| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Precision" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 11:23:21 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove God
does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You can't prove
a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists. Look it up in
the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of God."
Theism is defined in the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
exactly as follows:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without
rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
[1670-80; THE- + -ISM]
At first blush the atheist seemed to have a valid point. As the one
believing in the existence of God, the very basis of my belief in an
absolute reality - the existence of God - seemed to place the burden of
proof on myself the believer.
So the atheist seemed in an enviable position of being able to sit back
staring cynically at me perhaps with the seemingly all-knowing and superior
smile of a Cheshire cat on his or her face and I had to do all the work in
proving God's existence. My inability to prove God's existence seemed to
mean that, at least at the present time, the atheist could luxuriate in the
sure knowledge they had the absolute truth. According to this
not-proving-a-negative theory the atheist could not reasonably be expected
to prove there is no God.
True?
Uh, not so fast... it MIGHT have been true if atheism was defined in the
same vein as agnosticism. Let's examine the basic definition of what it
means to be agnostic:
Agnostic is defined in the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
exactly as follows:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and
the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in
some area of study.
-adj.
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
[< Gk ágn$st(os), var. of ÁGNaTOS not known, incapable of being known (a-
A-6 + gn$tós known, adj. deriv. from base of gign?skein to know) + -IC,
after GNOSTIC; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869]
Therefore, if this basically describes atheism as well, then perhaps the
atheist had a point about the burden of absolute proof that God exists being
on the believer in God. I would have to admit that I believe in God based on
FAITH and not absolute evidence... and I couldn't expect the agnostic to
prove a negative based on the above definition.
But it turns out atheism is not even close to agnosticism!
The whole premise of atheism according to most dictionary definitions of the
word is claiming THERE ABSOLUTELY IS NO GOD!
In other words, atheism is not similar to agnosticism in claiming "You
cannot prove God exists or does not exist."
Atheism goes a step further in claiming to have sufficient knowledge to
state with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that God DOES NOT EXIST.
Think about it. I point to a box on a table and I state with absolute
certainty "That box is empty!"
You say "No, God is in that box!"
Neither of us has the technology to open the box.
The agnostic says "You're both wrong, because you can't prove one way or the
other whether God is in that box!"
The theist finally concedes, "I believe God is in that box, nonetheless, out
of FAITH."
The atheist? What does he say? Does he tell you "I believe God is NOT in
that box, also out of FAITH"? Not at all! The atheist says, rather, "I know
for a fact God is NOT in that box, and that the box is empty!"
Any scientist under such circumstances would demand to the atheist, "So you
say the box is absolutely empty without the shadow of doubt, even though our
current technology doesn't allow us to discover its contents? THEN PROVE
IT."
Scientists would not accept the following atheist's reply, "You can't prove
a negative! I'm saying to you the box is empty! You admit that there is no
way to get inside the box to prove there MIGHT be God inside it! Therefore
the burden of proof always rests on YOU to satisfactorily show the box is
NOT empty as I claim, or we go on believing it is empty."
That is why any scientist worth his salt would either (a) accept God's
existence on FAITH, or (b) concede that God *might* exist (see agnostic
definition). No scientist could align himself with atheism (see atheism
definition) and be considered credible without first PROVING THE BOX IS
EMPTY. Of course if the present technology prevented getting inside the box
to discover its contents or lack thereof, then the very definition of
atheism is illogical:
Atheism is defined in the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
exactly as follows:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[1580-90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ISM]
I say again without asking anyone to prove a negative:
"Atheists: Prove that God does not exist!"
In doing so, show evidence that you have enough absolute knowledge to prove
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God" is absolutely scientifically
true.
In not doing so, ask yourself how you can align yourself with "a doctrine or
belief that there is no God" when you lack the technology and scientific
knowledge to rule out, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF SCIENTIFIC DOUBT, the possibility
that God exists? I remind you, atheism is NOT the doctrine or belief that
the possibility of God's existence is remote. The definition states
absolutely "there is no God."
