| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
14 Aug 2006 07:03:35 PM |
| Object: |
Anybody care? |
Well, does anybody?
This is alt.atheism. Does anybody care if god is
disprovable or not?
Or is this a flame war newsgroup only?
Flame wars against Fred Stone, against Chung, against
Duke? Against youngopinion. Lorr, Pearson.
Any interest at all? none, next to none?
Pedofiles of the day more interesting?
All intellect dead on the net?
Does anybody actually ever read what I post, before
Gandy wades in?
Is AA a waste of all time and effort here?
Don't give a *****?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Re-Pasted Non-Novel Arguments? |
15 Aug 2006 07:23:11 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e4o86snrnucc7@corp.supernews.com...
Well, does anybody?
This is alt.atheism. Does anybody care if god is
disprovable or not?
If you had actually presented a proof that god *qua* god was disprovable as
you bragged that you could, I imagine most people would have sat up and
taken notice.
But the only thing you've come up with is either ancient arguments that most
everyone is already aware of or utterly illogical garbage that proves
nothing except that you couldn't construct a logical argument to save your
life.
Or is this a flame war newsgroup only?
You were the one who began the flame war on this subject, Barwell. You were
the one who met my modest criticism and the criticisms of others with
insults, obscenities, net-graffiti and ultimately faked FAQs aimed at
character assassination. You were the one who started altering titles,
crossposting to idiotic groups like alt.pro-wrestling and snipping headers.
And now you're bleating like a baby.
You've got no one to blame but you.
Does anybody actually ever read what I post, before
Gandy wades in?
My guess is that no one with anything valuable to do has read your garbage
for a long time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Gandy's ignorance |
14 Aug 2006 07:54:43 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
We know nobody gives a ***** for your canned ignorance.
When have you posted anything worth reading?
When have you posted anidea worth remembering?
You are about as useful as Chung or Duke in that regard.
So, that challenge, show us some quotes where what I posted here can be
found in a book.
You lied, didn't you?
---------------
GOD, FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN, AND EPICURUS
According to Calvinism and other similar theologies,
Man had free will, but original sin makes man tend
to doing evil.
God, knowing which men are made totally sinful from
original sin, and which will manage to handle original
sin, then preordains the latter to election, the
former to damnation.
But if god hates evil, and knows free will creates evil,
why did he not at the creation of original sin, just
wave an omnipotent hand at the problem and eliminate
original sin and all that evil?
Why did he wait 4000 years to allegedly do anything,
and that something that still allows people to be evil?
A solution that is mostly failure, as Calvinism
claims most people are doomed by evil from original
sin, perverse and eternally damned?
God is defined as all powerful and all good.
Epicurus's problem of evil notes with a god
that is both good and powerful, evil should not exist.
If god allows original sin to create evil with no attempt
to eliminate original sin, God his not good as dogmatically
claimed.
Since original sin destroys man's free will, making him
evil, if god values free will as many theologians claim,
he has a double duty to eliminate original sin at day one.
Doctrines of free will and original sin do not save god
from Epicurus and the problem of evil. Calvinism,
and Lutheranism are theological failures.
God is either not all good, not all power, neither,
or does not exist.
God's goodness, original sin and free will combine to show
the Christian god cannot exist.
----------
John Calvin on Original Sin and Human Nature, Predestination, and the
Sacraments
Extracts from Christianae Religionis Institutio (Institutes of the Christian
Religion) Calvin Op. ii. 3I sq. (edition of 1559) [The first edition of the
Institutes wars published 1536 when Calvin was twenty-six. It was several
times revised but there was no development in Calvin's thought after the
fast edition. Calvin's genius was for organization rather than theological
speculation]
Book II. chap. i . . . Therefore original sin is seen to be an
hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts
of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as the lack
of the original righteousness with which we should have been endowed, no
doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter, but they have
not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For our nature is not
merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it
cannot be inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong,
especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the
mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that
whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is
all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly, that
the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . .
Why did a good and all powerful god tolerate original sin then?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Jihad? |
15 Aug 2006 09:05:35 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e4r7o7vr3ptba@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
We know nobody gives a ***** for your canned ignorance.
Actually, it looks like you're being uniformly ignored, Barwell.
So, that challenge, show us some quotes where what I posted here can be
found in a book.
Been there and done that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AJJuliani" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Gandy's ignorance |
15 Aug 2006 08:43:05 PM |
|
|
God made man to have a choice. Having choice means that they have the
free will to sin. If God did not make man without the ability to
cognitively choose actions and thoughts, man would not be different
from the animals around him, who act on instinct and survival (which we
also do in many cases). Your argument is implying that God is good and
all powerful, yet you are saying why would he tolerate original sin
and not wave his hand. In the same way you can ask why a parent would
give his/her child freedom to make their own choices - because that
allows them to be human. If a parent treated their children like a dog,
kept them leashed and cages etc - then the child would not be human and
not have choice. Which gives a parent more pride, demanding and telling
that his/her child make the right choice - or giving them the freedom
to choose and watching them make the right choice. The problem is that
you are assuming that original sin eliminates man from having free
will. Think of it this way. You know that if you cheat on your wife and
she finds out she will be angry. She has the choice to be angry or not,
yet when she finds out, she will be angry or upset. But just because
she is angry or upset does not eliminate the fact that she had the
choice to be upset or not. If you are predestined to write back a harsh
response to this post, you still have the free will to do that or not.
Just because God knows what we are going to do, doesn't mean we don't
have the free will to make the choice, it just means he knows which
choice we are going to make.
AJ
wcb wrote:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
We know nobody gives a ***** for your canned ignorance.
When have you posted anything worth reading?
When have you posted anidea worth remembering?
You are about as useful as Chung or Duke in that regard.
So, that challenge, show us some quotes where what I posted here can be
found in a book.
You lied, didn't you?
---------------
GOD, FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN, AND EPICURUS
According to Calvinism and other similar theologies,
Man had free will, but original sin makes man tend
to doing evil.
God, knowing which men are made totally sinful from
original sin, and which will manage to handle original
sin, then preordains the latter to election, the
former to damnation.
But if god hates evil, and knows free will creates evil,
why did he not at the creation of original sin, just
wave an omnipotent hand at the problem and eliminate
original sin and all that evil?
