"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94FD9086B58BALlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
<snip to>

No. If you make up some concept such as heaven and then proclaim it
exists. Then it is up to you as the claimant to show evidence for
its' existance. Given the lack of such evidence the skeptic is free
to point out the absurdity of the claim.

er...he wasn't responding to any claim. He didn't reference one.

Again, I am NOT claiming that heaven exists...just that his method
of disproving it by his mockery and ridicule was not disproof.

Again you are showing your cluelessness. I repeat it is impossible to
logically disprove the existance of anything. The mockery of stupid
claims not supported by evidence is a valid and reasonable approach.

If such claims were made in the first place and that mockery is aimed
at the claim being made, yeah.

but again, I didn't see any such claim.

Otherwise you would have to accept the deranged ravings of any
lunatic and crackpot to have some validity. Without verifiable
supporting evidence all such nonsense deserves whatever ridicule it
gets.

Sure, but isn't it generally a good idea to wait until such a claim is
made? He started the thread with his questions. He wasn't responding
to a claim. Doesn't that mean that HE is the one who has to prove
something? He typed first. ;-)

They were
irritating, in other words, and no, I don't like it when theists do
it either.

I
don't actually give a hoot whether you believe in a heaven or
not. I certainly don't care whether you think I do.

Then why are you arguing for it.

I'm NOT.

I'm pointing out that OP's method of arguing against it is
assinine.

Not at all. Pointing out the absudity of anothers position is
completely valid. And many of the theists that post to this group do
hold views very much like those the OP was attacking.

Again, he wasn't responding to a claim. He started the thread. Doesn't
that mean I can challenge him to make sense?

The original poster posed some rhetorical questions to point
out the absurdity of the concept and or beliefs that have been
held about heaven.

And that was the entire point; I don't know of ANY believer in
heaven who could, or would, answer those questions; they don't
apply.

They certianly do. You obviously don't have the faintest idea of
the absurd range of beliefs that exist amoung theists.

Well, that's sorta the point. *I* do. But OP was throwing together
disparate beliefs that don't belong to any one belief system, and
then posing them as if all theists believe in all of them.

and that's what irritated me, and that's the only thing I commented
on.

You appear to be reading much more into the OP's post than was
actually there.

I read his questions. They were dumb questions, cobbling together a
bunch of disparate beliefs to mock; he wasn't responding to any claim,

he didn't reference one, he started the thread. Given this, I think I
have the right to challenge his intent, his posts and his
intelligence.

IF he had been responding to an idiot theist, my reaction would have
been different. I may well have chimed in on his side.

So how
could asking them prove, or disprove, anything?

It is not a matter of disproof - as I pointed out, that is
impossible. It is a matter of demonstrating the absurdity of those
particular beliefs.

Fine...but not everybody shares those beliefs. So how are we to
defend against his charges? Especially when he presents them as
universal?

All you have to do is provide a single piece of verifiable evidence
for whatever it is YOU are claiming.

But I'm not claiming anything.

And I'm not about to attempt to prove that there is one, by
the way.

I just think that arguments against it should be at least as
logical as the arguments demanded in behalf of one. Sauce for
the goose and all that.

Pointing out that the concept of heaven is absurd is a pretty
good argument against it IMO.

No, that's simply a value judgment.

That is all we have to conclude that something doesn't exist, our
experience and reason as outlined above. On the contrary all you
have to do is provide one scrap of verifiable evidence for the
affirmative. You make the claim - you provide the supporting
evidence.

By 'simply a value judgement' means that you have come to a
different conclusion about the evidence than others have.

Wrong. No evidence has been provided. We have asked for evidence ad
nauseum and all we ever get is assertions or quotes from the bible or
other grimoire.

Nothing that YOU would call evidence has been provided, true. However,
things that others would call 'evidence' has been provided, enough so
that others accept it.
That is neither good nor bad, it just is.
Theists like subjective feelings and impressions; you don't. (shrug)
If you don't like something, you simply say that 'it's not evidence'
at all. A better catagorization might be 'faulty' or 'unreliable'
evidence, but I'm not likely to change attitudes about that all by
myself.

