| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 05:37:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:00:48 -0400, MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:00:26 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posted:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rliok1dmm3bjm87k020fi3d9p4ckaip48l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:45:36 -0400, "J" <notanymore>
posted:
*BANG* ... *flop*
No one saw a *cartwheeling* airplane, and anyway, fat,
stupid,
commie slob-pig Brian Jamieson doesn't think an airplane
was
involved at all.
But didn't Poundcake Jamieson slip up once and refer
to the plane hitting a lamp post or some such?
Stupid Jamieson has made all kinds of such slips, but every time one
is pointed out he runs away, showing his fat, lying pig ***** to all
the world.
Mike Soja
eeeeyyyyyeeeeeewwwwww! mental image alert!
BTW, Mike, turns out you were right about Greywolf being his wife....
Two pigs in a poke.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 08:53:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:37:25 -0400, nevermore
<stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> posted:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:00:48 -0400, MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:00:26 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posted:
"MikeSoja" <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rliok1dmm3bjm87k020fi3d9p4ckaip48l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:45:36 -0400, "J" <notanymore>
posted:
*BANG* ... *flop*
No one saw a *cartwheeling* airplane, and anyway, fat,
stupid,
commie slob-pig Brian Jamieson doesn't think an airplane
was
involved at all.
But didn't Poundcake Jamieson slip up once and refer
to the plane hitting a lamp post or some such?
Stupid Jamieson has made all kinds of such slips, but every time one
is pointed out he runs away, showing his fat, lying pig ***** to all
the world.
eeeeyyyyyeeeeeewwwwww! mental image alert!
BTW, Mike, turns out you were right about Greywolf being his wife....
It's the only thing that made complete sense, if you can call that
kind of depraved ignorance "sense".
Two pigs in a poke.
Oink oink. It's no wonder fat, stupid, commie pig Jamieson spends
his life on line.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 12:48:59 AM |
|
|
Theism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith.
Atheism is built on healthy skepticism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 12:08:00 PM |
|
|
MikeSoja wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:05 -0700, 1956 Dead
<zepp1956#2211finestplanet.com@> posted:
Well, as responses go, that one is just plain pathetic.
Fat, stupid, commie pig Brian Jamieson has a lot of nerve calling
other people's responses "pathetic". All quotes are his:
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <12i1a01tfv92h58o3le52mp6va6s51mufm@4ax.com>
I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:10:07 -0700
Message-ID: <itj1a0hpm7btajtdmj74k7mhbqej2nm4op@4ax.com>
Oh, and could you please produce a photo that shows commercial plane
wreckage at the Pentagon. Just one picture will make me shut up and
you can tease me about it for years.
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 06:03:44 -0700
Message-ID: <qbvu90lp4hqdv3lehv1cgk86pruk8h4ect@4ax.com>
Why do the photos from the Pentagon wreck show absolutely no
evidence that a large commercial airliner struck the building? If
that flight didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:47:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7ei1a0pgjr1cigpi4cntpn5g1bvf2dflsu@4ax.com>
Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is was
something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2avcf0hrlh74qmjvc3bbcr2o2jpfo6uoef@4ax.com>
Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a 757
could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for several
hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly vanish,
leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in a twenty
foot hold.
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:16:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4u0ag05d42mpqmck41g65iaqn7g6h03mee@4ax.com>
I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:40:50 -0700
Message-ID: <39upi0h6jo53f9ssr4v1ohb1m1r6pcbrln@4ax.com>
Care to explain why that is so, but at the Pentagon, there is only
one unburned engine cowling that appeared mysteriously hours after
the crash?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:54:19 -0700
Message-ID: <i97tn09mdaigeq087e2tipe5jfi7vcsqk7@4ax.com>
It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such aircraft
remnants whatsoever were ever reported being photographed, ever
reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or ever reported being
recovered from the site. Not to mention seat fragments, luggage,
body parts, etc. Zip.
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:44:38 -0800
Message-ID: <5dmco016fj97ubatorvoti332utm9q5ltj@4ax.com>
I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <u2itn01is36j4mto20k343jord9418dvg9@4ax.com>
Where's the plane debris at the Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:09:10 -0700
Message-ID: <ciitn052og0ih23nf94ukd04eoj1j4hkg0@4ax.com>
[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a utility
pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should have left a
large amount of indisputable debris well outside the building. It's
also impossible to envision the plane not going into a wild spin at
that moment and immediately losing all control, especially if the
remaining engine was still powered up.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <o83un09iqnkfg3409gqrjv75prlockg7v6@4ax.com>
Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the Pentagon. It
was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too small to be any sort
of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or AGMs.
