just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear th

Religions > Atheism > just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear th

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Post reply

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"TRUECRISTIAN"
Date:	03 Feb 2006 12:43:52 PM
Object:	just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hear th

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so
I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS
.

User: "Lörd Phÿltêr"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	04 Feb 2006 08:04:03 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> had me ROTFL with:
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

You are a lying, delusional, idiot fuckwit. There never was, never WILL be
any "divine authority" for ANY system of morality and or ethics that has
ever existed. Morality and ethics has always been a creation of the human
mind.
Atheists embrace LIFE because we know it is the only life any of us will
ever know. We don't support wars, we don't support inquisitions or pogroms,
we do not engage in genocide. The body count of christianity across 2
millennia cannot ever be calculated.
Atheists didn't start the crusades, stomping a swathe of pillage and
destruction across europe, slaughtering muslims in their tens of thousands
on their arrival in the middle east.
Atheists didn't create 800 years of inquisitions, torturing women in the
most maniacal, sick and vilely twisted ways that only evil psychosexual
deviates could conceive, until they confessed to crimes they hadn't
committed, before being put to an agonising death.
Whereupon the mangled wretch's worldly possessions were seized to pay for
the "trial" and any remaining wealth squirreled away by the torturers, into
the coffers of the vatican. LOTS of "morality" there!
It isn't atheists that have set up the secret concentration camps now in
europe.
They were built by a fascist christian.
It isn't atheists that are using white phosphorus and depleted uranium on
civilians in Iraq.
They were ordered to be used by a fascist christian.
It isn't atheists who declared that god destroyed New Orleans because of
it's "sinfulness".
Many people died there due to the inactions of a fascist christian and his
christian junta.
The same junta that stole 2 elections, lots of morality in "theft", isn't
there, "christian".

YOUR crowd has no problem killing non believers for the simple fact of
their non-belief. How many atheists have died at your hands, christian?
How much blood are you sitting in, are you drowning in it?
The endless crimes against humanity committed by you and your fellow
christians demands that the human race throw you and your ilk off the
planet.
We have mistakenly given you tolerance for far too long, enabling your
atrocities and ignoring your lies.
You're a lying hypocrite: there is NO god, NO satan, No heaven or hell,
only a REAL hell that christians have created right here on earth.
Do not SPEAK of morality, theists have NONE.
--
Lörd Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.

User: "Jim07D6"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 01:21:09 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> said:

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality.

Yoda replies: without divine authority, the universe is.
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "DaveJr"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 01:08:51 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has

logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage

etc..etc..etc..so

I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS

Jan 2, 6:56 am - TRUECRISTIAN said:
"God bless the KKK, they are the only group fighting
off all the communist Jew race-mixing crap that we are
exposed to. You niggers are so ashamed of your
subservient, ignorant, filthy race that you want to
disappear through mixing with whites. Why don't you
people wait about 50,000 years and see if you can't
catch up with the rest of the world in evolution?"
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 12:50:19 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality.

Yes I do. Self interest. It behooves me to behave in a manner that will
promote a healthy society. To do otherwise would be working against my own
best interests.
But you're just a troll anyway.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "turk"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 01:12:56 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So, if you weren't afraid of hellfire and demons you'd be out killing and
raping your fellow human beings, let alone canines? That's not morality you
have. That's behaving out of fear of reprisals. That's also pathetic.
turk
--
My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and
choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
.

User: "HotelCharlieOne"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 02:31:45 PM

"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Ib6dnYWR2pynNn7eRVn-pA@comcast.com:

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

You hit it right on the head. People of religion do not need and in most
cases do not have an internal moral compass. All of their decisions are
predicated on what the High Holy Poobah dictates. Since they never have
a moral dilemma, they would be totally incapable of handling life if
the Poobah goes away. And you're right, it is pathetic.
--
Go ahead hate your neighbor
Go ahead cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven
You can justify it in the end
.

User: "TRUECRISTIAN"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 02:35:49 PM

Xians are lovers of LIFE, Jesus taught that life was a gift and should
be cherished. Atheists cherish death. The kingdom of "god" is a state
of the heart and found in true xians.
Rebellion is evident within the life of atheists and perhaps with the
consequence of atheism. Atheists reject the morality of the bible..
atheists or should I say heathen; decide to corrupt our values and not
follow the bibles teaching and instead follow doctrines of morons.
.

User: "Jim07D6"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 03:18:04 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> said:

Xians are lovers of LIFE, Jesus taught that life was a gift and should
be cherished. Atheists cherish death. The kingdom of "god" is a state
of the heart and found in true xians.