The doctrine or belief that "There is no God?"
Suppose I told you about a doctrine or belief "The box sitting on a table in
a locked room in the Pentagon is empty"? But current technology and
scientific knowledge prevents that box from being opened, with a possible
solution to opening it POSSIBLY decades into the future? Yet you are one of
those who hold fast to this doctrine. I want to know HOW you rule out with
absolute certainty, without opening the box, that it is NOT empty? On faith?
If you can't answer the question this topic poses, then, am I to assume you
accept ON FAITH that "there is no God" as atheism's definition states?
Since I readily admit that I accept ON FAITH that "God exists" as theism is
defined, then whose faith is true? Yours? Or mine?
I'm wondering if anyone in the alt.atheism topic can provide an intelligent
and credible response to the core problems in atheism this post raises?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 11:20:05 AM |
|
|
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> said:
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists.
OK, here is a valid argument.
If God existed, an absolute infinity of something would exist.
An absolute infinity of something cannot exist.
THerefore, God does not exist.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 01:47:58 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> said:
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists.
OK, here is a valid argument.
If God existed, an absolute infinity of something would exist.
An absolute infinity of something cannot exist.
THerefore, God does not exist.
Jim07D5
An infinity of something cannot exist? So where does the universe end?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 02:22:23 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> said:
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists.
OK, here is a valid argument.
If God existed, an absolute infinity of something would exist.
An absolute infinity of something cannot exist.
THerefore, God does not exist.
Jim07D5
An infinity of something cannot exist? So where does the universe end?
It supposedly has a radius of about 13 billion light years and so
there is supposedly nothing beyond that radius.
Here is a better way of stating the argument:
If God existed, an actual infinity of something would exist.
An actual infinity of something cannot exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.
The issue concerns "actual infinity" and "potential infinity". I
suggest a google on those terms if you are interested. ("Absolute
infinity" is not as good a term for what I meant.)
Whether it is a proof depends on what you mean by "God".
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 07:37:27 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2tfv0dhlqnh2ml5jnviclhg2kqloe6s7h@4ax.com...
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
[..]
An infinity of something cannot exist? So where does the universe end?
It supposedly has a radius of about 13 billion light years and so
there is supposedly nothing beyond that radius.
No, that's just the observable universe. The actual size of the universe is
not known. According to Wikipedia, the present distance to the observable
universe is 78 billion light years, but that's not necessarily the end of
it. For all we know, it is, in fact, unbounded and infinite, which pretty
much nullifies your argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 12:34:08 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o2tfv0dhlqnh2ml5jnviclhg2kqloe6s7h@4ax.com...
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
[..]
An infinity of something cannot exist? So where does the universe end?
It supposedly has a radius of about 13 billion light years and so
there is supposedly nothing beyond that radius.
No, that's just the observable universe. The actual size of the universe is
not known. According to Wikipedia, the present distance to the observable
universe is 78 billion light years, but that's not necessarily the end of
it. For all we know, it is, in fact, unbounded and infinite, which pretty
much nullifies your argument.
Ad ignorantiam arguments do not count as refutations.
But I only said it was valid, I didn't say it was sound. If it was
indisputably sound it'd already be in the books and theism would be
dead. (Or I would be.;-))
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 10:32:49 PM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
No, that's just the observable universe. The actual size of the universe is
not known. According to Wikipedia, the present distance to the observable
universe is 78 billion light years, but that's not necessarily the end of
it. For all we know, it is, in fact, unbounded and infinite, which pretty
much nullifies your argument.
Well, I mean like, it pretty much has to be infinite, or what would lie
outside it? Could it be in a big room? What's outside the room?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 12:37:47 AM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> said:
Dale wrote:
No, that's just the observable universe. The actual size of the universe is
not known. According to Wikipedia, the present distance to the observable
universe is 78 billion light years, but that's not necessarily the end of
it. For all we know, it is, in fact, unbounded and infinite, which pretty
much nullifies your argument.