Why did he wait 4000 years to allegedly do anything,
and that something that still allows people to be evil?
A solution that is mostly failure, as Calvinism
claims most people are doomed by evil from original
sin, perverse and eternally damned?
God is defined as all powerful and all good.
Epicurus's problem of evil notes with a god
that is both good and powerful, evil should not exist.
If god allows original sin to create evil with no attempt
to eliminate original sin, God his not good as dogmatically
claimed.
Since original sin destroys man's free will, making him
evil, if god values free will as many theologians claim,
he has a double duty to eliminate original sin at day one.
Doctrines of free will and original sin do not save god
from Epicurus and the problem of evil. Calvinism,
and Lutheranism are theological failures.
God is either not all good, not all power, neither,
or does not exist.
God's goodness, original sin and free will combine to show
the Christian god cannot exist.
----------
John Calvin on Original Sin and Human Nature, Predestination, and the
Sacraments
Extracts from Christianae Religionis Institutio (Institutes of the Christian
Religion) Calvin Op. ii. 3I sq. (edition of 1559) [The first edition of the
Institutes wars published 1536 when Calvin was twenty-six. It was several
times revised but there was no development in Calvin's thought after the
fast edition. Calvin's genius was for organization rather than theological
speculation]
Book II. chap. i . . . Therefore original sin is seen to be an
hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts
of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as the lack
of the original righteousness with which we should have been endowed, no
doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter, but they have
not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For our nature is not
merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it
cannot be inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong,
especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the
mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that
whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is
all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly, that
the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . .
Why did a good and all powerful god tolerate original sin then?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Gandy's ignorance |
16 Aug 2006 12:35:16 PM |
|
|
"AJJuliani" <AJJuliani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155692585.798515.21960@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
God made man to have a choice.
What god and please provide evidence it exists before continuing.
Thank you.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Gandy's ignorance |
16 Aug 2006 12:52:29 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4kh33qFc8q3pU1@individual.net...
"AJJuliani" <AJJuliani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155692585.798515.21960@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
God made man to have a choice.
What god and please provide evidence it exists before continuing.
That's EXACTLY the stance that atheism and science should be taking. Thank
you.
Atheism is not in a position where it should have to defend itself against
theism. Since a god is wholly unproved, it's the burden of theism to
provide the logic and the evidence, not the atheist.
Whenever atheists state they can prove there is no god, they're willfully
assuming a burden of proof that they do not rationally have. Living our
lives would be methodologically impossible if we had to consider everything
that 'might' exist before we made a move. We do not methodologically
believe in things for which there is no proof and insufficient evidence or
reason.
Therefore the burden of proof is rationally on the theist not the atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Gandy's ignorance |
14 Aug 2006 09:09:32 PM |
|
|
AJJuliani wrote:
God made man to have a choice. Having choice means that they have the
free will to sin. If God did not make man without the ability to
cognitively choose actions and thoughts, man would not be different
from the animals around him, who act on instinct and survival (which we
also do in many cases). Your argument is implying that God is good and
all powerful, yet you are saying why would he tolerate original sin
and not wave his hand. In the same way you can ask why a parent would
give his/her child freedom to make their own choices - because that
allows them to be human.
If a child acts bad because he or she has a brain
tumor, we get them medical help.
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
So if free will is important as you think, god would
destroy original sin:
1. Because it destroys free will
2. It creates evil, which supposedly god hates.
Suposedly, god creates man with no sense of knowledge
of good or evil and exepcts man to know it is evil
not to obey god.
What use is free wil without that knowledge then
expecting man to act as if he had that sort of
knowldege.
These bible tales simply make no sense.
A god that values free will, and hates evil and
is all powerful, simple would not act as the
bible depicts him acting.
If a parent treated their children like a dog,
kept them leashed and cages etc - then the child would not be human and
not have choice. Which gives a parent more pride, demanding and telling
that his/her child make the right choice - or giving them the freedom
to choose and watching them make the right choice. The problem is that
you are assuming that original sin eliminates man from having free
will. Think of it this way. You know that if you cheat on your wife and
she finds out she will be angry. She has the choice to be angry or not,
yet when she finds out, she will be angry or upset. But just because
she is angry or upset does not eliminate the fact that she had the
choice to be upset or not. If you are predestined to write back a harsh
response to this post, you still have the free will to do that or not.
Just because God knows what we are going to do, doesn't mean we don't
have the free will to make the choice, it just means he knows which
choice we are going to make.
AJ
This is nonsense, it misses the point. God is all powerful
hates evil, yet for 4000 years does nothing about original
sin that supposedly makes us do evil things.
This makes no sense.
A god that hates evil and is all powerful cannot exist if
original sin does.
wcb wrote:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
We know nobody gives a ***** for your canned ignorance.
When have you posted anything worth reading?
When have you posted anidea worth remembering?
You are about as useful as Chung or Duke in that regard.
So, that challenge, show us some quotes where what I posted here can be
found in a book.
You lied, didn't you?
---------------
GOD, FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN, AND EPICURUS
According to Calvinism and other similar theologies,
Man had free will, but original sin makes man tend
to doing evil.
God, knowing which men are made totally sinful from
original sin, and which will manage to handle original
sin, then preordains the latter to election, the
former to damnation.
But if god hates evil, and knows free will creates evil,
why did he not at the creation of original sin, just
wave an omnipotent hand at the problem and eliminate
original sin and all that evil?
Why did he wait 4000 years to allegedly do anything,
and that something that still allows people to be evil?
A solution that is mostly failure, as Calvinism
claims most people are doomed by evil from original
sin, perverse and eternally damned?
God is defined as all powerful and all good.
Epicurus's problem of evil notes with a god
that is both good and powerful, evil should not exist.
If god allows original sin to create evil with no attempt
to eliminate original sin, God his not good as dogmatically
claimed.
Since original sin destroys man's free will, making him
evil, if god values free will as many theologians claim,
he has a double duty to eliminate original sin at day one.
Doctrines of free will and original sin do not save god
from Epicurus and the problem of evil. Calvinism,
and Lutheranism are theological failures.
God is either not all good, not all power, neither,
or does not exist.
God's goodness, original sin and free will combine to show
the Christian god cannot exist.