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:16:14 -0800
Message-ID: <2fo321pq0ovk37e007tissuja8m0pc58qe@4ax.com>
One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in
front of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the
third ring in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were
no corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where
the engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any
broken windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon
building.
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:01:21 -0800
Message-ID: <30m9211ohf3gjs0ngkvm6s33qvv8ehti61@4ax.com>
So you are tryng to persuade us that a 757, under power, with a wing
gone, was behaving like a skipping stone?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:45:32 -0800
Message-ID: <skjb219jq5lbsodj3guq2mkc4n04pmt41h@4ax.com>
Let me see if I have this right. The wing mounted engines hit the
ground, but the fuselage didn't?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <cb5c21lnruuknq00k0f7au3l6fnfd5i658@4ax.com>
The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
perhaps a SAM.
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 01:46:43 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:05 -0700, 1956 Dead
<zepp1956#2211finestplanet.com@> posted:
Well, as responses go, that one is just plain pathetic.
Fat, stupid, commie pig Brian Jamieson has a lot of nerve calling
other people's responses "pathetic". All quotes are his:
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <12i1a01tfv92h58o3le52mp6va6s51mufm@4ax.com>
I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:10:07 -0700
Message-ID: <itj1a0hpm7btajtdmj74k7mhbqej2nm4op@4ax.com>
Oh, and could you please produce a photo that shows commercial plane
wreckage at the Pentagon. Just one picture will make me shut up and
you can tease me about it for years.
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 06:03:44 -0700
Message-ID: <qbvu90lp4hqdv3lehv1cgk86pruk8h4ect@4ax.com>
Why do the photos from the Pentagon wreck show absolutely no
evidence that a large commercial airliner struck the building? If
that flight didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:47:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7ei1a0pgjr1cigpi4cntpn5g1bvf2dflsu@4ax.com>
Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is was
something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2avcf0hrlh74qmjvc3bbcr2o2jpfo6uoef@4ax.com>
Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a 757
could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for several
hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly vanish,
leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in a twenty
foot hold.
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:16:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4u0ag05d42mpqmck41g65iaqn7g6h03mee@4ax.com>
I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:40:50 -0700
Message-ID: <39upi0h6jo53f9ssr4v1ohb1m1r6pcbrln@4ax.com>
Care to explain why that is so, but at the Pentagon, there is only
one unburned engine cowling that appeared mysteriously hours after
the crash?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:54:19 -0700
Message-ID: <i97tn09mdaigeq087e2tipe5jfi7vcsqk7@4ax.com>
It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such aircraft
remnants whatsoever were ever reported being photographed, ever
reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or ever reported being
recovered from the site. Not to mention seat fragments, luggage,
body parts, etc. Zip.
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:44:38 -0800
Message-ID: <5dmco016fj97ubatorvoti332utm9q5ltj@4ax.com>
I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <u2itn01is36j4mto20k343jord9418dvg9@4ax.com>
Where's the plane debris at the Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:09:10 -0700
Message-ID: <ciitn052og0ih23nf94ukd04eoj1j4hkg0@4ax.com>
[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a utility
pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should have left a
large amount of indisputable debris well outside the building. It's
also impossible to envision the plane not going into a wild spin at
that moment and immediately losing all control, especially if the
remaining engine was still powered up.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <o83un09iqnkfg3409gqrjv75prlockg7v6@4ax.com>
Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the Pentagon. It
was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too small to be any sort
of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or AGMs.
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:16:14 -0800
Message-ID: <2fo321pq0ovk37e007tissuja8m0pc58qe@4ax.com>
One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in
front of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the
third ring in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were
no corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where
the engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any
broken windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon
building.
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:01:21 -0800
Message-ID: <30m9211ohf3gjs0ngkvm6s33qvv8ehti61@4ax.com>
So you are tryng to persuade us that a 757, under power, with a wing
gone, was behaving like a skipping stone?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:45:32 -0800
Message-ID: <skjb219jq5lbsodj3guq2mkc4n04pmt41h@4ax.com>
Let me see if I have this right. The wing mounted engines hit the
ground, but the fuselage didn't?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <cb5c21lnruuknq00k0f7au3l6fnfd5i658@4ax.com>
The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
perhaps a SAM.
