| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"PaulAbeles" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 07:28:54 PM |
| Object: |
Re: God is a ***** |
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406B45B7.4000601@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406ACC93.9070908@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
As I was having dinner tonight, my dog came across for a pat. As he
held
his
warm muzzle against my hand I thought about God.
I said to myself, " What sort of God would allow horrific cruelty to
animals?."
Then I consoled myself. I cant blame God. God is a myth.
But to those who believe in God, I say, " Your God is a c..t.
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that G-d existence doesn't
depend on your ability to understand His motives for anything?
Do you have children? Were they ever young enough and immature enough
that they didn't undestand what actions you did on their behalf, liking
regulating their bedtime, forcing them to go to school, forcing them to
have flu shots, etc. I'll bet they thought you were mean at the time.
It's one thing to be athiest, but what sort of person goes around saying
teh things you do? How can you be so absolutely certain that there isn't
a reality beyond what you're senses tell you, that you would figure you
had absolutely nothing to lose by speaking as you do. What do you gain
by it?
Even Bertram Russell said that if he was wrong and he met His Maker, he
would argue lack of evidence. How would you argue being so pernicious,
so truculent?
Are you this way in all walks of life? Gee, I hope not.
BTW I was referring to your God. If I had a God he/she would be kind
and
protective of animals and humans.
I often think of God and wish my version did exist.
The wise man says, "I don't understand; therefore I must learn more".
The fool says, "I don't understand; therefore it can't be true".
How would your personality be any different in light of your ideal?
I wouldn't get so despondent about the way people behave or how children
suffer or how animals suffer.
.
|
|
| User: "Sheldon Liberman" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 12:34:41 AM |
|
|
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406B45B7.4000601@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406ACC93.9070908@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
As I was having dinner tonight, my dog came across for a pat. As he
held
his
warm muzzle against my hand I thought about God.
I said to myself, " What sort of God would allow horrific cruelty to
animals?."
Then I consoled myself. I cant blame God. God is a myth.
But to those who believe in God, I say, " Your God is a c..t.
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that G-d existence doesn't
depend on your ability to understand His motives for anything?
Do you have children? Were they ever young enough and immature enough
that they didn't undestand what actions you did on their behalf, liking
regulating their bedtime, forcing them to go to school, forcing them to
have flu shots, etc. I'll bet they thought you were mean at the time.
It's one thing to be athiest, but what sort of person goes around saying
teh things you do? How can you be so absolutely certain that there isn't
a reality beyond what you're senses tell you, that you would figure you
had absolutely nothing to lose by speaking as you do. What do you gain
by it?
Even Bertram Russell said that if he was wrong and he met His Maker, he
would argue lack of evidence. How would you argue being so pernicious,
so truculent?
Are you this way in all walks of life? Gee, I hope not.
BTW I was referring to your God. If I had a God he/she would be kind
and
protective of animals and humans.
I often think of God and wish my version did exist.
The wise man says, "I don't understand; therefore I must learn more".
The fool says, "I don't understand; therefore it can't be true".
How would your personality be any different in light of your ideal?
I wouldn't get so despondent about the way people behave or how children
suffer or how animals suffer.
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PaulAbeles" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 08:27:43 AM |
|
|
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406D0981.9030607@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406B45B7.4000601@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406ACC93.9070908@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
As I was having dinner tonight, my dog came across for a pat. As he
held
his
warm muzzle against my hand I thought about God.
I said to myself, " What sort of God would allow horrific cruelty to
animals?."
Then I consoled myself. I cant blame God. God is a myth.
But to those who believe in God, I say, " Your God is a c..t.
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that G-d existence doesn't
depend on your ability to understand His motives for anything?
Do you have children? Were they ever young enough and immature enough
that they didn't undestand what actions you did on their behalf,
liking
regulating their bedtime, forcing them to go to school, forcing them
to
have flu shots, etc. I'll bet they thought you were mean at the time.
It's one thing to be athiest, but what sort of person goes around
saying
teh things you do? How can you be so absolutely certain that there
isn't
a reality beyond what you're senses tell you, that you would figure
you
had absolutely nothing to lose by speaking as you do. What do you gain
by it?
Even Bertram Russell said that if he was wrong and he met His Maker,
he
would argue lack of evidence. How would you argue being so pernicious,
so truculent?
Are you this way in all walks of life? Gee, I hope not.
BTW I was referring to your God. If I had a God he/she would be kind
and
protective of animals and humans.
I often think of God and wish my version did exist.
The wise man says, "I don't understand; therefore I must learn more".
The fool says, "I don't understand; therefore it can't be true".
How would your personality be any different in light of your ideal?
I wouldn't get so despondent about the way people behave or how children
suffer or how animals suffer.
