Are you really THAT confused

Religions > Atheism > Are you really THAT confused

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Bill"
Date:	23 Sep 2006 09:12:17 PM
Object:	Are you really THAT confused

I occasionally enjoy using my computer without actually accomplishing
anything. Most of my computer time is spent as a Linux Systems
Administrator so the idea of mindless play is somewhat novel. A while
back I ran across Stumbleupon which lets me randomly browse web sites
in no particular order and it's since become quite a therapeutic time
waster. Since the sites pop up in a strange and disconnected sequence,
I never know what's next.
I have noticed some trends however. It seems that a significant
fraction of all the sites I run across are devoted to religion bashing.
Some are hostile, some are amusing, some are pathetically stupid.
What's especially odd is that these rants are at least as irrational as
what they condemn as irrational. They follow a predictable schema ...
Most often cited as evidence of the non-existence God is the so-called,
"Problem of Evil" (Theodicy). If God is Good and also all powerful,
there should be no evil. Since there is evil, God is either not good
and doesn't much care what happens to us or He lacks the power do
anything about it. Either way God is not worthy of our worship. Even if
God exists, he doesn't matter.
If God does not exist (or is insignificant), then all of the horrors of
human history can only be attributed to humans. Since these horrors are
commonplace in every age and in every culture, the brutality must be
characteristic of humans, so basic to our nature that it is our nature,
intrinsic to the very definition of humanity. Proving the non-existence
of God proves our own depravity. The acts of those who have killed
maimed, beaten, broken, brutalized and burned their fellow man in the
name of a non-existent God are in no way different from the acts of
those who make no claim to religious justification.
Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists. The folks making these arguments
imply they are moral and civil and tolerant, veritable altruists of the
first degree, they would certainly never do any of the things they
attribute to Christians. Of course we only have their word for that and
since they have already proved that humankind is boundlessly brutal by
nature their word is scant assurance. What these kinds of arguments
prove is that mankind has an innate affinity for violence and hate and
cruelty.
This brings up another flaw in the argument. Christian doctrine (at
least) has as a fundamental principle the proposition that we humans
really are as brutal and "inhumane" as the atheists have amply
demonstrated, that our thoughts are evil continually. This is the whole
point of Christianity, it's central thesis, its raison d'etre.
According to this doctrine (now established by those who deny it any
credibility), we should expect exactly the kind of behavior the
atheists condemn because it is our nature. People don't act savagely
because they are religious any more than they do because they are
political, people act like beasts because they think like beasts; our
depravity is part of our nature. This is the fundamental premise of
Christianity.
If there is evil and there is no God, then what is its source? It has
to be human nature, does it not? If it is our nature to brutalize each
other and we can't find any remedy in God, what then? The "Problem of
Evil" as so conscientiously documented by atheists doesn't disprove
the existence of God but it does prove that even if such a being does
not exist, He certainly should.
A variation on this theme is that individual believers behave badly so
the object of their belief must be false (or even non-existent). While
this is an obviously absurd argument, it's very common. The Crusades,
Inquisitions, witch hunts, persecutions, intolerance of free inquiry
and general rigidity prove that religious belief leads to brutality. To
do something evil in the "name of religion" proves that the
religion itself is false. Surprisingly, this protest is very popular
among those claiming superior intelligence. This logic is identical to
arguing that since people drive automobiles badly, automobiles are
false, or worse, don't exist. People behave badly because that's what
people do. Why they behave that way is a completely separate question.
It's also quite popular to ridicule people who have religious beliefs
as being irrational. While they may believe all manner of strange and
fantastic things and while they may be enthusiastically superstitious
about almost everything, it doesn't follow that their religion is
false. It only means that they have inflicted unnecessary difficulty on
themselves. What they believe their religion requires of them bears no
direct relationship to the validity of the religion itself. Again,
their irrationality is intrinsic to human nature and is certainly not
exclusive to those having religious beliefs.
The intent of the ridicule is, of course, to make the religion itself
appear foolish. If the illiterate buffoons act foolishly it's because
their religion is foolish. Easy targets. There have always been people
whose education and intelligence is at least the equal of any of their
contemporaries. Their apologetics are as astute and insightful as
anything their critics have offered. This complication introduces yet
another difficulty for those who revel in ridicule. People holding
religious beliefs are as diverse as those who despise them. There is no
stereotype, no simplistic caricature that has anything approaching any
general application.
Without theodicy and ridicule, most of the arguments against the
existence of God or the validity of religion quickly become trivial,
disingenuous and even, possibly, dishonest. What makes this an
especially egregious affront to reason is that those invoking these
objections also claim to be the veritable paragons of rationality. They
argue that they are more intelligent, better educated and more
"realistic" than anyone having religious beliefs.
One of the most cited "proofs" of their enlightened intelligence is
their claim that science supports their view. This really isn't much
help of course. Science is supremely indifferent to its effects; it
exists to measure what can be measured, quantify the quantifiable,
theorize about measurable quantities. Religion is, by its very
definition, about "things" outside the realm of science. Science
might eventually tell us what nature is but it cannot tell us what
nature means. Since religion is all about meaning and purpose and
intent, science is a pointless superfluity.
Science is invoked as a rhetorical device to beg the question of the
existence of God and the validity of religion. The attempt to replace
religion with science is mere sophistry. Science and religion are, at
best, tangential, apples and oranges. The only point of congruence is
within the human mind. To believe that science can either debunk or
validate religion is to misunderstand both science and religion.
While I may hate the way religious people behave in their attempt to
further their ends (mostly secular it turns out), I can't discount the
religion they believe justifies their acts on that basis alone. There
are a great many religious beliefs I find foolish and perverse, even
dangerous, but I find no logical warrant for dismissing religion simply
because its adherents seem wildly irrational. The more people behave
badly, the more they justify the need for religion.
These are very straightforward objections to the silly and inane
arguments employed to avoid any serious discussion of religion. These
objections are legitimate regardless of my personal beliefs. I could be
a raving atheist and these arguments would still apply. What I find
especially offensive is the cynical abuse of simple logic. They assume
that those hearing (or reading) their sophomoric polemics are too
dim-witted to notice their fractured logic. Of course it could also be
that some are so desperate for the comfort of certainty that they can
excuse these abuses. Kind of like the fundamentalists they love to hate.
.

