Religions > Atheism > Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:")
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
11 May 2004 05:54:39 PM |
| Object: |
Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
In a post from Tuesday, 11 May 2004 "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote the following in the "Does God exist:"
thread:
Don't tell me there is no God. I've met Him.
He has done this as part of an attempt to paint the positive atheist
(or atheists in general?) as the positive claimant of the
theism-atheism debate. I do not agree with all his points, but I think
the statement above can be of some relevance to the debate. Many
theists claim (and sincerely believe) that they have a relationship
with God. Now some atheists may claim that they are simply delusional,
despite the sincerity of their belief, and this claim may very well
turn out to be true. Nonetheless, suppose a theist argued roughly
along Angelicus Rex's point, and stated the following:
"I feel that I experience God every day. I see no more reason to
deny God's existence than to deny the existence of objective
reality. Why, then, should I assume that the opposite of my
experience is the actual fact of the matter? Why should I not go
on believing that I am really experiencing God's presence if
you cannot give an argument that shows my belief is rationally
objectionable or non-veridical?"
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof. I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
Some might respond that we could do this with any delusion (assuming
theism is a delusion). How would the above be different from a man who
sincerely believes than an invisible poached egg fully possessed of
volition gives him accurate stock tips? Well, admittedly, in a vacuum,
there is no difference. But I'm trying to argue that a rational or
reasonable theist is asking this question. In other words, the
statement above was uttered by a person who would change their
position if it was shown to be rationally objectionable.
I think this makes for an interesting philosophical investigation...
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 03:08:18 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
Don't tell me there is no God. I've met Him.
The context of the above message was left out, which was that I wanted to
put my argument in words atheisists could understand. Of course now there
will be another debate on the literalism of their interpretation of my now
sorely mismanaged statement. people should really not edit others work
without permission but rather this person, Nicodemus, should have asked me
directly what it is I was saying. Now it is out there and it of course makes
me look exactly like a person who gets his morning stock tips from his
poached eggs.
What kind of feeble way is this to think of God? Are we who are theists so
frightened of what others might say that we really now have to confirm
atheistic ideas? I mean, if God is a person, a Being, why on earth would God
not be able to communicate with us at any time either He or we so desired?
This is what the capacity fo God is, supposedly, infinite. So I believe God
can do or say anything God wants to.
Now, supposedly Alanis Moresette has conversations with the Eiffel Tower of
all things, which helps her with her career and relationships! To me this is
a delusion, or let us be very nice and say "a consciousness transference."
In which a person with low self-esteem and not a lot of confidence transfers
her own unconscious needs and voice onto an inanimate object. Such would be
the case with stock brokering poached eggs. One need not be insane or
"delusional" to hear from either the Eiffel tower or poached eggs or
chocolate Easter bunnies. Even Alanis admits she no longer hears from the
tower, as she has matured and has accepted it was her own inner voice
telling her these things. All this being said, this is NOT the same as
having a relationship of a spiritual nature with a God which has free will
and is NOT the same individual I am, who I did not make up and who can do
things that neither towers of iron or poached eggs can do, and these things
are documented. They include healing, helping locate lost items, warning of
impending, unseen disaster, or giving detailed information about the world
we live in.
God is a Being. He is in fact ALL BEING. Therefore to hear from God should
not overly excite us or scare us. And as it stands I wrote an entire book on
the subject entitled: "Speaking of Angels," which describes the process, my
mental states at the time, how and why I have been a spiritual seeker my
entire life. I deem myself neither delusional or unstable. In fact I am
doing quite well thank you. So finally after years of searching, I find God
and talk to God and this is cause for some sort of stilted debate between
official Christian believers and Atheists on NGs? I really don't get it.
Nicodemus' addy line suggests that we "ask questions and Jesus answers."
Now, Jesus is a ROman crucifixion victim, a DEAD person who supposedly came
to life, transformed into something quite unearthly, more akin to a
Christian angel, and now sits at the Right Hand of God Himself, and can
appear to people, help them, heal them, answer prayers, etc. This supposedly
is commonplace belief for all Christian faithfuls. Yet Nicodemus does not
think it worthy of discussion. But my position of having talked to God
personally seems to be of concern. Interesting. I can't wait to see how the
debate turns out. Though I am somewhat miffed I was not invited to my own
cyber-funeral. I see an all out attack by atheists on me, my position and
Christianity, God, and all Faith...as usual. And I see theists simply
mumbling into the beards that God really does exist, even if He stopped
talking to people two thousand years ago and His son still hasn't come back
to stop us mistreating one another...but he will be back! Honest injun!
Ha!
I for one do not attest to or speak with the Biblical God. The God I speak
with does not even LIKE the Bible and what it now stands for. He detests,
yes, detests with emotive voice, the tales of hell, demons, heaven,
archangels and prophets and denounces with emotive voice the horrors
inflicted on people who believe the Bible is His word. This alone should
make Bible Believer's hair stand on end with endless frights of demons and
devil worship, while at the same time making leagues of atheists say: "What
the fock?" because they cannot seem to posit any sort of God other than the
one they have been lambasting for thirty or fourty years.
So I want to make it clear. I am NOT talking about the Judeo Christian God
or Judeo Christian angels when I speak of God or Angels. I speak of the
REAL, the manifest and yet little known Beings upon which many tales and
myths and bibles or holy texts are based. But about whom all these texts are
WRONG.
Now that I've got myself in real hot water with everyone, please have at.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
He has done this as part of an attempt to paint the positive atheist
(or atheists in general?) as the positive claimant of the
theism-atheism debate. I do not agree with all his points, but I think
the statement above can be of some relevance to the debate. Many
theists claim (and sincerely believe) that they have a relationship
with God. Now some atheists may claim that they are simply delusional,
despite the sincerity of their belief, and this claim may very well
turn out to be true. Nonetheless, suppose a theist argued roughly
along Angelicus Rex's point, and stated the following:
"I feel that I experience God every day. I see no more reason to
deny God's existence than to deny the existence of objective
reality. Why, then, should I assume that the opposite of my
experience is the actual fact of the matter? Why should I not go
on believing that I am really experiencing God's presence if
you cannot give an argument that shows my belief is rationally
objectionable or non-veridical?"
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof. I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
Some might respond that we could do this with any delusion (assuming
theism is a delusion). How would the above be different from a man who
sincerely believes than an invisible poached egg fully possessed of
volition gives him accurate stock tips? Well, admittedly, in a vacuum,
there is no difference. But I'm trying to argue that a rational or
reasonable theist is asking this question. In other words, the
statement above was uttered by a person who would change their
position if it was shown to be rationally objectionable.
I think this makes for an interesting philosophical investigation...
-Nico Demusopelous
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2ge4b6F1nb8kU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
Don't tell me there is no God. I've met Him.
The context of the above message was left out, which was that I wanted to
put my argument in words atheisists could understand. Of course now there
will be another debate on the literalism of their interpretation of my now
sorely mismanaged statement. people should really not edit others work
without permission but rather this person, Nicodemus, should have asked me
directly what it is I was saying. Now it is out there and it of course
makes
me look exactly like a person who gets his morning stock tips from his
poached eggs.