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheldon Liberman" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 08:50:31 AM |
|
|
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406D0981.9030607@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406B45B7.4000601@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406ACC93.9070908@sympatico.ca...
PaulAbeles wrote:
As I was having dinner tonight, my dog came across for a pat. As he
held
his
warm muzzle against my hand I thought about God.
I said to myself, " What sort of God would allow horrific cruelty to
animals?."
Then I consoled myself. I cant blame God. God is a myth.
But to those who believe in God, I say, " Your God is a c..t.
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that G-d existence doesn't
depend on your ability to understand His motives for anything?
Do you have children? Were they ever young enough and immature enough
that they didn't undestand what actions you did on their behalf,
liking
regulating their bedtime, forcing them to go to school, forcing them
to
have flu shots, etc. I'll bet they thought you were mean at the time.
It's one thing to be athiest, but what sort of person goes around
saying
teh things you do? How can you be so absolutely certain that there
isn't
a reality beyond what you're senses tell you, that you would figure
you
had absolutely nothing to lose by speaking as you do. What do you gain
by it?
Even Bertram Russell said that if he was wrong and he met His Maker,
he
would argue lack of evidence. How would you argue being so pernicious,
so truculent?
Are you this way in all walks of life? Gee, I hope not.
BTW I was referring to your God. If I had a God he/she would be kind
and
protective of animals and humans.
I often think of God and wish my version did exist.
The wise man says, "I don't understand; therefore I must learn more".
The fool says, "I don't understand; therefore it can't be true".
How would your personality be any different in light of your ideal?
I wouldn't get so despondent about the way people behave or how children
suffer or how animals suffer.
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 11:45:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 12:47:35 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 08:50:07 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40724456.D6BA7CB1@worldnet.att.net...
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
By the same logic that was applied to the existence of Santa Claus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 01:56:01 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40724456.D6BA7CB1@worldnet.att.net...
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
By the same logic that was applied to the existence of Santa Claus.
What person in their right mind questions the existence
of Santa Clause?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 02:01:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:47:35 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
Don't you know how?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 01:58:08 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:47:35 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
Don't you know how?
Nope. Perhaps you'll inform me.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 02:25:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:58:08 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:47:35 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
Don't you know how?
Nope. Perhaps you'll inform me.
Read my posts.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 11:59:41 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:58:08 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:47:35 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
How does one question the existence of the non existent?
Don't you know how?
Nope. Perhaps you'll inform me.
Read my posts.
Done that. Now perhaps you'll inform me as to how
one questions the existence of the non existent.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sheldon Liberman" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 04:43:08 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour. Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow that
all his action would be understood by man?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim F." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 07:21:57 PM |
|
|
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour. Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
Jim F.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 01:11:44 AM |
|
|
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour. Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 08:54:16 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:407249FE.E08D7E8C@worldnet.att.net...
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself
to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things
that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior
of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case,
it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this
god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour.
Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow
that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
How does god decide what is evil and what isn't? Why is the judgment of god
any better than that of man? You are assuming that your god exists when in
reality you are following the moral dictates of early man. Amazing isn't it,
Roy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 11:23:34 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:407249FE.E08D7E8C@worldnet.att.net...
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself
to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things
that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior
of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case,
it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this
god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour.
Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow
that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
How does god decide what is evil and what isn't?
I'm not privy to the process.
Why is the judgment of god
any better than that of man?
Simply because perfect is better than flawed.
You are assuming that your god exists when in
reality you are following the moral dictates of early man. Amazing isn't it,
Roy?
Before the giving of the Absolute Moral Law, mankind had no universal
standard of morality. The prime dictate/directive is EAT, and so long as
that imperative went without definitive moral mitigation, morals were
more or less, strictly a matter of pandering to desire's appetites.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 03:56:51 PM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40742AE6.B9CE89EB@worldnet.att.net...
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:407249FE.E08D7E8C@worldnet.att.net...
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be
reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider
yourself
to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things
that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a
super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the
behavior
of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is
not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the
case,
it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for
this
god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His
behaviour.
Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow
that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging
here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite
legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
How does god decide what is evil and what isn't?
I'm not privy to the process.
Then if you don't know the process you damn well better study your position.
It isn't wise to blindly follow a lemming over a cliff, is it Lorrie?
Why is the judgment of god
any better than that of man?
Simply because perfect is better than flawed.
What do you have that supports a perfect god? Let me tell you what you have
Lorie, not a thing. Read the Old Testament and come back and tell me how
"perfect" your god is. Hell, he couldn't make a human without flaws. He
couldn't control his own angels. If he is perfect I would expect him to at
least be able to defeat iron chariots in battle. In just what endeavor is
your god perfect?
