| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew W" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2003 10:10:27 PM |
| Object: |
Huh? |
It is written in Mathew 22:36,
When asked what was God's greatest commandment, Jesus said, "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind." This is the great and foremost commandment.
The problem with this is that love which is born of coercion can never
become true love which means we can no more truly love God than a slave his
keeper. Therefore the commandments could not have come form a wise and
unconditionally loving god.
Jesus was not lying, it's simply that he did not say what is claimed in the
first place.
No one knows for sure what Jesus said nearly 2000 years ago but christians
continue to swear blind that they do just because it's written in an old
badly translated and heavily annotated book.
It is said that God wants us to choose to love him above all others but if
he coerces us with threats of hell then it ceases to be a choice. Now our
love can not only not be true but it's also not even a choice any more.
The alienation process is complete.
If man turned away from God in the garden of Eden then it was for three
reasons: Inbuilt inferiority, inbuilt curiosity and neglect by god to
provide sufficient information.
We shouldn't have to pay for god's mistakes.
In any case what Adam and Eve did has nothing to do with us so we have
nothing to worry about as long as we live a decent life.
Obeying an arbitrary set of rules has nothing to do with morality but has
everything to do with the concept of slavery and slavery was one of the
things that was rampant 2000 years ago and later so it's no surprise that
men wrote such oppressive verses in the scriptures. It is doubtful whether
much of what's in the bible is the word of a single all loving god.
--
Andrew.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
29 Dec 2003 06:45:21 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote
(Mark Fox) posted:
Al Klein wrote
(Mark Fox) posted
"Andrew W" wrote
We shouldn't have to pay for god's mistakes.
We should stop blaming God for our mistakes.
We didn't make us, he did, so he's responsible for the way he made us.
That's an interesting rule. Did you just make that up from your
imagination or was it divinely inspired?
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Anything else that belongs in alt.jokes.that.aren't.too.funny?
Speaking of jokes. If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existance. Normal people usually don't
waste much effort on something that doesn't exist. You go at it with
a passion that I would charactorize as tantamount to "worship". Except
you seem to worship yourself and seem to feel more powerful and
important if you find a way to "put God in his place".
Any of this ring a bell for you??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 02:08:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0312291645.586465b@posting.google.com...
That's an interesting rule. Did you just make that up from your
imagination or was it divinely inspired?
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to simply debug the program rather than keep
going back to square one?
An even better programmer might be able to make the program eventually debug
itself.
--
Andrew Werner.
Religion investigator and thought provocateur.
If it's true that God authored the bible then he needs psychiatric help.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 11:33:47 AM |
|
|
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ff1db64$0$18388$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0312291645.586465b@posting.google.com...
That's an interesting rule. Did you just make that up from your
imagination or was it divinely inspired?
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to simply debug the program rather than keep
going back to square one?
An even better programmer might be able to make the program eventually
debug
itself.
--
Andrew Werner.
Did I read this right? Is an Atheist now
declaring that he is simply programmed and
has no say in what he does with his life?
My, my, my. Christian thought is much
freer than Atheism.
Thunder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 08:35:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:33:47 -0500, "Thunder" <RidgeRunner@hotpop.com>
posted to alt.atheism:
Did I read this right? Is an Atheist now
declaring that he is simply programmed and
has no say in what he does with his life?
No, Christianity makes this claim, however unaware it is of making it.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 06:30:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:33:47 -0500, "Thunder" <RidgeRunner@hotpop.com>
wrote:
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ff1db64$0$18388$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0312291645.586465b@posting.google.com...
That's an interesting rule. Did you just make that up from your
imagination or was it divinely inspired?
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to simply debug the program rather than keep
going back to square one?
An even better programmer might be able to make the program eventually
debug
itself.
--
Andrew Werner.
Did I read this right? Is an Atheist now
declaring that he is simply programmed and
has no say in what he does with his life?
My, my, my. Christian thought is much
freer than Atheism.
I wonder why you would write the above. Do you have trouble with
reading comprehension, or are you delibrately misunderstanding? In
other words are you slow or dishonest?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 09:23:25 PM |
|
|
(Mark Fox) wrote in message news:<a258afb5.0312291645.586465b@posting.google.com>...