User: "ike milligan"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 11:06:03 AM

"Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote in message
news:1159063937.686351.231200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, well you don't give any statistics because you probably realize that
many of the sites are Evangelical probably a lot more than the
"religion-bashing" sites. And you aren't talking about them even though they
also bash religion, any religion except the one they are promoting.

I would agree woith that assertion, except the "if". God doesn't exist.
There was one troll recently that said God was beyond existence. God was
like a force behind reason, but not existing. Then god would depend on the
definiton of what is is. Rather farcical statement.

If God does not exist (or is insignificant), then all of the horrors of
human history can only be attributed to humans. Since these horrors are
commonplace in every age and in every culture, the brutality must be
characteristic of humans, so basic to our nature that it is our nature,
intrinsic to the very definition of humanity. Proving the non-existence
of God proves our own depravity. The acts of those who have killed
maimed, beaten, broken, brutalized and burned their fellow man in the
name of a non-existent God are in no way different from the acts of
those who make no claim to religious justification.

You give no statistics, but I would reckon that those who kill, maim, etc.,
are more likely to need justification of a Higher Power, to help rationize
the inevitable guilt. Not talking about psychopaths who act alone, but
groups, although psychopaths are very succeptible to proselytizing, when put
in prison. If you mean atrocities committed by NAZIs or Communists not being
inspired by God, then the beyond existence claim of God being a Force behind
Reason, comes into play as Reason becomes a Rationalization of the
atrocities.

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists. The folks making these arguments
imply they are moral and civil and tolerant, veritable altruists of the
first degree, they would certainly never do any of the things they
attribute to Christians. Of course we only have their word for that and
since they have already proved that humankind is boundlessly brutal by
nature their word is scant assurance. What these kinds of arguments
prove is that mankind has an innate affinity for violence and hate and
cruelty.

That's correct, but the atheists when not trying to justify atrocities by
the use of Reason, as a group are not doing these things.

I know that it is. Which proves my point. Atheists when not using Reason to
justify atrocities, are innately less likely to commit them than people who
believe themselves to be Evil and can just pray for forgiveness constantly,
which is why psychopaths are so enamored of fundamentalist beliefs. They
realize they can't control themselves, and when someone stops them, they
"get religion", since they are then able to rationalize that they are now
under control.

According to this doctrine (now established by those who deny it any
credibility), we should expect exactly the kind of behavior the
atheists condemn because it is our nature. People don't act savagely
because they are religious any more than they do because they are
political, people act like beasts because they think like beasts; our
depravity is part of our nature. This is the fundamental premise of
Christianity.

And so, who needs it? people who can't control themselves without taking
orders from Above. And then not very well at that.

If there is evil and there is no God, then what is its source? It has
to be human nature, does it not? If it is our nature to brutalize each
other and we can't find any remedy in God, what then? The "Problem of
Evil" as so conscientiously documented by atheists doesn't disprove
the existence of God but it does prove that even if such a being does
not exist, He certainly should.

yOu premise falls short. Since there is no God, God can;'t control so-called
Evil, but just helps the Believers to rationalize it with the belief in
Something that allegedly controls everything.