Well, I mean like, it pretty much has to be infinite, or what would lie
outside it? Could it be in a big room? What's outside the room?
However big it is, if it is the universe (everything that exists)
there can be nothing outside it. But if there is nothing outside it,
it has no reason to be grabby because there is nothing to grab.;-)
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 08:41:05 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> said:
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists.
OK, here is a valid argument.
If God existed, an absolute infinity of something would exist.
An absolute infinity of something cannot exist.
THerefore, God does not exist.
Jim07D5
Guess you don't much care for modern (Post-Cantorian)
set theory?
Colin Day
aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 12:38:17 AM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> said:
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> said:
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists.
OK, here is a valid argument.
If God existed, an absolute infinity of something would exist.
An absolute infinity of something cannot exist.
THerefore, God does not exist.
Jim07D5
Guess you don't much care for modern (Post-Cantorian)
set theory?
I only claimed it was valid.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 12:55:22 AM |
|
|
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God
does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You can't
prove
a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists. Look it up in
the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of God."
[...]
I don't feel the need to prove that God does not exist, nor do I feel the
need to insist that God-believers prove that God exists. While I don't deny
that some atheists would insist that you prove God exists, I don't
understand why you feel the need to fight about it, unless you're rendering
fun from the fight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Prism" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
28 Jan 2005 10:55:00 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:u9HJd.9407$2e7.7970@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove
God
does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You
can't
prove
a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists. Look it
up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of God."
[...]
I don't feel the need to prove that God does not exist, nor do I feel
the need to insist that God-believers prove that God exists. While I
don't deny that some atheists would insist that you prove God exists,
I don't understand why you feel the need to fight about it, unless
you're rendering fun from the fight.
Best reason ever. FUN.
2nd best? - the chance to wrap (warp?) our minds around foreign concepts we
might never come up with ourselves and discover how our own memes respond
to them. It's a stretching exercise.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a
question without debating it."
-Jeseph Joubert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 02:24:18 PM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
< snip >
I don't feel the need to prove that God does not exist, nor do I feel the
need to insist that God-believers prove that God exists. While I don't deny
that some atheists would insist that you prove God exists,
Only when the theist wants us to believe in their god.
I don't
understand why you feel the need to fight about it, unless you're rendering
fun from the fight.
Or trying to convert us.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
25 Jan 2005 11:46:51 PM |
|
|
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You can't
prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists. Look it
up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I don't
believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that he doesn't
believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts itself, or
reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator of the
universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then that god
cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a promise
that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it is discovered
that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from ingesting poison, then
that god cannot exist because its description contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove anything, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders. However, the atheist
can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps disprove a god whose
description is patently contradictory.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 12:25:28 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You can't
prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists. Look it
up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I don't
believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that he
doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts itself,
or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator of
the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then that
god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a promise
that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it is
discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from ingesting
poison, then that god cannot exist because its description contradicts
observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove anything,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders. However, the
atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps disprove a god
whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is not
self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to every
possible interpretation until one is found that causes the description to
contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended to say, only OUR
interpretation of the meaning of your words will be considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 12:57:29 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You
can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists.
Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of
God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I don't
believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that he
doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts itself,
or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator of
the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then that
god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it is
discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from ingesting
poison, then that god cannot exist because its description contradicts
observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove anything,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders. However, the
atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps disprove a god
whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is not
self-contradictory?
Sure, but why should anyone but the person who proposes that such a thing
exists bother doing so?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Yes.
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to every
possible interpretation until one is found that causes the description to
contradict itself.
Well, that would be stupid. What you describe is nothing more than an
exercise in linguistics and probably imagination. It has nothing to do with
whether the description provided is actually self-contradictory.
It will not matter what you intended to say, only OUR interpretation of
the meaning of your words will be considered important.