Al Klein wrote
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what I intended the program to do. If
it doesn't have to believe in me to do its task, then I wouldn't get
upset about it.
Of course, the Bible says that God will keep people alive for an
eternity of torture, not "pull the plug and wipe the hard drive
clean." So your analogy is flawed.
Anything else that belongs in alt.jokes.that.aren't.too.funny?
Speaking of jokes. If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existance.
Because people who *do* believe in God want us dead. Does 9/11 ring a
bell? If we can convince them there is no God, they'll lose their
motivation to kill.
When I followed the Bible, I was convinced I had to kill a close high
school friend of mine. Now that I'm an atheist, I can actually love
people instead. Why don't you try it?
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
29 Dec 2003 11:13:18 PM |
|
|
Mark Fox wrote:
Al Klein wrote
(Mark Fox) posted:
Al Klein wrote
(Mark Fox) posted
"Andrew W" wrote
We shouldn't have to pay for god's mistakes.
We should stop blaming God for our mistakes.
We didn't make us, he did, so he's responsible for the way he made us.
That's an interesting rule. Did you just make that up from your
imagination or was it divinely inspired?
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
Anything else that belongs in alt.jokes.that.aren't.too.funny?
Speaking of jokes. If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existance. Normal people usually don't
waste much effort on something that doesn't exist. You go at it with
a passion that I would charactorize as tantamount to "worship". Except
you seem to worship yourself and seem to feel more powerful and
important if you find a way to "put God in his place".
Any of this ring a bell for you??
let me 'ring your bell' ......funny man......[take particular notice of the
last line]
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
bob
Hong Kong
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 05:53:25 PM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2003 23:13:18 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
posted to alt.atheism:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Stolen for future reference.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 01:48:23 PM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2003 23:13:18 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
Mark Fox wrote:
snip
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
(piggy-backing here)
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 05:18:31 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
Mark Fox wrote:
snip
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
...If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
(piggy-backing here)
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
31 Dec 2003 04:08:54 AM |
|
|
Mark Fox writes:
Thomas P. wrote..
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where eternity is.
What kind of a twisted logic is it that makes you think an absence of a
cruel horrible punishment would somehow rob everyone of free will? And the
answer is: you have your myth about heaven and hell, and your monster god,
and you're sticking to it no matter if the apologies make real sense or not.
God could simply have created us all in heaven and skipped all the mortality
stuff, you know. But noooooooooooo.....
--
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you like - it
is not the Gospel you believe, but yourselves." - St. Augustine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 11:46:25 AM |
|
|
386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where eternity is.
Where did you get all that crap? And, what does it have to do with
how we live in a rational world today?
What kind of a twisted logic is it that makes you think an absence of a
cruel horrible punishment would somehow rob everyone of free will? And the
answer is: you have your myth about heaven and hell, and your monster god,
and you're sticking to it no matter if the apologies make real sense or not.
God could simply have created us all in heaven and skipped all the mortality
stuff, you know. But noooooooooooo.....
You are clearly angry with God. Many belivers are angry with God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 02:58:39 PM |
|
|
Mark Fox writes:
386sx wrote
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where eternity is.
Where did you get all that crap? And, what does it have to do with how we
live in a rational world today?
Absolutely nothing. Excepting of course for how the mythology affects its
believers and the world around them, just like all the other mythologies,
and just like Mickey Mouse and Santy Claus. Glad to see you've given this
some thought and are finally coming around.
What kind of a twisted logic is it that makes you think an absence of a
cruel horrible punishment would somehow rob everyone of free will? And
the answer is: you have your myth about heaven and hell, and your monster
god, and you're sticking to it no matter if the apologies make real sense
or not. God could simply have created us all in heaven and skipped all
the mortality stuff, you know. But noooooooooooo.....
You are clearly angry with God. Many belivers are angry with God.
That's as ridiculous as your theory which says,
cognizant program not threatened with punishment by programmer = program
can't have free will. If anything, it would have more free will. lol!
--
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you like - it
is not the Gospel you believe, but yourselves." - St. Augustine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 03:02:37 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2004 09:46:25 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where eternity is.
