| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jamal Bernhard" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2005 05:28:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
.
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 10:40:24 PM |
|
|
"imagenieinabottlebaby" <ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1129774372.924349.191690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the
same
end result, anyway. Of course you're going to say "because it's just
the right thing to do." But there's something deeper than just the
incentives. People who do good without expecting rewards, do it
because
It is really rather simple. Why does any animal avoid being killed?
Because it wishes to live and pro-create. Without the instinct to
survive a species dies out (as a result the failing evolutionary branch
comes to an end).
Our species (which has the instinct to survive) has discovered something
valuable - we can avoid killing by agreeing rules by which we can live
together - Humans are pack animals.
That leads to the illeglity of murder and other acts which inhibit
someone else's ability to live and pro-create. Mix that in with a bit of
status building and you arrive at the rules which almost every
civilization on earth has managed to get to (and you can include animals
other than Humans in that too).
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an
afterlife.
atheism is the belief that there is no god, and that when we die we
cease to excist.
No.
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 05:02:03 PM |
|
|
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your handlers and
get a new line, methinks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 09:27:55 AM |
|
|
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in
news:435d596f$0$210$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working
on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating
of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
I see - so rules in the bible should only apply to the times they were
written. Thanks for agreeing with the statements of atheists for
hundreds of years.
Perhaps we are getting somewhere...
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your
handlers and get a new line, methinks.
Check it out on dictionary.com - your definition is wrong.
Get a new line? You shouldn't be so quick to ask for more when you can't
even deal with this.
gater.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 05:49:42 AM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working
on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant
bleating of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your
handlers and get a new line, methinks.
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 disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 01:05:07 PM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
Why didn't their god just say "Thou shall cook pork thoroughly, lest
it be an abomination unto me"
Or even better... why did HE put Trichinosis in pork in the first
place?
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your handlers and
get a new line, methinks.
Two questions:
1. WHICH god should atheists believe in?
2. Please show evidence of that god that doesn't apply to all the
other gods.
Thanks.
james, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 03:31:06 AM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
Wife beating? Furthermore, since a great deal of other very unhealthy
practices and beliefs continued among the Hebrews (as with all people
at that time), it can be considered to be a lucky coincidence that
they avoided trichinosis because of a religious dietary law.
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your handlers and
get a new line, methinks.
Do you believe that there is no Santa? Is that a belief?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 09:24:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of religion to
frighten people into following.
Today, it's ignorant.
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your handlers and
get a new line, methinks.
Why? That made perfect sense to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 12:39:13 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork,
working on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the
ignorant bleating of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of
religion to frighten people into following.
Today, it's ignorant.
The OT rules out any animal that is a scavenger.
Pigs will happily scavenge. That is why they
are taboo.
Theism = Belief in Deity
Atheism = No belief in a Deity.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Do you believe there is no deity? You need to go back to your
handlers and get a new line, methinks.
Why? That made perfect sense to me.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
27 Oct 2005 01:12:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:39:13 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
KK wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork,
working on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the
ignorant bleating of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of
religion to frighten people into following.
Today, it's ignorant.
The OT rules out any animal that is a scavenger.
Pigs will happily scavenge. That is why they
are taboo.
Is that way catfish, crabs, and lobster are banned? But shrimp aren't
scavengers.... so much for the 'shellfish defense'... and why the
ban on eating bats, even though the Christian god says that they are
birds, not mammals...
Just curious... it seems like a fairly zig-zagging line of what's
acceptable to eat.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
09 Nov 2005 04:33:00 PM |
|
|
RainLover wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:39:13 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
KK wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork,
working on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the
ignorant bleating of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of
religion to frighten people into following.
Today, it's ignorant.
The OT rules out any animal that is a scavenger.
Pigs will happily scavenge. That is why they
are taboo.
Is that way catfish, crabs, and lobster are banned? But shrimp
aren't
scavengers.... so much for the 'shellfish defense'... and why the
ban on eating bats, even though the Christian god says that they are
birds, not mammals...
I'm not sure that shrimp would be known to ancient Israelites.
They may have banned bat thinking them similar to mice and
rats which are also banned.
Just curious... it seems like a fairly zig-zagging line of what's
acceptable to eat.
James, Seattle
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Diane Whatever" |
|
| Title: >> OH DARIN .....: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
12 Nov 2005 12:03:18 PM |
|
|
This looks like a job for SuperJew ...
diane
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11n4tamfngf8n7e@corp.supernews.com...
| RainLover wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:39:13 -0500, wbarwell
| > <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
| >
| >>KK wrote:
| >>
| >>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> "navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
| >>>>
| >>>>> The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork,
| >>>>> working on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the
| >>>>> ignorant bleating of the stupid.
| >>>>
| >>>> Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
| >>>
| >>> No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of
| >>> religion to frighten people into following.
| >>>
| >>> Today, it's ignorant.
| >>>
| >>
| >>The OT rules out any animal that is a scavenger.
