| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2005 04:21:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130604306.826905.25140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God
Nope. Stop lying about atheists.
and all beleivers in
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.
I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.
I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 09:10:54 AM |
|
|
In article <yem9f.12799$sA4.458@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, "Katt"
<kattt@t.com> wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130604306.826905.25140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Atheism is also a belief in non-existance of God
Nope. Stop lying about atheists.
and all beleivers in
atheism very strongly defend their belief, call it their narrow
mindedness or enlightment, it is no different than the passion people
expresses in their religious beliefs such as christianity.
I see: you now think you speak for all atheists as well as all Christians.
Fascinating symptom.
I separated
all beliefs including atheism. Looks like you are a narrow minded
person incapable of understanding intelligent arguments. Calling people
liars without provocation shows that you need to grow up.
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
Katt,
I don't speak for Atheists or all Christians. I speak for myself.
We have different opinions on this subject.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Accidental" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 05:35:07 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.
Allow me to read some scripture from it:
religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power.
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...
I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!
All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 07:33:28 AM |
|
|
Another defenition of religion from Dictionary.com, Check that out:
* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
My point precisely. A passionate belief. As I mentioned earlier, if you
are not pasionate about it, you are not religious but if you believe
passionately, like Katt, then you are religious about it and your
belief is your religion. I proved my point through your choice of
reasoning via dictionary. Since this a life extension forum, I will not
respond any further to this forum.
Accidental wrote:
Katt wrote:
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in [the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion' as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.
Allow me to read some scripture from it:
religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power.
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...
I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!
All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 09:27:49 AM |
|
|
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130765608.571152.124900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Another defenition of religion from Dictionary.com, Check that out:
* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
My point precisely. A passionate belief. As I mentioned earlier, if you
are not pasionate about it, you are not religious but if you believe
passionately, like Katt, then you are religious about it and your
belief is your religion.
I proved my point through your choice of
reasoning via dictionary.
You really *are* this fucking stupid, aren't you? Not only do you now think
a dictionary is the place to decide philosophy, but you are also so totally
inept at understanding email attributions that you actually think it was
*me* who 'chose' to bring dictionaries into it?!? Look, sonny, you are
punching *waaaay* above your weight here. Just ****** off home*, before I
squeeze all your zits.
Katt.
Since this a life extension forum, I will not
respond any further to this forum.
Accidental wrote:
Katt wrote:
You are still lying about atheism. Atheists don't have 'a belief in
[the]
non-existance [sic] of God [sic]': the very *notion* of that specific
god-fantasy - one of countless thousands of such fantasies, all of them
completely without evidential support - *simply has no meaning* outside
of
the (in your tradition's case) Biblical belief system. Furthermore,
'strength of conviction' or 'passion' are not in any sense proof of
'religion'; and rational belief founded on an evidential basis is NOT
the
same as proudly and determinedly counter-factual 'religious faith'. So
I
repeat: *Atheism is not a religion*.
God-deluded people and their appeasers continually try to bring these
silly
superstitions before non-believers -- and these non-believers respond
by
saying (i) that there is not the slightest evidence for any of the
thousands
of different god-fantasies that have swarmed and multiplied in the
darkness
of the primitive mind; and (ii) that an overwhelming mass of modern
human
knowledge makes the existence of every one of these 'gods' completely
implausible, even where the actual claims of a given 'religion' aren't
ridiculous on strictly logical grounds. Atheism is as much a 'religion'
as
*your rational and principled and determined refusal to believe in the
Easter Bunny* is 'a religion'. Atheism is merely *a position adopted
with
regard to a religious issue*. And if you can't see the difference
between
those two things, then you are pitiful as well as despicable.
Katt.
Katt: Theists don't have faith in The Dictionary.
Allow me to read some scripture from it:
religion: n. 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; 2: institution to express belief *in* a divine
power.
Hmmm... atheists don't believe in gods... religion requires belief in
the supernatural or divine... hmmm...
I have determined it! Atheism is NOT a religion! Theists are
generally stupid!
All hail! For The Dictionary is the way, the truth, and the light.
Believe in it and ye shall not perish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 11:03:55 AM |
|
|
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here it
is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone philosphy.
Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be carefull you might
get hurt. Your passionate response proves again to all that you
religiously believe in your religion which you call Atheism without
truely understanding what it is. You are just a copy cat incapable of
thinking outside the box. Stick with your religion and do not act smart
if you can not handle it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 11:49:04 AM |
|
|
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130778235.428031.54590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here it
is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone philosphy.
Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be carefull you might
get hurt. Your passionate response proves again to all that you
religiously believe in your religion which you call Atheism without
truely understanding what it is. You are just a copy cat incapable of
thinking outside the box. Stick with your religion and do not act smart
if you can not handle it.
Atheism isn't a religion. Stop lying.
