
Remember... you can't used Anything from your religious text
in the answer.
Why not? Don't be so stupid. That's like saying I can't see the sun
to believe in the sun.
Hmmm that reply doesn't make any sense - but then again religious texts
bear little close analysis so I suppose in a way you are demonstrating
the illogic of religion.
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
This refers to the line for the handout of intelligence, and you
demonstrate this truism very well.
gater.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
04 Dec 2004 06:56:34 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<l00qq0tjvd6bkppau7oc76arrtmo3t6ejh@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:34:10 -0800, RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the bible.
Your evidence *is* the Bible. You have no other evidence as you've
admitted.
If it wasn't for the Bible and the biblical teachers of your past, you
wouldn't even believe in your Christian God.
That's like saying that if I couldn't see the sun,
I wouldn't believe in it.
Would you? If there were no sun that we knew of, and you had no idea
what a sun was and someone whom you had never met before, whom you
didn't know, and had no way of verify their veracity, told you that
just 93 million miles away there was a deadly ball of evil that would
one day eat the Earth, you would just swallow that story whole without
a second thought? You probably would!
It's there,
little buddy.
Yes, it is - you can see it, you can feel it, it can harm you. Every
human has directly experienced it. We can photograph it, measure it,
and even send probes to it.
Where is *this* kind of evidence for your god? Nowhere. You cannot
see god. You cannot feel god and know that it is god you feel as
opposed to some other sensation. You have no way of determining if
harm that befalls you comes from this god or from some other source.
No human has demonstrably directly experienced this god. Some claim
they have, but far more claim they have experienced a different god or
no god, and the further back you go in history, the fewer people there
are who claim to have experienced your god.
What evidence is there
for your god that is so compelling as to make all other gods obviously
false?
He's the only one to have been seen.
Present your evidence for this. And do not use the Bible, since it is
the Bible stories which are in question here.
Remember... you can't used Anything from your religious text
in the answer.
Why not?
Because it is the Bible texts which are in question.
Don't be so stupid. That's like saying I can't see
the sun to believe in the sun.
False analogy, with the emphasis on anal as usual. There are ways of
verifying the sun's existence independently of the words of others.
Even blind people know the sun exists. You do not have to rely on the
words of anonymous people to determine if the sun exists.
Your turn. We're looking for evidence independent of the Bible since
the Bible is the story that's in question here. It's okay for you to
run away now. We expect it. It won't be a surprise.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
01 Dec 2004 02:52:16 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:34:10 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
Of course not. My evidence doesn't even have anything to do with the
bible.
If it wasn't for the Bible and the biblical teachers of your past, you
wouldn't even believe in your Christian God.
That's like saying that if I couldn't see the sun, I wouldn't believe in
it. It's there, little buddy.
The sun is there, your silly Christian god is debunked and isn't there.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
22 Nov 2004 08:54:12 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<hg91q0lcreqng15qiuelraj169l1t49btt@4ax.com>...
On 21 Nov 2004 04:30:38 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
That's why it's called a wager. But one small
correction to your possibilities: "There
is almighty God".
There is zero evidence for any god, as you've demonstrated on many
occasions.
Hey, if you choose to profess that even with all the evidence,
I say that Puke has demonstrated that there **IS NO EVIDENCE** and he
mindlessly blathers his canned response, stolen, no doubt form some
catholic catechism without attribution. This adequately demonstrates
how out of his league he is here.
That's why it's called a wager. But not me of course.
I don't accept there is no God.
You lie to everyopne else, so it's no surprise that you also lie to
yourself.
Of come on now. All you doing is resorting to meaningless words. Can't you offer
something concrete to talk about.
How about John 20:19-23
Bible ***** is not evidence. Only a colossal idiot like you would
try to call desperately upon the same baseless ***** Bible to
pathetically try and bolster that same ***** Bible which is about
to collapse from the weight of the bullhsit within it.
No, no, no bud. Evidence drives my faith.
Then your faith is zero, since that's the amount of evidence you've
presented! Keep going, Puke, I'm laughing so hard at your stupidity
that I can hardly see the screen here.
If I had proof, I wouldn't need faith.
You don't have diddly but *****, all of which has been flushed
where it belongs.
You're smoking bad rope, bud.
Once again Puke runs away. No surprises there, but Puke, please don't
project your own disgusting habits onto others. Doesn't the Bible
order you to do onto others as you would be done by? When are you
going to start practicing that?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
23 Nov 2004 05:16:36 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 06:54:12 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
I say that Puke has demonstrated that there **IS NO EVIDENCE** and he
mindlessly blathers his canned response, stolen, no doubt form some
catholic catechism without attribution. This adequately demonstrates
how out of his league he is here.
Only in the vast empty spaces between your ears.
Bible ***** is not evidence. Only a colossal idiot like you would
try to call desperately upon the same baseless ***** Bible to
pathetically try and bolster that same ***** Bible which is about
to collapse from the weight of the bullhsit within it.
Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
No points.
No, no, no bud. Evidence drives my faith.
Then your faith is zero, since that's the amount of evidence you've
presented! Keep going, Puke, I'm laughing so hard at your stupidity
that I can hardly see the screen here.
My faith is great. Not that you would know what I mean.
If I had proof, I wouldn't need faith.
You don't have diddly but *****, all of which has been flushed
where it belongs.
Yeah, sure, bubba.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
24 Nov 2004 03:08:14 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3s66q0p7plppl6cgin8h755kh1t30t6ug9@4ax.com>...
On 22 Nov 2004 06:54:12 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
I say that Puke has demonstrated that there **IS NO EVIDENCE** and he
mindlessly blathers his canned response, stolen, no doubt form some
catholic catechism without attribution. This adequately demonstrates
how out of his league he is here.