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's blather are
you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 05:53:01 PM |
|
|
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:05 -0700, 1956 Dead
<zepp1956#2211finestplanet.com@> posted:
Well, as responses go, that one is just plain pathetic.
Fat, stupid, commie pig Brian Jamieson has a lot of nerve calling
other people's responses "pathetic". All quotes are his:
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <12i1a01tfv92h58o3le52mp6va6s51mufm@4ax.com>
I am quite sure no commercial jet hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:10:07 -0700
Message-ID: <itj1a0hpm7btajtdmj74k7mhbqej2nm4op@4ax.com>
Oh, and could you please produce a photo that shows commercial plane
wreckage at the Pentagon. Just one picture will make me shut up and
you can tease me about it for years.
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 06:03:44 -0700
Message-ID: <qbvu90lp4hqdv3lehv1cgk86pruk8h4ect@4ax.com>
Why do the photos from the Pentagon wreck show absolutely no
evidence that a large commercial airliner struck the building? If
that flight didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 05:47:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7ei1a0pgjr1cigpi4cntpn5g1bvf2dflsu@4ax.com>
Something struck the Pentagon. That much is obvious. But is was
something much smaller than a 767. A missile, perhaps.
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2avcf0hrlh74qmjvc3bbcr2o2jpfo6uoef@4ax.com>
Demonstrate that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Explain how a 757
could sustain level flight just ten feet from the ground for several
hundred yards, and explain how the plane could utterly vanish,
leaving only an unburned but crumpled engine cowling, in a twenty
foot hold.
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:16:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4u0ag05d42mpqmck41g65iaqn7g6h03mee@4ax.com>
I don't have a theory as to what happened to Flight 77. But I'm
convinced it did not strike the Pentagon.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:40:50 -0700
Message-ID: <39upi0h6jo53f9ssr4v1ohb1m1r6pcbrln@4ax.com>
Care to explain why that is so, but at the Pentagon, there is only
one unburned engine cowling that appeared mysteriously hours after
the crash?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:54:19 -0700
Message-ID: <i97tn09mdaigeq087e2tipe5jfi7vcsqk7@4ax.com>
It has again occurred to me that at the Pentagon, no such aircraft
remnants whatsoever were ever reported being photographed, ever
reported being seen by any eyewitnesses, or ever reported being
recovered from the site. Not to mention seat fragments, luggage,
body parts, etc. Zip.
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:44:38 -0800
Message-ID: <5dmco016fj97ubatorvoti332utm9q5ltj@4ax.com>
I'm disputing that it was even a plane that hit the Pentagon.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <u2itn01is36j4mto20k343jord9418dvg9@4ax.com>
Where's the plane debris at the Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:09:10 -0700
Message-ID: <ciitn052og0ih23nf94ukd04eoj1j4hkg0@4ax.com>
[T]he one I find most troubling; that the plane struck a utility
pole on the way in and a wing sheared off. That should have left a
large amount of indisputable debris well outside the building. It's
also impossible to envision the plane not going into a wild spin at
that moment and immediately losing all control, especially if the
remaining engine was still powered up.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <o83un09iqnkfg3409gqrjv75prlockg7v6@4ax.com>
Nor do I have any solid conjectures on what DID hit the Pentagon. It
was too big for a shoulder mounted rocket, too small to be any sort
of manned vehicle, which leaves SAMs or AGMs.
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:16:14 -0800
Message-ID: <2fo321pq0ovk37e007tissuja8m0pc58qe@4ax.com>
One of the debunker websites showed a picture of a jet engine in
front of a white wall and said that the picture was taken at the
third ring in at the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that there were
no corresponding holes in the facade of the Pentagon to show where
the engines might have entered (in fact, there weren't even any
broken windows) but the wall the engine was in front of was clearly
whitewashed brick. There are no brick walls in the Pentagon
building.
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:01:21 -0800
Message-ID: <30m9211ohf3gjs0ngkvm6s33qvv8ehti61@4ax.com>
So you are tryng to persuade us that a 757, under power, with a wing
gone, was behaving like a skipping stone?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:45:32 -0800
Message-ID: <skjb219jq5lbsodj3guq2mkc4n04pmt41h@4ax.com>
Let me see if I have this right. The wing mounted engines hit the
ground, but the fuselage didn't?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <cb5c21lnruuknq00k0f7au3l6fnfd5i658@4ax.com>
The theory I've heard most often is that it was either a drone, or
perhaps a SAM.