| >>Pigs will happily scavenge. That is why they
| >>are taboo.
| >
| > Is that way catfish, crabs, and lobster are banned? But shrimp
| > aren't
| > scavengers.... so much for the 'shellfish defense'... and why the
| > ban on eating bats, even though the Christian god says that they are
| > birds, not mammals...
|
| I'm not sure that shrimp would be known to ancient Israelites.
| They may have banned bat thinking them similar to mice and
| rats which are also banned.
|
| >
| > Just curious... it seems like a fairly zig-zagging line of what's
| > acceptable to eat.
| >
| > James, Seattle
|
| --
| The official spokesman of the Foxes said
| today that investigation into what happened
| to the henhouse may be needed.
|
| Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 01:07:16 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said:
KK wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork,
working on Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the
ignorant bleating of the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of
religion to frighten people into following.
Today, it's ignorant.
The OT rules out any animal that is a scavenger.
Pigs will happily scavenge. That is why they
are taboo.
It quite possibly was not a particularly "religious" admonishment at
the time, more like tribal conventional wisdom, passed on orally, that
got written up in the tribal documents when writing became extant,
with a dose of theological authority thrown in. Ancient conventional
wisdom became god-given command.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 11:42:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:24:42 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:02:03 -0500, Fred Liken wrote:
"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
The other rules from religion (e.g. the bible forbids pork, working on
Sunday and allows for wife beating) are just the ignorant bleating of
the stupid.
Trichinosis? Not eating pork at that time was ignorant?
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of religion to
frighten people into following.
It could also have been a lucky coincidence, especially when one
considers the other rules; many of which make no sense.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
25 Oct 2005 11:51:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:42:09 +0200, thomas p wrote:
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of religion to
frighten people into following.
It could also have been a lucky coincidence, especially when one
considers the other rules; many of which make no sense.
True, but the scientific method and the germ model of disease wasn't
around then to test theories - plus our hindsight is 20/20. I'd guess it
was ... a good guess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
26 Oct 2005 06:15:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:51:22 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:42:09 +0200, thomas p wrote:
No. Then, it was a good idea which required the bogeyman of religion to
frighten people into following.
It could also have been a lucky coincidence, especially when one
considers the other rules; many of which make no sense.
True, but the scientific method and the germ model of disease wasn't
around then to test theories - plus our hindsight is 20/20. I'd guess it
was ... a good guess.
There is no reason to think that they had disease in mind at all.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
26 Oct 2005 09:32:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:15:39 +0200, thomas p wrote:
There is no reason to think that they had disease in mind at all.
It's a stretch to have associated eating of certain things with subsequent
disease?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
26 Oct 2005 01:20:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:32:01 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:15:39 +0200, thomas p wrote:
There is no reason to think that they had disease in mind at all.
It's a stretch to have associated eating of certain things with subsequent
disease?
No, but the fact is that they had all kinds of taboos in their laws in
addition to the taboo against pork. The majority of them were fairly
silly. So it is very likely that, through pure luck, they banned
something that actually had the potential to cause illness. One
should also remember that people around them ate pork, and the
evidence is that most of them were aware that it was a good idea to
cook the meat thoroughly - a much more practical solution than a total
ban on eating such a useful animal.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
26 Oct 2005 01:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:20:36 +0200, thomas p wrote:
So it is very likely that, through pure luck, they banned
something that actually had the potential to cause illness.
Okay, I can see your point. There are plenty of other animals that don't
have disease associated with their meat that are considered unclean as
well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 03:58:24 PM |
|
|
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 navi-gater <gater@the-gate.net> wrote:
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 08:29:18 PM |
|
|
Doug Jacobs wrote:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 navi-gater <gater@the-gate.net> wrote:
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
Only if you consider your absence of belief in Zeus a belief.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:23:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:58:24 +0000, Doug Jacobs wrote:
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
I do not individually recognize the lack of existence of every imaginary
thing I, or anyone else, have, could have, or might make up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:16:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:58:24 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 navi-gater <gater@the-gate.net> wrote:
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
Only if you are an uneducated ignoramus using dumbed-down language and
dumbed-dowmn pseudo-logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 06:13:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:58:24 -0000, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 navi-gater <gater@the-gate.net> wrote:
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
So it is a belief, because we do not believe?
How do you work that out?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
24 Oct 2005 04:06:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:58:24 -0000, in alt.atheism
Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in
<11lqing2v9216bf@corp.supernews.com>:
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 navi-gater <gater@the-gate.net> wrote:
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of belief. That's it,
nothing else.
Then you DO believe in something - or rather, you believe in the abscense
of something. But that's still a belief.