I will posit this, however; in order to believe as a result of no
evidence at all, all these theists would have to come up with the
story of, say, Christ and His Father all by themselves, without ever
hearing the story or reading the book or being involved with people
they trust who believe in it. That's what 'no evidence' really
means...

And if they all did, that in and of itself would be evidence enough
for any real scientist to accept the idea. (grin)

But no...theists hear their parents, who they trust, tell them the
stories. They read the books, they listen to the doctrines...and a
bunch of them pray and/or have personal experiences that indicate to
them the truth of what they believe. That's evidence. You may not
think it's GOOD evidence, but it's evidence.

You have judged it to
be insufficient for faith, others have judged it sufficient for
faith. They have a right to their opinions as well...you don't get
to decide for others what they have faith in, any more than I can
force you to have faith in the stuff I believe. Besides which, I'm
not making any claims. Telling you that I believe is not making a
claim; for that I would expect you to agree with me...and (shrug)
if you were in the mood to agree with something like that you
wouldn't be posting to alt.atheism...

Yes people have a right to their opinions and other people also have
the right to point out the absurdity of those opinions if they are in
fact absurd.

Sure, especially if opinions are asked for, and ESPECIALLY if the
believers are trying to change the non-believer's mind. However, if
there is no such intent?

? There WAS a post, by the way, that

did a much better job of stating an argument against the idea of
heaven; Holly did a pretty good job, actually. So did the writer
of the post I was responding to here. Was that you? I can't find
the original...

Well gee wiz. Here's one for you:

1. Heaven is a perfect place.

I dunno.

Well why would one be interesteed in going there. Getting to heaven
appears to be one of the core aims of most Christian sects.

I hope to go there because there is a great deal more for me to learn
about...everything.

"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94FD9086B58BALlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...
<snip to>

No. If you make up some concept such as heaven and then proclaim it
exists. Then it is up to you as the claimant to show evidence for its'
existance. Given the lack of such evidence the skeptic is free to point
out the absurdity of the claim.

er...he wasn't responding to any claim. He didn't reference one.

Again, I am NOT claiming that heaven exists...just that his method of
disproving it by his mockery and ridicule was not disproof.

Again you are showing your cluelessness. I repeat it is impossible to
logically disprove the existance of anything. The mockery of stupid
claims not supported by evidence is a valid and reasonable approach.

If such claims were made in the first place and that mockery is aimed at the
claim being made, yeah.

but again, I didn't see any such claim.

Otherwise you would have to accept the deranged ravings of any lunatic
and crackpot to have some validity. Without verifiable supporting
evidence all such nonsense deserves whatever ridicule it gets.

Sure, but isn't it generally a good idea to wait until such a claim is made?
He started the thread with his questions. He wasn't responding to a claim.
Doesn't that mean that HE is the one who has to prove something? He typed
first. ;-)

They were
irritating, in other words, and no, I don't like it when theists do it
either.

I
don't actually give a hoot whether you believe in a heaven or not.
I certainly don't care whether you think I do.

Then why are you arguing for it.

I'm NOT.

I'm pointing out that OP's method of arguing against it is assinine.

Not at all. Pointing out the absudity of anothers position is completely
valid. And many of the theists that post to this group do hold views very
much like those the OP was attacking.

Again, he wasn't responding to a claim. He started the thread. Doesn't that
mean I can challenge him to make sense?

The original poster posed some rhetorical questions to point out
the absurdity of the concept and or beliefs that have been held
about heaven.

And that was the entire point; I don't know of ANY believer in
heaven who could, or would, answer those questions; they don't
apply.

They certianly do. You obviously don't have the faintest idea of the
absurd range of beliefs that exist amoung theists.

Well, that's sorta the point. *I* do. But OP was throwing together
disparate beliefs that don't belong to any one belief system, and then
posing them as if all theists believe in all of them.

and that's what irritated me, and that's the only thing I commented
on.

You appear to be reading much more into the OP's post than was actually
there.