A variation on this theme is that individual believers behave badly so
the object of their belief must be false (or even non-existent). While
this is an obviously absurd argument, it's very common. The Crusades,
Inquisitions, witch hunts, persecutions, intolerance of free inquiry
and general rigidity prove that religious belief leads to brutality. To
do something evil in the "name of religion" proves that the
religion itself is false. Surprisingly, this protest is very popular
among those claiming superior intelligence. This logic is identical to
arguing that since people drive automobiles badly, automobiles are
false, or worse, don't exist. People behave badly because that's what
people do. Why they behave that way is a completely separate question.

And irrelevant to the God's existence question itself. BTW we know
automobiles exist. Atheists don't deny the existence of them. However the
question of their ultimate utility is another matter, along with indoor
plumbing and electricity.

It's also quite popular to ridicule people who have religious beliefs
as being irrational. While they may believe all manner of strange and
fantastic things and while they may be enthusiastically superstitious
about almost everything, it doesn't follow that their religion is
false.

No it doesn't follow. It was already known to be false.
It only means that they have inflicted unnecessary difficulty on

themselves. What they believe their religion requires of them bears no
direct relationship to the validity of the religion itself. Again,
their irrationality is intrinsic to human nature and is certainly not
exclusive to those having religious beliefs.

but it certainly calls into question their authority to make pontifical
statements.

The intent of the ridicule is, of course, to make the religion itself
appear foolish.

Why would anyone bother? The only reason I do it is to practice my writing
skills.
If the illiterate buffoons act foolishly it's because

their religion is foolish. Easy targets. There have always been people
whose education and intelligence is at least the equal of any of their
contemporaries. Their apologetics are as astute and insightful as
anything their critics have offered. This complication introduces yet
another difficulty for those who revel in ridicule. People holding
religious beliefs are as diverse as those who despise them. There is no
stereotype, no simplistic caricature that has anything approaching any
general application.

Which proves what?

Without theodicy and ridicule, most of the arguments against the
existence of God or the validity of religion quickly become trivial,
disingenuous and even, possibly, dishonest. What makes this an
especially egregious affront to reason is that those invoking these
objections also claim to be the veritable paragons of rationality. They
argue that they are more intelligent, better educated and more
"realistic" than anyone having religious beliefs.

Well, isn't that what you are trying to prove about yourself? I noticed that
you began the post with a hokey statement about the prevalence of anti-God
websites without mentioning the likely far greater prevalence of religious
websites, and touted your computer skills as a Linux administrator, so right
off the bat we can obviously see that you are intelligent, sophisticated,
etc.

One of the most cited "proofs" of their enlightened intelligence is
their claim that science supports their view. This really isn't much
help of course. Science is supremely indifferent to its effects; it
exists to measure what can be measured, quantify the quantifiable,
theorize about measurable quantities. Religion is, by its very
definition, about "things" outside the realm of science. Science
might eventually tell us what nature is but it cannot tell us what
nature means. Since religion is all about meaning and purpose and
intent, science is a pointless superfluity.

Science can be used to judge the effects of religion. Depending on what sort
of science. Anthropology for instance. Archeology. Psychology, a science in
its infancy. Political science.

Science is invoked as a rhetorical device to beg the question of the
existence of God and the validity of religion. The attempt to replace
religion with science is mere sophistry. Science and religion are, at
best, tangential, apples and oranges. The only point of congruence is
within the human mind. To believe that science can either debunk or
validate religion is to misunderstand both science and religion.

So you feel people are trying to use science to replace religion. AHA!

Bad sentence structure. 10 points off.
There

are a great many religious beliefs I find foolish and perverse, even
dangerous, but I find no logical warrant for dismissing religion simply
because its adherents seem wildly irrational. The more people behave
badly, the more they justify the need for religion.

The drunker an alcoholic gets, the more liquor he/she needs.

These are very straightforward objections to the silly and inane
arguments employed to avoid any serious discussion of religion. These

Au contraire. When does it start?

objections are legitimate regardless of my personal beliefs. I could be
a raving atheist and these arguments would still apply. What I find

Apply to what? You are getting less and less coherent, if that is even
possible.

especially offensive is the cynical abuse of simple logic. They assume
that those hearing (or reading) their sophomoric polemics are too
dim-witted to notice their fractured logic.

So they can't fool you, eh?
Of course it could also be

that some are so desperate for the comfort of certainty that they can
excuse these abuses. Kind of like the fundamentalists they love to hate.

Right. I love to hate fundamentalists. That's my whole problem isn't it?
Nothing to do with the fact that I waste my time on the internet.
.

User: "Emmanual Kann"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 07:11:47 PM

An Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, Bill schreibt:

If God does not exist (or is insignificant), then all of the horrors of
human history can only be attributed to humans. nt from the acts of
those who make no claim to religious justification.