And *learn to fucking spell*.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 04:03:49 PM |
|
|
on 31 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet (iftikhargul@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here it
is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone philosphy.
Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be carefull you might
get hurt. Your passionate response proves again to all that you
religiously believe in your religion which you call Atheism without
truely understanding what it is. You are just a copy cat incapable of
thinking outside the box. Stick with your religion and do not act smart
if you can not handle it.
For the last time, Meathead, atheism is the lack of a belief system. If
you want it to be a belief system, and I can't for the life of me figure
out why you would, then you will have to come up with hard evidence that
your god thingy exists. The fact is, you morons pre-suppose the existence
of your god, without any proof or evidence of its existence. From this
standpoint you can logically conclude that atheism is a belief system, but
your standpoint itself is not logically sound. It's based on the logical
fallacy, Circulum in Demonstrando, where the premise (god exists) proves
the conclusion (god exists). You'll have to do better than that, bucko.
Unfortunately, all your bobblehead friends will side with you, for they
have no need of evidence to support their fantasy world. And it is herein
that belies our passion, as you put it, our frustration with theists.
It's a BELIEF, dumbass!
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
31 Oct 2005 06:18:07 PM |
|
|
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in "non
existance of God" which they express with emotional outbursts and foul
language, fits the Classic defenition of religion and they are very
passionate about it (or dare I say very religious about it). I do not
believe in Christianity or anything similar for that matter but I am
open minded and am willing to learn and share my thoughts. It is so sad
to see that those who believe in their own intellegence lack
intelligence to come with cool intelligent arguments so that others
could also befit from their dillusions.
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 31 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet (iftikhargul@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here it
is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone philosphy.
Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be carefull you might
get hurt. Your passionate response proves again to all that you
religiously believe in your religion which you call Atheism without
truely understanding what it is. You are just a copy cat incapable of
thinking outside the box. Stick with your religion and do not act smart
if you can not handle it.
For the last time, Meathead, atheism is the lack of a belief system. If
you want it to be a belief system, and I can't for the life of me figure
out why you would, then you will have to come up with hard evidence that
your god thingy exists. The fact is, you morons pre-suppose the existence
of your god, without any proof or evidence of its existence. From this
standpoint you can logically conclude that atheism is a belief system, but
your standpoint itself is not logically sound. It's based on the logical
fallacy, Circulum in Demonstrando, where the premise (god exists) proves
the conclusion (god exists). You'll have to do better than that, bucko.
Unfortunately, all your bobblehead friends will side with you, for they
have no need of evidence to support their fantasy world. And it is herein
that belies our passion, as you put it, our frustration with theists.
It's a BELIEF, dumbass!
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 08:55:18 AM |
|
|
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Yep
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 10:50:47 AM |
|
|
In article <3spdunFp7t39U1@individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Yep
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
That's true--they use ad hominem attacks.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 04:57:36 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Hey!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 09:24:00 AM |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130885856.178021.247190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Hey!
Whoops! A thousand pardons!
<insert foot in mouth, chew vigorously> ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 11:06:40 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130885856.178021.247190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Hey!
Whoops! A thousand pardons!
Meh. Most of the Google Groups users are bloody incompetent or trolls.
It's like the new AOL. I doubt most people think to even check my email
address.
My only real complaints are that the reply boxes on the page don't
quote text (you have to open the headers to get to the right reply
link), and that there's no plonking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 08:49:57 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris Johnson
(effigies@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Robibnikoff wrote:
<iftikhargul@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130804287.546666.314860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic about
their belief than those who believe in God.
Has anyone noticed that anyone posting using a gmail email address is a
total *****?
Hey!
Except you, of course...
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 01:32:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic
about their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in
"non existance of God" which they express with emotional outbursts
We are only fanatics for truth.
All else is evil.
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.
***********
and foul language, fits the Classic defenition of religion and they
are very passionate about it (or dare I say very religious about
it). I do not believe in Christianity or anything similar for that
matter but I am open minded and am willing to learn and share my
thoughts. It is so sad to see that those who believe in their own
intellegence lack intelligence to come with cool intelligent
arguments so that others could also befit from their dillusions.
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 31 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet ( )
made the light shine upon us with this:
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here
it is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone
philosphy. Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be
carefull you might get hurt. Your passionate response proves
again to all that you religiously believe in your religion which
you call Atheism without truely understanding what it is. You are
just a copy cat incapable of thinking outside the box. Stick with
your religion and do not act smart if you can not handle it.
For the last time, Meathead, atheism is the lack of a belief
system. If you want it to be a belief system, and I can't for the
life of me figure out why you would, then you will have to come up
with hard evidence that
your god thingy exists. The fact is, you morons pre-suppose the
existence
of your god, without any proof or evidence of its existence. From
this standpoint you can logically conclude that atheism is a belief
system, but
your standpoint itself is not logically sound. It's based on the
logical fallacy, Circulum in Demonstrando, where the premise (god
exists) proves
the conclusion (god exists). You'll have to do better than that,
bucko. Unfortunately, all your bobblehead friends will side with
you, for they
have no need of evidence to support their fantasy world. And it is
herein that belies our passion, as you put it, our frustration with
theists.
