| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Niels van der Linden" |
| Date: |
19 May 2005 04:01:03 PM |
| Object: |
Getting tired of it |
Who here's getting tired of all of it?
Considering a big bang and a universe such as ours, the following are
natural (or 'normal'):
Forming of stars, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies, etc., their
'lifetimes' and their 'deaths'.
Thinking things are static in the universe is utterly false. It's as dynamic
as it can possibly get. Just considering the lives the planets in our solar
system have behind them is amazing.
If you look at our cozy planet, life appeared very fast (relatively) after
it's creation. Mars has also gone through a moderate state and some moons of
Jupiter are reveiling things that give extraterrestrial-life scientists wet
dreams round the clock. Mass extinctions are also a common thing on our
planet. We have multiple recordings of such. The only thing that makes us
special is that we might actually see it coming.
The appearance of intelligent life also seems inevitable. Once an animal
comes along that incidentally has limbs that were used for something else
before, but with a slight modification can use things as tools and even
modify them, and also has an apt for communication, the path to ... sapien
(knowing ...) seems like a walk in the park.
Now what about religion? Well, I don't think there has ever been a culture
without it. How hard is it to grasp? When you don't understand the largest
part of things happening in your every day, of course you invent stuff to
attribute it to. We do it *all the time*.
However;
Today, we understand the things happening in our every day, we understand
how religions naturally appeared, we understand the rising of intelligent
life and the natural occurence of life on a planet, the natural lifetimes of
planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can just realize
that, we can try to work together on this cozy little planet of ours.
Niels
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 06:57:20 AM |
|
|
"On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:02:27 -0500, in article
<119fg91pil2te4@corp.supernews.com>, wcb stated..."
Dylan wrote:
I need to add that in the Hebrew the word translated into the English
"create" is BARA, meaning making something out of nothing (Latin ex
nihilo). -Dylan
It doesn't. Its root is carved, it literally means carved out.
It is used to mean formed, created, made.
Nor does it say anything about ex nihilo, which is an idea
that didn't arise until some centuries after Christianity.
The first trace of that doctrine seems to have been Gameliel
a 2nd centry CE Jewish rabbi.
Up to then, only Neoplatonic philosophers seemed to have
so idea that god did not create the world out of a pre-existing
chaos.
[...snip...]
There is a reference to the idea of "ex nihilo" in 2 Maccabees 7:28
"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all
that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were
not; and so was mankind made likewise."
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:13:35 AM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:02:27 -0500, in article
<119fg91pil2te4@corp.supernews.com>, wcb stated..."
Dylan wrote:
I need to add that in the Hebrew the word translated into the English
"create" is BARA, meaning making something out of nothing (Latin ex
nihilo). -Dylan
It doesn't. Its root is carved, it literally means carved out.
It is used to mean formed, created, made.
Nor does it say anything about ex nihilo, which is an idea
that didn't arise until some centuries after Christianity.
The first trace of that doctrine seems to have been Gameliel
a 2nd centry CE Jewish rabbi.
Up to then, only Neoplatonic philosophers seemed to have
so idea that god did not create the world out of a pre-existing
chaos.
[...snip...]
There is a reference to the idea of "ex nihilo" in 2 Maccabees 7:28
"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all
that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were
not; and so was mankind made likewise."
Reflecting the hellenizing influence that rode in on the wake of
Alexander's victories from Greece to India to Egypt, engulfing Judea
and remaining even after general Pompey took over the area for Rome.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 11:17:26 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Dylan wrote:
I need to add that in the Hebrew the word translated into the English
"create" is BARA, meaning making something out of nothing (Latin ex
nihilo). -Dylan
It doesn't. Its root is carved, it literally means carved out.
It is used to mean formed, created, made.
Nor does it say anything about ex nihilo, which is an idea
that didn't arise until some centuries after Christianity.
The first trace of that doctrine seems to have been Gameliel
a 2nd centry CE Jewish rabbi.
Up to then, only Neoplatonic philosophers seemed to have
so idea that god did not create the world out of a pre-existing
chaos.