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists.

Granted. This fact somehow supports belief in god? If people aren�t
better for believing in god, what�s the point?

Christian doctrine (at
least) has as a fundamental principle the proposition that we humans
really are as brutal and "inhumane" as the atheists have amply
demonstrated, that our thoughts are evil continually. This is the whole
point of Christianity, it's central thesis, its raison d'etre. According
to this doctrine (now established by those who deny it any credibility),
we should expect exactly the kind of behavior the atheists condemn
because it is our nature.

I thought the central point of Christianity was that God put Jesus on
earth to demonstrate to us that every time we mistreat our fellow man, we
are also mistreating God. If you believe this, you won�t mistreat your
fellow man out of fear that God will have revenge after
you die for mistreating Him all your life.
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 07:00:19 AM

Bill wrote:
<snip - looking for some content rather than posturing...>

Most often cited as evidence of the non-existence God is the so-called,
"Problem of Evil" (Theodicy).

There is no need to disprove God.
There is need of some reason to believe in the existence of one.
(Or to be more precise - reason to belive in one god and not another or
a multitude - since any argument put forward for the belif in on is as
good as another.
That is belivieving in God but rejecting Odin and Thor seems pure
special pleading.)

If God is Good and also all powerful,
there should be no evil. Since there is evil, God is either not good
and doesn't much care what happens to us or He lacks the power do
anything about it. Either way God is not worthy of our worship. Even if
God exists, he doesn't matter.

Perfectly rational.

And all the kindness and compassion and selfless acts are likewise from
us.

Proving the non-existence
of God proves our own depravity.

And our compassion and briliance.
Truth has many sides and many aspects.

The acts of those who have killed
maimed, beaten, broken, brutalized and burned their fellow man in the
name of a non-existent God are in no way different from the acts of
those who make no claim to religious justification.

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists.

At least people would do evil while boasting of their piety - that
would count as an improvement.
Evil men will always do evil - but it takes religion to for a good man
to do evil gladly.

The folks making these arguments
imply they are moral and civil and tolerant, veritable altruists of the
first degree, they would certainly never do any of the things they
attribute to Christians. Of course we only have their word for that and
since they have already proved that humankind is boundlessly brutal by
nature their word is scant assurance. What these kinds of arguments
prove is that mankind has an innate affinity for violence and hate and
cruelty.

Our "God given" nature?

This brings up another flaw in the argument. Christian doctrine (at
least) has as a fundamental principle the proposition that we humans
really are as brutal and "inhumane" as the atheists have amply
demonstrated, that our thoughts are evil continually. This is the whole
point of Christianity, it's central thesis, its raison d'etre.
According to this doctrine (now established by those who deny it any
credibility), we should expect exactly the kind of behavior the
atheists condemn because it is our nature. People don't act savagely
because they are religious any more than they do because they are
political, people act like beasts because they think like beasts; our
depravity is part of our nature. This is the fundamental premise of
Christianity.

And it ignores the compassion and goodness that is also inherent in
mans nature.
It is the chief reason why I consider it such a vile religion.

If there is evil and there is no God, then what is its source? It has
to be human nature, does it not?

Our "God given" nature.
Our deliberately planned, designed and executed nature.

If it is our nature to brutalize each
other and we can't find any remedy in God, what then? The "Problem of
Evil" as so conscientiously documented by atheists doesn't disprove
the existence of God but it does prove that even if such a being does
not exist, He certainly should.

If we are a work in progress then there is some hope of improvement -
If we are this way because an imensly powerful and competent superbeing
*intended* us to be this way then that is the more hopeless situation.

No! That is not the argument at all! - that is a obvious strawman.
The whole point of religion is to make us better human beings - the
crusades etc proves that it fails.
<snip more straw>

Agreed.
<snip rest for lack of content>
I am sure you could have said so little with far fewer words.
Mark.
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	25 Sep 2006 12:22:51 AM

Richo wrote:

Bill wrote:

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists.

At least people would do evil while boasting of their piety - that
would count as an improvement.

That was meant to be "would not do evil while boasting of their piety"
- obviously - hopefully.
Mark.
.