Where did you get all that crap? And, what does it have to do with
how we live in a rational world today?
Is it crap? Do you mean that sin is possible in heaven?
What kind of a twisted logic is it that makes you think an absence of a
cruel horrible punishment would somehow rob everyone of free will? And the
answer is: you have your myth about heaven and hell, and your monster god,
and you're sticking to it no matter if the apologies make real sense or not.
God could simply have created us all in heaven and skipped all the mortality
stuff, you know. But noooooooooooo.....
You are clearly angry with God. Many belivers are angry with God.
And many non-believers find it hard to understand how people can
believe in such a ludicrous monster and actually claim that it is the
source of all goodness.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 11:26:37 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jg29vvkk5o0sr564euetp3rdtvje5p8irq@4ax.com...
On 1 Jan 2004 09:46:25 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the
place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation
for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where
eternity is.
Where did you get all that crap? And, what does it have to do with
how we live in a rational world today?
Is it crap? Do you mean that sin is possible in heaven?
It already happened. As a result, one third
of the angels in heaven were tossed out.
Thunder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 06:30:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:26:37 -0500, "Thunder" <RidgeRunner@hotpop.com>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jg29vvkk5o0sr564euetp3rdtvje5p8irq@4ax.com...
On 1 Jan 2004 09:46:25 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote
Uh, do you mean to say there is no free will in heaven? You know, the
place
where God is always visible and where there is no threat of damnation
for
not believing in what can't be seen. You know, the place where
eternity is.
Where did you get all that crap? And, what does it have to do with
how we live in a rational world today?
Is it crap? Do you mean that sin is possible in heaven?
It already happened. As a result, one third
of the angels in heaven were tossed out.
Then heaven is not perfect and the promise of eternal happiness in
heaven is clearly false. Thank you for clearing that up.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
31 Dec 2003 03:34:34 AM |
|
|
On 30 Dec 2003 15:18:31 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
Mark Fox wrote:
snip
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
...If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
(piggy-backing here)
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
What difference would it make? The person who made the program is
responsible for how the program works.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 10:06:23 AM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
What difference would it make? The person who made the program is
responsible for how the program works.
Thats part of the concept of free will. You make your own decisions
and you alone are responsible for them. Thus if you could give a
program "free will" then it no longer has to obey you and you are no
longer responsible for its behavior. The fact that you are
omnipresent and omnipotent and may know beforehand what this program
will do is irrelevant to the placing responsibility or blame for the
program's behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 03:02:36 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2004 08:06:23 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
(Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
What difference would it make? The person who made the program is
responsible for how the program works.
Thats part of the concept of free will. You make your own decisions
and you alone are responsible for them. Thus if you could give a
program "free will" then it no longer has to obey you and you are no
longer responsible for its behavior. The fact that you are
omnipresent and omnipotent and may know beforehand what this program
will do is irrelevant to the placing responsibility or blame for the
program's behavior.
That does not make a great deal of sense does it?
Somebody knows something terrible will happen as a result of something
he will build, but he builds it anyway. Is he or is he not
responsible?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
02 Jan 2004 07:36:35 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
(Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
What difference would it make? The person who made the program is
responsible for how the program works.
Thats part of the concept of free will. You make your own decisions
and you alone are responsible for them. Thus if you could give a
program "free will" then it no longer has to obey you and you are no
longer responsible for its behavior. The fact that you are
omnipresent and omnipotent and may know beforehand what this program
will do is irrelevant to the placing responsibility or blame for the
program's behavior.
That does not make a great deal of sense does it?
Somebody knows something terrible will happen as a result of something
he will build, but he builds it anyway. Is he or is he not
responsible?
Air bags save 40,000 lives each year.
they also kill about 100 small children a year when they go off
accidentally. Auto makers know this will happen when they build the
car. Are they guilty of murder? Are air bags a bad thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
02 Jan 2004 09:13:55 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2004 17:36:35 -0800, (Mark Fox) posted to
alt.atheism:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
That does not make a great deal of sense does it?
Somebody knows something terrible will happen as a result of something
he will build, but he builds it anyway. Is he or is he not
responsible?