*******
http://www.bennerwc.com/ancientman/11_genverse1.html
The second word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 is the verb "bara". This
word is always translated as "create" in this verse and is usually
theologically understood to mean "to make out of nothing". If we compare
Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7 we will see that this is not possible. In
Genesis 2:7 the Bible states that God "made" the man from the ground but in
Genesis 1:26 it states that God "created" man. Therefore, the Hebrew word
"bar" does not mean "to create out of nothing". This very same Hebrew word
is used in 1 Samuel 2:29 but is translated as "fattening". The Hebrews
language was very concrete oriented meaning its vocabulary is related to
something that can be sense by the five senses. Words such as "believe",
"trust" and "create" are all abstract words that are foreign concepts to
the Ancient Hebrews. In the Samuel passage we see the original meaning of
the verb "bara" which is to be "fat
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
I just checked my Young's Analytical Concordance, and you're absolutely
right. BARA : prepare, form, fashion, create. I took Hebrew in seminary
and knew the BARA word was used both in Isaiah 45 and in Genesis 1, but
had forgotten the meaning. Mea culpa.
-Dylan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 10:55:23 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by relentless and inexorbable logic god must be evil.
There is no way around it. All one can do is "git stoopid!"
and be willfully ignorant.
If "Yes", we have to account for what and where logic, reality,
the rules and laws of the Universe are and where they come from.
Not god. Immediately, other claims about god are gutted.
Its not hard. If you bother to reason.
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
I don't make the definitions. Nor care to. I just test what
definitions theology has been using over 2000 years.
It doesn't work.
Case closed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a world
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil".
The theists define that and agree it exists.
And those who are evil are punished by god.
I don't have to define it. Just note that theists
claim evil exists and god is against it.
That decided, I don't care about particulars.
The problem of evil still exists.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Have you ever looked up "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" in a
complete concordance to any Bible? You won't find them there. You are
confusing theological conclusions with Biblical exegesis. Thus your
whole post is inconclusive and I would say irrelevant to what the Bible
actually teaches and how religion actually functions in the lives of
most people.
-Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 08:06:50 PM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you
can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by relentless and inexorbable logic god must be evil.
There is no way around it. All one can do is "git stoopid!"
and be willfully ignorant.
If "Yes", we have to account for what and where logic, reality,
the rules and laws of the Universe are and where they come from.
Not god. Immediately, other claims about god are gutted.
Its not hard. If you bother to reason.
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
I don't make the definitions. Nor care to. I just test what
definitions theology has been using over 2000 years.
It doesn't work.
Case closed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a
world
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil".
The theists define that and agree it exists.
And those who are evil are punished by god.
I don't have to define it. Just note that theists
claim evil exists and god is against it.
That decided, I don't care about particulars.
The problem of evil still exists.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Have you ever looked up "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" in a
complete concordance to any Bible?
No, they aren't as these terms are Latin derived.
However, the theologians that used that word had long lists
of bible verses used to express the idea that god had these
attributes.
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
Thus the claims camme from scripture and was given a handy
label.
You won't find them there. You are
confusing theological conclusions with Biblical exegesis. Thus your
whole post is inconclusive and I would say irrelevant to what the Bible
actually teaches and how religion actually functions in the lives of
most people.
-Dylan
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
27 May 2005 11:22:13 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Dylan wrote:
wcb wrote:
Deimos wrote:
"Is tomorrow green" is indeed a not-so-good example. But there are such
things as undecidable questions. For example, as stated in
The existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
creator god is not undecidable.
The problem of evil shows us Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence
cannot be.
The theists try to exuse that with free will.
But a god that is creator of all and omniscient
dooms free will even in principle.
Thus a god that is omniscient, creator of all, omnibenevolent,
and omnipotent is impossible. Not undecidable.
Theology for 2500 years simply has either not been
inetlligent enough to put these pieces together and
understand or dishonest about the claims.
Or both.
This understood correctly, shows us god as assertted
cannot exist. Not as a particular omni-everything god,
nor as a class of general omni-everything creator gods.
Its not hard to do the simple reasoning.
At least for people who do not have some psychoilogical
block against considering the possibility god does not
and cannot exist.