How absurd and useless.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But that is by no means the method used to find contradictions in
descriptions of gods. Or if it is, it is just as invalid as the useless
exercise that you propose. When and where has this been done? Or are you
just whining about something you've imagined to be the case?
Just FYI, and as an example, it really is impossible for a god to be both
omnibenevolent and omnipotent at the same time, given the state of the world
as we know it and the usual definitons of those words. Certainly some gods
are described that way, and are therefore self-contradictory-- no such
imaginary twisting of definitions as you propose required. If your favorite
god isn't described that way, good for you. There's probably some other
reason you couldn't convince someone outside your religion that it exists.
Feel free to give it a shot, though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 01:01:34 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You
can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists.
Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of
God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I don't
believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that he
doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts itself,
or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator of
the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then that
god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it is
discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from ingesting
poison, then that god cannot exist because its description contradicts
observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove anything,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders. However, the
atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps disprove a god
whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is not
self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to every
possible interpretation until one is found that causes the description to
contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended to say, only OUR
interpretation of the meaning of your words will be considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 02:32:49 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the years
have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist to prove
God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have to. You
can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God exists.
Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the existence of
God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I don't
believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that he
doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator of
the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then that
god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it is
discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from ingesting
poison, then that god cannot exist because its description contradicts
observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove anything,
and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders. However, the
atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps disprove a god
whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is not
self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended to
say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence of
God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
You don't even know what "spiritual" means. That is because you don't take
the words of the scriptures at "face value".
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 04:00:16 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God
exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that
he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then
that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps
disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God,
Sorry, no, that has nothing to do with face value.
because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists". That's
the "face value" of the scriptures.
That's true, the scriptures mean what they say. Of course, that has nothing
whatsoever to do with whether a god really exists or not.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
No, face value means that we agree that the scriptural words "God exists"
means that the scripture actually mean that "God Exists".
Just like the scripture means that insects have 4 legs when it says they
have 4 legs.
It's you who does not know what face value means.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
You don't even know what "spiritual" means.
You're right. Neither do you, unless you can provide a coherent description.
That is because you don't take the words of the scriptures at "face
value".
Oh, I believe that the scripture says, and means, that spirit exists. I take
the statements at face value. It's just that there's no coherent description
of what spirit is.
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
Stop projecting.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 05:58:11 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_6GdndvXfKXDjmXcRVn-hw@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove
God exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except
that he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then
that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps
disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your
own descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by
someone's misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God,
Sorry, no, that has nothing to do with face value.
Incorrect. For example, a dollar bill has "face value" of one dollar. You
accept that the dollar bill can be exchanged for a certain amount of
merchandise. It is not that you say, "well the dollar bill only CLAIMS to be
worth a dollar, but it isn't really..." No. You take the dollar bill at face
value.
You do not, however, take the scriptures at face value. On the contrary, you
reject their face value.
because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That's true, the scriptures mean what they say. Of course, that has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether a god really exists or not.
Incorrect. The scriptures do not mean what they "say", they mean what they
mean. That is why your program of "face value" nonsense always backfires.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
No, face value means that we agree that the scriptural words "God exists"
means that the scripture actually mean that "God Exists".
Incorrect, as your next statement shows. Remember that you said, "...But we
don't interpret the words, we take them at face value."
Just like the scripture means that insects have 4 legs when it says they
have 4 legs.
You claim to take the scriptures at "face value" without "interpretation",
but "insect" is an English word not found in the text of the Old Testament,
which is in Hebrew. So you have indeed "interpreted" the scriptures rather
than taken them at "face value".
It's you who does not know what face value means.