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's blather are
you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 06:28:55 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 15:53:01 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
<snip>
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's blather are
you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
What I thought. You are unable to pose the question you alleged I
failed to answer.
Are you dim, or just stupid?
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 07:05:45 PM |
|
|
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 15:53:01 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
<snip>
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's blather are
you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
What I thought. You are unable to pose the question you alleged I
failed to answer.
Are you dim, or just stupid?
I am able to read. You asked "which portion ... has any credence."
You did not ask the other question.
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do airplanes.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 07:58:52 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 17:05:45 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 15:53:01 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
posted:
<snip>
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's blather are
you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
What I thought. You are unable to pose the question you alleged I
failed to answer.
Are you dim, or just stupid?
I am able to read.
Apparently, you can't think.
You asked "which portion ... has any credence."
You did not ask the other question.
You asked why I "could not answer him" *before* the quote you now
present. Do you have a clue as to that which you were apparently
refering, or was the thought "gone" as soon as you thunk it?
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do airplanes.
Do you give credence to people who fantasize that al Qaeda didn't
blow a hole in the Pentagon the morning of September 11, 2001?
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 09:45:57 PM |
|
|
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 17:05:45 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 15:53:01 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
<snip>
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's
blather are you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
What I thought. You are unable to pose the question you
alleged I failed to answer.
Are you dim, or just stupid?
I am able to read.
Apparently, you can't think.
You asked "which portion ... has any credence."
You did not ask the other question.
You asked why I "could not answer him" *before* the quote you
now
present. Do you have a clue as to that which you were
apparently refering, or was the thought "gone" as soon as you
thunk it?
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do
airplanes.
Do you give credence to people who fantasize that al Qaeda
didn't blow a hole in the Pentagon the morning of September 11,
2001?
Why do people give that moron AWOL Bush ceredence when he says
Saddam aided and abetted Soama doing this?
The morons let him lie into a war with ***** like that.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 08:53:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:57 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 17:05:45 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do
airplanes.
Do you give credence to people who fantasize that al Qaeda
didn't blow a hole in the Pentagon the morning of September 11,
2001?
Why do people give that moron AWOL Bush ceredence when he says
Saddam aided and abetted Soama doing this?
The morons let him lie into a war with ***** like that.
Geez, Barwell, can't you learn to stifle yourself when you're as
drunk as that?
Not that you aren't an utter moron even when you're stone cold
sober...
"moron": Bush had higher grades than Kerry, which, I agree, isn't
saying much, but when real morons like you, Barwell, clamor for
government to the tune of $2.6 trillion a year and then insist on
jamming all your incompetent faith into the broken basket of
political beauty contests you ought to learn to wear your *****
eating frown with at least a little wry resignation. Also, a real
moron like you calling Bush a moron has a certain lovely irony
welded to it.
"AWOL": A fantasy of dimwits too stupid to realize they're too
stupid to argue against Bush on principles.
"Saddam aided and abetted Soama" [sic]: A strawman built by the
same idiots who wallow in fantasizing that Dubya was "AWOL".
"The morons": Barwell's fellow citizens, who are too stupid to
realize Barwell's superiority, and therefore ought to be put in
their rightful place, under the statist thumb of morons like
Barwell.
So, Barwell, you fucking moron, care to tell us what *you* think
crashed into the Pentagon the morning of September 11, 2001?
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 05:48:32 PM |
|
|
MikeSoja wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:57 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 17:05:45 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do
airplanes.
Do you give credence to people who fantasize that al Qaeda
didn't blow a hole in the Pentagon the morning of September
11, 2001?
Why do people give that moron AWOL Bush ceredence when he says
Saddam aided and abetted Soama doing this?
The morons let him lie into a war with ***** like that.
Geez, Barwell, can't you learn to stifle yourself when you're
as drunk as that?
Ad hominem attack in lieu of competent argument.
Sorry, Bush lied. WMDs. Well no, we didn't find any despite
screeching lies about Saddam's WMDs.
Lies about Saddam aiding and abetting 9/11.
Faced with lies, lies, lies, you just attack those who point out.
Bush. Was. A. Liar.
And he was. You refuse to admit the facts which makes you either
just as big a liar or you are too stupid to realize
you were lied to in which case you are a moron.
This is why I hate and loathe and despise
what passes for 'conservatism' nowadays, its all based strictly
on lying, incompetence and stupidity.