You are assuming that your god exists when in
reality you are following the moral dictates of early man. Amazing isn't
it,
Roy?
Before the giving of the Absolute Moral Law, mankind had no universal
standard of morality. The prime dictate/directive is EAT, and so long as
that imperative went without definitive moral mitigation, morals were
more or less, strictly a matter of pandering to desire's appetites.
Speak of absurdities. Since your god was not first on the scene with his
moral laws, who did mankind survive without them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Donaghue" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 05:23:46 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40742AE6.B9CE89EB@worldnet.att.net...
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:407249FE.E08D7E8C@worldnet.att.net...
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be
reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider
yourself
to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things
that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a
super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the
behavior
of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is
not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the
case,
it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for
this
god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His
behaviour.
Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow
that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging
here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite
legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
How does god decide what is evil and what isn't?
I'm not privy to the process.
Then if you don't know the process you damn well better study your position.
It isn't wise to blindly follow a lemming over a cliff, is it Lorrie?
Why is the judgment of god
any better than that of man?
Simply because perfect is better than flawed.
What do you have that supports a perfect god? Let me tell you what you have
Lorie, not a thing. Read the Old Testament and come back and tell me how
"perfect" your god is. Hell, he couldn't make a human without flaws. He
couldn't control his own angels. If he is perfect I would expect him to at
least be able to defeat iron chariots in battle. In just what endeavor is
your god perfect?
You are assuming that your god exists when in
reality you are following the moral dictates of early man. Amazing isn't
it,
Roy?
Before the giving of the Absolute Moral Law, mankind had no universal
standard of morality. The prime dictate/directive is EAT, and so long as
that imperative went without definitive moral mitigation, morals were
more or less, strictly a matter of pandering to desire's appetites.
Speak of absurdities. Since your god was not first on the scene with his
moral laws, who did mankind survive without them?
What makes either of you think that 'mankind' did survive? We have
evolved considerably from what we were then.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 08:52:20 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:407249FE.E08D7E8C@worldnet.att.net...
"Jim F." wrote:
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons
for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself
to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things
that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior
of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case,
it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this
god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour.
Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow
that
all his action would be understood by man?
It looks to me like we are getting into a little question begging here.
If it could be shown that God did exist, it would be quite legitimate
for us to inquire if all of His actions are understandable by human
beings. However, the question before us, is precisely whether
or not such a being does exist. If on the one hand it is posited
that God, if He exists, is a being that is at once omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then any evidence that the
world which He allegedly created is full of evils and imperfections
must count as evidence against His existence. The ad hoc
hypothesis that such apparent evils or apparent imperfections
are actually the result of a benevolent plan, whose goodness
we cannot perceive because of our own intellectual limitations,
can only carry weight, if we had other grounds for supposing
such a being to exist. But is precisely the point that is in
contention here.
What are the evils we perceive, and what is their cause?
And, how does man on his own decide with certainty
what's evil and what's not?
How does god decide what is evil and what isn't?
I'm not privy to the process.
Why is the judgment of god
any better than that of man?
Simply because perfect is better than flawed.
You are assuming that your god exists when in
reality you are following the moral dictates of early man. Amazing isn't it,
Roy?
Before the giving of the Absolute Moral Law, mankind had no universal
standard of morality. The prime dictate/directive is EAT, and so long as
that imperative went without definitive moral mitigation, morals were
more or less, strictly a matter of pandering to desire's appetites.
"this is the sort of English up with which I will not put".
[Sir Winston Churchill]
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 06:23:48 PM |
|
|
"Sheldon Liberman" <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406DEC7C.6080909@sympatico.ca...
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural
One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Not quite. His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour. Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow that
all his action would be understood by man?
Tom: You can hypothesize all you wish, that still doesn't do squat for your
god's existence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
03 Apr 2004 01:58:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:43:08 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
Not quite.
That is exactly how it is.
His existence is be questioned because of His behaviour. Now
then, if you hypothesis His existence, would it necessarily follow that
all his action would be understood by man?
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 01:20:23 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
Why do you discuss Him at all? It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 08:40:01 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40724C05.565C1507@worldnet.att.net...
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
Lorr: If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
Why do you discuss Him at all? It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Tom: Questioning his behavior is purely hypothetical. I discuss him mainly
because you bastards are posting in alt.atheism and I am thoroughly
convinced he doesn't exist. Yes, I'm consumed with hatred for his followers
like you and Sheltie. The atheists prayer is "save me from your followers".