What kind of feeble way is this to think of God? Are we who are theists so
frightened of what others might say that we really now have to confirm
atheistic ideas? I mean, if God is a person, a Being, why on earth would
God
not be able to communicate with us at any time either He or we so desired?
This is what the capacity fo God is, supposedly, infinite. So I believe
God
can do or say anything God wants to.
Now, supposedly Alanis Moresette has conversations with the Eiffel Tower
of
all things, which helps her with her career and relationships! To me this
is
a delusion, or let us be very nice and say "a consciousness transference."
In which a person with low self-esteem and not a lot of confidence
transfers
her own unconscious needs and voice onto an inanimate object. Such would
be
the case with stock brokering poached eggs. One need not be insane or
"delusional" to hear from either the Eiffel tower or poached eggs or
chocolate Easter bunnies. Even Alanis admits she no longer hears from the
tower, as she has matured and has accepted it was her own inner voice
telling her these things. All this being said, this is NOT the same as
having a relationship of a spiritual nature with a God which has free will
and is NOT the same individual I am, who I did not make up and who can do
things that neither towers of iron or poached eggs can do, and these
things
are documented. They include healing, helping locate lost items, warning
of
impending, unseen disaster, or giving detailed information about the world
we live in.
So this god you believe in supplies you with testable and falsifiable
evidence of its existence? That's excellent, it means we can perform
experiments! Most Christians claim that their god doesn't respond to tests
and that their belief in god is a matter of faith, but not you, apparently
your version of god is not so coy. It provides testable evidence so you
don't need faith.
Excellent! Now, you'll understand that we can't just take you at your word.
In fact, we need the same level of testable evidence from you that you claim
to get from your god before we'll be able to agree that what you say may
have some merit.
So, ask your god what large figurine I have on my desk at work. If your god
answers correctly, then I'll be forced to listen to you. If not, then your
claims are specious.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
11 May 2004 07:05:02 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405111454.2378c40d@posting.google.com...
In a post from Tuesday, 11 May 2004 "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote the following in the "Does God exist:"
thread:
Don't tell me there is no God. I've met Him.
<snip>
turn out to be true. Nonetheless, suppose a theist argued roughly
along Angelicus Rex's point, and stated the following:
"I feel that I experience God every day. I see no more reason to
deny God's existence than to deny the existence of objective
reality. Why, then, should I assume that the opposite of my
experience is the actual fact of the matter? Why should I not go
on believing that I am really experiencing God's presence if
you cannot give an argument that shows my belief is rationally
objectionable or non-veridical?"
Oo, 'veridical'. A crommulent new word to embiggen
my vocabulary!
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
<snip>
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 11:41:38 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<OSdoc.15086$BG1.12950@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "burden". This though
experiment does not shift the burden of proof becuase it does not
claim the burden is on the atheist. The argument is not that atheists
are required to give any arguments. The point was to simply invite
them to present an argument voluntarily.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
I don't think it necessarily does. As I alluded to in my original post
of this thread, it may be no different then believing in an invisible
poached egg possessed of full volition that gives accurate stock tips.
I'm not claiming this belief (regardless of whether it reflects
reality or is pure delusion) makes on better or worse. I am simply
asking why one should deny their sincere experience in the absence of
any argument to the contrary (as an invitation to present arguments to
the contrary).
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 12:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120841.6aed14d6@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<OSdoc.15086$BG1.12950@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "burden". This though
experiment does not shift the burden of proof becuase it does not
claim the burden is on the atheist. The argument is not that atheists
are required to give any arguments. The point was to simply invite
them to present an argument voluntarily.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
I don't think it necessarily does. As I alluded to in my original post
of this thread, it may be no different then believing in an invisible
poached egg possessed of full volition that gives accurate stock tips.
I'm not claiming this belief (regardless of whether it reflects
reality or is pure delusion) makes on better or worse. I am simply
asking why one should deny their sincere experience in the absence of
any argument to the contrary (as an invitation to present arguments to
the contrary).
And I say I don't care what delusions you hold
as long as they don't harm me.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 04:44:30 PM |
|
|
In other words, atheists. Not one of you ever has given a valid argument
which contains rational and logical constructs that can overcome or
invalidate the belief of one who has personal experience.
Once a long time ago, two hundred years or so. Science was convinced that if
a person went over the speed of twenty five miles an hour they would pass
out and die. They had nothing to base this theory on, since nothing they
knew of traveled that fast with a man aboard. When the first railroad
engines were built and speeds of travel became enhanced, people were
frightened by this scientifically advanced theory of acceleration. It was
found that at 25 mph the effect on the human body was nothing, that 85 mph
was nothing, that 125 mph was of little effect. One literally has to blast
through the sound barrier at double speed going straight up with about the
force of ten gravities to actually pass out. The unconsciousness lasts a
mere second as the body adjusts. G-suits keep astronauts from passing out at
all. Once outside the gravity of earth a person, it has been found can go
35,000 mph without even feeling it.
Now this should have been easily inferred, since the planet we live on
travels at an incredible rate of speed through the universe and around the
sun and we do not even know we are moving.
The question results: Should people have been afraid to go faster because
science said if they went 25mph they would curl up and die? Or should they
have done what they did and simply go that fast to see what would happen?
Question: If I say I talk to God and I say you can talk to God, what is it
about scientific rationale that makes you all scared to talk to God?
You believe that if you talk to God, you are somehow deluded, insane, or
dysfunctional. Has science scared you that much? Well the answer is, time to
let your soul do what it wants to do and screw science. Science and God are
not talking. It is people and God who talk with one another. Science is, as
I have said on more than one occasion, not the only way to communicate the
truth. If you worship science and place it above your own innate capacity to
find things out for yourself, you are actually misusing science. Science
does not run us, we run science. Science is man-made. Man is God-made.
Now at what point do the rationalists at alt.atheism ever agree that I or
any theist is as rational as they are? Only when we drop our beliefs and
flock to their banner. Well, good luck with all that. Personal experience
cannot be simply swept away by rationalism and logic. Mankind has known this
forever. But atheists truly think that by bowing down only to the Scientific
Method, that all will be revealed to them and they will not have to worry
they are insane.
Well let me let some air out of that balloon. I've talked to some of you who
are clearly nuts. And I've talked to believers who are clearly rational.
Will the nuts among you believe me? Not no, but hell no. Because your dogma
is even more solid than that of True Believers! Most nuts adamantly believe
and know they are not insane, but that the rest of the world probably is. So
please, look in the mirror when you talk about people being irrational. Just
because you can play logic games does not make you the least bit reasonable,
or any more rational than Hitler or Hannibal Lecter or any other psycho,
fictional or real. And guess what. Believing in God and knowing God does NOT
automatically make other people less reasonable than you are. When you
insist that others who believe are wrong because they will not allow their
experience to be falsifiable or follow your rationality concerning the
non-existence of a God, you are simply subjecting them to your will and
being absolutely subjective about their mental condition, etc. because at no
time has any atheists brought to bear a logical construct that banishes God
from the world of Man.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120841.6aed14d6@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<OSdoc.15086$BG1.12950@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "burden". This though
experiment does not shift the burden of proof becuase it does not
claim the burden is on the atheist. The argument is not that atheists
are required to give any arguments. The point was to simply invite
them to present an argument voluntarily.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
I don't think it necessarily does. As I alluded to in my original post
of this thread, it may be no different then believing in an invisible
poached egg possessed of full volition that gives accurate stock tips.
