| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"AcesLucky" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2006 08:16:40 AM |
| Object: |
Question to Atheists |
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
AcesLucky
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 03:14:41 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
jeez you would think she wouldn't give such a lame answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:36:48 PM |
|
|
GoDrex wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
jeez you would think she wouldn't give such a lame answer.
I should not have added her answer. She was not arguing that it was a
valid support. She made the argument so that others (those who asked the
question) could easily see that the strongest answer she could come up
with would never hold water.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 03:43:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:14:41 -0400, "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
jeez you would think she wouldn't give such a lame answer.
She was being accurate. That's the best they've got.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:37:21 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:14:41 -0400, "GoDrex" <godrex35@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
jeez you would think she wouldn't give such a lame answer.
She was being accurate. That's the best they've got.
I should not have added her answer. She was not arguing that it was a
valid support. She made the argument so that others (those who asked the
question) could easily see that the strongest answer she could come up
with would never hold water.
I think you caught that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 01:29:13 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
AcesLucky
Gods come in many forms and shapes. Some are snakes, some are suns or moons,
some are magic ghosts, some are strong warriors, some are sexy ladies. It is
hard to have an operational definition that would allow us to determine that
we are indeed in the presence of a god or that certain events are the
consequence of a god's doings. Maybe if you could be more specific as to
what kind of god you are referring to we could think about what evidence
should be enough.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 04:37:58 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
AcesLucky
Gods come in many forms and shapes. Some are snakes, some are suns or moons,
some are magic ghosts, some are strong warriors, some are sexy ladies. It is
hard to have an operational definition that would allow us to determine that
we are indeed in the presence of a god or that certain events are the
consequence of a god's doings. Maybe if you could be more specific as to
what kind of god you are referring to we could think about what evidence
should be enough.
regards
Milan
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:16:54 AM |
|
|
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:14:34 PM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
Can suspend or change the laws of nature (physics, chemistry,
electromagnetism, etc..) at will, to do their bidding. And of course,
it would then have to be worthy of worship. An ***** god (a super
intelligent alien might be godlike to us) might not qualify, except to
those that fear all gods. But use as much wiggle room as you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 06:24:16 PM |
|
|
In article <uSQYg.3884$ef2.2223@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
Can suspend or change the laws of nature (physics, chemistry,
electromagnetism, etc..) at will, to do their bidding.
But, as you suggest below, how do we know that laws are actually being
changed/suspended, rather than someone is using a technology we don't
know about, or maybe even it's just that we were wrong in our
inductions about what the laws are?
Beyond that, I'm not sure that an ability to change nature makes a
being supernatural. Mightn't it be possible for some sufficiently
powerful natural being to do that?
At any rate, you give a more coherent answer than I usually get.
And of course, it would then have to be worthy of worship. An
***** god (a super intelligent alien might be godlike to us) might
not qualify, except to those that fear all gods. But use as much
wiggle room as you want.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
17 Oct 2006 12:51:47 PM |
|
|
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <uSQYg.3884$ef2.2223@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
Can suspend or change the laws of nature (physics, chemistry,
electromagnetism, etc..) at will, to do their bidding.
But, as you suggest below, how do we know that laws are actually being
changed/suspended, rather than someone is using a technology we don't
know about, or maybe even it's just that we were wrong in our
inductions about what the laws are?
Beyond that, I'm not sure that an ability to change nature makes a
being supernatural. Mightn't it be possible for some sufficiently
powerful natural being to do that?
Yep. That's why there's really no such thing as supernatural.
At any rate, you give a more coherent answer than I usually get.
And of course, it would then have to be worthy of worship. An
***** god (a super intelligent alien might be godlike to us) might
not qualify, except to those that fear all gods. But use as much
wiggle room as you want.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
18 Oct 2006 07:02:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:14:34 -0700, AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
Can suspend or change the laws of nature (physics, chemistry,
electromagnetism, etc..) at will, to do their bidding.
Ah, yes, fiction.
And of course,
it would then have to be worthy of worship. An ***** god (a super
intelligent alien might be godlike to us) might not qualify, except to
those that fear all gods. But use as much wiggle room as you want.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 05:03:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:16:54 GMT, (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:
- Refer: <GlGYg.18022$7I1.2005@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
In article <WSxYg.3811$ef2.3147@fed1read09>,
AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net> writes:
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Now all we have to do is define 'supernatural'.
Anything that exhibits the "shyness" effect?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 04:51:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:37:58 -0700, AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net>
wrote:
Milan wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
AcesLucky
Gods come in many forms and shapes. Some are snakes, some are suns or moons,
some are magic ghosts, some are strong warriors, some are sexy ladies. It is
hard to have an operational definition that would allow us to determine that
we are indeed in the presence of a god or that certain events are the
consequence of a god's doings. Maybe if you could be more specific as to
what kind of god you are referring to we could think about what evidence
should be enough.
regards
Milan
Fair enough. I like Dawkins' definition, which would be "any
supernatural being worth worshiping."
Just because somebody worships something as a god doesn't mean it is
one, only that they believe it is one. Unfortunately those who do
can't tell the difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
18 Oct 2006 06:51:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:29:13 +0100, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
AcesLucky
Gods come in many forms and shapes.
The common trait is they don't exist.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 08:59:00 AM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
Are you kidding? There is none.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 01:05:30 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
Are you kidding? There is none.