Rebellion is evident within the life of atheists and perhaps with the
consequence of atheism. Atheists reject the morality of the bible..
atheists or should I say heathen; decide to corrupt our values and not
follow the bibles teaching and instead follow doctrines of morons.

Troll.
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "Jesus H Christ"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	06 Feb 2006 07:00:35 AM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in news:1138998949.410103.165500
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Xians are lovers of LIFE, Jesus taught that life was a gift and should
be cherished.
Atheists cherish death.

Fucking *****. Most Atheists dont believe in life AFTER death, but to
say that's 'cherishing' death is fucking stupid.
You're a dumb fucking *****. ***** to somewhere where you're not so
obviously a fucking retard.

The kingdom of "god" is a state
of the heart and found in true xians.

'true' christians such as catholic priests..?

Rebellion is evident within the life of atheists and perhaps with the
consequence of atheism.

Fucking *****.
Atheists simply dont believe in any 'gods' - your particular favourite
included.
End of story.

Atheists reject the morality of the bible..

Atheists may or may not reject the morality of the bible, the community
or indeed the law.
As do many supposed christians - for example the large number of catholic
priests convicted of pedophilia.
But belief in the bible IS negatively correlated with quality of life -
such as crime.
So believing in the bible is actually correlated to increased rates of
crime. This means the bibles value as a source of moral authority is
patently questionable.

atheists or should I say heathen; decide to corrupt our values and not
follow the bibles teaching and instead follow doctrines of morons.

Firstly, atheists dont specifically give a ***** about your morals.
Atheism isnt about immoral OR moral behaviour. They simply dont believe
in 'gods'.
Secondly, calling atheists 'morons' leaves me free to call you a fucking
bigoted opinionated religious fuckwit in return.
***** you and your demented opinions, *****. So *****, there's a
good chap.
WASH MY FEET, FUNDIE!
jesus!
.

User: "HotelCharlieOne"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 09:46:27 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in news:1138998949.410103.165500
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Xians are lovers of LIFE, Jesus taught that life was a gift and should
be cherished. Atheists cherish death. The kingdom of "god" is a state
of the heart and found in true xians.

Rebellion is evident within the life of atheists and perhaps with the
consequence of atheism. Atheists reject the morality of the bible..
atheists or should I say heathen; decide to corrupt our values and not
follow the bibles teaching and instead follow doctrines of morons.

You make my case. You completely duck the issues and it's Jesus this and
Jesus that. You can't operate without Jesus. I'll never understand the
mind set that believes that a 2000 year dead carpenter, who could not
save himself, will save anyone.
And just for you, I restored my old sig. It's from the Old Testament and
what is allowed by those two verses is absolutely criminal. But it must
be good, it's in the Bible.
Go in Peace
--
I love Bible morality, expecially Deu 22:28/29
You bring the young girl
I'll bring the shekels
And best of all,
God says that's fair.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 08:42:42 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

Xians are lovers of LIFE,

Tell that to Andrea Yates.

Jesus taught that life was a gift and should be cherished.
Atheists cherish death.

If that were the case, there would be no atheists. They would all be
dead.

The kingdom of "god" is a state
of the heart and found in true xians.

Who determines what a true Xn is, you?

Rebellion is evident within the life of atheists and perhaps with the
consequence of atheism.

Rebellion is evident within the life of humans. So?

Atheists reject the morality of the bible..

Absolutely. It is horrid.

atheists or should I say heathen;

not without defining the word.

decide to corrupt our values and not follow
the bibles teaching and instead follow doctrines of morons.

Do you stone unruly children, folks who gather sticks on sabbath and
adulterers?
Do you hate your father and mother and the rest of your family?
Those are the teachings of your allegedly holy text, which is actually
wholly, holey.
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	04 Feb 2006 12:36:47 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:
God cannot exist.
This all you get is logic to base
morals on. Which is maybe why God is
depicted as so evil in Exodus and Joshua.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Bill"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	04 Feb 2006 01:59:55 PM

God is described by the religious types to be what they want him to be.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite opposite; man
created gods!
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11u9sv0k1897k07@corp.supernews.com...

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

God cannot exist.

This all you get is logic to base
morals on. Which is maybe why God is
depicted as so evil in Exodus and Joshua.

IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.

A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.

The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:

A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.

There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS

It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.

THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS

Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.

A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.

Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE

The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.

God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.

God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.

So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.

OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD

God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.

1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.

If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.

***********

--

The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"

Cheerful Charlie

User: "Jesus H Christ"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	06 Feb 2006 06:49:51 AM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in news:1138992232.370478.279670
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

***** YOU, YOU LIBELOUS *****.
OFFER PROOF THAT 'MOST' ATHEISTS SUPPORT TERRORISM, YOU FUCKING RETARD.

so
I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS

You dumb *****, you're living proof of the REASON why many atheists think
religious extremism is one of the most contemptible facets of human
behaviour.
JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS!
.