----------
John Calvin on Original Sin and Human Nature, Predestination, and the
Sacraments
Extracts from Christianae Religionis Institutio (Institutes of the
Christian Religion) Calvin Op. ii. 3I sq. (edition of 1559) [The first
edition of the Institutes wars published 1536 when Calvin was twenty-six.
It was several times revised but there was no development in Calvin's
thought after the fast edition. Calvin's genius was for organization
rather than theological speculation]
Book II. chap. i . . . Therefore original sin is seen to be an
hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all
parts of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as
the lack of the original righteousness with which we should have been
endowed, no doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter,
but they have not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For
our nature is not merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every
kind of evil that it cannot be inactive. Those who have called it
concupiscence [a strong, especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word
by no means wide of the
mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that
whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is
all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly,
that the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . .
Why did a good and all powerful god tolerate original sin then?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Ignorance? |
15 Aug 2006 11:09:39 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e4vkdef5g0d1f@corp.supernews.com...
AJJuliani wrote:
God made man to have a choice. Having choice means that they have the
free will to sin. If God did not make man without the ability to
cognitively choose actions and thoughts, man would not be different
from the animals around him, who act on instinct and survival (which we
also do in many cases). Your argument is implying that God is good and
all powerful, yet you are saying why would he tolerate original sin
and not wave his hand. In the same way you can ask why a parent would
give his/her child freedom to make their own choices - because that
allows them to be human.
If a child acts bad because he or she has a brain
tumor, we get them medical help.
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
Read Calvin and Luther. Their argument is stupid. But then, so are yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Ignorance? |
15 Aug 2006 11:16:53 PM |
|
|
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e2996d$0$24167$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e4vkdef5g0d1f@corp.supernews.com...
AJJuliani wrote:
God made man to have a choice. Having choice means that they have the
free will to sin. If God did not make man without the ability to
cognitively choose actions and thoughts, man would not be different
from the animals around him, who act on instinct and survival (which we
also do in many cases). Your argument is implying that God is good and
all powerful, yet you are saying why would he tolerate original sin
and not wave his hand. In the same way you can ask why a parent would
give his/her child freedom to make their own choices - because that
allows them to be human.
If a child acts bad because he or she has a brain
tumor, we get them medical help.
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
Read Calvin and Luther. Their argument is stupid. But then, so are
yours.
And to that I should add that their arguments are good enough to offer cover
for those who already believe in their conclusions. That's the point about
most theological arguments. The conclusions only seem really 'valid' to
those who already believe in the conclusions.
If you concentrated more on valid logical form and less on desperately
trying to shove your pre-fabricated conclusions into the arguments, you'd at
least enjoy the luxury of being honest. That's what logic should be about.
To this day no one has yet come up with a logical conclusive argument for
the existence of a god. To this day, no one has yet been able to provide
empirical evidence of a god. That should be enough for an atheist to relax
and realize that the theists are the ones that have the burden of proof.
It's only cranks like you who pretend to be able to disprove the existence
of any god who end up making atheism look foolish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Ignorance? |
16 Aug 2006 01:57:49 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e2996d$0$24167$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
<snip>
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
Read Calvin and Luther. Their argument is stupid. But then, so are
yours.
And to that I should add that their arguments are good enough to offer cover
for those who already believe in their conclusions. That's the point about
most theological arguments. The conclusions only seem really 'valid' to
those who already believe in the conclusions.
Well said.
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so *passionately* interested in
theology i just dont know.
There was a poster called "Tichy" who used to post regularly to alt
atheism - He could out argue or at least equal any atheist in debate.
Obviously highly intelligent and well read - he was fiercly hated and
flamed.
I recognised that he was clever - and admired his rhetorical skill -
but I almost never directly debated him - because after a couple of
rounds we always reached the "agree to disagree" stage.
It seems to me that Theological debate is like Tic-Tac-Toe - If both
opponents understand the rules of the game (logic, rhetoric) and both
are of average intelligence or better the result is *guaranteed* to be
a draw.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Ignorance? |
16 Aug 2006 12:26:35 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1155711469.128768.143980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e2996d$0$24167$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
<snip>
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
Read Calvin and Luther. Their argument is stupid. But then, so are
yours.
And to that I should add that their arguments are good enough to offer
cover
for those who already believe in their conclusions. That's the point
about
most theological arguments. The conclusions only seem really 'valid' to
those who already believe in the conclusions.
Well said.
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so *passionately* interested in
theology i just dont know.
There's no accounting for what people will form an interest in. I know one
strong atheist [brilliant biologist] who has one of the most complete
libraries on religious 'miracles' I've ever seen. For him, the subject is
just a hobby that he finds endlessly fascinating.
But people like Barwell seem unable to rest secure in their own beliefs.
Eric Hoffer wrote a great book about such people many years ago. It was
called "The True Believer" and I think that it's still one of the best books
for an atheist to read. Hoffer studied the phenomenon of fanatic belief
like an anthropologist discovering a new tribe.
What Hoffer found was a kind of personality that grabs onto any notion as
though it were absolute and final. This personality type cuts across all
religious and political boundaries. Regardless of the belief or the
life-style we're talking about, the True Believer cannot be satisfied with
their own belief. EVERYONE must believe what they believe because what they
believe is a quasi religious 'revelation.' The atheist 'True Believer'
cannot be content to be an atheist. They must become an "Anti-Theist" They
have to flog what for them has become a 'belief' until everyone in their
social group, everyone they can reach has bowed to that belief.
For such a True Believer it isn't good enough that they're an atheist. It
isn't good enough that their social circle is filled with atheists.
Everyone must be an atheist. And everyone must be exactly the same kind of
atheist that the True Believer is.
Such drives lead to crankism of the worst sort. Any argument, however poor,
that supports atheism becomes 'profound' 'insightful' 'impossible to
refute.' Any criticism of an atheistic argument is automatically 'stupid'
'idiotic' 'irrelevant.' Anyone who disagrees becomes part of the Vast
Theocratic Conspiracy bent on silencing the crank from bringing his
Self-Evidently True Argument to the world.
True Believerism is the incubator for paranoia.
There was a poster called "Tichy" who used to post regularly to alt
atheism - He could out argue or at least equal any atheist in debate.
Obviously highly intelligent and well read - he was fiercly hated and
flamed.
I recognised that he was clever - and admired his rhetorical skill -
but I almost never directly debated him - because after a couple of
rounds we always reached the "agree to disagree" stage.