It's a BELIEF, dumbass!
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 04:36:25 PM |
|
|
Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing. It is the same kind of reasoning some
will use with different twist to prove the existance of God, which
will obviously, not make sense to you either. Prove scientificaly and
use more specificaly evolution and life science appropriate for this
forum. Take for example the case of a single cell. A cell which has
just died and has all the chemicals in it fails to function as an alive
cell. What was making it tick before and soon after it dies, though
nothing significant has changed as far as chemistry is concerned. Once
you can do that scientifically, you may be qulaified to dsicuss
evolution, God etc. If not stick to your religion, Athesim and forget
about converting others.
wbarwell wrote:
iftikhargul@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone noticed that the so called Atheists are more fanatic
about their belief than those who believe in God. Their belief in
"non existance of God" which they express with emotional outbursts
We are only fanatics for truth.
All else is evil.
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.
***********
and foul language, fits the Classic defenition of religion and they
are very passionate about it (or dare I say very religious about
it). I do not believe in Christianity or anything similar for that
matter but I am open minded and am willing to learn and share my
thoughts. It is so sad to see that those who believe in their own
intellegence lack intelligence to come with cool intelligent
arguments so that others could also befit from their dillusions.
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 31 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet (iftikhargul@gmail.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
I was not going to respond to it but since you asked for it, here
it is.
Looks like your mother did not teach you manners, let alone
philosphy. Let me teach you some.When you call people liars, be
carefull you might get hurt. Your passionate response proves
again to all that you religiously believe in your religion which
you call Atheism without truely understanding what it is. You are
just a copy cat incapable of thinking outside the box. Stick with
your religion and do not act smart if you can not handle it.
For the last time, Meathead, atheism is the lack of a belief
system. If you want it to be a belief system, and I can't for the
life of me figure out why you would, then you will have to come up
with hard evidence that
your god thingy exists. The fact is, you morons pre-suppose the
existence
of your god, without any proof or evidence of its existence. From
this standpoint you can logically conclude that atheism is a belief
system, but
your standpoint itself is not logically sound. It's based on the
logical fallacy, Circulum in Demonstrando, where the premise (god
exists) proves
the conclusion (god exists). You'll have to do better than that,
bucko. Unfortunately, all your bobblehead friends will side with
you, for they
have no need of evidence to support their fantasy world. And it is
herein that belies our passion, as you put it, our frustration with
theists.
It's a BELIEF, dumbass!
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 05:07:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1130884585.179835.48300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing. It is the same kind of reasoning some
will use with different twist to prove the existance of God, which
will obviously, not make sense to you either. Prove scientificaly and
use more specificaly evolution and life science appropriate for this
forum. Take for example the case of a single cell. A cell which has
just died and has all the chemicals in it fails to function as an alive
cell. What was making it tick before and soon after it dies, though
nothing significant has changed as far as chemistry is concerned.
Cells die due to "significant" biochemical changes. If the
chemistry does not change, the cell keeps on ticking.
Biochemical changes can be externally induced -- dessication,
extremes of temperature, pH shifts, radiation, toxins,
trauma, breach of the cell membrane, "intentional" destruction
by other cells in the immume system-- or they can be
internally induced, when the cell responds to programmed
catabolism or telomere-moderated cell death.
But if you have any studies which, somehow, show cells dying
off in the absences of any chang in their biochemistry, I would be
happy to hear of them.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 06:20:25 PM |
|
|
I agree with your analysis but the so called life force is not
understood. Take the example of a simple virus which has only a few
hundred to a few thousand bases making it's DNA enclosed within a
simple memberane. All, well within the capability of modern science.
Yet even a virus, once it stops functioning, can not be revieved
without any changes to it's chemistry. No one knows yet the exact
nature of the life factor that makes that virus tick, i.e multiply by
taking over other cells machinary and then transmit itself to other
hosts. Artificial virus should be no different than the a virus created
by nature but it's still impossible to synthesize it despite world wide
efforts to reach that goal. I believe it is doable but we are not there
yet. Science needs to cross that hurdle first and then one can be in a
position to play God.
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1130884585.179835.48300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Blah, Blah, Blah. Means nothing. It is the same kind of reasoning some
will use with different twist to prove the existance of God, which
will obviously, not make sense to you either. Prove scientificaly and
use more specificaly evolution and life science appropriate for this
forum. Take for example the case of a single cell. A cell which has
just died and has all the chemicals in it fails to function as an alive
cell. What was making it tick before and soon after it dies, though
nothing significant has changed as far as chemistry is concerned.