I'm not claiming this belief (regardless of whether it reflects
reality or is pure delusion) makes on better or worse. I am simply
asking why one should deny their sincere experience in the absence of
any argument to the contrary (as an invitation to present arguments to
the contrary).
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&fil
ter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 05:25:52 PM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2gfk5hF2ffquU1@uni-berlin.de...
In other words, atheists. Not one of you ever has given a valid argument
which contains rational and logical constructs that can overcome or
invalidate the belief of one who has personal experience.
Sure we can. Experience.
I could have sworn that at the age of 12, I had a direct experience of Conan
of Cimmeria. Since Conan is clearly a fictional character, my experience was
false, and probably the result of the fever I was experiencing at the time.
So, experience teaches us that personal experience is insufficent as a means
of validating our experiences.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 02:36:49 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> feverishly wrote in message news
Sure we can. Experience.
I could have sworn that at the age of 12, I had a direct experience of Conan
of Cimmeria. Since Conan is clearly a fictional character, my experience was
false, and probably the result of the fever I was experiencing at the time.
So you did not experience Conan. You experienced a fever. Once again,
an experience of God is an on-going experience. It does not
necessarily come because of drugs, illness, mental defect or sudden
lapses into psychosis. Once again, the argument you are bringing is
that all experiences must have a basis in bad brain chemistry. My
argument is that the human brain is born with the capacity to have a
spiritual experience and that certain things, like fevers, drugs, etc.
MIMIC some but never all of that spiritual experience. Any Spiritual
experience that cannot be manifested without fasting, drugs, alcohol,
fevers, etc. certainly has to be questioned. No doubt no living human
being would have ever thought you actually saw Conan the Barbarian in
that state. I'm sure your mommy even told you that. But id Conan of
Cimmeria is as close as you've come to God, well, By Crom, I feel for
you laddy!
So, experience teaches us that personal experience is insufficent as a means
of validating our experiences.
Of course you mean that your personal experience was negated as valid
by the fact that you were suffering with a fever. Your experience has
absolutely nothing to do with God, with the experience of Spirit or
with the over-all experiences of everyone who has experienced God. But
it has a lot to do with what kind of tripe a person thinks up when one
has a temperature of 104. I've been there. Wrote a poem about it. But
didn't see or talk to God on any of the three ocassions I became that
ill. In fact I spoke directly with angels when I was feeling quite
well, was relaxed and calm. I was given certain information that
helped me cure a minor skin ailment that was afflicting me. But that
was the extent of my mental state at the time. It was as unagitated as
one can get in a nice, warm bath, listening to good music and just
thinking. So again, why would I compare your experience to mine?
Saint Anatid the Grate
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 06:53:31 PM |
|
|
And it came to pass that "angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> did
write in alt.atheism, news:2gfk5hF2ffquU1@uni-berlin.de:
In other words, atheists. Not one of you ever has given a valid
argument which contains rational and logical constructs that can
overcome or invalidate the belief of one who has personal experience.
"You can't reason a person out of a position they did not reach through
reason".
For some (perhaps most) believers, no argument or evidence _would_ persuade
them otherwise; their personal experience is all they need, and no evidence
or argument is ever going to overturn that. Their reason has been short-
circuited by belief.
That's not a failure of atheism. What you ask for is based on a flawed
premise.
Once a long time ago, two hundred years or so. Science was convinced
that if a person went over the speed of twenty five miles an hour they
would pass out and die.
While some people came to this conclusion once, it wasn't very long before
the flaws in their reasoning were identified and corrected. That's how
science works. How many people believe it now? We know better because
science furthered our knowledge.
<snip>
The question results: Should people have been afraid to go faster
because science said if they went 25mph they would curl up and die? Or
should they have done what they did and simply go that fast to see
what would happen?
If they were good scientists they would have tested their hypothesis by
seeing what happens when you go that fast. Which is what happened (although
the people that did it would probably have called themselves engineers
rather than scientists).
Question: If I say I talk to God and I say you can talk to God, what
is it about scientific rationale that makes you all scared to talk to
God?
Several points:
* Many scientists are religious and have no problems conversing with the
their deity.
* There is no common agreement as to what is meant by the letter string G-
o-d. Different religions have mutually contradictory ideas of what G-o-d
means.
* "Talking to God" begs the question of the existence of God. To accept
your question is to accept the unsupported assertion that God exists.
* The religious experience can be duplicated in the lab. How can you
demonstrate what you experience is the "real deal" and not due to some
natural process or state of your brain? To say it is God is premature if
you haven't ruled out these avenues. Would you be able to accept it if in X
years time, scientists were able to find a naturalistic explanation for
your experience?
You believe that if you talk to God, you are somehow deluded, insane,
or
dysfunctional. Has science scared you that much? Well the answer is,
time to let your soul do what it wants to do and screw science.
So if my 'soul' (whatever that is) tells me to go out and kill (as a few
people claim it does), I should do it. Do you realise the complete moral
bankruptcy your statement implies?!
<snip>
Now at what point do the rationalists at alt.atheism ever agree that I
or any theist is as rational as they are? Only when we drop our
beliefs and flock to their banner.
Atheism does not necessarily imply rationalism, although many atheists are
rationalists. Some of the best rationalists I have ever met have been
theists. They just compartmentalise religion and science in their minds and
ne'er the twain shall meet.
Well, good luck with all that.
Personal experience cannot be simply swept away by rationalism and
logic. Mankind has known this forever.
Agreed. But that's human nature. Most people believe whatever they want and
to hell with contrary evidence or arguments.
But atheists truly think that
by bowing down only to the Scientific Method, that all will be
revealed to them and they will not have to worry they are insane.
No. We have very good reasons to suspect that we cannot know everything
through science. But what we *do* know is enough to wipe the floor with the
testable claims of most the world's religions and superstitions.
<rant snipped>
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 09:40:22 PM |
|
|
angelicusrex wrote:
In other words, atheists. Not one of you ever has given a valid argument
which contains rational and logical constructs that can overcome or
invalidate the belief of one who has personal experience.
Yes, I can. And did.
And you killfiled me and ran away.
You lose.
Cheerful Charlie
Once a long time ago, two hundred years or so. Science was convinced that
if a person went over the speed of twenty five miles an hour they would
pass out and die. They had nothing to base this theory on, since nothing
they knew of traveled that fast with a man aboard. When the first railroad
engines were built and speeds of travel became enhanced, people were
frightened by this scientifically advanced theory of acceleration. It was
found that at 25 mph the effect on the human body was nothing, that 85 mph
was nothing, that 125 mph was of little effect. One literally has to blast
through the sound barrier at double speed going straight up with about the
force of ten gravities to actually pass out. The unconsciousness lasts a
mere second as the body adjusts. G-suits keep astronauts from passing out
at all. Once outside the gravity of earth a person, it has been found can
go 35,000 mph without even feeling it.