It seems to me that Theological debate is like Tic-Tac-Toe - If both
opponents understand the rules of the game (logic, rhetoric) and both
are of average intelligence or better the result is *guaranteed* to be
a draw.
Exactly. Although there are 'valid' arguments out there, the real truth is
that the conclusions are secondary to both sides. That's the first truth
about theological arguments. The second truth, is what you've noticed.
These arguments have been around for so long that the rhetoric has become
well-oiled and smooth, regardless of which side you're on. It's like a
Baroque dance. Both sides move in a mirrored fashion and come to rest
precisely where they were at the beginning of the dance.
There are some real debates. And I've seen quite a few atheists here who
honestly engage in real debate...or at least make the attempt. Real debate
deals with the structure of the argument and deals with it honestly.
But most thistic arguments are *ad hoc* in the sense that the conclusion is
already embraced in its entirety. The 'argument' is nothing more than a bit
of seeming rationality that the believer uses to create the appearance of
rational belief. Generally, one sees this only in theistic arguments.
Barwell is an exception. And because he is an exception, he worries me.
Atheism is a rational way of life. Perhaps one of the last rational ways of
life left in the world. When I see the earmarks of zealotry employed by an
atheist, and...much worse...the pretence of rational argument, I see that as
a real danger to intellectual honesty.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
15 Aug 2006 09:00:06 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Such a god, logically speaking would have destroyed
original sin onday one rather than pick his nose
ad let it create sin for 4000 years.
What this simply little observation shows is, the
bible is not logical, coherent or true. One of dozens
of little disconfirming cklams of the bible.
Dpite the shittings of Gandy, nowhere have I ever
seen that little thought, Original sin cannot exist
if gods is al powerful and all good and hates sin.
Nor have I ever seen anybody point out that if god
finds free will so desirable, god should destroy original sin
that destroys free will.
Since the free will defense is not a standard defense
against Epicurus and his PoE, this is a rather big
rebuttal to the free will defenders such as Alvin Plantinga,
about the third debunking of free will defenders I have
invented that guts modern Christian apologists on
teh point of free wil as a defense to Epicurus.
I am devoted to destroying bad ideas.
Because bad ideas have bad consequences.
Why is all of this hard for peole here on AA?
Simply, bad ideas are vulnerable. All you have
to do is try. Amazingly, few try.
I have tons of books, including most common Atheist's
books and tons of theology books.
Amazing, few really deal with these things adequately.
Original sin and free will as I lay it out above, is a
problem for a god that suposedly hold free will to
be more important that tolerating a little sin, the
claim of the free will defenders against Epicurus.
The standard claims that original sin makes us
do many evil things shows original sin destroys
out free will. An al powerful and all good god that hates sin
would on that pioint not allow it.
Logical simple, and yet nobody I know of has made that simple
argumemnt. On line you can find vast numbers of arguments between
Plantiga free wil defense suopporters and debunkers.
None of them snapped to this simple argument.
I am debunking bad ideas, because bad ideas have bad consequenses.
I am stripping all the bad excuses made to cover up the fact religion is a
bad idea.
I am doing a lot of good work. New arguemnst that debunk old apologisms.
And yet, nobody cares even a little bit, its just not interesting to
Atheists.
Because they have important flame wars to attend to, you see?
The free will defense of PoE and original sin clash fatally.
One would think at least one thoughtful Atheist on AA, might
find it at least mildly interesting.
Original sin is impossible if god is omnipotent and
omnibenevolent and if OS creates evil and other sins.
A few people have probably made that obvious argumemnt,
I have not seen it.
This simple argument guts christianity.
And is important in a world where a moron president
has convinced morons he talks with god and gets his
war orders from a christian god.
If I cannot get one idiot atheist at all interested
in this, how will we ever wean America off the idea
that an idiot christian president is getting orders
to lie us into war from god?
If athesist in AA can't pick up these obvious
disproofs and hit the swarms of theists who come
into AA on these things, how can we hope to
eventually spread these idea wide enough to discourage
Stupidities like Bush's claims he had orders from god
to invade Iraq?
But these things are not important, flame wars with Fred
stone, Duke, chung, Pangborn, Jabriol and others are,
you see, we have to pay attention to what is important in life.
one reason I wanted to post here was to play with these
ideas, develop them, look for input. Play with them, look
for suggestions as to best ways to phrase things.
I don't EVER get that. All I get is shittings from Gandy.
Everybody else has their all important petty flames
wars to attend to.
Its frustrating. I keep finding swarms of easy attacks
on bad ideas nobody else seems to have bothered with.
And there seems to be no interest in destroying bad ideas.
But flame wars go on forever.
Pangborn posts a forgery and the thread goes on forever.
I post a good attack on a stupid idea and all I get is
Gandy shitting, lying and pissing.
The intellectual level of the net in usenet and
forums is almost zero.
Where are all the people with brains?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 12:26:32 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e698mos0rlf6b@corp.supernews.com...
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
That's basically a lie, Barwell. If you really intended such an end, you
would be willing to respond honestly to criticism. There have been half a
dozen posters who have honestly ventured critiques of your arguments.
You've met all of them precisely the same way: with dismissive contempt or
with a kind of Jihad in which you indulge in obscene ad hominems, net
graffiti, re-edited titles, and even the posting of faked FAQs you've gotten
from right wing theocrats like Kurt Nicklas.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin is a dogmatic idea that has been debunked by scores of modern
atheists AND modern theologians.
Dpite the shittings of Gandy, nowhere have I ever
seen that little thought,
Then you need to read more and post less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
15 Aug 2006 01:43:04 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
That's basically a lie, Barwell. If you really intended such an end, you
would be willing to respond honestly to criticism.
You are not criticism.
You spew lies off the top of your head
and spew illogical nonsense. You make bad errors and
never let yourself be corrected.
Example, you have repeatedly blathered that things
like Judges 1:19 show that god cannot be omnipotent
so all my arguments against omnipotence are failed
and irrelevant.
Yet I show you omnipotence is te belief that almost
all Christians hold. I post from apologists sites to
show you that the Christaisn do NOT allow such things
as Judges 1:19 to count againts THEIR DOGMA that god
is omnipotent.
And you repeat the same, angry, blaring nonsense
again and again.