Cells die due to "significant" biochemical changes. If the
chemistry does not change, the cell keeps on ticking.
Biochemical changes can be externally induced -- dessication,
extremes of temperature, pH shifts, radiation, toxins,
trauma, breach of the cell membrane, "intentional" destruction
by other cells in the immume system-- or they can be
internally induced, when the cell responds to programmed
catabolism or telomere-moderated cell death.
But if you have any studies which, somehow, show cells dying
off in the absences of any chang in their biochemistry, I would be
happy to hear of them.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 07:00:42 PM |
|
|
Artificial life defenitly has been created and obviously it shows that
man can be considred a creater. It certainly puts a dent into the ID
theory. I wanted to learn from this discussion but finally I found the
answer myself after asking the question. see
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3475879 and other similar successful attempts.
It also shows to me that the life in universe may be abundant and ID
theorest will have problem explaining it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 07:39:50 PM |
|
|
In article <1130893241.998023.65010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
iftikhargul@gmail.com wrote:
Artificial life defenitly has been created and obviously it shows that
man can be considred a creater. It certainly puts a dent into the ID
theory. I wanted to learn from this discussion but finally I found the
answer myself after asking the question. see
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3475879 and other similar successful attempts.
It also shows to me that the life in universe may be abundant and ID
theorest will have problem explaining it.
Hello,
I visited the site. If I understood it correctly, scientists created
a new type of virus. I don't know or understand the procedure involved
in creating a new type of virus. I can only guess that they manipulated
an existing virus to form a new type of virus. I don't believe that they
created a new type of virus from what I refer to as "non-life".
Do you understand what I mean?
The type of experiment that I was discussing would involve creating a cell
from non-life. If the evolutionists are correct, the first cell (or cells)
evolved from non-life.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RUSSELL KINNAMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 06:23:51 PM |
|
|
Maybe you should look into what is being done when it come to nano
technology.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Just Cocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
01 Nov 2005 11:05:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:39:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
I don't believe that they created a new type of virus from what I refer
to as "non-life". Do you understand what I mean?
Is the DNA molecule alive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 10:49:36 AM |
|
|
In article <17igm1pdc4tv3psbsdd7bf6n6ho0gchvrq@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:39:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
I don't believe that they created a new type of virus from what I refer
to as "non-life". Do you understand what I mean?
Is the DNA molecule alive?
Since I have not done any research on DNA--I can't give you an answer.
It's like asking whether an atom is alive. I generally use the term
"alive" or "dead" in regard to people, plants and animals. For example,
doctors can easily determine whether a person is alive or dead.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Cocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 02:37:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:49:36 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <17igm1pdc4tv3psbsdd7bf6n6ho0gchvrq@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:39:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
I don't believe that they created a new type of virus from what I refer
to as "non-life". Do you understand what I mean?
Is the DNA molecule alive?
Since I have not done any research on DNA--I can't give you an answer.
It's like asking whether an atom is alive. I generally use the term
"alive" or "dead" in regard to people, plants and animals. For example,
doctors can easily determine whether a person is alive or dead.
Well, it produces copies of itself, just like cells. Is it dead or
alive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
02 Nov 2005 06:55:21 PM |
|
|
In article <sq8im1l0ti5082td2d3l8ha164s55fvfr4@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:49:36 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <17igm1pdc4tv3psbsdd7bf6n6ho0gchvrq@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:39:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
I don't believe that they created a new type of virus from what I refer
to as "non-life". Do you understand what I mean?
Is the DNA molecule alive?
Since I have not done any research on DNA--I can't give you an answer.
It's like asking whether an atom is alive. I generally use the term
"alive" or "dead" in regard to people, plants and animals. For example,
doctors can easily determine whether a person is alive or dead.
Well, it produces copies of itself, just like cells. Is it dead or
alive?
I've already provided my response--it's above.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Cocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution has become a state religion |
03 Nov 2005 11:38:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:55:21 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <sq8im1l0ti5082td2d3l8ha164s55fvfr4@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:49:36 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
In article <17igm1pdc4tv3psbsdd7bf6n6ho0gchvrq@4ax.com>, Just Cocky
<just@cocky.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:39:50 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
I don't believe that they created a new type of virus from what I refer
to as "non-life". Do you understand what I mean?
Is the DNA molecule alive?
Since I have not done any research on DNA--I can't give you an answer.
It's like asking whether an atom is alive. I generally use the term
"alive" or "dead" in regard to people, plants and animals. For example,
doctors can easily determine whether a person is alive or dead.
Well, it produces copies of itself, just like cells. Is it dead or
alive?
I've already provided my response--it's above.
How can you be speaking of Evolution, Biology, Abiogenesis, etc,
without having done any reasearch on DNA, YOU FREAKING MORON?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