Your finding of the English word "insect" in the Hebrew Old Testament proves
that you don't take it at "face value". But since you claimed that you do,
it is concluded that you don't know what "face value" means.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 01:02:49 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:n8WJd.6941$r27.2456@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_6GdndvXfKXDjmXcRVn-hw@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove
God exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except
that he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will,
then that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and
perhaps disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at
all which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your
own descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by
someone's misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the
existence of God,
Sorry, no, that has nothing to do with face value.
Incorrect. For example, a dollar bill has "face value" of one dollar. You
accept that the dollar bill can be exchanged for a certain amount of
merchandise. It is not that you say, "well the dollar bill only CLAIMS to
be worth a dollar, but it isn't really..." No. You take the dollar bill at
face value.
You do not, however, take the scriptures at face value. On the contrary,
you reject their face value.
because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That's true, the scriptures mean what they say. Of course, that has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether a god really exists or not.
Incorrect. The scriptures do not mean what they "say", they mean what they
mean. That is why your program of "face value" nonsense always backfires.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
No, face value means that we agree that the scriptural words "God exists"
means that the scripture actually mean that "God Exists".
Incorrect, as your next statement shows. Remember that you said, "...But
we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value."
Just like the scripture means that insects have 4 legs when it says they
have 4 legs.
You claim to take the scriptures at "face value" without "interpretation",
but "insect" is an English word not found in the text of the Old
Testament, which is in Hebrew. So you have indeed "interpreted" the
scriptures rather than taken them at "face value".
It's you who does not know what face value means.
Your finding of the English word "insect" in the Hebrew Old Testament
proves that you don't take it at "face value". But since you claimed that
you do, it is concluded that you don't know what "face value" means.
Try again.
Wow. You're even more stupid than you appeared at first glance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 07:02:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:02:49 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:n8WJd.6941$r27.2456@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_6GdndvXfKXDjmXcRVn-hw@io.com...
[]
because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That's true, the scriptures mean what they say. Of course, that has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether a god really exists or not.
Incorrect. The scriptures do not mean what they "say", they mean what they
mean. That is why your program of "face value" nonsense always backfires.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
No, face value means that we agree that the scriptural words "God exists"
means that the scripture actually mean that "God Exists".
Incorrect, as your next statement shows. Remember that you said, "...But
we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value."
Just like the scripture means that insects have 4 legs when it says they
have 4 legs.
You claim to take the scriptures at "face value" without "interpretation",
but "insect" is an English word not found in the text of the Old
Testament, which is in Hebrew. So you have indeed "interpreted" the
scriptures rather than taken them at "face value".
It's you who does not know what face value means.
Your finding of the English word "insect" in the Hebrew Old Testament
proves that you don't take it at "face value". But since you claimed that
you do, it is concluded that you don't know what "face value" means.
Try again.
Wow. You're even more stupid than you appeared at first glance.
I didn't think that was humanly possible. I was wrong.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 12:52:40 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_6GdndvXfKXDjmXcRVn-hw@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
< snip >
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God,
Sorry, no, that has nothing to do with face value.
Incorrect. For example, a dollar bill has "face value" of one dollar. You
accept that the dollar bill can be exchanged for a certain amount of
merchandise. It is not that you say, "well the dollar bill only CLAIMS to be
worth a dollar, but it isn't really..." No. You take the dollar bill at face
value.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=face%20value
1. The value printed or written on the face, as of a bill or bond.
2. Apparent significance or value: "took their compliments at face
value."
You are using the first definition, Denis is using the second.
You do not, however, take the scriptures at face value. On the contrary, you
reject their face value.
That makes no sense using your definition of "face value", unless you're
into numerology.
because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That's true, the scriptures mean what they say. Of course, that has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether a god really exists or not.
Incorrect. The scriptures do not mean what they "say", they mean what
they mean.
How do you determine that meaning without referring to what they say?
< snip >
No, face value means that we agree that the scriptural words "God exists"
means that the scripture actually mean that "God Exists".
Incorrect, as your next statement shows. Remember that you said, "...But we
don't interpret the words, we take them at face value."
Just like the scripture means that insects have 4 legs when it says they
have 4 legs.