Air bags save 40,000 lives each year.
they also kill about 100 small children a year when they go off
accidentally. Auto makers know this will happen when they build the
car. Are they guilty of murder? Are air bags a bad thing?
Non sequitur. The auto manufacturers, and the governments that
mandate air bags, are responsible for those deaths. If they occurred
with no benefit, as deaths due to religion do, air bags would be a bad
thing.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
03 Jan 2004 02:47:22 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2004 17:36:35 -0800, (Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
(Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
(Mark Fox) wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote..
In other words you think the creator should admit that he made a bad
program. That certainly sounds more reasonable than going into a rage
and punishing the program for one's own mistakes.
would that be a program with (or without) free will?
What difference would it make? The person who made the program is
responsible for how the program works.
Thats part of the concept of free will. You make your own decisions
and you alone are responsible for them. Thus if you could give a
program "free will" then it no longer has to obey you and you are no
longer responsible for its behavior. The fact that you are
omnipresent and omnipotent and may know beforehand what this program
will do is irrelevant to the placing responsibility or blame for the
program's behavior.
That does not make a great deal of sense does it?
Somebody knows something terrible will happen as a result of something
he will build, but he builds it anyway. Is he or is he not
responsible?
Air bags save 40,000 lives each year.
they also kill about 100 small children a year when they go off
accidentally. Auto makers know this will happen when they build the
car. Are they guilty of murder? Are air bags a bad thing?
Are auto makers omniscient and omnipotent? If not they have to work
within their limitations. Within those limitations air bags are, on
balance, a good thing. Does god work within any limitations? If not
he is responsible for the consequences of everything he sets into
existence.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 05:52:40 PM |
|
|
bob young wrote
Mark Fox wrote:
... If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existence. Normal people usually don't
waste much effort on something that doesn't exist. You go at it with
a passion that I would characterize as tantamount to "worship". Except
you seem to worship yourself and seem to feel more powerful and
important if you find a way to "put God in his place".
Any of this ring a bell for you??
let me 'ring your bell' ......funny man......[take particular notice of the
last line]
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern,
Human concern? Hmmmm. Is this why you kept calling me an idiot?
Because you have "human concern"?
and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand.
You are battling a non existent third party. We do not subscribe to
"religion". Religion is crap. We are talking about God.
And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all.
The question remains: Why do you put so much energy into something
that is "nothing at all"? Is it perhaps due to hidden emotional
issues?
The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity...
I always question the motives or mental stability of someone who feels
the need to announce that he is sane much less claiming that he is
"the bed-rock of sanity"
...in a world of madness."
To what world does Mr. Emmett Fields refer? I live in a world that is
quite rational and reasonable. There are but only a few individuals
in this world that suffer from madness and most of them are ushered
off to a cage rather quickly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 06:11:01 PM |
|
|
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0312301552.48b48b92@posting.google.com...
bob young wrote
Mark Fox wrote:
and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand.
You are battling a non existent third party. We do not subscribe to
"religion". Religion is crap. We are talking about God.
You keep talking about God and Jesus but you continually fail to admit or
reveal exactly where have you obtained your information about them?
Can I take a guess and say the bible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
31 Dec 2003 07:06:28 AM |
|
|
Andrew W wrote:
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0312301552.48b48b92@posting.google.com...
bob young wrote
Mark Fox wrote:
and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand.
You are battling a non existent third party. We do not subscribe to
"religion". Religion is crap. We are talking about God.
You keep talking about God and Jesus but you continually fail to admit or
reveal exactly where have you obtained your information about them?
Can I take a guess and say the bible?
....or his mummy and daddy and they got it from their mummy and daddy until
we get so far back that superstition was the only escape from the unknown!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
31 Dec 2003 07:15:12 AM |
|
|
Mark Fox wrote:
bob young wrote
Mark Fox wrote:
... If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existence. Normal people usually don't
waste much effort on something that doesn't exist. You go at it with
a passion that I would characterize as tantamount to "worship". Except
you seem to worship yourself and seem to feel more powerful and
important if you find a way to "put God in his place".
Any of this ring a bell for you??
let me 'ring your bell' ......funny man......[take particular notice of the
last line]
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern,
Human concern? Hmmmm. Is this why you kept calling me an idiot?