User: "Woden"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 04:39:26 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in news:1138992232.370478.279670
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Damn, your attempts to parody the xian fools who come to alt.atheism are
getting more and more desparate.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.

User: "LC"
Title: Re: just stating	03 Feb 2006 02:41:03 PM

Illiterate trolltard "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<flush!>

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality.

This, from the f*cktard who has shown *no* sense of morality, regardless of
where and whence it originates.
Laughable, really.
In a pathetic sort of way.
LC~ Always glad to have morons like TC here to serve as a bad example.
"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the
stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct."~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 05:09:39 PM

In article <1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM says...

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality.

God provides no logical basis for morality. If it's right just because
he says it, then morality becomes arbitrary declaration. Alternatively,
if god has some reason, other than fiat, for declaring things moral, then
we can use those reasons without requiring an "divine command" theory of
morality.
The fact is that morality ultimately comes down to values. These values,
in turn spring from the nature of who we are as humans and sentient
animals interacting with our environment. Evolution and the facts of the
physical world, as they impact upon our lives, form our values and, from
these initial conditions, we build up approximations about what
constitutes optimum systems of behavior.
Of course, any idiot, like moses or mohammed or you, can just assert
without evidence that people need to follow a laundry list of demands.
That's the easy part. The hard part is proving that your system really
is justifiable, or superior to any other particular set of behaviors. I
would argue that it is impossible, in principle, for moral absolutists to
prove that their pet system is truly the only justifiable one.

That is why most atheists
support terrorism,

Name one who does. I can think of huge numbers of religious terrorists,
from Bin Laden to Bush.

abortion

Many theists support this too, since the life and concerns of the mother
should always take precedence over some tiny clump of cells that is not
meaningfully conscious.

, euthenasia,

Despite your poor spelling, euthanasia is something that many people,
atheist and theist alike support under appropriate circumstances. How is
it that you have determined, mr. self-mutilator, that people are not
entitled to die with dignity?

gay marriage

Torah cares as much about gay marriage as it does about not eating
lobster or pork, or wearing garments with mixed fibers. I'm sure that
you've done all of these things, with the exception of the gay marriage
part, and it sounds like you are secretly titilated by the prospect.

etc..etc..etc..so
I am not surprised in the least to hear that they may support
DOGMOLESTORS

Your god demanded that animals be butchered and burnt as offerings. He
also supposedly killed every innocent animal on the face of the earth,
with the exception of those on the ark. So I think it's safe to say that
Yahweh has molested more dogs than anyone. I mean, after all, he banged
the virgin mary, didn't he?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	07 Feb 2006 05:50:07 AM

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:09:39 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <1138992232.370478.279670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM says...

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality.

God provides no logical basis for morality.

Sure he does.
John 13:34 (New International Version)
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must
love one another.
Now, if you ever researched your beliefs, you'd find you're in total error.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 02:19:51 PM

On 3 Feb 2006 10:43:52 -0800, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

0.05 on the Troll-O-Meter.
.

User: "Brian Henderson"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	06 Feb 2006 05:59:55 PM

On 3 Feb 2006 10:43:52 -0800, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

Funny, it's usually the Christians who have to have the threat of
hellfire in order to act morally, atheists don't need a god to make
them act like decent human beings.
I guess that's because theists are not decent human beings to begin
with, so they need a crutch to act that way.
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 03:03:14 PM

On 3 Feb 2006 10:43:52 -0800, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:
Please don't eat me! My brothers are much bigger than me, and they'll
be along any minute now!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Jim07D6"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 03:19:59 PM

raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> said:

On 3 Feb 2006 10:43:52 -0800, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

Please don't eat me! My brothers are much bigger than me, and they'll
be along any minute now!

Eat them!
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "erikc"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 09:16:16 PM

On 3 Feb 2006 10:43:52 -0800, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:

It seems that your insults are more reflective of your inner issues than
anything to do with us.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	03 Feb 2006 05:37:32 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no
logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists
support terrorism,