You have long been a far right ***** monkey without brains.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 06:25:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:32 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:57 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> posted:
Why do people give that moron AWOL Bush ceredence when he says
Saddam aided and abetted Soama doing this?
The morons let him lie into a war with ***** like that.
Geez, Barwell, can't you learn to stifle yourself when you're
as drunk as that?
Ad hominem attack in lieu of competent argument.
You're a dishonest scumbag, Barwell. You snipped the relevant
portion of my reply without indicating that you did so, and then you
tried to pretend that my reference to your mangled sentence,
misspellings, missing punctuation, and general sloppiness of thought
were somehow the totality of my reply (as though highlighting the
outward aspects of your scumbag stupidity really isn't quite enough
to discredit you, anyway.)
Here's the "competent argument" you dishonestly snipped and claimed
the rest was "in lieu of":
"moron": Bush had higher grades than Kerry, which, I agree, isn't
saying much, but when real morons like you, Barwell, clamor for
government to the tune of $2.6 trillion a year and then insist on
jamming all your incompetent faith into the broken basket of
political beauty contests you ought to learn to wear your *****
eating frown with at least a little wry resignation. Also, a real
moron like you calling Bush a moron has a certain lovely irony
welded to it.
"AWOL": A fantasy of dimwits too stupid to realize they're too
stupid to argue against Bush on principles.
"Saddam aided and abetted Soama" [sic]: A strawman built by the
same idiots who wallow in fantasizing that Dubya was "AWOL".
"The morons": Barwell's fellow citizens, who are too stupid to
realize Barwell's superiority, and therefore ought to be put in
their rightful place, under the statist thumb of morons like
Barwell.
Sorry, Bush lied. WMDs. Well no, we didn't find any despite
screeching lies about Saddam's WMDs.
Almost every intelligence agency on the planet thought Hussein had
weapons. Hussein was unable to account for the weapons that he was
known to have had. That does not add up to "Bush lied". You can
only say that Bush, with everyone else, was mistaken.
Lies about Saddam aiding and abetting 9/11.
Hussein aided and abetted the terrorists the same way punks like you
and stupid Jamieson and blowhardboy Erb aid and abet the terrorists,
with a little vigorish on the side, if you catch my drift. Hussein
was a terrorist facilitator even if he managed to keep al Qaeda's
buckets of blood out from under his own particular fingernails.
Faced with lies, lies, lies, you just attack those who point out.
Bush. Was. A. Liar.
All you got is empty, cliched, boilerplate, Barwell, and a whole
heaping of ignorance to fuel it with.
And he was. You refuse to admit the facts which makes you either
just as big a liar or you are too stupid to realize
you were lied to in which case you are a moron.
What were you saying about ad hominem, cupcake?
This is why I hate and loathe and despise
what passes for 'conservatism' nowadays, its all based strictly
on lying, incompetence and stupidity.
Go ***** yourself with your hating, loathing, and despising, Willy.
Or maybe go chop up some other post dishonestly so you can spew your
own particularly ugly brand of ignorance at someone else.
You have long been a far right ***** monkey without brains.
Coming from a dishonest scumbag like you, so what?
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1956 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 11:21:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:45:57 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 17:05:45 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 15:53:01 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
MikeSoja wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0700, "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> posted:
<snip>
And you are still angry because you could not answer him?
Or why else do you bring that complaint to us?
Precisely which portion of the fat, stupid, commie pig's
blather are you asserting has any credence?
Mike Soja
^^^^ ^^^^
|||| ||||
Not that part, in any case.
What I thought. You are unable to pose the question you
alleged I failed to answer.
Are you dim, or just stupid?
I am able to read.
Apparently, you can't think.
You asked "which portion ... has any credence."
You did not ask the other question.
You asked why I "could not answer him" *before* the quote you
now
present. Do you have a clue as to that which you were
apparently refering, or was the thought "gone" as soon as you
thunk it?
In any case, you are now in alt.messianic. We don't do
airplanes.
Do you give credence to people who fantasize that al Qaeda
didn't blow a hole in the Pentagon the morning of September 11,
2001?
Why do people give that moron AWOL Bush ceredence when he says
Saddam aided and abetted Soama doing this?
The morons let him lie into a war with ***** like that.
Poor old Sistah Soja is still busting a gut trying to protect his
government from questions about the Pentagon crash, I take it.
Gotta love watching a blustering, vile fool of a libertarian turning
into a blustering, vile fool of a government toadie. Some things just
don't change, you know?