Now this should have been easily inferred, since the planet we live on
travels at an incredible rate of speed through the universe and around the
sun and we do not even know we are moving.
The question results: Should people have been afraid to go faster because
science said if they went 25mph they would curl up and die? Or should they
have done what they did and simply go that fast to see what would happen?
Question: If I say I talk to God and I say you can talk to God, what is it
about scientific rationale that makes you all scared to talk to God?
You believe that if you talk to God, you are somehow deluded, insane, or
dysfunctional. Has science scared you that much? Well the answer is, time
to let your soul do what it wants to do and screw science. Science and God
are not talking. It is people and God who talk with one another. Science
is, as I have said on more than one occasion, not the only way to
communicate the truth. If you worship science and place it above your own
innate capacity to find things out for yourself, you are actually misusing
science. Science does not run us, we run science. Science is man-made. Man
is God-made.
Now at what point do the rationalists at alt.atheism ever agree that I or
any theist is as rational as they are? Only when we drop our beliefs and
flock to their banner. Well, good luck with all that. Personal experience
cannot be simply swept away by rationalism and logic. Mankind has known
this forever. But atheists truly think that by bowing down only to the
Scientific Method, that all will be revealed to them and they will not
have to worry they are insane.
Well let me let some air out of that balloon. I've talked to some of you
who are clearly nuts. And I've talked to believers who are clearly
rational. Will the nuts among you believe me? Not no, but hell no. Because
your dogma is even more solid than that of True Believers! Most nuts
adamantly believe and know they are not insane, but that the rest of the
world probably is. So please, look in the mirror when you talk about
people being irrational. Just because you can play logic games does not
make you the least bit reasonable, or any more rational than Hitler or
Hannibal Lecter or any other psycho, fictional or real. And guess what.
Believing in God and knowing God does NOT automatically make other people
less reasonable than you are. When you insist that others who believe are
wrong because they will not allow their experience to be falsifiable or
follow your rationality concerning the non-existence of a God, you are
simply subjecting them to your will and being absolutely subjective about
their mental condition, etc. because at no time has any atheists brought
to bear a logical construct that banishes God from the world of Man.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120841.6aed14d6@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<OSdoc.15086$BG1.12950@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "burden". This though
experiment does not shift the burden of proof becuase it does not
claim the burden is on the atheist. The argument is not that atheists
are required to give any arguments. The point was to simply invite
them to present an argument voluntarily.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
I don't think it necessarily does. As I alluded to in my original post
of this thread, it may be no different then believing in an invisible
poached egg possessed of full volition that gives accurate stock tips.
I'm not claiming this belief (regardless of whether it reflects
reality or is pure delusion) makes on better or worse. I am simply
asking why one should deny their sincere experience in the absence of
any argument to the contrary (as an invitation to present arguments to
the contrary).
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&fil
ter=0
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
12 May 2004 11:47:24 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:40a2f5f8$0$17091$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com...
angelicusrex wrote:
In other words, atheists. Not one of you ever has given a valid argument
which contains rational and logical constructs that can overcome or
invalidate the belief of one who has personal experience.
Yes, I can. And did.
And you killfiled me and ran away.
You lose.
Cheerful Charlie
And, of cource, he's ignoring the Deconversion List which has over
60 former theists on it - most of them ex-Christians.
Oncence a long time ago, two hundred years or so. Science was convinced
that
if a person went over the speed of twenty five miles an hour they would
pass out and die. They had nothing to base this theory on, since nothing
they knew of traveled that fast with a man aboard. When the first
railroad
engines were built and speeds of travel became enhanced, people were
frightened by this scientifically advanced theory of acceleration. It
was
found that at 25 mph the effect on the human body was nothing, that 85
mph
was nothing, that 125 mph was of little effect. One literally has to
blast
through the sound barrier at double speed going straight up with about
the
force of ten gravities to actually pass out. The unconsciousness lasts a
mere second as the body adjusts. G-suits keep astronauts from passing
out
at all. Once outside the gravity of earth a person, it has been found
can
go 35,000 mph without even feeling it.
Now this should have been easily inferred, since the planet we live on
travels at an incredible rate of speed through the universe and around
the
sun and we do not even know we are moving.
The question results: Should people have been afraid to go faster
because
science said if they went 25mph they would curl up and die? Or should
they
have done what they did and simply go that fast to see what would
happen?
Question: If I say I talk to God and I say you can talk to God, what is
it
about scientific rationale that makes you all scared to talk to God?
You believe that if you talk to God, you are somehow deluded, insane,
or
dysfunctional. Has science scared you that much? Well the answer is,
time
to let your soul do what it wants to do and screw science. Science and
God
are not talking. It is people and God who talk with one another. Science
is, as I have said on more than one occasion, not the only way to
communicate the truth. If you worship science and place it above your
own
innate capacity to find things out for yourself, you are actually
misusing
science. Science does not run us, we run science. Science is man-made.
Man
is God-made.
Now at what point do the rationalists at alt.atheism ever agree that I
or
any theist is as rational as they are? Only when we drop our beliefs and
flock to their banner. Well, good luck with all that. Personal
experience
cannot be simply swept away by rationalism and logic. Mankind has known
this forever. But atheists truly think that by bowing down only to the
Scientific Method, that all will be revealed to them and they will not
have to worry they are insane.
Well let me let some air out of that balloon. I've talked to some of you
who are clearly nuts. And I've talked to believers who are clearly
rational. Will the nuts among you believe me? Not no, but hell no.
Because
your dogma is even more solid than that of True Believers! Most nuts
adamantly believe and know they are not insane, but that the rest of the
world probably is. So please, look in the mirror when you talk about
people being irrational. Just because you can play logic games does not
make you the least bit reasonable, or any more rational than Hitler or
Hannibal Lecter or any other psycho, fictional or real. And guess what.
Believing in God and knowing God does NOT automatically make other
people
less reasonable than you are. When you insist that others who believe
are
wrong because they will not allow their experience to be falsifiable or
follow your rationality concerning the non-existence of a God, you are
simply subjecting them to your will and being absolutely subjective
about
their mental condition, etc. because at no time has any atheists brought
to bear a logical construct that banishes God from the world of Man.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is
a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120841.6aed14d6@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<OSdoc.15086$BG1.12950@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden
of
proof.
But it does. It asks the atheist to make a point.
I think you're misunderstanding the notion of "burden". This though
experiment does not shift the burden of proof becuase it does not
claim the burden is on the atheist. The argument is not that atheists
are required to give any arguments. The point was to simply invite
them to present an argument voluntarily.
I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to
be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and
the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It
is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
I'd say, Fine, believe that way.
Then I'd ask if it made them better than someone
who believes in Vishnu or no gods.