Then we have to consider the effects of intellectual
dishonesty and willful stupidity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/g-del-s-incompleteness-theorem, "Gödel's
Irrelevant. Nothing to do with the simple contradictions
these attributes of god cause.
We have a claim that is long standing.
God is omnipotent. That claim has always had problems.
Can god make 2 + 2 = 5?
Many theist thinkers have answered that question.
Many no, Aquinas for example, some yes, Descarte for example.
Who is right?
This is just a repetition of what you wrote before. If you want, you
can
And I will repeat until you decide to stop being willfully stupid.
Its not hard.
If yes, by relentless and inexorbable logic god must be evil.
There is no way around it. All one can do is "git stoopid!"
and be willfully ignorant.
If "Yes", we have to account for what and where logic, reality,
the rules and laws of the Universe are and where they come from.
Not god. Immediately, other claims about god are gutted.
Its not hard. If you bother to reason.
define an "all-mighty being" as a being which can do anything that is
logically acceptable. This is, as you said, the biggest subset of
omnipotence that we can grasp with our logic.
I don't make the definitions. Nor care to. I just test what
definitions theology has been using over 2000 years.
It doesn't work.
Case closed.
Your proof (if I recall correctly) is: "If god could create such a
world
since he creates the Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is
effectively the creator of all evil. Thus god is the author and
sustaining cause of all evil and is himself evil". It all depends how
you define "evil".
The theists define that and agree it exists.
And those who are evil are punished by god.
I don't have to define it. Just note that theists
claim evil exists and god is against it.
That decided, I don't care about particulars.
The problem of evil still exists.
Exactly: I am convinced that omnipotence is not sensible, i.e. that we
cannot grasp either by our senses nor by our reason. I do not know
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Have you ever looked up "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" in a
complete concordance to any Bible?
No, they aren't as these terms are Latin derived.
However, the theologians that used that word had long lists
of bible verses used to express the idea that god had these
attributes.
And they led to the contradictions that have led many out of the
church, and rightly so, in my opinion.
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
Thus the claims camme from scripture and was given a handy
label.
Mislabel.
You won't find them there. You are
confusing theological conclusions with Biblical exegesis. Thus your
whole post is inconclusive and I would say irrelevant to what the Bible
actually teaches and how religion actually functions in the lives of
most people.
-Dylan
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 02:17:48 AM |
|
|
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Joseph Campbell and radio-talk-show-host:
R] A myth is a lie. Isn't it?
J] No, you must talk about a mythology, a whole mythology by which people
live. It's a metaphor.
R] It's a lie.
J] I'm telling you, myths are metaphors. Give me an example of a metaphor.
R] [..]
R] So and so runs very fast; people say he runs like a deer.
J] That's not the metaphor.
J] The methaphor is: so and so _is_ a deer.
R] That's a lie.
J] That's a metaphor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:07:28 AM |
|
|
Niels van der Linden wrote:
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Before I can answer this question, you're going to have to show that I
"think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language."
Joseph Campbell and radio-talk-show-host:
R] A myth is a lie. Isn't it?
J] No, you must talk about a mythology, a whole mythology by which people
live. It's a metaphor.
R] It's a lie.
J] I'm telling you, myths are metaphors. Give me an example of a metaphor.
R] [..]
R] So and so runs very fast; people say he runs like a deer.
J] That's not the metaphor.
J] The methaphor is: so and so _is_ a deer.
R] That's a lie.
J] That's a metaphor.
I like Joseph Campbell very much and have read quite a number of his
books as well as books about him and books on this subject that include
discussions of his monumental contribution. Which is as important as
any other to the development of my personal religion of Christian
mystericism.
-Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 11:41:26 AM |
|
|
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Before I can answer this question, you're going to have to show that I
"think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language."
You speak of a Jesus-person and his alleged endeavors as though you think
they all actually happened some time in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 05:30:14 PM |
|
|
Niels van der Linden wrote:
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Before I can answer this question, you're going to have to show that I
"think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language."
You speak of a Jesus-person and his alleged endeavors as though you think
they all actually happened some time in the past.
Interesting response.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 07:21:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:17:48 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Joseph Campbell and radio-talk-show-host:
R] A myth is a lie. Isn't it?