When people say, "...it's just obvious..." What the hell are they really
talking about?
What does it mean when they say "it's common sense?" And then you look
around and find MILLIONS believing the same thing...verifying (to a
quantitative extent) that the 'sense' is in fact common!
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
18 Oct 2006 06:26:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:05:30 -0700, AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
Are you kidding? There is none.
When people say, "...it's just obvious..." What the hell are they really
talking about?
Their gullibility and ignorance.
What does it mean when they say "it's common sense?" And then you look
around and find MILLIONS believing the same thing...verifying (to a
quantitative extent) that the 'sense' is in fact common!
Just the opposite. 'Common sense' isn't common.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:45:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:05:30 -0700, AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net>
wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
Are you kidding? There is none.
When people say, "...it's just obvious..." What the hell are they really
talking about?
What does it mean when they say "it's common sense?" And then you look
around and find MILLIONS believing the same thing...verifying (to a
quantitative extent) that the 'sense' is in fact common!
They're both rationalisation. The belief was implanted at an early age
and became almost hard wired. They have no explanation for this so
they think it's obvious, instinctive, common sense etc.
.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
19 Oct 2006 08:53:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:05:30 -0700, AcesLucky wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be
interesting (to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
Are you kidding? There is none.
When people say, "...it's just obvious..." What the hell are they really
talking about?
What does it mean when they say "it's common sense?" And then you look
around and find MILLIONS believing the same thing...verifying (to a
quantitative extent) that the 'sense' is in fact common!
.
Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat, and is at the center of
the Universe. The great discovery of science is the recognition that what
seems obvious is often just plain wrong.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "uray" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 01:56:54 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see any
definition that makes any sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 04:59:15 PM |
|
|
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see any
definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "uray" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 05:33:48 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09...
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Worship? Who sets the standards deciding if a god is worth worshipping? I
don't do this "worship" thing so I guess there is no god according to your
definition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 08:06:44 PM |
|
|
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09...
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Worship? Who sets the standards deciding if a god is worth worshipping?
We all do - it's a perfect example of a subjective measure.
I
don't do this "worship" thing so I guess there is no god according to your
definition.
You have no god according to this definition - you are godless - a -
theos.
I don't worship anything either.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 02:34:20 PM |
|
|
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09...
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Worship? Who sets the standards deciding if a god is worth worshipping? I
don't do this "worship" thing so I guess there is no god according to your
definition.
Okay, how about a supernatural "thing" capable of carrying out its will
over the natural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
16 Oct 2006 07:48:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:34:20 -0700, AcesLucky <acesLucky@netscape.net>
wrote:
Okay, how about a supernatural "thing" capable of carrying out its will
over the natural.
You mean, something like: "Any supernatural being worth worshiping" ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
17 Oct 2006 04:47:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:34:20 -0500, AcesLucky wrote
(in article <09RYg.3886$ef2.778@fed1read09>):
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09...
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Worship? Who sets the standards deciding if a god is worth worshipping? I
don't do this "worship" thing so I guess there is no god according to your
definition.
Okay, how about a supernatural "thing" capable of carrying out its will
over the natural.
The word: "supernatural" is a word without meaning. If something exists it is
natural.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"We used to be afraid of comets. Now it's their turn." The Register
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
17 Oct 2006 05:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:47:14 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
<hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0001HW.C15AB992000BF814F0284530@news.central.cox.net>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:34:20 -0500, AcesLucky wrote
(in article <09RYg.3886$ef2.778@fed1read09>):
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09...
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of
a god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Worship? Who sets the standards deciding if a god is worth worshipping? I
don't do this "worship" thing so I guess there is no god according to your
definition.
Okay, how about a supernatural "thing" capable of carrying out its will
over the natural.
The word: "supernatural" is a word without meaning. If something exists it is
natural.
No, it has meaning, but requires a suspension of disbelief in fiction,
much as say, 'perpetual motion' has any meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
17 Oct 2006 04:45:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:59:15 -0500, AcesLucky wrote
(in article <TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09>):
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any
definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Any being worth "worshipping" would refuse to be worshipped if it were sane.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
Liaison between:
EAC-Evil Atheist Conspiracy
CEA-Conspiracy of Evil Atheists
ACE-Atheist Conspiracy of Evil.
AEC-Atheist Evil Conspiracy
CAE-Conspiracy of Atheists of Evil
ECA-Evil Conspiracy of Atheists
and
DAC-Dangerous Amish Conspiracy
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
18 Oct 2006 01:31:51 AM |
|
|
Harry F. Leopold wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:59:15 -0500, AcesLucky wrote
(in article <TayYg.3814$ef2.243@fed1read09>):
uray wrote:
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
(As an aside, Marilyn vos Savant [who claims not to answer publicly on
questions of religion or god but did venture this one] answered by
stating, "because so many people believe in one.")
Without being dishonest, what would be your best argument in support of a
god?
First you will have to define what you mean by "god". I have yet to see
any
definition that makes any sense.
Any supernatural being worth worshiping.
Any being worth "worshipping" would refuse to be worshipped if it were sane.
Ha! I definitely agree!
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Question to Atheists |
15 Oct 2006 02:20:04 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YwqYg.3799$ef2.201@fed1read09...
This is an honest question to which an honest reply would be interesting
(to me).
What would be your best argument in "support" of a god?
The extent to which coincidence looks like cruel humor.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