I read his questions. They were dumb questions, cobbling together a bunch of
disparate beliefs to mock; he wasn't responding to any claim, he didn't
reference one, he started the thread. Given this, I think I have the right
to challenge his intent, his posts and his intelligence.

IF he had been responding to an idiot theist, my reaction would have been
different. I may well have chimed in on his side.

So how
could asking them prove, or disprove, anything?

It is not a matter of disproof - as I pointed out, that is
impossible. It is a matter of demonstrating the absurdity of those
particular beliefs.

Fine...but not everybody shares those beliefs. So how are we to defend
against his charges? Especially when he presents them as universal?

All you have to do is provide a single piece of verifiable evidence for
whatever it is YOU are claiming.

But I'm not claiming anything.

And I'm not about to attempt to prove that there is one, by the
way.

I just think that arguments against it should be at least as
logical as the arguments demanded in behalf of one. Sauce for
the goose and all that.

Pointing out that the concept of heaven is absurd is a pretty good
argument against it IMO.

No, that's simply a value judgment.

That is all we have to conclude that something doesn't exist, our
experience and reason as outlined above. On the contrary all you have
to do is provide one scrap of verifiable evidence for the
affirmative. You make the claim - you provide the supporting
evidence.

By 'simply a value judgement' means that you have come to a different
conclusion about the evidence than others have.

Wrong. No evidence has been provided. We have asked for evidence ad
nauseum and all we ever get is assertions or quotes from the bible or
other grimoire.

Nothing that YOU would call evidence has been provided, true. However,
things that others would call 'evidence' has been provided, enough so that
others accept it. That is neither good nor bad, it just is. Theists like
subjective feelings and impressions; you don't. (shrug) If you don't like
something, you simply say that 'it's not evidence' at all. A better
catagorization might be 'faulty' or 'unreliable' evidence, but I'm not
likely to change attitudes about that all by myself.

I will posit this, however; in order to believe as a result of no evidence
at all, all these theists would have to come up with the story of, say,
Christ and His Father all by themselves, without ever hearing the story or
reading the book or being involved with people they trust who believe in it.
That's what 'no evidence' really means...

And if they all did, that in and of itself would be evidence enough for any
real scientist to accept the idea. (grin)

But no...theists hear their parents, who they trust, tell them the stories.
They read the books, they listen to the doctrines...and a bunch of them pray
and/or have personal experiences that indicate to them the truth of what
they believe. That's evidence. You may not think it's GOOD evidence, but
it's evidence.

You have judged it to
be insufficient for faith, others have judged it sufficient for faith.
They have a right to their opinions as well...you don't get to decide
for others what they have faith in, any more than I can force you to
have faith in the stuff I believe. Besides which, I'm not making any
claims. Telling you that I believe is not making a claim; for that I
would expect you to agree with me...and (shrug) if you were in the
mood to agree with something like that you wouldn't be posting to
alt.atheism...

Yes people have a right to their opinions and other people also have the
right to point out the absurdity of those opinions if they are in fact
absurd.

Sure, especially if opinions are asked for, and ESPECIALLY if the believers
are trying to change the non-believer's mind. However, if there is no such
intent?

? There WAS a post, by the way, that

did a much better job of stating an argument against the idea of
heaven; Holly did a pretty good job, actually. So did the writer of
the post I was responding to here. Was that you? I can't find the
original...

Well gee wiz. Here's one for you:

1. Heaven is a perfect place.

I dunno.

Well why would one be interesteed in going there. Getting to heaven
appears to be one of the core aims of most Christian sects.

I hope to go there because there is a great deal more for me to learn
about...everything.

2. Angels are gods perfect servants.

Angels are simply messengers. Nothing all that special. Just humans
with a job.

3. Angels rebel in heaven. WTF?

Human beings rebel. They have choices, they make 'em.

4. Human's die and go to heaven. Can they rebel too?

See above.

But that's only what *I* think.

So humans could rebel in heaven? This appears to be a rather unusual
postion among the mainstream Christian sects.

hehe....I NEVER claimed to be mainstream!!!