J] No, you must talk about a mythology, a whole mythology by which people
live. It's a metaphor.
R] It's a lie.
J] I'm telling you, myths are metaphors. Give me an example of a metaphor.
R] [..]
R] So and so runs very fast; people say he runs like a deer.
J] That's not the metaphor.
J] The methaphor is: so and so _is_ a deer.
R] That's a lie.
J] That's a metaphor.
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:37:25 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
.....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:54:59 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 09:07:21 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 10:03:14 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 07:07:21 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
Because until you do that you're talking out of your arse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
07 Jun 2005 07:47:08 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 07:07:21 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
Because until you do that you're talking out of your arse.
Are you aware that "you're talking out of your arse" is just as much a
metaphor as "I am the door"? If all metaphors are lies, then isn't
"you're talking out of your arse" a lie?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 05:28:26 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 07:07:21 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
Because until you do that you're talking out of your arse.
T.O. readers will make up their own minds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 07:35:18 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 15:28:26 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 07:07:21 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
Because until you do that you're talking out of your arse.
T.O. readers will make up their own minds.
You have to be pretty stupid to cross-post to alt.atheism presuming
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 09:15:02 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 15:28:26 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 07:07:21 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 May 2005 06:37:25 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
....
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Jesus said, "I am the door," and he is attacked as a liar because a
person isn't a piece of plywood. When I was much younger there was a
rock group that called itself The Doors (with Jim Morrison). Are you
saying they were a bunch of liars because it is obvious that they were
not pieces of plywood? -Dylan
Prove he (a) existed, and (b) said that.
Why?
Because until you do that you're talking out of your arse.
T.O. readers will make up their own minds.
You have to be pretty stupid to cross-post to alt.atheism presuming
it.
May God bless you, Christopher. -Dylan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:30:38 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:17:48 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Joseph Campbell and radio-talk-show-host:
R] A myth is a lie. Isn't it?
J] No, you must talk about a mythology, a whole mythology by which people
live. It's a metaphor.
R] It's a lie.
J] I'm telling you, myths are metaphors. Give me an example of a metaphor.
R] [..]
R] So and so runs very fast; people say he runs like a deer.
J] That's not the metaphor.
J] The methaphor is: so and so _is_ a deer.
R] That's a lie.
J] That's a metaphor.
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Metaphor cannot be truth? When Jesus said, "I am the door," he was
bespeaking a lie? Are you saying that Jesus' "I am the door" assertion
is a lie because a person isn't a piece of plywood? Are you saying that
people who believe it is the truth are forcing a "true/false dichotomy"
upon you? Why can't metaphor be truth? If people won't let a person be
a piece of plywood, they are liars? -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:54:36 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 06:30:38 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:17:48 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
What makes you think the entire Bible isn't metaphorical language?
Joseph Campbell and radio-talk-show-host:
R] A myth is a lie. Isn't it?
J] No, you must talk about a mythology, a whole mythology by which people
live. It's a metaphor.
R] It's a lie.
J] I'm telling you, myths are metaphors. Give me an example of a metaphor.
R] [..]
R] So and so runs very fast; people say he runs like a deer.
J] That's not the metaphor.
J] The methaphor is: so and so _is_ a deer.
R] That's a lie.
J] That's a metaphor.
So why do many believers insist that the metaphor is the truth? That's
why people call it a lie because they force the true/false dichotomy,
and it certainly ain't the truth. They won't let it be what it
actually is.
Metaphor cannot be truth? When Jesus said, "I am the door," he was
bespeaking a lie? Are you saying that Jesus' "I am the door" assertion
Do you honestly have such difficulty reading for comprehendion?
What part of "IT IS NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE" are you pretending you
don't understand?
And what word of "IF YOU INSIST THAT IT IS THE TRUTH WHEN IT ISN'T YOU
FORCE IT TO BE A LIE BECAUSE YOU ONLY ALLOW THOSE ALTERNATIVES is too
long for you?
is a lie because a person isn't a piece of plywood? Are you saying that
people who believe it is the truth are forcing a "true/false dichotomy"
upon you? Why can't metaphor be truth? If people won't let a person be
a pie
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
It is dishonest use of language to redefine religious belief as
"truth".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 06:35:36 AM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
**************
Have you ever looked up "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" in a
complete concordance to any Bible?