***********************************************************
The Failure of Christianity in America
W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
***********************************************************
Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved to the far right,
taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have fully
supported the GOP as it has moved right to gain support of
christian zealots and conservatives. This started when Nixon
played the racist Southern Strategy card building on civil
rights era resentments by far right Southerners, in a purposeful
plan create by Kevin Phillips, playing on unchristian racist
resentments of the post Jim Crow civil rights era. Kevin Phillips,
architect of the Sourthern strategy, apologized on NPR radio a
few years back for this plan, which he admitted often sunk into
rank racism.
So we now have had a essentially a christian GOP government
for 30 years.
Under Nixon:
Christian Americans supported incompetent and corrupt
Vietnamese politicians. And a senseless war in Vietnam
that accomplished nothing. And a corrupt US military that
mislead us steadily about all of this.
Nixon lied about having a secret plan to end the war.
Christians supported Nixon's having instigated awful and
murderous policies as the Phoenix program.
Supported the secret bombings in Cambodia that killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent Cambodians.
Despite the lies and deceits, few Christian leaders seemed
to care or be disturbed by such things.
Winked at the invasion of East Timur and parts of New
Guinea by our allies, the Indonesions.
The Indonesians killed 1/4 of the East Timurese over several
decades, mass murder, genocide. 2 million dead.
Winked at the Greek far right Junta that overthrew the
Greek government. Today many Greeks still intensely
dislike teh US for support these men who tortured and jailed
many without charges, based on politics.
Supported the murderous far right Brazilian generals who
overthrew that democratically elected government.
Supported the mass murdering Argentinian government and
their terroristic "Dirty War" of torture, mass murder
and disappearances.
Supported the murderous Pinochet of Chile and overthrow
yet another democratically elected goverment.
No Christians respected life here. Or freedom. But supported
Nixon heartily despite the horrors we commited in Vietnam
and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for other
dictators and right winged coups mentioned above.
The right wingers of both parties supported this, and many
claimed to be christians.
Reagan.
Reagan lead the GOP in support for military aid to the
genocidal Rios Montt of Guatemala, who's armies most purposefully
practiced wholesale torture, rape and genocide on the Mayan
Indians of Guatemala. A war of terror.
Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza
Guards of Nicaragua.
Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq, despite
Saddam's starting a warm, and using poison gas in his war.
Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert
D'Aubisson of El Salavador, a known far right death
squad leader.
The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous
murders, and massacres, such as the killing of 400
villagers at a small village called El Mezote, most
of them young women and children.
Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama.
Few christiabs complained, not the leadership of
US denominations.
Reagan and the GOP happily supported Pol Pot's claim
to be the rightful government of Cambodia despite the
genocide committed by the insane Pol Pot's Khmer Regime,
and even had teh CIA send money and supplies to Pol Pot
while ignoring China's reaming Pol Pot without complaint.
Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering
far right extremist guerrilla movements in Africa
including the genocidal Renamo in Mozambique.
Reagan fought sanctions to end apartheid in South africa.
The Christian and religous right heavily supported Reagan
and the GOP despite numerous examples of such evils as
listed above. The leaders of the religous right never cared
nor complained, neither did the religous leaders of the
main stream christian denominations.
There was and is no respect for life in American
christianity as these wholesale and repeat failures of
America christianity collectively over 20 years shows.
Then we had Bush.
Bush continued support for the evil dictators above,
including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However,
Saddam screwed us and invaded Iraq, mainly because
Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so
even though Saddam repeatedly threatened Kuwait for
months, carefully gauguing Bush's lack of reaction
and thinking lack of reaction amounted to de facto
permission or acceptance of an invasion of Kuwait
by the inert Bush.
Bush did not act in case of genocide my Jugoslavia's
Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious
footdragging here allowed Milosevic to kill
hundreds of thousands with near impunity.
The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religous
leaders of the right and mainstream denominations never
cared about any of this, nor made issue of these evils.
In the Desert Storm war, Bush allowed the US air
force to bomb Iraq's water and sewer systems.
A war crime.
They placed sanctions on Iraq that made it impossible
to keep their water supplies safe resulting in numerous
deaths that eventually would total over 2 million dead
Iraqi civilians, mostly children.
Our government coldly calculated that these sanctions would
indeed would cause mass epidemics and mass death, and did
it anyway.
Thomas Nagy, a California college professor used the FOIA
statutes to obtain these documents that were published
in September 2001 in the Progressive Magazine.
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
No Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream
cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership of House
and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents.
Clinton
Under Clinton this policy continued. Again, Christians did
not care. All Christians cared about was Clintons
don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's
sex life and Whitewater.
$47 million spent investigating whitewater while the Christian
right roared with naked hate. Money spent investigation mass
murder in Iraq caused by our purposeful by our sanctions?
$0. Roars of disaprovable from Christian America over these mass
murders? Few.
What has 30 years or right winged GOP government and right
winger christianity got us? Mass murder, genocide,
Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life,
mass moral failure of religion, Christianity and
the american right.
Not once did religous christian Americans, either
leadership or rank and file ever find any of these
evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any
of this.
Most GOP House and Senate members were people who
did these things claimed to be christians. Not a one
cares, not a christian cares, they did not care or act.
30 years of failure. 30 years of support for
far right genocidal bastards, mass murderers,
and evil.
Total christian failure.
Total lack of any real morality at all
in American christianity.
Christians posture as moral, but American christians have
a very bad track records when it comes to morality, they
will happily support any genocidal monster as long as he's
a right winger, and right winger politicians support
that monster, no matter how murderous or genocidal he
and his evil regime is.
Christianity is evil. The proof here is obvious,
and this is not some atrocity of the middle ages,
or the 1500's,this is here and now and ongoing and
continuing.
Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and rather than being
horrified, the christian far right has applauded this.
The christian failure of christian America is ongoing
and shows no signs of morality. No signs of change.
Thus we see that for the last 30 years in America,
christianity has been an utter and total and complete
moral failure.
(End)
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort"
Title: Re: just stating the fact	03 Feb 2006 02:37:02 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