Because you have "human concern"?
Oh I'm still concerned about you even though I do think a lot of your statements
are idiotic. Concerned that you are blowing your mind on ancient myths
and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand.
You are battling a non existent third party. We do not subscribe to
"religion". Religion is crap. We are talking about God.
what a strange thing to say. Religions all claim to have gods. Thousands of
them. Another good reason to realise they are all made up things
And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all.
The question remains: Why do you put so much energy into something
that is "nothing at all"? Is it perhaps due to hidden emotional
issues?
Missed the point again. Xtians are so keen on saying that atheism is a religion
so he is putting the record straight. Can you not see this or are you just
being awkward as you have nothing better to state?
The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity...
I always question the motives or mental stability of someone who feels
the need to announce that he is sane much less claiming that he is
"the bed-rock of sanity"
A 'someone' is not making this claim personally he refers to atheism as being
the bedrock of sanity, which it is. we do not beleive in imaginary gods etc etc
...in a world of madness."
To what world does Mr. Emmett Fields refer? I live in a world that is
quite rational and reasonable. There are but only a few individuals
in this world that suffer from madness and most of them are ushered
off to a cage rather quickly....
....oh dear, oh dear, you rally are hard work.
Madness in this context is not to be taken literally. madness here refers to
the chaotic state of mankind, it's miriad of superstitions at a time when such
rubbish should have been disguarded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
01 Jan 2004 11:08:31 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote
Mark Fox wrote:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern,
Human concern? Hmmmm. Is this why you kept calling me an idiot?
Because you have "human concern"?
Oh I'm still concerned about you even though I do think a lot of your statements
are idiotic. Concerned that you are blowing your mind on ancient myths
Oh, I see, now its only my statements that are idiotic. Thanks for
clearing that up.
and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand.
You are battling a non existent third party. We do not subscribe to
"religion". Religion is crap. We are talking about God.
what a strange thing to say. Religions all claim to have gods. Thousands of
them. Another good reason to realise they are all made up things
It seems strange to you because "the atheistic mind cannot begin to
understand" the difference between religious fanatics, prophets,
bibles, science, reality and God.
And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all.
The question remains: Why do you put so much energy into something
that is "nothing at all"? Is it perhaps due to hidden emotional
issues?
Missed the point again. Xtians are so keen on saying that atheism is a religion
so he is putting the record straight.
If God does not exist there is no record to put straight and only a
fool would waste time arguing the point.
Can you not see this or are you just
being awkward as you have nothing better to state?
I can plainly see that the people who feel the need to announce
themselves as "atheists" are really people who have chosen to
celebrate (dare I say worship at the risk of getting a <groan>) their
own intellect over anything else. It is precisely this celebration of
intellect that brings atheists back to the table time and time again
to argue that their "logical mind" is the only rational force in the
world and all else is "madness".
The question remains: If God does not exist then why haven't you made
that determination and moved on with you life? Why are you here
arguing about it? Why don't you spend hours and post lots of messages
arguing that there are no palm trees at the south pole? It's because
you KNOW there are no palm trees at the south pole.
The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity...
I always question the motives or mental stability of someone who feels
the need to announce that he is sane much less claiming that he is
"the bed-rock of sanity"
A 'someone' is not making this claim personally he refers to atheism as being
the bedrock of sanity, which it is. we do not beleive in imaginary gods etc etc
If you want to get deep into philosophy one could argue that all human
experience is imaginary, some of it seems to be repeatable/predictable
and some of it not. But if you are not ready to comprehend that
Atheism is a belief system celebrated in a different way from that
which we call "religion", but a belief system never the less, then we
aren't ready to have a deep philosophical conversation.
...in a world of madness."
To what world does Mr. Emmett Fields refer? I live in a world that is
quite rational and reasonable. There are but only a few individuals
in this world that suffer from madness and most of them are ushered
off to a cage rather quickly....
...oh dear, oh dear, you rally are hard work.
Madness in this context is not to be taken literally. madness here refers to
the chaotic state of mankind, it's miriad of superstitions at a time when such
rubbish should have been disguarded.