User: "wcb"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	23 Sep 2006 09:42:43 PM

Bill wrote:

Hardly, arguments from cosmology, or the prime mover arguments
and others are not good.
These are the natural religion proofs" religion relies on and
they are false and failed.
And then we have the revealed religions with their
failed promises and failed prophecies.
Move any mountains with unwavering doubt lately as per Mark 11? Work
miracles bigger than Jesus as Jesus promised in John 14?
Jesus told us judgment day and the end of the world would happen
1930 years ago during the lifetime of the high priest.
Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62.
The Quran promises good Muslims that islam's enemies wil not prosper, yet
Europe prospers while Mohammeds believes squat in the dust and their
poverty and illiteracy.
Religion basically sucks.
we have christian dirt bags trying to destroy science
teaching in America in name of bronze age goat herd fairy
tales, and Islam running 1/3 of humanity into the ground of
poverty and backwardness.
We see no proof god can exist and many good proofs god cannot.
Why go on, its a failure.
--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 06:27:25 AM

Bill wrote:

I have noticed some trends however. It seems that a
significant fraction of all the sites I run across are
devoted to religion bashing. Some are hostile, some
are amusing, some are pathetically stupid. What's
especially odd is that these rants are at least as
irrational as what they condemn as irrational. They
follow a predictable schema ...

This is simple to fix.
Here are some descriptions of Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzees).
Please provide a description for God at least as detailed
as these:
http://tinyurl.com/jk349
http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Pan_troglodytes/more_info.html
Once you've done this, nobody will have any problems
disproving a god to your satisfaction.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	23 Sep 2006 09:42:30 PM

Bill wrote:

I occasionally enjoy using my computer without actually accomplishing
anything.

Which should explain a *lot* about what you posted.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man Sept 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	23 Sep 2006 09:51:14 PM

I'm not going to read all that. You're too long-winded for me.
However, skimming, certain things caught my eye.

Religion is, by its very
definition, about "things" outside the realm of science.

Well I am glad THAT is cleared up! I was wondering when we would get a
definition of religion. So that's it?

Science
might eventually tell us what nature is but it cannot tell us what
nature means.

Can ~you~ tell us what that sentence means?

Since religion is all about meaning and purpose and
intent, science is a pointless superfluity.

So now science is pointless and superfluous. Gee, didn't see that
coming. Please remove all the toilets from your home, since they were
developed by men (or possibly women) of science and are therefore
pointless and superfluous.

Not really. Your claim is emotional and not completely thought out.
For instance if your religion claims that the whole wide world was once
underwater, applying a little scientific thinking will prove it was
not. I think you are getting confused because you think that science
is a religion just as Christianity is a religion. It isn't, but it is
a very common mistake for xians to believe it is.

The more people behave
badly, the more they justify the need for religion.

Even when that bad behavior is directly caused by religion? "Kill the
infidel."
(Did anyone else just love the response to the Pope implying that
Muslims were violent? "We're NOT violent! We'll kill you for saying
that we are violent!" Classic.)

These are very straightforward objections to the silly and inane
arguments employed to avoid any serious discussion of religion.

Straightforward, maybe. Well formed? No.

What I find
especially offensive is the cynical abuse of simple logic. They assume
that those hearing (or reading) their sophomoric polemics are too
dim-witted to notice their fractured logic.

Pot? Meet kettle.
jwk
.

User: "Son of Discord"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 12:55:26 AM

In alt.atheism Bill shared this wisdom:
<snip>

Most often cited as evidence of the non-existence God is the so-called,
"Problem of Evil" (Theodicy). If God is Good and also all powerful,
there should be no evil. Since there is evil, God is either not good
and doesn't much care what happens to us or He lacks the power do
anything about it. Either way God is not worthy of our worship. Even if
God exists, he doesn't matter.

If God does not exist (or is insignificant), then all of the horrors of
human history can only be attributed to humans. Since these horrors are
commonplace in every age and in every culture, the brutality must be
characteristic of humans, so basic to our nature that it is our nature,
intrinsic to the very definition of humanity. Proving the non-existence
of God proves our own depravity. The acts of those who have killed
maimed, beaten, broken, brutalized and burned their fellow man in the
name of a non-existent God are in no way different from the acts of
those who make no claim to religious justification.

Err, your point being???
Methinks I should read on . . .

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists.

Oh really? Then cite the total number of atheists who drown, or
otherwise execute, their children on the grounds that "they were
possessed by Satan", or "they needed to return to Jesus", or whatever
sick justification is used by the biblically psychotic in such
grievous circumstances.
Go on, brainiac -- cite the total number of atheists that kill in the
name of the thing you call "god".
<snip>

<boggle> What the *****???
<re-reads above statement>
***** me swinging -- talk about a non sequitur.
The "Problem of Evil" argument, Billy-boy, does NOT set out to
disprove the existence of your god. NO atheist need set out to
"disprove" any god(s), any more then one need set out to disprove the
existence of the Orange Blark, or the IPU (pbuh), or Pleeb. The burden
of proof rests solely with he whomsoever makes a positive assertion.
What the "Problem of Evil" argument *does* demonstrate is that, in the
presence of "evil", the non-properties of "omnipotence" and
"omnibenevolence" attributed to your god-thingumy are *mutually
exclusive*. It says absolutely ***** all about the existence of your
deity -- it just states that if your deity exists, then it cannot be
BOTH omnibenevolent *and* omnipotent simultaneously.