You claim to take the scriptures at "face value" without "interpretation",
but "insect" is an English word not found in the text of the Old Testament,
which is in Hebrew. So you have indeed "interpreted" the scriptures rather
than taken them at "face value".
No, we've taken the words at face value.
If the translation is wrong, that's not our fault. Talk to the
translators. Or at least tell us what English word(s) the Hebrew
word(s) *should* translate into. You can do that, right? You're
obviously an expert on Hebrew vocabulary.
It's you who does not know what face value means.
Your finding of the English word "insect" in the Hebrew Old Testament proves
that you don't take it at "face value".
Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Denis wasn't talking about Hebrew
scriptures; he was talking about an English translation. You can't
possibly have thought otherwise.
But since you claimed that you do,
it is concluded that you don't know what "face value" means.
Yes, he does. He's using the definition that makes sense in this
context. Try reading more to see how the term is used in various
situations.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 01:00:51 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God
exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that
he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then
that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps
disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God
exists". That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That would be accepting the message of the scriptures at face value, not
taking the definitions of the words themselves at face value when deciding
what they mean. There's obviously a huge difference
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
Apparently that's you who is so confused.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
You don't even know what "spiritual" means. That is because you don't take
the words of the scriptures at "face value".
Ok, what does "spiritual" mean? And how would taking the words of scripture
(which scriptures, by the way) at face value help with knowing that?
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
Such hostility... very enlightening.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 07:04:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:00:51 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God
exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that
he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then
that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps
disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God
exists". That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That would be accepting the message of the scriptures at face value, not
taking the definitions of the words themselves at face value when deciding
what they mean. There's obviously a huge difference
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
Apparently that's you who is so confused.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
You don't even know what "spiritual" means. That is because you don't take
the words of the scriptures at "face value".
Ok, what does "spiritual" mean? And how would taking the words of scripture
(which scriptures, by the way) at face value help with knowing that?
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
Such hostility... very enlightening.
That's not hostility. It is Christian brand 'love.'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
27 Jan 2005 09:00:23 PM |
|
|
in article mr3jv01fqeinne13qugdckqskhd8chib2a@4ax.com, stoney at
stoney@the.net wrote on 01/27/05 8:04 PM:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:00:51 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:R7TJd.6646$r27.5217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Up6dnZvYVO_gdGrcRVn-gg@io.com...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sJGJd.5800$YD5.3802@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnSBY3opas2rcRVn-uA@io.com...
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote in message
news:41f7279d_1@Usenet.com...
I find it quite ironic that many atheists I have run into over the
years have insisted that I prove God exists. When I asked one atheist
to prove God does NOT exist he replied matter of factly "I don't have
to. You can't prove a negative. It is YOU the theist who must prove God
exists. Look it up in the dictionary. Theism is a belief in the
existence of God."
He's right. Except for the can't prove a negative part.
The atheist has no reason to prove anything. He's simply saying "I
don't believe you." to the theist. There's nothing to prove except that
he doesn't believe the theist's claims.
BUT, the atheist can disprove a god whose description contradicts
itself, or reality.
For instance, if the god is described as being the omniscient creator
of the universe, and its creations are claimed to have free will, then
that god cannot exist because it is self contradictory.
Another example would be if the god, described as honest, issues a
promise that followers can drink any poison without ill effect. If it
is discovered that followers do, in fact, suffer ill effect from
ingesting poison, then that god cannot exist because its description
contradicts observed reality.
So, the atheist is under no obligation to demonstrate or prove
anything, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to his shoulders.
However, the atheist can--if he wishes--assume the burden, and perhaps
disprove a god whose description is patently contradictory.
Tell me, can you produce a hypothetical description of "God" which is
not self-contradictory?
Or, to make it easier, can you produce a description of anything at all
which is not self-contradictory?