I respond to criticism, you do NOT. You just repeat
the same brainless crap.
I have dealt with HUNDREDS of stupidities like this from you.
What you means "I Gandy spew ***** and nonsense and you don't swallow
it whole and believe me and agree to kiss my butt and go away".
No.
I respond but since you are stupid and illogical and
unreasonable and incapable of thought, there is no
criticism to respond to.
When I do, for sake of other reading your ignorant
crap who may be mislead, as above on omnipotence, you
never respond to facts.
Once you blare out an angry error you never will be
corrected and you blare it out again and again and
again and again.
There is NEVER criticism from you, only insane nonsense
with no facts, no logic. Just your hate.
how many times would I have to hit you with your
obvious error above by dragging you to apologists
sites to show you that omnipotence is still dogma
among christians as you ignorantly declare is not true?
The answer is, you are no more going to admit your
error than Chung, or Duke will respond to facts or errors.
You are indeed a moron.
You never criticize, you rant crazy nonsense.
You are a kook that stalks me an makes it hard
to have a real discussion with real people.
You are not a critic in any way.
You can never bem because you are not smart or sane.
Go away, freak.
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the
eyes out of his Reason."
- Martin Luther
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell is a Liar |
16 Aug 2006 01:56:42 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e6pr7nc9lt721@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
That's basically a lie, Barwell. If you really intended such an end, you
would be willing to respond honestly to criticism.
You are not criticism.
I leave that to the judgement of the reading public at large. I and several
others posted specific, polite, and detailed criticisms of your original
posts. You responded with invective, paranoia, obscenities, net-graffiti
and ultimately faked FAQs designed as character assassination.
You spew lies off the top of your head
and spew illogical nonsense. You make bad errors and
never let yourself be corrected.
That's a lie. I am constantly corrected and amended. I've just been
corrected in a horrible flaw on Darwinism by Matt Silberstein and I try very
hard to own up to my mistakes.
Example, you have repeatedly blathered that things
like Judges 1:19 show that god cannot be omnipotent
so all my arguments against omnipotence are failed
and irrelevant.
That's another blatant lie and a good example of how you rely on lies in
your responses. I have never made a comment on Judges 1:19 and you cannot
provide a citation in which I ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 10:45:39 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things." - Isaiah 45:7
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
15 Aug 2006 02:19:59 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things." - Isaiah 45:7
Taken out of context.
Evil here means natural evil, floods, droughts,
epidemics.
God threatens the Israelites with these punishments
if they do not obey his commands.
Which they don't according to these bible tall tales.
How else to explain why they ain't all rich and famous.
"You bozos keep sinning and pissing off god".
God is still claimed to be all good. Its a dogma.
And its a dogma that creates logic problems despite
nonsense like above, which ANY GOOD XIAN APOLOGIST'S
SITE WILL EXPLAIN AWAY FOR YOU.
Like Gandy, you do NOT do the obvious, and look up
what the Christians say about THAT verse.
Is god evil (and thus not all good)?
Thi does NOT, for christians, mean god is not all good.
Like Gandy, you will not comtemplate that truism before
spouting off, and won't do your own homework.
Try googling a few apologist's sites on this verse.
Why are you wasting everybody's time with irrelevant
nonsense?
This doesn't make good not all good in eyes
of 2 billion christians, you don't know that?
That is tired old "village atheist" nonsense.
They answered that to their satisfaction two
centuries ago.
You are no critic either. Before posting nonsense
like this, check the apologist's sites.
That is who needs convincing. And don't think I don't
know all this crap, its all old as the hills.
These are games, I am trying to aim higher than
mere games like this.
I always check to see what the apologists have to say.
The scriptures clearly teach that God cannot be the author of evil. James
1:13 states "Let no one say when he is tempted. 'I am being tempted by
God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt
anyone." And further "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
variation, or shifting shadow." (emphasis added) We know that God is not a
God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Psalm 18:30 tells us "As for God, His way
is blameless" and "Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no
evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4). Also, "The Lord is righteous in all His
ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the
eyes out of his Reason."
- Martin Luther
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 02:29:26 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e6s0ff04gd2b1@corp.supernews.com...
Sniper wrote:
You are no critic either.
Of course not. How could anyone criticize Barwell the Great?
These are games, I am trying to aim higher than
mere games like this.
The radiance of your visage strikes mere mortals dead, Mr. Barwell.
But for all of that, your arguments are shot full of flaws and it's plain
from remarks like the above, that you're not here for anything other than
your own narcissism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 03:38:02 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
wcb wrote:
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Sniper wrote:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
things." - Isaiah 45:7
Taken out of context.
Evil here means natural evil, floods, droughts,
epidemics.
Because you say so? So "peace" must simply
mean a lack of floods, drought, epidemics?
There is no question that xtians trip over
their dicks trying to explain that passage
away. My point in posting this is twofold:
1) To show that the book that they worship
says their god was the author of all evil,
or at least of the potential for all evil.
2) There are xtians who will argue that it
means "natural evil", but there are also a
number who argue that god created the very
_potential_ for evil so man had free will.
It's a silly notion, but some do claim it.
God is still claimed to be all good. Its a dogma.
By you. There are scads of xtians who say,
when pressed, that their god allow evil to
be in the world. You pounding you fists on
the table insisting that all theists state
good is all good is argumentum ad nauseam,
but not backed by fact. Many xtians I have
argued with make the claim that without an
ability to do evil, man wouldn't have free
will. Therefore, their god created evil as
a means of having those options available.
And its a dogma that creates logic problems despite
nonsense like above, which ANY GOOD XIAN APOLOGIST'S
SITE WILL EXPLAIN AWAY FOR YOU.
Like Gandy, you do NOT do the obvious, and look up
what the Christians say about THAT verse.
Is god evil (and thus not all good)?
I don't give a flying ***** what _they_ say
it means. They twist meaning all the time.
Thi does NOT, for christians, mean god is not all good.
Like Gandy, you will not comtemplate that truism before
spouting off, and won't do your own homework.
Try googling a few apologist's sites on this verse.
I have, fuckchop, and not all sites try to
explain it away by "natural evil", like an
earthquake. Some explanations are that the
creator of evil creats potential for evil,
though few xtians would argue their god is
actually doing evil, they say he created a
potential for it so we can have free will.