That lack of belief is no more belief than the lack of hair is a hair
style.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "imagenieinabottlebaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
19 Oct 2005 09:11:56 PM |
|
|
Jamal Bernhard wrote:
ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway. Of course you're going to say "because it's just
the right thing to do." But there's something deeper than just the
incentives. People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness. Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are
we're going to be destroyed forever, and that kind of thing has a way
of jading you. If atheism is true, then why would I care about
anything, or love anything or put faith in anything? Atheism is such a
spirit-crushing concept. Nothing matters. As the Poison song goes,
"give me something to belive in." Because if I'm going to face the
horror of ceasing to exist, I can't be motivated to care, love,
believe, or have faith.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
atheism is the belief that there is no god, and that when we die we
cease to excist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
19 Oct 2005 11:43:26 PM |
|
|
<snip irrelevant newsgroups>
imagenieinabottlebaby wrote:
Jamal Bernhard wrote:
ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
You're a dog then? You behave to get the treat and avoid the newspaper?
So suppose you knew for a fact there was nothing after this life. Given
the choice to stab a baby, would you do it?
If so, you're one depraved *****, and it's a good thing you've
got your god thingy to tell you not to.
If not, what the ***** makes you think atheists would?
Of course you're going to say "because it's just
the right thing to do." But there's something deeper than just the
incentives.
You just said that the only reason you do good is because you believe
there's an afterlife! And now you're saying there's something more than
incentives? Fucking christ, the trick to making a fallacious argument
is to gloss over the inconsistencies, not line them up for all to see.
People who do good without expecting rewards, do it because
they believe in the concept of goodness, and they put faith in the
concept of goodness.
And this concept of goodness is completely unrelated to atheism and
theism.
Atheism tells us that no matter how good we are we're going to be
destroyed forever,
Atheism doesn't say a thing on the subject. Atheism is a lack of belief
in gods. There is no dogma, there is no unified voice.
and that kind of thing has a way of jading you.
Maybe you. I have grown up enough to accept that I will some day cease
to exist, so if there's something I want to do, I've got to do it now.
If atheism is true,
Atheism does not carry a truth value. Atheism is a lack of belief in
gods. It is merely an attribute of those that are not theists.
By the by, there are atheists that believe in afterlives. Atheism does
not imply areligion (though they often go together).
then why would I care about anything, or love anything or put faith in
anything?
You wouldn't. Because those are things humans do. We have emotional
needs that need to be met, regardless of whether or not there's a life
after death or a magical whip cracker in the sky.
Atheism is such a spirit-crushing concept. Nothing matters.
That's nihilism, not atheism.
As the Poison song goes, "give me something to belive in." Because if
I'm going to face the horror of ceasing to exist, I can't be motivated
to care, love, believe, or have faith.
You display your own flaws, not those of the atheism. You are unable to
cope with reality. Go crawl back to church and beat yourself up for
looking at a woman. Don't waste your time at alt.atheism, for you will
find little sympathy for your wretched condition.
By the way, it's possible to be an Atheist (in the sense of not
believing in a Judeo-Christian God) and still believe in an afterlife.
atheism is the belief that there is no god, and that when we die we
cease to excist.
No. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. There are some that go
so far as to assert that there is no god, but that's only a subset of
atheism.
Furthermore, to be an atheist does not require any further
beliefs/disbeliefs. As I said earlier, you can be an atheist that
believes in an afterlife. It's just fairly unusual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
20 Oct 2005 09:01:49 AM |
|
|
"imagenieinabottlebaby" <ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
snip
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
Troll, troll, troll your boat.....................
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Smithpeters" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
22 Nov 2005 04:53:53 AM |
|
|
Amd that's why you've probably more than once in your life been called a
sociopath. The concept of doing good for people just because people
deserve to have good done for them is as foreign to your thought-process
as the lack of a conscience would be to most atheists.
imagenieinabottlebaby wrote:
Because if I'm going to face the
horror of ceasing to exist, I can't be motivated to care, love,
believe, or have faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike V." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
20 Oct 2005 06:56:53 PM |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2005 19:11:56 -0700, "imagenieinabottlebaby"
<ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com> posted :
Jamal Bernhard wrote:
ugottarubmetherightway@hotmail.com wrote:
So what's the point
of being good? You won't be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
If you have to ask that, you must be a sick, sociopathic asswipe.
Which I gathered from your first post.
You're so fucking stupid, it's hard to know where to start.
A good place would be for you to recognize that there are people and
have been people in societies in this world that live without the
carrot on the stick you are talking about.
Think about that one for a while, dipshit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists and Samantha Runnion |
21 Oct 2005 11:08:03 AM |
|
|
"Mike V." <michaelav@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded for it, then you are a
truly sad person, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife.
Why would I bother doing good, though? I mean, it will earn me the same
end result, anyway.
If you have to ask that, you must be a sick, sociopathic asswipe.
Why? Are you projecting your carrot and stick?
Which I gathered from your first post.
You're so fucking stupid, it's hard to know where to start.
Maybe that's a sign?
A good place would be for you to recognize that there are people and
have been people in societies in this world that live without the
carrot on the stick you are talking about.
Think about that one for a while, dipshit.
Yeah, they are followed by someone hitting them with the stick and eating
the carrot. lol.
Anyways, atheists are just riding the coat tails of the people with higher
purpose who built them their cradles to sleep in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