Wrong again. The argument to which you refer is used in response to
theistic claims that the christer death-cult is "good" in nature, or
"benevolent", or what have you -- and so it attempts to shed light on
the atrocities committed in the name of christianity throughout
history, and thereby invalidating any such claims that belief in god
benefits humanity in any way.

Surprisingly, this protest is very popular
among those claiming superior intelligence. This logic is identical to
arguing that since people drive automobiles badly, automobiles are
false, or worse, don't exist.

It says nothing of the sort, you fucking pleb! That's gotta be one of
the worst fucking FALSE analogies I've ever seen. Needless to say,
it's REJECTED.

It's also quite popular to ridicule people who have religious beliefs
as being irrational.

It is on an atheist newsgroup, Bill. Speaking of which -- why the *****
are you posting here?
<snip>
<snip Bill trying to dictate what atheists should or shouldn't do on
an ATHEIST NEWSGROUP, among other things>

Science
might eventually tell us what nature is but it cannot tell us what
nature means. Since religion is all about meaning and purpose and
intent, science is a pointless superfluity.

Now you're begging the question that nature has an objective
"meaning". Demonstrate, please.

And now you're just lying through your teeth, Bill.
<snip>

The more people behave
badly, the more they justify the need for religion.

You're begging the question that religion improves one's behaviour.
THIS is where one would point out the atrocities committed in the name
of your god-construct throughout history -- the argument you attempted
to dismiss just a few paragraphs up.

These are very straightforward objections to the silly and inane
arguments employed to avoid any serious discussion of religion. These
objections are legitimate regardless of my personal beliefs.

No, Bill, they're hopelessly biased in favour of you getting to cling
on to your god-belief -- and simply stating otherwise doesn't change
this.

I could be
a raving atheist and these arguments would still apply.

In light of the misrepresentations of said arguments: "*****." :)

What I find
especially offensive is the cynical abuse of simple logic.

Oh, ***** me is that rich! Bill, spare us your dim-witted accusations,
m'kay? It doesn't help your credibility much for you to talk about
logic after all the above sophistic strawmen, and question-begging
apologia, you presented.
<snip>
"Son of Discord"
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
" . . The bible is crap, people who believe it
are idiots, and blasphemy is a victimless
crime because the whole fetid pile of
christianic mythology is a ficticious crock of *****."
-Stix, undefeated former Warlord of the BAAWA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 07:38:37 AM

In alt.atheism On 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, "Bill"
<bil@billconner.com> let us all know that:

No it doesn't. It only shows that some people do those things.
So we have your first non sequitur.

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently; no such evidence exists.

It's what the theists claim, remember? They say that people
will act better if they believe in god. Clearly, this is not the case
for everyone. So.....

Yet a continuation of your first non sequitur.

A variation on this theme is that individual believers behave badly so
the object of their belief must be false (or even non-existent).

Here we have a strawman.

Yet there isn't any such thing.
Now then--did you have ANYTHING that isn't fallacious?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Lars Eighner"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	23 Sep 2006 11:21:12 PM

In our last episode,
<1159063937.686351.231200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Bill broadcast on alt.atheism:

Additionally, since the whole point is to discredit religion, there has
to be some evidence that people would act differently if they believed
differently;

This is the fallacy of arguing from consequences. You see, the issue
is whether any religion is TRUE, not whether people behave better or feel
better if the believe one religion or another or none.
It is pretty obvious that you are trolling. As you must very well know,
the Problem of Evil is not the problems that evil cause, but the proof
that no such god as Christians describe can exist. The reason that the
Problem of Evil works is that Christians ascribe many "omni-" attributes to
their god. The argument will not work with more modest gods, such as those
of the Greeks and Romans.

no such evidence exists. The folks making these arguments
imply they are moral and civil and tolerant, veritable altruists of the
first degree, they would certainly never do any of the things they
attribute to Christians. Of course we only have their word for that and
since they have already proved that humankind is boundlessly brutal by
nature their word is scant assurance. What these kinds of arguments
prove is that mankind has an innate affinity for violence and hate and
cruelty.

But then, you see, you turn around and defeat your own fallacious argument
by arguing that people are fairly rotten no matter what they believe. So,
it is pointless to argue for one religion or another or none on the basis
that people will behave better if they believe it. You would have a poor
argument to say: even if we know a religion is false, we should encourage
it because it makes people behave better. But once you admit none of the
religions and no religion has no particular effect in preventing brutish
behavior, then you don't have a poor argument, but no argument at all.
Thus, the only issue worth considering is the truth.

By now it is perfectly clear that Christianity has no answer to these ills.
But of course it is ***** that the evilness of human nature is the
fundamental premise of Christianity. Fundamental premise of Christianity
is that there is a magic invisible sky fairy who is responsible for
everything.