Only in the vast empty spaces between your ears.
The empty space is entirely between yours. I have evidence, you
cannot refute it. I tell the truth, you lie. I give facts, you offer
hypocrisy. I open discussion, you run away. I know my subject, you
know nothing. It, like you, is that simple.
Bible ***** is not evidence. Only a colossal idiot like you would
try to call desperately upon the same baseless ***** Bible to
pathetically try and bolster that same ***** Bible which is about
to collapse from the weight of the bullhsit within it.
Haahaahaahaahaahaa.
No points.
Your cowardice has once again been recorded by Google for the entire
Internet to peruse at its leisure.
No, no, no bud. Evidence drives my faith.
Then your faith is zero, since that's the amount of evidence you've
presented! Keep going, Puke, I'm laughing so hard at your stupidity
that I can hardly see the screen here.
My faith is great. Not that you would know what I mean.
I know exactly what you mean: your capacity to blindly believe is
unlimited. See - I understand.
If I had proof, I wouldn't need faith.
You don't have diddly but *****, all of which has been flushed
where it belongs.
Yeah, sure, bubba.
You've proven repeatedly that I'm right by your cowardice. And you've
done it again in this message. It's nice to know I can always count
on you to fall blindly into my traps.
And in closing, which spelling, sheer or shear, should be used in this
phrase of yours, Puke: "...for the she?r comfort and convenience of
butchering the baby."
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
25 Nov 2004 06:20:07 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 13:08:14 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
And in closing, which spelling, sheer or shear, should be used in this
phrase of yours, Puke: "...for the she?r comfort and convenience of
butchering the baby."
Budikka
Remember, bud, when you roast your leg today and then take a bit out of it, it is a
she*ring action. Shirley you understand that.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
28 Nov 2004 12:30:19 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<76jbq0hk2u3d0dg5fhp6q0ohe9v496k5e1@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 13:08:14 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
And in closing, which spelling, sheer or shear, should be used in this
phrase of yours, Puke: "...for the she?r comfort and convenience of
butchering the baby."
Budikka
Remember, bud, when you roast your leg today and then take a bit out of it, it is a
she*ring action. Shirley you understand that.
Another clueless comment from the Internet's most clueless *****-up.
Nothing new here. No surprises at all. The performing monkey did his
tricks exactly as I expected.
And he demonstrated yet again that he has no idea how to use the word
"sheer" or the word "shear"
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
19 Nov 2004 05:57:20 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, duke poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:59:52 +1100, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Good grief. In over your head already.
What you have described is the conclusion, dimwit.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
Sorta like your cranium.
Regards,
Josef
Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful... Get your
facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
20 Nov 2004 07:38:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:57:20 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Good grief. In over your head already.
What you have described is the conclusion, dimwit.
Right, God makes that evident.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
Sorta like your cranium.
It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
20 Nov 2004 08:26:40 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, duke poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:57:20 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Good grief. In over your head already.
What you have described is the conclusion, dimwit.
Right, God makes that evident.
Thanks for acknowledging that you are wrong about the statement being a
premise.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
Sorta like your cranium.
It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
Fallacy of Appealing to Consequences.
Still a lamer, I see.
Regards,
Josef
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
-- Robert Heinlein
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 08:27:34 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:57:20 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Good grief. In over your head already.
What you have described is the conclusion, dimwit.
Right, God makes that evident.
Thanks for acknowledging that you are wrong about the statement being a
premise.
The premise is fact, the wager is flawed.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
Sorta like your cranium.
It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
Fallacy of Appealing to Consequences.
Still a lamer, I see.
Still unable to get past my words, I see.
Regards,
Josef
Regards
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 11:13:54 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, duke poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:57:20 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
Please explain the premise to me duke.... the bit that is rock solid
Me: win (hopefully)/no win. Atheist: lose/no win. No win comes into play if there is
no almighty God.
Good grief. In over your head already.
What you have described is the conclusion, dimwit.
Right, God makes that evident.
Thanks for acknowledging that you are wrong about the statement being a
premise.
The premise is fact, the wager is flawed.
Irrelevant.
Nothing but pure rock solid.
Sorta like your cranium.
It's your funeral. Enjoy it if you can.
Fallacy of Appealing to Consequences.
Still a lamer, I see.
Still unable to get past my words, I see.
I'm miles ahead of you. Here's a lesson on logical fallacies to help you
out.
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/appendixb.htm
http://www.esgs.org/uk/logic.htm
Pay close attention, Mr. Alzheimers. There WILL be a test.
Regards,
Josef
If God is so smart, then why does he hire such bad help?
-- Rita Mae Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guest Pest" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
21 Nov 2004 03:18:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun 21 Nov 2004 12:13:54pm EDT, one who goes by the
pseudonym "Josef Balluch" said in alt.atheism:
<snip>
I'm miles ahead of you. Here's a lesson on logical
fallacies to help you out.
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/appendixb.htm
That's a nice list. It's kind of odd though, that the page is
located at a Mormon website.
http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Anti.htm
--
_T o m_
/a/./a/#1253
guestpest /at/ yahoo /dot/ com
________________________________________________________
"The only difference between a cult and a religion
is the amount of real estate they own."
-- Frank Zappa
________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: An answer to Pascal's wager |
22 Nov 2004 04:50:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:13:54 -0500, Josef Balluch <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
Thanks for acknowledging that you are wrong about the statement being a
premise.
The premise is fact, the wager is flawed.
Irrelevant.
gotcha
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