I don't think it necessarily does. As I alluded to in my original post
of this thread, it may be no different then believing in an invisible
poached egg possessed of full volition that gives accurate stock tips.
I'm not claiming this belief (regardless of whether it reflects
reality or is pure delusion) makes on better or worse. I am simply
asking why one should deny their sincere experience in the absence of
any argument to the contrary (as an invitation to present arguments to
the contrary).
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&fil
ter=0
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
13 May 2004 04:37:03 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message news
Yes, I can. And did.
And you killfiled me and ran away.
You lose.
Cheerful Charlie
Killfiling Cheerful Charlie is a coup in my book. I win!
And, of cource, he's ignoring the Deconversion List which has over
60 former theists on it - most of them ex-Christians.
What does such a list have to do with anything? I said you could not
bring arguments to make believers into unbelievers. Those who have
"deconverted" all sixty of them, did not do so because some atheist's
argument was valid. They did so because they saw something or
experienced something which made them lose what little faith they had
in their CHRISTIAN concepts. As I said earlier, not everyone who
believes in A God is A Christian. Or A Jew or A Muslim. Try to get
that into your thick heads. You can't keep arguing from an
anti-Christian viewpoint and expect me to take you seriously. If a man
says to me, I hate Blacks. I walk away. If a man says to me I hate
Jesus, I ask why. If he says I hate Jews. And Jesus was a Jew. I walk
away. Racism is not an argument. Neither is hating of any given Faith.
You may hate Christianity and so may a lot of Ex Christians, which I
cannot fault them for. But it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
God I speak about. If you hate Christianity you don't necessarily have
to hate God. God is not the copyrighted property of Jews and
Christians. As I have already informed you. So you guys are just off
on your own tangent and Nicodemus has secured, as I said, only
arguments against what is wrong with Christianity.
I win again!
Saint Anatid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
13 May 2004 04:49:33 PM |
|
|
"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0405131337.3b3d4184@posting.google.com...
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message news
Yes, I can. And did.
And you killfiled me and ran away.
You lose.
Cheerful Charlie
Killfiling Cheerful Charlie is a coup in my book. I win!
And, of cource, he's ignoring the Deconversion List which has over
60 former theists on it - most of them ex-Christians.
What does such a list have to do with anything? I said you could not
bring arguments to make believers into unbelievers. Those who have
"deconverted" all sixty of them, did not do so because some atheist's
argument was valid. They did so because they saw something or
experienced something which made them lose what little faith they had
in their CHRISTIAN concepts.
I'm curious, just how the ***** do you know that? Did you read their minds?
Are you omniscient?
As I said earlier, not everyone who
believes in A God is A Christian. Or A Jew or A Muslim. Try to get
that into your thick heads. You can't keep arguing from an
anti-Christian viewpoint and expect me to take you seriously. If a man
says to me, I hate Blacks. I walk away. If a man says to me I hate
Jesus, I ask why. If he says I hate Jews. And Jesus was a Jew. I walk
away. Racism is not an argument. Neither is hating of any given Faith.
You may hate Christianity and so may a lot of Ex Christians, which I
cannot fault them for. But it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
God I speak about. If you hate Christianity you don't necessarily have
to hate God. God is not the copyrighted property of Jews and
Christians. As I have already informed you. So you guys are just off
on your own tangent and Nicodemus has secured, as I said, only
arguments against what is wrong with Christianity.
I win again!
When you arbitrarily invent the other side of the argument, it's easy to
win!
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 02:25:51 AM |
|
|
Descending into madness"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news
I'm curious, just how the ***** do you know that? Did you read their minds?
Are you omniscient?
Now, now, watch your language there are ladies and witches present!
Uhm, I figured it out in this wise: I was told there was a list of
deconverts. I was told it was a list nearly completely full of
Christians. So I put two and two together. Elementary my dear Denis.
I've known plenty of Christians who can no longer swallow Christian
precepts and so have their "Crisis of Faith." I would of course love
to hear from any Muslims or Jews in that group who stopped having
faith in their God because an atehist with a foul mouth told them how
insane they were.
Again, I don't think you chaps are getting the point. You haven't
brought any arguments forward that would ever convince a person who
has had a legitimate personal contact with his or her deity to drop
that belief, just on the grounds it may seem illogical to a couple of
foul mouthed atheist prats.
When you arbitrarily invent the other side of the argument, it's easy to
win!
No I win when no foul-mouthed atheist prat can bring to bear any
sensible argument for their postion without ad hominem, broad-brushed,
red herring filled strawmen attacks on the other party's argument.
The way I see it is this, Denny, you are spitting and blubbering
about me "bothering "you on your little NG. Well, you invited me a
long while ago to prove the existence of God. I believe I have done
that. You believe I have not. But instead of attacking my arguments
you attack me personally. When that doesn't suddenly make me go away,
you start the verbal abuses. Which really in terms of rational
argument makes you look like the worst kind of loser.
You don't seem a very smart chap to me. If I were you I would seek
some form of anger management therapy. If one little guy like me can
come along and distrupt your little party and make you that angry that
you have to spout off in two posts with bad language, I can't imagine
what would happen in a case of someone who really wanted to get your
goat. You might have an embolism!
You take care now. Watch those BP levels and the stress.
Saint Anatid the Grate
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
13 May 2004 05:12:57 PM |
|
|
On 13 May 2004 14:37:03 -0700, (Anatid Bonecki)
wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message news
Yes, I can. And did.
And you killfiled me and ran away.
You lose.
Cheerful Charlie
Killfiling Cheerful Charlie is a coup in my book. I win!
And, of cource, he's ignoring the Deconversion List which has over
60 former theists on it - most of them ex-Christians.
What does such a list have to do with anything? I said you could not
bring arguments to make believers into unbelievers. Those who have
"deconverted" all sixty of them, did not do so because some atheist's
argument was valid. They did so because they saw something or
experienced something which made them lose what little faith they had
in their CHRISTIAN concepts. As I said earlier, not everyone who
believes in A God is A Christian. Or A Jew or A Muslim. Try to get
that into your thick heads. You can't keep arguing from an
anti-Christian viewpoint and expect me to take you seriously.
Idiot. What part of "nobody would give a toss about your ridiculous
beliefs if you didn't rub them in our faces" are you pretending not to
understand?
If a man
says to me, I hate Blacks. I walk away. If a man says to me I hate
Jesus, I ask why. If he says I hate Jews. And Jesus was a Jew. I walk
away. Racism is not an argument. Neither is hating of any given Faith.
You may hate Christianity and so may a lot of Ex Christians, which I
cannot fault them for. But it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
God I speak about. If you hate Christianity you don't necessarily have
to hate God. God is not the copyrighted property of Jews and
Christians. As I have already informed you. So you guys are just off
on your own tangent and Nicodemus has secured, as I said, only
arguments against what is wrong with Christianity.
I win again!
In your dreams, moron.
Saint Anatid
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 02:13:00 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<
Idiot. What part of "nobody would give a toss about your ridiculous
beliefs if you didn't rub them in our faces" are you pretending not to
understand?
I'm pretending not to understand the third word in the first part of
the second line. If that's O.K. with you.
In your dreams, moron.
Tsk, tsk. Guess your IQ can only take so much before it explodes back
into fragments of Hillbillyisms.
Saint Anatid
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
11 May 2004 06:26:15 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405111454.2378c40d@posting.google.com...
In a post from Tuesday, 11 May 2004 "angelicusrex"
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote the following in the "Does God exist:"
thread:
Don't tell me there is no God. I've met Him.
He has done this as part of an attempt to paint the positive atheist
(or atheists in general?) as the positive claimant of the
theism-atheism debate. I do not agree with all his points, but I think
the statement above can be of some relevance to the debate. Many
theists claim (and sincerely believe) that they have a relationship
with God. Now some atheists may claim that they are simply delusional,
despite the sincerity of their belief, and this claim may very well
turn out to be true. Nonetheless, suppose a theist argued roughly
along Angelicus Rex's point, and stated the following:
"I feel that I experience God every day. I see no more reason to
deny God's existence than to deny the existence of objective
reality. Why, then, should I assume that the opposite of my
experience is the actual fact of the matter? Why should I not go
on believing that I am really experiencing God's presence if
you cannot give an argument that shows my belief is rationally
objectionable or non-veridical?"
The fact that his claim IS non-veridical is enough to dismiss it.
Since they provide no evidence, and their testimonial is not evidence,
there's nothing to argue.
Now, keep in mind that this does not effectively shift the burden of
proof. I do not mean to present this as a reason why the burden is on
the atheist. Nor do I wish to argue that every atheist must answer
this question (those who do not believe in God and simply wish to be
left alone, are not required to engage in debate with theists).
However, if you actively take part in theist-atheist debate, and the
theist side offered the statement above, how would you respond? It is
an invitation to present your atheological arguments (if any).
Some might respond that we could do this with any delusion (assuming
theism is a delusion). How would the above be different from a man who
sincerely believes than an invisible poached egg fully possessed of
volition gives him accurate stock tips? Well, admittedly, in a vacuum,
there is no difference. But I'm trying to argue that a rational or
reasonable theist is asking this question.
You have to establish that there IS such a thing as a rational and
reasonable theist. This is not a joke, I'm serious. If a person believes in
something non-veridical and rationally objectionable, can they be considered
rational and reasonable?
In other words, the
statement above was uttered by a person who would change their
position if it was shown to be rationally objectionable.
They believe in something they attest is BEYOND falsifiability. Their belief
system deliberately closes off all possible avenues of examination so that
no rational or evidentiary argument is possible concerning their belief.
Thus the claim that they would change were their beliefs shown to be
rationally objectionable is a hollow position, since by the very definition
of their belief that cannot happen.
I think this makes for an interesting philosophical investigation...
It makes for a tour de force of defensiveness.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 02:58:13 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> fondly wrote in message news
The fact that his claim IS non-veridical is enough to dismiss it.
Since they provide no evidence, and their testimonial is not evidence,
there's nothing to argue.
So the testimony of an eye witness in a murder case would be, in your
opinion, inadmissable as evidence? You are in a jury, you never saw
the murder. You never saw the body or the weapon or the murderer. You
are just there to pass judgment on a man's life. So if an eye-witness
says: "I saw another man do this crime." You will pass the death
sentence on the guy you WANT to pass it on, because no "evidence" of a
veridical nature was offered? I wouldn't ever want you on any jury.
A thinking man looks at all the evidence, including expert testimony,
eye-witness testimony, circumstantial evidence and even in some cases,
hearsay, before passing judgment that denies another man his right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of his happiness.
However, I was not even "arguing" a position. I said "I feel I
experience God every day." So get a grip.
You have to establish that there IS such a thing as a rational and
reasonable theist.
No. You are trying, vainly to establish that all theists are
irrational and unreasonable. This is stereotyping and a fallacy. It is
broad brushing. And worse, it is a detestable way of mocking anyone
who would choose to argue with you before they start. You are just
really good at fallacio.
This is not a joke, I'm serious.
No you aren't. You are a joke.
If a person believes in
something non-veridical and rationally objectionable, can they be considered
rational and reasonable?
Since when was a belief in God concluded by anyone to be "rationally
objectionable?" That is an opinion of yours. Not a truism.
They believe in something they attest is BEYOND falsifiability.
So do you. You claim there is no God. Then you claim no one can argue
with you. Then you claim it is verifiable truth that no God exists.
These are opinions expressed by a person with deep rancor regarding
anyone who is a theist. So really your "arguments" are more
unreasonable and much more objectionable in this case.
Their belief
system deliberately closes off all possible avenues of examination so that
no rational or evidentiary argument is possible concerning their belief.
Testimony is considered evidence. The fact that there are religions
and God has been talked about and historically speculated upon for six
thousand years of written history is also evidence. You are simply
asking for a DNA sample or a film of God or some other PHYSICAL
evidence which has been denied to you. Mainly because you are not the
judge in this case. You are just a court-room on-looker. You have not
stepped forward to present a reasonable case with evidence against the
existence of God. So, no comments from the Peanut Gallery! Or By Crom
I will clear this courtroom and hold you in contempt!
Thus the claim that they would change were their beliefs shown to be
rationally objectionable is a hollow position, since by the very definition
of their belief that cannot happen.
Twisted logic there, son. Better check it. "Were their beliefs
shown..." But they have not been. So your argument is dead in the
water. The rest of what you said is absolute gobbeldy-gook.
It makes for a tour de force of defensiveness.
I agree, you are being quite defensive for no reason I can think of.
You can't prove God does not exist, so you insist others prove He does
exist. We have. By witness, by inference, by historical documentation,
by culture and even by science, Quantum Mechanics proves the universe
to be paradoxical and unable to be observed "objectively." Since it
acts differently with each viewer. A Photon recently has been proven
to be able to exist in two places at one time. This is a paradox. It
posits things like bilocation. The Universe, in fact is darned weird.
and does not always hang together like science thinks it does. As
Bowker said, science is fallible. And for that reason, because certain
things can in fact be shown to be false, that religion should be
regarded the same way. They may all be wrong about God. But that means
they are being wrong about SOMEONE.
Sorry, you still lose.
Read on Mac Duff!
Saint
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 04:53:23 AM |
|
|
"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0405142358.3a1967d5@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> fondly wrote in message news
The fact that his claim IS non-veridical is enough to dismiss it.
Since they provide no evidence, and their testimonial is not evidence,
there's nothing to argue.
So the testimony of an eye witness in a murder case would be, in your
opinion, inadmissable as evidence?
Huh? Where did that come from? We're not talking about a situation where
there's hard evidence. If you want to draw an analogy to what we're talking
about, then the person giving testimony is claiming there's been a murder
that he saw with his psychic powers. But is unable to present a body to
demonstrate that a murder even took place, and is also unable to demonstrate
psychic powers.
How convincing is that?
You are in a jury, you never saw
the murder. You never saw the body or the weapon or the murderer. You
are just there to pass judgment on a man's life. So if an eye-witness
says: "I saw another man do this crime." You will pass the death
sentence on the guy you WANT to pass it on, because no "evidence" of a
veridical nature was offered? I wouldn't ever want you on any jury.
WTF? Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I would do. In such a case, I
would vote not guilty, and wonder why the judge didn't throw out the case to
begin with. Testimony alone would not satisfy my requirements for "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
A thinking man looks at all the evidence, including expert testimony,
eye-witness testimony, circumstantial evidence and even in some cases,
hearsay, before passing judgment that denies another man his right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of his happiness.
Yes, and your point would be? You seem to be arguing in my favor.
However, I was not even "arguing" a position. I said "I feel I
experience God every day." So get a grip.
That's evidence that you have a feeling. But that's all.
You have to establish that there IS such a thing as a rational and
reasonable theist.
No. You are trying, vainly to establish that all theists are
irrational and unreasonable.
Do they all believe in unevidenced stuff? Then they're irrational and
unreasonable.
This is stereotyping and a fallacy. It is
broad brushing. And worse, it is a detestable way of mocking anyone
who would choose to argue with you before they start. You are just
really good at fallacio.
Well, Christians supposedly agree with their god that I deserve to burn
forever for being an atheist before any words are exchanged. Who's the
expert at fallacio?
Do they believe in unevidenced stuff? If they do, they're irrational. Anyone
who believes in unevidenced stuff is irrational, not just theists.
This is not a joke, I'm serious.
No you aren't. You are a joke.
No, you don't get to tell me if I'm serious or not. Is such arrogant
presumption common among theists such as yourself?
If a person believes in
something non-veridical and rationally objectionable, can they be
considered
rational and reasonable?
Since when was a belief in God concluded by anyone to be "rationally
objectionable?" That is an opinion of yours. Not a truism.
You're not answering the question. Can a person who believes in something
unevidenced be considered rational and reasonable?
If the belief in god was not arrived at rationally, then by definition it is
irrational.
They believe in something they attest is BEYOND falsifiability.
So do you. You claim there is no God.
Will you stop presuming to speak for me? I have made NO such claim. Why are
you lying and claiming I did?
And besides, the claim that there is no god can EASILY be falsified. The sun
stopping in the sky, for instance, would be an excellent start. Big-*****
miracles that leave hard evidence would be a strong falsifier of the no god
hypothesis.
But we don't see any of that stuff, do we.
Then you claim no one can argue
with you.
I've never made that claim either. You're lying.
Then you claim it is verifiable truth that no God exists.
I've never claimed anything like that. Why do you continue to lie to my
face? Anyone can go back through the posts and see that I make no such
claims. What's the matter with you, are you stupid?
These are opinions expressed by a person with deep rancor regarding
anyone who is a theist. So really your "arguments" are more
unreasonable and much more objectionable in this case.
Dude, the theist says "there's a god!" and the atheist says "I don't believe
you." That's all. Until you give us more than a wild claim, we'll continue
to not believe you.
Their belief
system deliberately closes off all possible avenues of examination so
that
no rational or evidentiary argument is possible concerning their belief.
Testimony is considered evidence.
Testimony of a flat earth is not evidence that the earth is flat. It's only
evidence that someone thinks it is.
The fact that there are religions
and God has been talked about and historically speculated upon for six
thousand years of written history is also evidence.
That's only evidence that people believe in gods. Not that gods exist.
You are simply
asking for a DNA sample or a film of God or some other PHYSICAL
evidence which has been denied to you.
Yes.
Mainly because you are not the
judge in this case.
I am the judge of what I will believe.
You are just a court-room on-looker. You have not
stepped forward to present a reasonable case with evidence against the
existence of God.
You have not presented evidence for the existence of a god, so I don't need
to do anything.
So, no comments from the Peanut Gallery! Or By Crom
I will clear this courtroom and hold you in contempt!
What is the case in the court? Is the prosecution saying there's a god? The
defense asks for evidence of this god. If none if forthcoming, the
prosecution has failed to make it's case. The defense wins by default.
Are you trying to suggest the atheist is the prosecution? In that case, the
atheist makes no claim and everyone can go home.
Thus the claim that they would change were their beliefs shown to be
rationally objectionable is a hollow position, since by the very
definition
of their belief that cannot happen.
Twisted logic there, son. Better check it. "Were their beliefs
shown..." But they have not been. So your argument is dead in the
water. The rest of what you said is absolute gobbeldy-gook.
Are the beliefs unevidenced? If yes, then they're rationally objectionable.
It makes for a tour de force of defensiveness.
I agree, you are being quite defensive for no reason I can think of.
Your argument seems to boil down to "I know you are but what am I". That
works with kindergartners, but I expect more from an adult.
You can't prove God does not exist, so you insist others prove He does
exist.
Well sure! That's how reason works.
We have. By witness, by inference, by historical documentation,
by culture and even by science,
Nope. That only proves that people believe in gods, and will twist the facts
to rationalize their beliefs.
Do you believe in astrology? Fortune telling? They've got the same backing
as your god.
Quantum Mechanics proves the universe
to be paradoxical and unable to be observed "objectively." Since it
acts differently with each viewer.
Even if that were true, that does not evidence a god.
A Photon recently has been proven
to be able to exist in two places at one time. This is a paradox. It
posits things like bilocation. The Universe, in fact is darned weird.
and does not always hang together like science thinks it does. As
Bowker said, science is fallible.
And none of this evidences a god.
And for that reason, because certain
things can in fact be shown to be false, that religion should be
regarded the same way.
As false? I agree, religion should be regarded as false.
But you meant to say that because nothing is 100% certain, then 100%
certainty in god is reasonable. I don't think so.
They may all be wrong about God. But that means
they are being wrong about SOMEONE.
You have not evidenced that there is a someone. You have only evidenced that
people will believe anything. We already knew that.
Sorry, you still lose.
Not until you evidence something.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
15 May 2004 05:12:11 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> argued his litle heart out in message
news:<>
Huh? Where did that come from?
From you. You just told me you do NOT believe the eye-witness
testimony I gave to Nicodemus about having spoken with God.
We're not talking about a situation where
there's hard evidence. If you want to draw an analogy to what we're talking
about, then the person giving testimony is claiming there's been a murder
that he saw with his psychic powers. But is unable to present a body to
demonstrate that a murder even took place, and is also unable to demonstrate
psychic powers.
Now you are stretching your own petty argument to the limit, Denis.
The "corpus" here is that for six thousand years of recorded history
people have been believing in and talking about God, His or Her
aspects, deeds, messages given to others, etc. etc. A mere two hundred
years before this present date people began to postulate that such a
God as had been thought to exist might not exist, or that our ideas
about such a being might be wrong. One or two people made the bold
statement that no such God ever existed. However they were unable to
prove this. Science has been unable to disprove or prove the existence
of God. Meanwhile people still continue to have encounters with God.
And because there is a wealth of personal testimony and no evidence
that their testimony is invalid on all counts nor that there is no
God, you have to accept the testimony.
You are mixing apples and oranges by mixing up my metaphpor to include
a possible psychic person who cannot prove they are psychic. The
subject of God has little or nothing to do with psychic phenomenon.
That is another subject entirely.
I am here. I am a witness who says there IS a God because I talk to
God all the time. God has most certainly proven Himself to me. I have
a personal relationship with God and nothing you say, do or argue will
ever change my mind. That was my initial argument and it was
Nicodemus' as well. Now you have gone about trying to say that people
who believe in God are unreliable witnesses, are believing in
outrageous unproveable ideas. But the real problem here is that your
science, your technology and your logic cannot even loacte God. So
therefore you have given up and said "There is no God." While all
along other human beings have been locating God every day for the past
six thousand years and most likely many thousands of years previous to
that. You want to say that because your very short sighted, unadept
techniques have not detected God, that God cannot exist. You will not
even philosophically consider the possiblity that your techniques are
limited at this time and that you may not even be looking in the right
place for God. I meanwhile tell people where they can find God. You
want to argue that they won't or they can't find God, fine. This in no
way makes you right. It just means you have an argument and an
opinion. And no argument you or any other atheist I have EVER known
comes even close to making me doubt the existence of a God I
personally know.
WTF? Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I would do.
Are you this brain dead? YOU told me what you would do! You just told
me that you do not accept my testimony because it offers no physical
evidence. So yeah, I can tell you what you would do, when you tell me
that is what you would do. Jesus. What are you? Nuts?
In such a case, I
would vote not guilty, and wonder why the judge didn't throw out the case to
begin with. Testimony alone would not satisfy my requirements for "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
You said that you would not accept an eye-witness tesitmony. You just
said it again.
You are obviously unable to follow any stringent lines of logic at
all. At any rate in your case, whatever you did would bring with it
the stigma of being stupid, cruel and illogical. You can't follow an
analogy without rearranging things to fit your warped perspective. You
can't follow any logical path without throwing in at least a couple of
fresh fallacies to either try and stifle the argument or throw people
off the track. You are trying desperately to make me look stupid.
When in fact the only one who appears stupid here is yourself.
A thinking man looks at all the evidence, including expert testimony,
eye-witness testimony, circumstantial evidence and even in some cases,
hearsay, before passing judgment that denies another man his right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of his happiness.
Yes, and your point would be? You seem to be arguing in my favor.
You claim to be a thinking man? I don't see how. You've shown me not
one shred of evidence that you can think. Just that you have a
tremendous ego. And you have said at least twice that you disregard
all testimonial evidence, all inferences of God from historical
evidence and that you think all believers to be irrational and
incapable of reason.
Do they all believe in unevidenced stuff?
Did Albert Einstein believe in "unevidenced stuff" when he postulated
the Theory of Relativity? Do you know he was laughed at and mocked for
years until people smart enough to follow him did the calculations?
Did you know we are only just now able to do experiments that reveal
he was correct on many points, but that he might have also been
incorrect on others? This is "belief in unevidenced stuff," my friend.
Then they're irrational and
unreasonable.
That does not logically follow. Just because A person believes in a
thing that has no evidence for which to back it up at this time, does
not posit that what he thinks is now unreasonable or irrational.
Well, Christians supposedly agree with their god that I deserve to burn
forever for being an atheist before any words are exchanged. Who's the
expert at fallacio?
Here you go, throwing in the red herring of Christianity again! No one
here is even mentioning the word Christ or Christian. God is NOT the
domain of Christians alone. Please put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Calling Christians experts in fallacio does not get you off the hook
for being one yourself.
Do they believe in unevidenced stuff? If they do, they're irrational.
Where do you get this stuff? Have you ever taken a logic class?
Anyone
who believes in unevidenced stuff is irrational, not just theists.
You are retarded. You really don't get it. Do you?
No, you don't get to tell me if I'm serious or not.
Yes I do. I generally get to choose to believe whether the person I am
debating with is serious or just flapping his jaws. You my friend, are
doing just that.
Is such arrogant
presumption common among theists such as yourself?
Ah, another generalization. "David was "seemingly" arrogant, this then
makes all theists absolutely arrogant. However I will cloak this
attitude of stereotyping as a rhetorical question, so it doesn't sound
like I am being an anti-theist." And this is exactly what you are. You
are not an "atheist." You are simply anti-theism. You don't like
people who believe in God. I think this is at the core of every
misapproach to this argument you have taken. You are exactly like a
man who hates Blacks or Hispanics or Native Americans. You just can't
get over the fact that they (or in this case, theists of any color,
race or creed) have to be lower than you somehow. There's no dealing
with a person like yourself. You are simply put, a bigot.
Get this through that tiny pate of yours, anyone can determine if the
person they are arguing with is worth arguing with. You are not. I
don't argue with bigots who cannot be civil or bring to bear some
authoritative process of logic to an argument. Arguing with you is
like arguing with Archie Bunker.
You lose. You bring nothing but fallacy, stereotyping and red herrings
to any argument you are in. Evidence is not needed in philosphical
discussions, you silly boy. You have no evidence for your case
whatsoever. And your consitent beating around the bush here just gives
me, and I'm sure all our readers, one big, fat headache.
I'm done with you now, Loubet. Like your pals Cheerful Charlie and
Robyn, you are just nasty customers with foul mouths, big egos and no
brains. You think that by running down someone until they cannot stand
your filthy mouths anymore is somehow the same as "winning" an
argument. Well you are wrong. In this case, you lose. My position is
firm. My arguments were good. And you brought nothing to the table at
all but anti-theist sentiments.
Saint Anatid the Grate
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Angelicus Rex (Dave?) has met God - Implications for the Atheist (was: "Does God exist:") |
17 May 2004 05:13:55 PM |
|
|
"Anatid Bonecki" <Anatid@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ac57a0d7.0405151412.28fa709c@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> argued his litle heart out in message
news:<>
Huh? Where did that come from?
From you. You just told me you do NOT believe the eye-witness
testimony I gave to Nicodemus about having spoken with God.
No, you said murder case. That implies there's evidence that someone has
been murdered, and you're seeking eye-witness testimony concerning that
murder. As an analogy to speaking with god, there could be no murder case
because there would be no evidence that anyone has even been murdered. Now,
someone can CLAIM that someone's been murdered, and that story can be
investigated, but without any evidence to back up that a murder has been
committed, no murder trial can proceed. Why have a murder trial if there's
no evidence a murder has been committed?
We're not talking about a situation where
there's hard evidence. If you want to draw an analogy to what we're
talking
about, then the person giving testimony is claiming there's been a
murder
that he saw with his psychic powers. But is unable to present a body to
demonstrate that a murder even took place, and is also unable to
demonstrate
psychic powers.
Now you are stretching your own petty argument to the limit, Denis.
No, I'm showing where your analogy fails.
The "corpus" here is that for six thousand years of recorded history
people have been believing in and talking about God, His or Her
aspects, deeds, messages given to others, etc. etc.
One testimony or a thousand, there's no difference. Especially if they're
all different. Testimony is considered better if it narrows towards a single
story. With gods we see the opposite.
| | | | | |