But you see, there is no problem of evil for atheists because atheists are
not promising a big magic sky daddy who can make everything right. You see,
the fundamental premise of Christianity is not that human nature is evil,
but that there is a magic sky daddy who is all good and responsible for
everything.

But automobiles are not supposed to be magic and infallible. Christianity
is supposed to be magic and infallible.

If they claim their religion is all-of-piece and infallible, then
to show any part of it untrue means the whole religion is false.

The intent of the ridicule is, of course, to make the religion itself
appear foolish.

Religion does not merely appear foolish. It is foolish.

another difficulty for those who revel in ridicule. People holding
religious beliefs are as diverse as those who despise them.

No, they aren't. They are all branches of a poisoned tree.
Find another place to troll.

One of the most cited "proofs" of their enlightened intelligence is
their claim that science supports their view.

*****. No one claims that science disproves any god(s).
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965*

<http://larseighner.com/>
"Religion is the last refuge of human savagery." --Alfred North Whitehead
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 05:03:05 AM

On 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159063937.686351.231200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

I occasionally enjoy using my computer without actually accomplishing
anything.

:
Two bits of advice, young William:
1) Get a life.
2) Grow a brain.
Not necessarily in that order.
Now wash your hands.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 05:41:23 AM

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:33:05 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1159063937.686351.231200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

I occasionally enjoy using my computer without actually accomplishing
anything.

:

Two bits of advice, young William:
1) Get a life.
2) Grow a brain.
Not necessarily in that order.

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.
He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.
.

User: "Bill"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 09:53:35 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.

He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.

Just dropped in to see if this corner of fantasyland was still the
refuge of the intellectually stunted zealots of irationality. Alas,
same old stuff. Seems that the bitter, hostile and humorless,
locked-in-the-closet crazies continue to thirve here. Even the tactics
are the same: characterize an argument rather than rebut it, ridicule
is always preferable to reason after all. Is this a viciously nasty
reply?
Bill
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	25 Sep 2006 11:39:08 AM

Bill <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.

He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.

No, it isn't.
And if you don't like what you see here, go away.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor

A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 10:00:58 AM

On 24 Sep 2006 07:53:35 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.

He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.

In other words, you're the same stupid, deliberately nasty,
sociopathic ***** you always were.
You have no argument apart from in-your-face stupidity, dishonesty and
outright falsehood.

Bill

User: "Bill"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 10:58:31 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 24 Sep 2006 07:53:35 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.

He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.

In other words, you're the same stupid, deliberately nasty,
sociopathic ***** you always were.

You have no argument apart from in-your-face stupidity, dishonesty and
outright falsehood.

Bill

Well thanks, you prove my point in spite of yourself. Unfortunately
you're too dom to appreciate the irony.
Bill
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 05:46:41 PM

"Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote in message
snip

Well thanks, you prove my point in spite of yourself. Unfortunately
you're too dom to appreciate the irony.

dom?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Kilmir"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 07:39:56 PM

Robibnikoff schreef:

"Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote in message
snip

Well thanks, you prove my point in spite of yourself. Unfortunately
you're too dom to appreciate the irony.

dom?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557

I guess he's from the Netherlands. "Dom" means "dumb" or "stupid" in
dutch.
Kilmir
#1944
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	25 Sep 2006 10:55:22 AM

"Kilmir" <Kilmir@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159144796.896907.176520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Robibnikoff schreef:

"Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote in message
snip

Well thanks, you prove my point in spite of yourself. Unfortunately
you're too dom to appreciate the irony.

dom?

I guess he's from the Netherlands. "Dom" means "dumb" or "stupid" in
dutch.

Ah, gotcha. I was wondering if it was an S&M sort of thing ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 11:09:02 AM

On 24 Sep 2006 08:58:31 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 24 Sep 2006 07:53:35 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

aaaarrrgggghhhhh.... Conzilla's back.

He was one of the most viciously nasty Christians we had here in the
early 1990s.

Now wash your hands.

He doesn't know how to.

In other words, you're the same stupid, deliberately nasty,
sociopathic ***** you always were.

You have no argument apart from in-your-face stupidity, dishonesty and
outright falsehood.

Bill

Well thanks, you prove my point in spite of yourself. Unfortunately
you're too dom to appreciate the irony.

Still the same old whining, dishonest hypocrite. Here's a clue, moron:
did you crash an group of atheists to rub your stupidity and nastiness
in our faces and then lie about the reaction, or did we go looking for
you?

Bill

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 04:34:12 AM

On 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Without theodicy and ridicule, most of the arguments against the
existence of God or the validity of religion quickly become trivial,
disingenuous and even, possibly, dishonest.