No, they aren't as these terms are Latin derived.
However, the theologians that used that word had long lists
of bible verses used to express the idea that god had these
attributes.
And they led to the contradictions that have led many out of the
church, and rightly so, in my opinion.
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
Baloney. They are assertions.
There are many more, carefully collected and collated
by theologians.
When they used words like omnipotent, omniscient,
they don't make this up from their imaginations.
They read the bible books and find these claims there.
They merely sort them out, categorize them and gave
them handle labels for basic concepts.
If the bible claims not a sparrow falls from the sky but
that god does not know it is a claim.
I have seen lists of hundreds of bible verses
used to support these ideas, omnipotence, omnibenevolence,
et al.
Thus the claims camme from scripture and was given a handy
label.
Mislabel.
Label. Omnipotence is derived from Latin Omni (all)
and potens Powers or abilities.
Its a simple word, a simple label.
The long list of claims of the bible books
are used to illustrate the claim of the bible
in regards to the categories.
You won't find them there. You are
confusing theological conclusions with Biblical exegesis. Thus your
whole post is inconclusive and I would say irrelevant to what the Bible
actually teaches and how religion actually functions in the lives of
most people.
-Dylan
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 08:22:34 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Dylan wrote:
It is not sensible because as a concept it causes contradictions
when it is used with other concepts. Omnipotentence + omnibenevolence
= problem of evil.
And no, its not "my definition".
Its theology's.
**************
Have you ever looked up "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" in a
complete concordance to any Bible?
No, they aren't as these terms are Latin derived.
However, the theologians that used that word had long lists
of bible verses used to express the idea that god had these
attributes.
And they led to the contradictions that have led many out of the
church, and rightly so, in my opinion.
With god, nothing is impossible.
Is there anything too hard for the Lord?
Does a sparrow fall and the Lord not know it?
This is metaphorical language.
Baloney. They are assertions.
There are many more, carefully collected and collated
by theologians.
When they used words like omnipotent, omniscient,
they don't make this up from their imaginations.
They read the bible books and find these claims there.
They merely sort them out, categorize them and gave
them handle labels for basic concepts.
If the bible claims not a sparrow falls from the sky but
that god does not know it is a claim.
I have seen lists of hundreds of bible verses
used to support these ideas, omnipotence, omnibenevolence,
et al.
Thus the claims camme from scripture and was given a handy
label.
Mislabel.
Label. Omnipotence is derived from Latin Omni (all)
and potens Powers or abilities.
Its a simple word, a simple label.
The long list of claims of the bible books
are used to illustrate the claim of the bible
in regards to the categories.
You won't find them there. You are
confusing theological conclusions with Biblical exegesis. Thus your
whole post is inconclusive and I would say irrelevant to what the Bible
actually teaches and how religion actually functions in the lives of
most people.
-Dylan
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
I have no problem with your being a literalist, Charlie. Part of the
genius of the religious experience phenomenon is its ability to deal
with all kinds of minds in all kinds of situations. -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 11:58:22 AM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
I have no problem with your being a literalist, Charlie. Part of the
genius of the religious experience phenomenon is its ability to deal
with all kinds of minds in all kinds of situations. -Dylan
You aren't getting this, are you?
Do you think people wrote these books of the bible, that they
were carefully editted together and then thrown in a corner
and never read while theists made up wild claims at random,
ignoring the bible?
Sorry, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence are old ideas
that come to Judaism, Islam and christianity via the many
claims of the 66 books of the OT and for christians, the NT.
Its obvious you have no familiarity with early Christian writings
and how they created a theology by ransacking the bible for verses
to support theological claims.
Islam took its theology from Jews and Christians.
And admits it, quoting the OT at length.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
28 May 2005 05:31:22 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Dylan wrote:
I have no problem with your being a literalist, Charlie. Part of the
genius of the religious experience phenomenon is its ability to deal
with all kinds of minds in all kinds of situations. -Dylan
You aren't getting this, are you?