Bear in mind that each word of your description will be subjected to
every possible interpretation until one is found that causes the
description to contradict itself. It will not matter what you intended
to say, only OUR interpretation of the meaning of your words will be
considered important.
After all, it's only fair that the same methods you use to find
"contradictions" in descriptions of "God" be used in evaluating your own
descriptions of things. So no whining when you are outraged by someone's
misinterpretation of the intent of your words.
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence
of God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God
exists". That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
That would be accepting the message of the scriptures at face value, not
taking the definitions of the words themselves at face value when deciding
what they mean. There's obviously a huge difference
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
Apparently that's you who is so confused.
It's you idiots that make ***** up like, "Oh, he meant *spiritual* death."
Yeah, sure.
You don't even know what "spiritual" means. That is because you don't take
the words of the scriptures at "face value".
Ok, what does "spiritual" mean? And how would taking the words of scripture
(which scriptures, by the way) at face value help with knowing that?
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
Such hostility... very enlightening.
That's not hostility. It is Christian brand 'love.'
Please note that Chris Devol is not a "Christian", but is Hare Krishna.
Of course, there are those who call themselves Christians who also display
hostility.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
28 Jan 2005 11:03:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:00:23 -0500, Raymond Griffith
<tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article mr3jv01fqeinne13qugdckqskhd8chib2a@4ax.com, stoney at
stoney@the.net wrote on 01/27/05 8:04 PM:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:00:51 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote:
[]
Ok, what does "spiritual" mean? And how would taking the words of scripture
(which scriptures, by the way) at face value help with knowing that?
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
Such hostility... very enlightening.
That's not hostility. It is Christian brand 'love.'
Please note that Chris Devol is not a "Christian", but is Hare Krishna.
I was unaware of that. Thank you. Hare Krishna is even worse.
Of course, there are those who call themselves Christians who also display
hostility.
Sadly enough, yes, and all too many. :\
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 04:11:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:32:49 GMT, Chris Devol wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence of
God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
He said we don't interpret the words themselves, not their meaning.
Consider Mark 16:17-18: "And these signs shall follow them that
believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover."
A Christian would interpret the meaning, saying this passage is
metaphorical is some weird way, that "taking up serpents" means being
tempted or "drinking and deadly thing" means reading the scriptures of
another religion, or that "signs" refers to dreams. Taking this passage
at face value means that you, as a Christian, can safely drink poison,
fondle vipers, dispel evil spirits and cure the sick. Can you do these
things? Or do you not have true faith in your god?
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
No comment, but it's such a telling line I thought I'd leave it in.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists: Prove That God Does NOT Exist |
26 Jan 2005 11:30:44 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:32:49 GMT, Chris Devol wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
But we don't interpret the words, we take them at face value.
No, if you took words at "face value" then you would accept the existence of
God, because all the scriptures of the world say literally "God exists".
That's the "face value" of the scriptures.
But unfortunately, you don't even know what "face value" means.
He said we don't interpret the words themselves, not their meaning.
Consider Mark 16:17-18: "And these signs shall follow them that
believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover."
A Christian would interpret the meaning, saying this passage is
metaphorical is some weird way, that "taking up serpents" means being
tempted or "drinking and deadly thing" means reading the scriptures of
another religion, or that "signs" refers to dreams. Taking this passage
at face value means that you, as a Christian, can safely drink poison,
fondle vipers, dispel evil spirits and cure the sick. Can you do these
things? Or do you not have true faith in your god?
Shouldn't God be totally ***** by now with all this to-ing and fro-ing. IOW
that god should just drop down [from wherever it is; we used to say 'just above
the clouds' but we fly 747's there now] and show it's face and say "Here I am you
blithering atheist idiots, now say I don't exist. A strange god that fails
totally to stand up for itself, yet it was supposed to have created everything!
No dounbt there is an explanation for this, but I do not expect it to be anything
close to logical.
Cheers
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
What a freakin' pathetic loser.
No comment, but it's such a telling line I thought I'd leave it in.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