I also see that a poll last week shows that 33% of Americans STILL
think Saddam was involved in 9/11. All I can do is remember the words
of Bob, who counselled, "You know how dumb someone with an IQ of 100
is? Well, half the population, BY DEFINITION, is dumber than that!"
Two out of three of the subnormals think Saddam flew a plane into the
Pentagon.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
12 Oct 2005 08:53:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:21:27 -0700, 1956 Dead
<zepp1956#2211finestplanet.com@> posted:
Poor old Sistah Soja is still busting a gut trying to protect his
government from questions about the Pentagon crash, I take it.
Actually, you fat, stupid, commie pig, highlighting your
incompetence and shredding what little credibility you have doesn't
require a defense of "government". You're a liar and a scumbag no
matter what your political persuasion. That you happen to be a full
blown anti-American dipshit is just icing on the cake.
Gotta love watching a blustering, vile fool of a libertarian turning
into a blustering, vile fool of a government toadie. Some things just
don't change, you know?
Ah, there's more of that fine intellect that so impresses Herr
associate perfesserboy Scotty Erb.
Pointing out the ridiculousness of fat pig Jamieson's assessment of
the Pentagon crash makes me a "government toadie"? I don't think
so.
If fat, stupid, commie pig Brian Jamieson says the sky is striped
green and purple, and Bush says it's blue, and I point out that
commie pig Jamieson is wrong, I'm a "government toadie"?
No, it's just fat, stupid, commie pig Brian Jamieson's way of trying
to change the subject away from his own ignorant ridiculousness.
I also see that a poll last week shows that 33% of Americans STILL
think Saddam was involved in 9/11. All I can do is remember the words
of Bob, who counselled, "You know how dumb someone with an IQ of 100
is? Well, half the population, BY DEFINITION, is dumber than that!"
Two out of three of the subnormals think Saddam flew a plane into the
Pentagon.
Tell us again who *you* think "flew a plane into the Pentagon", you
fat, stupid commie pig.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 02:20:15 AM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km6eqkq4lfic3@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km4gbt189e59a@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
Truly, these are two of the shallowest thinking people
in the universe.
Sorry, all we see from you is shallow name calling.
There is shallow.
If I cared, I would be embarrassed for them but one
must let children do, what they do.
Erb didn't deal with the argument at hand. Neither did
you.
Again, name calling is shallow. Theology and religious
traditdions of four major faiths, Judaisn, Islam,
christianity and Hinduism, make claims about god having
certain attributes.
These claims contradict each other showing us that god
as concieved by billions of true believers cannot
possibly exist.
This is hardly shallow. Its deep enough almost
nobody can deal honestly with the argument. Not you
either.
************************Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and
for now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments
and in no way are foundational or truely necessary,
except those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation only
through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian dogma that
Jesus was the son of god is blasphemous. Ideas like this
though, are of little importance to the overarching and
general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted
this class of god as their basic attributes concerning
the nature of god. But it is important to remember here
that what is being discussed here is a class of gods,
not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still
popular, and is championed most notably today by Alvin
Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this
good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free
will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will,
thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed
argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13
billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith
in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned,
God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state
will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the
future state of Smith and decide if he will tolerate
an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of
a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by
creations of god will be evil and do evil only
because of personal and willful creations of god
allowing evil acts to be done, by direct decision of
god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator
god, it is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of
god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe
cannot have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe
with a god that creates all and knows all precludes
free will for all beings god creates in the
strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand
God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom
claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will
cannot exist for man. All evil is the direct and
knowing creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free
will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As
has Grand Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of possible
gods, all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand
God sent this or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
I was of the opinion that you were just conceptually
limited,
I am. I am limited to claims theology makes.
And logically examining the claims made.
After all, that is all there is, claims.
What I do even more limiting is drop all unnecessary
claims that are not needed to show god as defined is
contradictory and thus impossible.
All you need is concepts that work, which you don't have.
as are most that make the journey through the governments
educational camps.
At least I can use logic and am smart enough to sift out
the
imoportant claims I need to disporve your god. I note al
you can do is rant at me in a futile manner.
You cannot deal with my disproof of the Grand God of Grand
Theology, the Grand god of four major religous traditions.
But despite rants, my disproof stands, unmovable,
undefeatable, true and thorough.
Well, that is just plain sad.
Carry on.
It is sad you cannot deal with my argument above in any
meaningful manner.