It is not that we have arguments against the claimed existence of
gods, I certainly have none, but that you have no arguments to
justify your claim they do. As ever the religious seek to place the
onus to disprove their claims against those of us who find them
unfounded. You give us nothing to disprove.
You can believe whatever you like as long as you do not bother
me with it but the moment you start asking me to accept your
claim the onus is on you to justify it to me.
You made quite a long post and at no time did you make any
attempt to jusify your belief so it is simple: I will continue not
believing in the existence of gods since nobody has yet
provided sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. You
have failed my friend simply because you did not even try.

What makes this an
especially egregious affront to reason is that those invoking these
objections also claim to be the veritable paragons of rationality. They
argue that they are more intelligent, better educated and more
"realistic" than anyone having religious beliefs.

The solid reasoning here is that I do not believe things without the
slightest shred of justification for that belief.

One of the most cited "proofs" of their enlightened intelligence is
their claim that science supports their view.

And why? Well you go on to tell us:

This really isn't much
help of course. Science is supremely indifferent to its effects; it
exists to measure what can be measured, quantify the quantifiable,
theorize about measurable quantities.

Exactly. So why do many religious people fear and revile science?
To many of them Darwin - a mere messenger reporting what he
saw - is the devil incarnate and the idea that we evolved is the
work of some god they believe that they call 'devil'

Religion is, by its very
definition, about "things" outside the realm of science.

The realms of ignorance?
Is their claim that we were created special by this god to be
considered outside science? What if science discovers how
we came about and that we were not created special but
came about entirely by natural mean (abiogenesis). What
do you think the effect on religion of this discovery would
be?

Science
might eventually tell us what nature is but it cannot tell us what
nature means.

If it has such a meaning.

Since religion is all about meaning and purpose and
intent, science is a pointless superfluity.

Except when it comes to determine our origins of course/
Meaning and purpose is what WE make of life, since some
seem to think life must have a meaning hence the invention of
gods as one way to explain it.

I agree, science is a diversion, yet the religous forever claim
that science is against them.

While I may hate the way religious people behave in their attempt to
further their ends (mostly secular it turns out), I can't discount the
religion they believe justifies their acts on that basis alone. There
are a great many religious beliefs I find foolish and perverse, even
dangerous, but I find no logical warrant for dismissing religion simply
because its adherents seem wildly irrational. The more people behave
badly, the more they justify the need for religion.

False conclusion. To qoute Colin Thubron:
"By a timeless irony, religion, which speaks of brotherhood, has
divided man: whereas trade, the vehicle of self-seeking, has
united him. Throughout history, nations that repudiated one
another's god remained addicted to each others spices or horses
or slaves:.." (from "Istanbul" Time-Life)
and of course much of mans bad behavoir can be durectly attributed to
religion. Thousands died on 11/9 directly because of religious belief.
The cry was "God is great!"

These are very straightforward objections to the silly and inane
arguments employed to avoid any serious discussion of religion. These
objections are legitimate regardless of my personal beliefs. I could be
a raving atheist and these arguments would still apply. What I find
especially offensive is the cynical abuse of simple logic. They assume
that those hearing (or reading) their sophomoric polemics are too
dim-witted to notice their fractured logic. Of course it could also be
that some are so desperate for the comfort of certainty that they can
excuse these abuses. Kind of like the fundamentalists they love to hate.

And yet you ignore our clearest and strongest logic: If you want
us to share your belief and claims there is a god the onus is on
you to justify it. No doubt this will, yet again, fall upon deaf ears
and be simply ignored as usual and you will continue to construct
bogus arguments in a vain attempt to escape it.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Are you really THAT confused	24 Sep 2006 05:20:35 AM

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:34:12 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote:
- Refer: <k2hch2hu240211tgv0gn7visj3e2lc2mqv@4ax.com>

On 23 Sep 2006 19:12:17 -0700, "Bill" <bil@billconner.com> wrote:

Without theodicy and ridicule, most of the arguments against the
existence of God or the validity of religion quickly become trivial,
disingenuous and even, possibly, dishonest.

Or claim your taxes to promote the claim, as is the case most
countries.
A lot of folk "forget" this very direct and profound personal effect
that religious delusion exacts, irrespective of the adherents'
proselytizing behaviour.
:
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

17 More GI's Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Where Are All You NeoCon Chickenhawks Now?
--- What are you thanking for?
OT: I know you are but what am I?
Re: In whose opinion are you a good person? In God's or your own?
Re: Are you a good person?
Re: Are you a resident atheist Troll in Christian NGs?
Are You A John Kerry Fan?????
Ta

Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
OT: Way OT...How British are you?
OT: Whose side are you on?
Are you really an atheist?
God
News: Advice for FundyWits: When at a loss, say 'you are making a religion of science.'

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER