| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Stangowitz" |
| Date: |
10 Sep 2004 09:04:36 PM |
| Object: |
Been A Long Time |
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
.
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
10 Sep 2004 09:34:18 PM |
|
|
Jim Stangowitz wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Lately, the best evidence for the nonexistence of God is the U.S.
Presidential campaign.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
10 Sep 2004 09:35:16 PM |
|
|
Jim Stangowitz wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
I think probably the thing that will amaze you most is that a few years ago
a fundie told us about Darwin's Death Bed Conversion. Naturally he heard a
denial.
However, and I am not makeing this up, he researched it, found out he was
wrong and posted an apology.
Other than that it's pretty much the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
11 Sep 2004 06:03:11 PM |
|
|
Jim Stangowitz wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
Sort by sender and check out Sniper, Anti Septic, Virgil, Jeff Young,
and company if you want a few laughs.
Young argues that if there are atheists then there might be a GodŽ.
That's up for best example of non sequitur of all time.
They all argue _ad ignorantiam_ there might be a magically invisible
GodŽ because it is an hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not
prove false.
None of them seem capable of grasping the fact that since God is the
hypothetical creator, the hypothetical first cause, there cannot be any
such thing due to the logically fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea of GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause, pointed
out by Bertrand Russell:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
8^)
best regards,
D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
11 Sep 2004 09:04:13 PM |
|
|
In article <PuL0d.285174$8_6.117228@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Jim Stangowitz wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
Sort by sender and check out Sniper, Anti Septic, Virgil, Jeff Young,
and company if you want a few laughs.
Young argues that if there are atheists then there might be a GodŽ.
That's up for best example of non sequitur of all time.
It follows directly from the Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, AKA Dixit
and many other aliases, false definition of theism.
They all argue _ad ignorantiam_ there might be a magically invisible
God because it is an hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not
prove false.
I challenge Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, to find anyone, except
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who hypotheses magically invisible or
cites Galileo in support of any such thesis, or to validate his claim of
a fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
makes claims wholesale and validates them never.
The actual situation is that there has not been presented here any
logically convincing evidence of either the existence of any gods or of
their impossibility.
Thus the appropriate agnostic position, to which Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, so violently objects, is that AS FAR AS WE KNOW (a phrase
that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, regularly snips before responding)
there might be gods or there might not be any gods.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, on the other hand, at any suggestion
that as far as we know there might be gods claims that this is a fallacy
and has frequently responded "FALSE, there are no gods." And then Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, claims that his claim of falsehood is somehow
exempt from the need for proof.
None of them seem capable of grasping the fact
Since what follows is not a fact at all but only a delusion, we rejoice
in our escape.
hypothetical creator, the hypothetical first cause, there cannot be any
such thing due to the logically fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause, pointed
out by Bertrand Russell
Snipped because Bertrand Russell deserves better than to be so horribly
misinterpreted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
11 Sep 2004 01:59:39 AM |
|
|
Jim Stangowitz wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
To summarize :
Theists : God exists!
Atheists : Please provide some evidence.
Theists : *You* prove god does not exist! Hahahahahaha!
It's been downhill from there.
Regards to all
Jim S
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
11 Sep 2004 04:52:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:04:36 GMT, Jim Stangowitz
<somename@telussomething.net> wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
Hi, Jim. As you may observe, these days the focus of the group has
largely shifted to discussing US politics (and yes, I plead guilty),
but that should subside a month or so after the November election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
11 Sep 2004 04:53:05 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:mhi5k0pn94l2k5fiutb3fld8e07gepj49s@4ax.com:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:04:36 GMT, Jim Stangowitz
<somename@telussomething.net> wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
Hi, Jim. As you may observe, these days the focus of the group has
largely shifted to discussing US politics (and yes, I plead guilty),
but that should subside a month or so after the November election.
....depending on who wins =0
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
The Fundamentalist
== Knows no greater joy than the sound of his own voice.
== Knows no greater terror than the god he creates in his own image.
== Knows no greater evil than an unfettered mind.
== Knows no greater blasphemy than being told "NO."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney stoney@ the.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Been A Long Time |
12 Sep 2004 10:27:17 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:04:36 GMT, Jim Stangowitz
<somename@telussomething.net> wrote:
Oldtimers may recall my name. And apparently, somewhere or other, I'm
credited as a contributor in the FAQ for this newsgroup. Most likely
for some messages related to the Problem Of Evil and how it seems to
constitute absolute logical proof that "God" cannot exist.
I'm looking forward to seeing where we're at these days in our ongoing
thoughts about and discussions of "God's" non-existence.
Regards to all
Jim S
Hi, Jim. As you may observe, these days the focus of the group has
largely shifted to discussing US politics (and yes, I plead guilty),
but that should subside a month or so after the November election.
Election? {blink blink}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