just stating the fact

No, you're lying. That's a sin, according to your bible.
.

User: "Richard Smol"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists support terrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am not surprised in the least to hea	05 Feb 2006 01:34:23 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

Why the hell do you still post the whole contents of your message in
your subject? It's idiotic to the scale as the actual contents
themselves.
RS
.

User: "Sanitys littIe heIper"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheisthas no logical basis for his or her morality. That is why most atheists supportterrorism, abortion, euthenasia, gay marriage etc..etc..etc..so I am notsurprised in the least to hear t	04 Feb 2006 03:13:01 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

Now, what kind of sad act tries to cheat at TQOTM?
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.	03 Feb 2006 02:58:44 PM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

God does not exist and that can be proven.
So nobody has any authority for morals
otyer than logic.
Since you are wrong about morals and god,
you must have no morals. Just a superstition
That is why Christian history is so bad.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
The first law of the false prophet has
always and ever been "Don't laugh!"
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.	03 Feb 2006 03:49:49 PM

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:58:44 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

God does not exist and that can be proven.

Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.

------------------------------------------------IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.

No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.

B. God has free will.

No, God gives us free will.

C. God is the creator of all.

Yes.

D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

I can accept those just to humor you.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.

No, not hinduism.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truely independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is, is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.

there is no "class of gods". There is only one all-mighty Supreme Being, by
definition. Let's call him God for lack of a better name.

Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.

Nope, not Hinduism.

A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.

This is where you must get serious.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.

But acknowledged by God for all eternity.

Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.

You say it, but why not. You project no reason why he allows it, and thereby
disagrees with you.
You lose that one.

E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.

You must get past "D" before going to "go".

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologiams.

God gave us free will, not St. Augustine.

God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.

Which is why God gave us free will.

THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.

Nope. You lose.

God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.

A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to cound
againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist,

You blew it in the preamble. God does not possess free will. God gives us free
will.

or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existance of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.

Yep.

C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.

Yep.

D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.

Yep.

E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.

Nope. God does not interfere.

F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.

Nope, by Smith. It's called free will.

G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god.

Nope, by Smith in accordance with his free will.

In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.

Man does evil on behalf of his free will. God gave us free choice, and to be
suitably rewarded basis our decision - heaven or hell.

H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.

He allows man to free choose evil.

I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.

An interesting concept. You're saying that God should not be onmibenevolent
because to do so would allow us to injure ourselves on behalf of our free will.
We injure ourselves because of our free will to do so.

J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

Nope, God knows our final free decision, but we don't. We still have to make
it.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.

By your definition, but I've showed you to be in error.

2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.

No, it doesn't.

3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.

Free will is what you are hiding from.

4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
neccesary.

No free will for man is impossible, because then man would not be made in the
image of God who is all love.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.

But not almighty God. Only a weak class of god (small g) like alcoholic, sex
drive, etc.

If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that relevation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

These are not grand gods, but small gods that are satan driven.

God is thus disporven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.

You're successfully defined small gods, but not God almighty.
Better luck
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: just stating the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.	03 Feb 2006 06:48:49 PM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:58:44 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:

God does not exist and that can be proven.

Not a fart's chance in a hurricane of that.

A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.

No, God is not a sentient being, but almighty spirit.

What's a spirit? What's it made of?

B. God has free will.

No, God gives us free will.

No, we give ourselves free will. Some people have more free will than
others. It depends on how much they think for themselves and refuse to
allow others to control their lives.

C. God is the creator of all.

Yes.

An assumption in this context. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

I can accept those just to humor you.

They are the Christian definition of "god".
<snip>

A CLASS OF GODS