I have taken great care to simplify arguments to the
simplest and hardest hitting form I can.
The fact that all you can do is get angry and call names
without once dealing with the issue at hand is sad.
I'm not angry, in the least.
No, you are angry, your posts show that plainly.
Your angry name calling leaves little doubt in the mind
of that careful reader than it fact you are angry.
It's your tragic emotional
investment in this pet project
I have an emotional investment in truth, reality and
logic. When I see a generation of fools attempting
to destroy science eductaion in name of a foolish
bronze age myth, I must act. I am doing that by creating the
strongest argument possible against the god myth that drives
these ignorami on their destructive path.
Eventually, I will write this all up in a book and
get it published. Eventually, trying to destroy science
education will see that type counter by strong counter-argument.
Those who would do that wil have to have their superstition,
their bronze aged myth attacked to save science from their
ignorant predations.
The emotional investment in bronze age fairy tales of tens of
millions of fools is a luxury we cannot longer afford.
My slim little volume will be the baseball bat scientists
can bring to these little debates.
of yours that has skewed your
perception so badly that your grasp on reality is tenuous at
best.
The only perception skewed is yours. So skewed you cannot even
deal calmly and specifically with any aspect of my argument.
You just make angry, grunting, attacks on me, as above.
My basic argument is serene, untroubled, undefeated by
empty rants and name calling.
Why do you not deal with the real subject at hand, my argument?
The argument still stands.
I have no doubt that in your present state of mind, your
"argument" is infallible, but when the realization of what has
happened to you finally weeps its way through your corrupted
synapses, I sincerely hope your landing is a soft one.
It is infallible. That is why you will not and cannot deal
directly with it.
Because you have no answer.
Just angry ad hominem attacks.
Its getting to be a bit funny to watch you blather
and jabber this way.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 07:21:07 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kmosh5m1i28e0@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km6eqkq4lfic3@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km4gbt189e59a@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
I have an emotional investment in truth, reality and
logic. When I see a generation of fools attempting
to destroy science eductaion in name of a foolish
bronze age myth, I must act.
Make sure your mom has your cape washed and pressed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
11 Oct 2005 02:20:54 PM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kmosh5m1i28e0@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km6eqkq4lfic3@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km4gbt189e59a@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
I have an emotional investment in truth, reality and
logic. When I see a generation of fools attempting
to destroy science eductaion in name of a foolish
bronze age myth, I must act.
Make sure your mom has your cape washed and pressed.
As usual, you have nothing worth reading.
Obviously you are incapable of dealing rationally with my
arguments so far.
Good.
I win. Since you will not admit the truth, and cannot
deal with it, that makes you wrong and foolish.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
24 Oct 2005 09:30:02 PM |
|
|
In article <11ko32re2mpcm9b@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kmosh5m1i28e0@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km6eqkq4lfic3@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11km4gbt189e59a@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kk49t61ta4098@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
(snip)
I have an emotional investment in truth, reality and
logic. When I see a generation of fools attempting
to destroy science eductaion in name of a foolish
bronze age myth, I must act.
Make sure your mom has your cape washed and pressed.
As usual, you have nothing worth reading.
Obviously you are incapable of dealing rationally with my
arguments so far.
Billy, you have no arguments of your own. Everything you post
is simply cut and paste from webpages and call it your own. I've yet to see you
actually engage anyone in a real discussion.
You're not only an intellectual lightweight but a fraud and
a plagerizer.
Good.
I win. Since you will not admit the truth, and cannot
deal with it, that makes you wrong and foolish.
You're an silly crank, Billy. But good for a laugh, nevertheless.
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
25 Oct 2005 05:53:56 AM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
In article <11ko32re2mpcm9b@corp.supernews.com>, wbarwell says...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11kmosh5m1i28e0@corp.supernews.com...
Kelo Disaster wrote:
*******************************8
As usual, you have nothing worth reading.
Obviously you are incapable of dealing rationally with my
arguments so far.
Billy, you have no arguments of your own. Everything you post
is simply cut and paste from webpages and call it your own. I've yet
to see you actually engage anyone in a real discussion.
You're not only an intellectual lightweight but a fraud and
a plagerizer.
Good.
I win. Since you will not admit the truth, and cannot
deal with it, that makes you wrong and foolish.
You're an silly crank, Billy. But good for a laugh, nevertheless.
You still lose.
Ranting and raving is not an argument.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART TH | | | | | |