Then there are those Calvinists who do not
believe in free will, who say god actually
created evil to suit his own purposes. The
point being, not all of xtianity agrees to
your claim that they say, god is all good.
Why are you wasting everybody's time with irrelevant
nonsense?
Why are you wasting everybody's time here?
Posting the same argument hundred of times
doesn't make it any more compelling, twit.
This doesn't make good not all good in eyes
of 2 billion christians, you don't know that?
That is tired old "village atheist" nonsense.
They answered that to their satisfaction two
centuries ago.
You are no critic either.
You are no philosopher, Barwell. You think
you are but do you even know how to think?
Before posting nonsense
like this, check the apologist's sites.
***** you. I did. Not only do some argue as
I've stated, but your dogged insistence to
get all your information from the internet
shows a huge lack of intellectual breadth.
I've actually had conversations with xtian
apologists. I don't think anybody would be
bothered wasting any time speaking to you.
[]
I always check to see what the apologists have to say.
The scriptures clearly teach that God cannot be the author of evil. James
1:13 states "Let no one say when he is tempted. 'I am being tempted by
God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt
anyone." And further "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
variation, or shifting shadow." (emphasis added) We know that God is not a
God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Psalm 18:30 tells us "As for God, His way
is blameless" and "Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no
evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4). Also, "The Lord is righteous in all His
ways, and kind in all His deeds." (Psalm 145:17)
:Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,'
:be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor
:of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . .
:it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to
:suppose God to be the author of sin. In this
:sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of
:sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist
:in the world is not the same as sinning. God
:does not commit sin in willing that there be
:sin. God has established a world in which sin
:will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's
:permission, but not by his "positive agency."
:
:It is evident from what has been said that it
:is not because he delights in evil as evil.
:Rather he "wills that evil come to pass . . .
:that good may come of it."
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/suffering/god_and_evil.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 08:26:45 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
That's true but the bad idea is the idea that their beliefs are
absolute and unquestionable - that they have access to absolute
knowledge - that idea is bad whether or not God exists.
God may be infinitely smart but that doesnt mean Pat Robertson or the
Pope is.
So being absolutely certain of the rightness of your position and using
authority to crush freedom of thought is a "bad idea" no matter what
you believe about God.
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Again these things are bad even if God exists and is infinitely good.
Perhaps - just maybe - George isnt in direct contact with an infinitely
powerful God?
Seems like a bad idea to just "believe" he is - whether or not God
exists.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin *is* a bad idea - on many levels.
Its basically a destructive and negative idea - and that is true
whether or not God exists.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Original sin is a concept incompatible with the notion of justice. Full
Stop.
Such a god, logically speaking would have destroyed
original sin onday one rather than pick his nose
ad let it create sin for 4000 years.
We can just say it is a bad idea - without speculating what an
infinite, ineffable, unreachable deity may or may not do or may or may
not want.
What this simply little observation shows is, the
bible is not logical, coherent or true. One of dozens
of little disconfirming cklams of the bible.
Well maybe God exists and the Bible is a poor description of him?
It doesnt matter - since individual ideas can be judged on their own
merits.
If they seem stupid, negative and destructive - then say I dissagree
with the Bible. Say it loud and say it proud!
<snip>
I understand that you are angry at the stupidity of the ideas and
beliefs of religious nutters.
Guess what - Me too!
You can reject the ideas and beliefs because they are all "bad ideas"
in themselves or how they relate to realities of our existence.
You can point out that hatred of homosexuals - for example - is unjust
and hurtful and destructive and the opposite of *love* , the opposite
of *compassion* - the only response THEY have is to say THEY KNOW the
mind of God.
Show them their arogance and presumption for their certainty that they
speak for the infinitite.
Encourage people to think about *love* *compassion* and *justice* -
which they all claim are exemplified/personified by their Jesus or God
or Allah.
If the idea/practice that they support is contrary to these principles
then maybe - just maybe - they do not speak for the god.
Attack the god - and people will defend it - becasue they *believe* -
attack a bad idea (female circumcision etc) on the the grounds of both
reason and *compassion* and *justice* and you may have more success -
because these people *believe* they worship a god that embodies these
things.
I admire your passion Bill - I sincerely do - I just want to see it
directed in a smart way.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 06:28:20 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
That's true but the bad idea is the idea that their beliefs are
absolute and unquestionable - that they have access to absolute
knowledge - that idea is bad whether or not God exists.
God may be infinitely smart but that doesnt mean Pat Robertson or the
Pope is.
So being absolutely certain of the rightness of your position and using
authority to crush freedom of thought is a "bad idea" no matter what
you believe about God.
This is bizarre. Its like saying we should not
argue murder is a bad idea because it crushes
freedom of thought.
Bad ideas feed bad actions.
Fighting bad ideas to end bad actions is not
"crushing freedom of thought"
This is trick rhetoric.
If the idea that Adam and Eve existed means science
teaching must be detroyed by fundamentalists that
idea Adam and Eve existed is bad and must be thought
to protect freedom of thought against fundamentalist
ignorance.
God is a bad idea that has created many other bad ideas from
creationsim, to Wahabisim and teh Taliban and more.
And it is not a matter of being "absolutely certain" but
of having hard evidence these bad ideas are false.
Having hard evidence, it is almost a duty to strugge to bring
this hard evidence to attention of as many as possible to end
the bad ideas of religious fundamentalism.
Evidenc ematters, not "absolute certanty" as the other
side is certain but has no proof.
This then is about evidence and destruction of bad
ideas by hard evidence.
Voting for a fool that gets his war plans for god,
throwing science education out of schools, harassing
homosexuals, and supporting a steady stream of
genocidal dictators and regimes, recent doings in
religious America are not acceptable.
Having made themselves noxious by such habits and a
deserving target, hard facts and hard evidence should
be brough to bear on the underlying bad ideas that
create these evils.
Understanding theology to destroy bad ideas is
an obvuiously logic necessity.
You cannot fight an evil culture war without knowledge.
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the
eyes out of his Reason."
- Martin Luther
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
17 Aug 2006 01:02:06 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
wcb wrote:
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
That's true but the bad idea is the idea that their beliefs are
absolute and unquestionable - that they have access to absolute
knowledge - that idea is bad whether or not God exists.
God may be infinitely smart but that doesnt mean Pat Robertson or the
Pope is.
So being absolutely certain of the rightness of your position and using
authority to crush freedom of thought is a "bad idea" no matter what
you believe about God.
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Again these things are bad even if God exists and is infinitely good.
Perhaps - just maybe - George isnt in direct contact with an infinitely
powerful God?
Seems like a bad idea to just "believe" he is - whether or not God
exists.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin *is* a bad idea - on many levels.
Its basically a destructive and negative idea - and that is true
whether or not God exists.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Original sin is a concept incompatible with the notion of justice. Full
Stop.
Such a god, logically speaking would have destroyed
original sin onday one rather than pick his nose
ad let it create sin for 4000 years.
We can just say it is a bad idea - without speculating what an
infinite, ineffable, unreachable deity may or may not do or may or may
not want.
What this simply little observation shows is, the
bible is not logical, coherent or true. One of dozens
of little disconfirming cklams of the bible.
Well maybe God exists and the Bible is a poor description of him?
It doesnt matter - since individual ideas can be judged on their own
merits.
If they seem stupid, negative and destructive - then say I dissagree
with the Bible. Say it loud and say it proud!
<snip>
I understand that you are angry at the stupidity of the ideas and
beliefs of religious nutters.
Guess what - Me too!
You can reject the ideas and beliefs because they are all "bad ideas"
in themselves or how they relate to realities of our existence.
You can point out that hatred of homosexuals - for example - is unjust
and hurtful and destructive and the opposite of *love* , the opposite
of *compassion* - the only response THEY have is to say THEY KNOW the
mind of God.
Show them their arogance and presumption for their certainty that they
speak for the infinitite.
Encourage people to think about *love* *compassion* and *justice* -
which they all claim are exemplified/personified by their Jesus or God
or Allah.
If the idea/practice that they support is contrary to these principles
then maybe - just maybe - they do not speak for the god.
Attack the god - and people will defend it - becasue they *believe* -
attack a bad idea (female circumcision etc) on the the grounds of both
reason and *compassion* and *justice* and you may have more success -
because these people *believe* they worship a god that embodies these
things.
I admire your passion Bill - I sincerely do - I just want to see it
directed in a smart way.
Mark.
Well said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
16 Aug 2006 06:40:29 AM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Richo wrote:
wcb wrote:
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
That's true but the bad idea is the idea that their beliefs are
absolute and unquestionable - that they have access to absolute
knowledge - that idea is bad whether or not God exists.
God may be infinitely smart but that doesnt mean Pat Robertson or the
Pope is.
So being absolutely certain of the rightness of your position and using
authority to crush freedom of thought is a "bad idea" no matter what
you believe about God.
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Again these things are bad even if God exists and is infinitely good.
Perhaps - just maybe - George isnt in direct contact with an infinitely
powerful God?
Seems like a bad idea to just "believe" he is - whether or not God
exists.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin *is* a bad idea - on many levels.
Its basically a destructive and negative idea - and that is true
whether or not God exists.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Original sin is a concept incompatible with the notion of justice. Full
Stop.
Such a god, logically speaking would have destroyed
original sin onday one rather than pick his nose
ad let it create sin for 4000 years.
We can just say it is a bad idea - without speculating what an
infinite, ineffable, unreachable deity may or may not do or may or may
not want.
What this simply little observation shows is, the
bible is not logical, coherent or true. One of dozens
of little disconfirming cklams of the bible.
Well maybe God exists and the Bible is a poor description of him?
It doesnt matter - since individual ideas can be judged on their own
merits.
If they seem stupid, negative and destructive - then say I dissagree
with the Bible. Say it loud and say it proud!
<snip>
I understand that you are angry at the stupidity of the ideas and
beliefs of religious nutters.
Guess what - Me too!
You can reject the ideas and beliefs because they are all "bad ideas"
in themselves or how they relate to realities of our existence.
You can point out that hatred of homosexuals - for example - is unjust
and hurtful and destructive and the opposite of *love* , the opposite
of *compassion* - the only response THEY have is to say THEY KNOW the
mind of God.
Show them their arogance and presumption for their certainty that they
speak for the infinitite.
Encourage people to think about *love* *compassion* and *justice* -
which they all claim are exemplified/personified by their Jesus or God
or Allah.
If the idea/practice that they support is contrary to these principles
then maybe - just maybe - they do not speak for the god.
Attack the god - and people will defend it - becasue they *believe* -
attack a bad idea (female circumcision etc) on the the grounds of both
reason and *compassion* and *justice* and you may have more success -
because these people *believe* they worship a god that embodies these
things.
I admire your passion Bill - I sincerely do - I just want to see it
directed in a smart way.
Mark.
Well said.
You either fight the culture wars leaf by leaf,
twig by twig or you move to the roots of the
tree.
This is what this is all about, go to the roots.
In the battle for minds, one needs a good reason to show
god, the bad idea at root of many other bad ideas, is a
bad idea in and of itself.
A god that is omniscient and creator of all and all good,
does not work. Thus all secondary ideas, Adam and eve,
creationism, jihad in name of allah are moot.
Kill dog, fleas and ticks die eventually.
Fighting leaf by leaf so far has not worked in
America here more people believe in Adam and Eve
as actual historical figures than evolution.
Strong arguments are need to be widespread and well
known and used.
If some lout starts a lawsuit to bring creationism
to a state's education system, scientists should be
able to point out that the god that underlies such
claism is impossible as shown by a few simple arguments
and creationism must therefore be wrong. That makes attempts
to force creationism tough, you get your god disproven in
a court of law officially.
Everytime the fundies make a move, the lack of a god
becomes THE issue as to why fundy ideas are bad.
Eventually this becomes a fundamental argument
all know and understand.
They can have their religion as long as the keep it
out of our laws and faces.
Its the only way to scotch this for once and for all.
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the
eyes out of his Reason."
- Martin Luther
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
17 Aug 2006 08:12:36 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e8letdnd8s1c5@corp.supernews.com...
Sniper wrote:
Richo wrote:
wcb wrote:
Richo wrote:
I can understand why those believers who are naturally inclined to
philosophical reasoning and argument would persue theology - to put
into a rational framework their own beliefs (aquired by non rational
process! ) and to justify - rationalize that belief to themselves and
others.
Why an atheist - like wcb - would be so passionately interested in
theology i just dont know.
Because I wish to strip all cover for bad ideas.
Bad ideas cause bad things to happen.
Bad idead have christians trying to destroy science
That's true but the bad idea is the idea that their beliefs are
absolute and unquestionable - that they have access to absolute
knowledge - that idea is bad whether or not God exists.
God may be infinitely smart but that doesnt mean Pat Robertson or the
Pope is.
So being absolutely certain of the rightness of your position and using
authority to crush freedom of thought is a "bad idea" no matter what
you believe about God.
education in Ameerica in name of bronze age fairly tales.
Bad idead have millions voting for a moron president
who swears he talks to god and god tells him to start wars.
Again these things are bad even if God exists and is infinitely good.
Perhaps - just maybe - George isnt in direct contact with an infinitely
powerful God?
Seems like a bad idea to just "believe" he is - whether or not God
exists.
Original sin is a bad idea that allows fools to
believe that somehow god is a good idea.
Original sin *is* a bad idea - on many levels.
Its basically a destructive and negative idea - and that is true
whether or not God exists.
Original sin should not exist if god is as claimed
in bible, all powerful and all good, and hates sin.
Original sin is a concept incompatible with the notion of justice. Full
Stop.
Such a god, logically speaking would have destroyed
original sin onday one rather than pick his nose
ad let it create sin for 4000 years.
We can just say it is a bad idea - without speculating what an
infinite, ineffable, unreachable deity may or may not do or may or may
not want.
What this simply little observation shows is, the
bible is not logical, coherent or true. One of dozens
of little disconfirming cklams of the bible.
Well maybe God exists and the Bible is a poor description of him?
It doesnt matter - since individual ideas can be judged on their own
merits.
If they seem stupid, negative and destructive - then say I dissagree
with the Bible. Say it loud and say it proud!
<snip>
I understand that you are angry at the stupidity of the ideas and
beliefs of religious nutters.
Guess what - Me too!
You can reject the ideas and beliefs because they are all "bad ideas"
in themselves or how they relate to realities of our existence.
You can point out that hatred of homosexuals - for example - is unjust
and hurtful and destructive and the opposite of *love* , the opposite
of *compassion* - the only response THEY have is to say THEY KNOW the
mind of God.
Show them their arogance and presumption for their certainty that they
speak for the infinitite.
Encourage people to think about *love* *compassion* and *justice* -
which they all claim are exemplified/personified by their Jesus or God
or Allah.
If the idea/practice that they support is contrary to these principles
then maybe - just maybe - they do not speak for the god.
Attack the god - and people will defend it - becasue they *believe* -
attack a bad idea (female circumcision etc) on the the grounds of both
reason and *compassion* and *justice* and you may have more success -
because these people *believe* they worship a god that embodies these
things.
I admire your passion Bill - I sincerely do - I just want to see it
directed in a smart way.
Mark.
Well said.
You either fight the culture wars leaf by leaf,
twig by twig or you move to the roots of the
tree.
This is what this is all about, go to the roots.
If you're going to go to the roots, you're going to have to know what you're
talking about and you're going to have to be honest. Neither is true of
you, Barwell. Your arguments are juvenile and derivative, and you don't
have the honesty to deal with criticism. You're arrogant. That's the
fundamental source of your zeal....not belief in the rightness of what
you're doing. That's your Achille's Heel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about good ideas that destroy bad ideas |
17 Aug 2006 01:26:44 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
[snip]
Everytime the fundies make a move, the lack of a god
becomes THE issue as to why fundy ideas are bad.
Eventually this becomes a fundamental argument
all know and understand.
They can have their religion as long as the keep it
out of our laws and faces.
Its the only way to scotch this for once and for all.
The way to "scotch this", is to ask them to
support their beliefs with evidence. You or
I aren't going to convince a theist to drop
their beliefs, regardless of the logic used
against their said beliefs. It has not been
accomplished throughout history, so why try
to do something you know won't work? Better
to say this: "If you want to legislate your
beliefs (ie; force us to accept them), then
it incumbent on you to prove them correct".
Otherwise, you're attempting to get them to
believe what you believe or do not believe,
which, again, is not likely to happen. Even
other atheists are skeptical of your claims
that you've proven that it's impossible for
_any_ god to exist, so why do you think you
can convince the masses of theists? There's
a much better chance to resist laws when we
reason for evidence to support them, rather
than try to convince believers to abandon a
belief they've likely held all their lives.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AJJuliani" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody care about Barwell's Ignorance? |
16 Aug 2006 05:54:09 AM |
|
|
if you could prove with empirical evidence that their is a God - then
their would be no need for faith. and faith is the choice we have here
on earth, to believe or not to believe in God. to have faith because of
this creation and because of this world - thats the test, otherwise if
their was undoubted empirical evidence that led people such as you to
come to a scientific conclusion, faith would play no part as it does
now.
aj
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e2996d$0$24167$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12e4vkdef5g0d1f@corp.supernews.com...
AJJuliani wrote:
God made man to have a choice. Having choice means that they have the
free will to sin. If God did not make man without the ability to
cognitively choose actions and thoughts, man would not be different
from the animals around him, who act on instinct and survival (which we
also do in many cases). Your argument is implying that God is good and
all powerful, yet you are saying why would he tolerate original sin
and not wave his hand. In the same way you can ask why a parent would
give his/her child freedom to make their own choices - because that
allows them to be human.
If a child acts bad because he or she has a brain
tumor, we get them medical help.
If man is now evil because of original sin, god likewise,
hating sin and evil, has no choice morally but to
eliminate original sin.
Why would god allow original sin, which he could
eliminate, to destroy mans free will because that
is what it does?
Read Calvin and Luther. Their argument is stupid. But then, so are
yours.
And to that I should add that their arguments are good enough to offer cover
for those who already believe in their conclusions. That's the point about
most theological arguments. The conclusions only seem really 'valid' to
those who already believe in the conclusions.
If you concentrated more on valid logical form and less on desperately
trying to shove your pre-fabricated conclusions into the arguments, you'd at
least enjoy the luxury of being honest. That's what logic should be about.
To this day no one has yet come up with a logical conclusive argument for
the existence of a god. To this day, no one has yet been able to provide
empirical evidence of a god. That should be enough for an atheist to relax
and realize that the theists are the ones that have the burden of proof.
It's | | | | | | | |