I love this part of your argument. You demand to take the Bible
literally in order to bolster your own point of view but then you back
away from the clear definition of madness and talk about "context"
when your guy is trying to make his point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 05:52:17 PM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2003 16:45:21 -0800, (Mark Fox) posted
to alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote
(Mark Fox) posted:
You don't believe that a workman is responsible for the product he
creates? I'll tell that to my boss the next time he tells me there's
a bug in a program I wrote. "I gave the program free will, so it's
responsible for what it does wrong."
Interesting example that you have choosen. I suppose that what God
tells his boss would indeed be interesting but not really any of our
business.
However, If you gave a program free will and the first thing YOUR
CREATION did was deny your existance and then blame you for everything
it didn't like then I imagine the first thing you would do is pull the
plug and wipe the hard drive clean.
No, I'm not quite as sadistic as your god is. And he holds future
programs responsible for the "bugs" of those he's already destroyed.
Anything else that belongs in alt.jokes.that.aren't.too.funny?
Speaking of jokes. If you don't believe in God then why do you put so
much energy into denying his existance.
I'm responding to YOUR posts. Why do you put so much effort into
posting about your god into a newsgroup that you know doesn't accept
your assertions and never will without objective evidence?
Normal people usually don't waste much effort on something that doesn't exist.
I have a lot of time to waste, and the market isn't open 24/7.
You go at it with a passion that I would charactorize as tantamount to "worship".
If a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Except you seem to worship yourself
I don't worship anyone or anything.
and seem to feel more powerful and
important if you find a way to "put God in his place".
Why would "putting" something non-existent "in its place" make me
feel anything at all?
Any of this ring a bell for you??
No, I can't relate to your projection. Remember, I've never been a
theist. I didn't "give up" your god because I had a bone to pick with
him. Your god (or any other god) means less to me than the Tooth
Fairy means to you.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dmitry C." |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 07:53:34 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<228puvgulsdhd59sia01o3is7frvmcbhc6@Pern.rk>...
On 24 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0800, (Mark Fox) posted
to alt.atheism:
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
It is written in Mathew 22:36,
When asked what was God's greatest commandment, Jesus said, "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind." This is the great and foremost commandment.
The problem with this is that love which is born of coercion can never
become true love which means we can no more truly love God than a slave his
keeper.
Is that why he gave us free will? So our love would not be coerced?
"Love me or burn in hell" is coercion, whether one believes in hell or
not. If one doesn't believe it's failed coercion, but coercion
nonetheless.
I think the point is that you must choose between good (i.e. God who
is the perfect good and the source of goodness of every kind) and
evil. That _is_ coercion, but is it not the way it ought to be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Huh? |
30 Dec 2003 08:27:01 PM |
|
|
--
Andrew Werner.
Religion investigator and thought provocateur.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
- Albert Einstein
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/
"Dmitry C." <dchernik99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b800d6cd.0312301753.4792f4f3@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<228puvgulsdhd59sia01o3is7frvmcbhc6@Pern.rk>...
On 24 Dec 2003 13:11:03 -0800, (Mark Fox) posted
to alt.atheism:
"Andrew W" <nosp@m_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
It is written in Mathew 22:36,
When asked what was God's greatest commandment, Jesus said, "Thou
shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy
mind." This is the great and foremost commandment.
The problem with this is that love which is born of coercion can
never
become true love which means we can no more truly love God than a
slave his
keeper.
Is that why he gave us free will? So our love would not be coerced?
"Love me or burn in hell" is coercion, whether one believes in hell or
not. If one doesn't believe it's failed coercion, but coercion
nonetheless.
I think the point is that you must choose between good (i.e. God who
is the perfect good and the source of goodness of every kind) and
evil. That _is_ coercion, but is it not the way it ought to be?
Well that's the 64 million dollar question.
We don't really know how it was meant to be.
We only have the religious power structure's word to take for it because
they presided on what was made public.
It all depends on whether the have given us all the information on God.
If they haven't then things could be very different.
We may have had much better options originally. We don't know.
Why did they take out and in some cases burn all those books that were
supposed to be in the bible all those centuries ago?
What didn't they want us to know?
It's possible that they made up the concept of sin and salvation to make us
dependent on them so they can control us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