Do you think people wrote these books of the bible, that they
were carefully editted together and then thrown in a corner
and never read while theists made up wild claims at random,
ignoring the bible?
Sorry, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence are old ideas
that come to Judaism, Islam and christianity via the many
claims of the 66 books of the OT and for christians, the NT.
Its obvious you have no familiarity with early Christian writings
and how they created a theology by ransacking the bible for verses
to support theological claims.
Islam took its theology from Jews and Christians.
And admits it, quoting the OT at length.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Interesting observations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 11:51:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:51:34 +0200, Deimos
<magic_address@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
Because you were responding to an obviously atheistic position, and trying
to characterize it as a religious or faith-based one.
But an atheistic position *is* a faith-based one! You can no more prove
the existence of God than you can disprove it! By essence, God (would)
transcend(s) our logic...
Please explain how rejecting a proposition for which there is no
supporting evidence is in any way a matter of faith. It takes faith to
*accept* such a proposition, yes, but not to reject it.
Either you know that
or you didn't know such a characterization would be
insulting to an atheist, in which case you would be grossly stupid.
Or ignorant.
The substance, in this case, is the assumption behind the question. Yours is
clear.
An "implied assumption" has no place in a rational discussion.
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 04:44:06 AM |
|
|
On 19 May 2005 22:35:49 -0700, "Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116551478.568568.125260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is
no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you
are
using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
What drives the assumption that I am using "faith" in a derogatory
manner?
The snide manner in which it was used. Obviously an athiest would
most
likely object to such a characterization of his statements.
Clearly you are implying that his comments are less than true by
suggesting
they are a faith statement rather than a factual statement. Oddly, I
happen
to agree with you that faith statements are less than factual.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
How does - "Is this your faith statement?" - demonstrate a "snide
manner"? I can assure you I had no snide intent. Would you care to
address the actual logic of my question? Even if there was a "snide
manner," which I deny, switching to addressing the manner is like
saying, "I can't answer your logic, so I'll point out that you're
wearing a tux with a purple polkadot necktie." Deal with the substance,
Denis. -Dylan
Then please explain the purpose of your question. You were the
one who characterised his statement as one of faith.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 04:39:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:34:08 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116544137.782776.242410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
Ah, so you are of the opinion that faith is a bad thing since you are using
it in a derogatory manner.
Excellent, I agree.
Yes me too :-)
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 01:16:06 PM |
|
|
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
No, this is:
THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS (THE PENTABARF)
The PENTABARF was discovered by the hermit Apostle Zarathud in the Fifth
Year of The Caterpillar. He found them carved in gilded stone, while
building a sun deck for his cave, but their import was lost for they were
written in a mysterious cypher. However, after 10 weeks & 11 hours of
intensive scrutiny he discerned that the message could be read by standing
on his head and viewing it upside down.
KNOW YE THIS O MAN OF FAITH!
I - There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your Goddess. There is no
Erisian Movement but The Erisian Movement and it is The Erisian Movement.
And every Golden Apple Corps is the beloved home of a Golden Worm.
II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document
Numbering System.
III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone
& Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to
Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic
Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic
Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of
Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace
of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE
TRANSGRESSICUTED.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/11.php
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 10:27:45 AM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
Niels van der Linden wrote:
....
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god.
Niels
Is this your faith statement? -Dylan
This is a naive and disingenuous attempt to put disbelief in the
supernatural on the same epistemological footing as belief in the
supernatural.
Faith is the belief that something exists despite complete lack of
evidence for it. Period. Skeptical statements against such beliefs are
not themselves expressions of faith, and such statements have a much
firmer foundation in reality.
If you doubt this, compare these statements
1. Mickey Mouse actually exists.
2. Mickey Mouse is a cartoon character and doesn't actually exist.
Which one is more likely to be true?
Now compare these:
3. God actually exists.
4. God is a human invention and doesn't actually exist.
Which one is more likely to be true? Further, is statement 3
epistemologically more firmly grounded than statement 1? If I have
faith in God, am I also committed to believe in Mickey Mouse?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