I love it when god believers use the excuse that atheists don't believe on
god because it constrains their moral behavior. As the jails are full of
self admitted Christians it appears to me that you don't have to be an
atheist to deny god's moral laws. What about you Lorr, are you without sin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 01:35:04 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40724C05.565C1507@worldnet.att.net...
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
Lorr: If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
Why do you discuss Him at all? It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Tom: Questioning his behavior is purely hypothetical. I discuss him mainly
because you bastards are posting in alt.atheism and I am thoroughly
convinced he doesn't exist. Yes, I'm consumed with hatred for his followers
like you and Sheltie. The atheists prayer is "save me from your followers".
I love it when god believers use the excuse that atheists don't believe on
god because it constrains their moral behavior. As the jails are full of
self admitted Christians it appears to me that you don't have to be an
atheist to deny god's moral laws. What about you Lorr, are you without sin?
Get a grip, Tom.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 08:52:48 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4074F279.E4C09155@worldnet.att.net...
Tom wrote:
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40724C05.565C1507@worldnet.att.net...
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his
actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence
and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
Lorr: If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His
behavior?
Why do you discuss Him at all? It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your
desire.
Tom: Questioning his behavior is purely hypothetical. I discuss him
mainly
because you bastards are posting in alt.atheism and I am thoroughly
convinced he doesn't exist. Yes, I'm consumed with hatred for his
followers
like you and Sheltie. The atheists prayer is "save me from your
followers".
I love it when god believers use the excuse that atheists don't believe
on
god because it constrains their moral behavior. As the jails are full of
self admitted Christians it appears to me that you don't have to be an
atheist to deny god's moral laws. What about you Lorr, are you without
sin?
Get a grip, Tom.
Hey Lorrie, you are the one who made stated an obviously incorrect
conclusion. I was just trying to help you see the error in your thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 02:01:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:20:23 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
I do not question his behavior.
Why do you discuss Him at all?
Because theists have proposed his existence and have insisted that I
should believe them.
It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Does that mean if I proposed that you should live a particular way and
you questioned my claim, that would mean that you were consumed by
hatred?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 01:53:44 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:20:23 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
I do not question his behavior.
Of course you do, we all do... goes with the territory
of being human.
Why do you discuss Him at all?
Because theists have proposed his existence and have insisted that I
should believe them.
Why take what theists have to say to heart? Do their assertions
somehow disrupt your tranquility?
It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Does that mean if I proposed that you should live a particular way and
you questioned my claim, that would mean that you were consumed by
hatred?
Actually, humans are not unintelligible to other humans. However, if
you benignly suggested I live in a way that was incompatible with my
own direction, I'd thank you and continue to follow my own advice.
The last thing I'd do is hate you for merely behaving like a human.
The only ones I permit myself to hate are those who prove themselves
to be my mortal enemies.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 02:25:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:53:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:20:23 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
I do not question his behavior.
Of course you do, we all do... goes with the territory
of being human.
You do not know what I am thinking.
Why do you discuss Him at all?
Because theists have proposed his existence and have insisted that I
should believe them.
Why take what theists have to say to heart? Do their assertions
somehow disrupt your tranquility?
Their assertions do not.
It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Does that mean if I proposed that you should live a particular way and
you questioned my claim, that would mean that you were consumed by
hatred?
Actually, humans are not unintelligible to other humans. However, if
you benignly suggested I live in a way that was incompatible with my
own direction, I'd thank you and continue to follow my own advice.
The last thing I'd do is hate you for merely behaving like a human.
The only ones I permit myself to hate are those who prove themselves
to be my mortal enemies.
Good, then you see why I also am not consumed by hate just because I
disagree.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
08 Apr 2004 11:56:28 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 06:53:44 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:20:23 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
You and other theists are insisting that this god exists. You
describe his characteristics and his behavior. You provide no
evidence of existence. I am under no rational obligation to believe
any of it, but I can point out that the description is not logical.
The question of whether or not I wouild understand all of his actions
can only reasonably come up once his actual existence has been
demonstrated. Until that time the fact that there is no evidence and
that the claim is totally illogical are the only things I can use to
judge the truth of the theists' claims.
If you believe God doesn't exist, why do you question His behavior?
I do not question his behavior.
Of course you do, we all do... goes with the territory
of being human.
You do not know what I am thinking.
Do you know what you're thinking?
Why do you discuss Him at all?
Because theists have proposed his existence and have insisted that I
should believe them.
Why take what theists have to say to heart? Do their assertions
somehow disrupt your tranquility?
Their assertions do not.
It makes you look unconvinced
of His non existence. Either that, or you're consumed with hatred
for something unintelligible to you that tangibly restricts your desire.
Does that mean if I proposed that you should live a particular way and
you questioned my claim, that would mean that you were consumed by
hatred?
Actually, humans are not unintelligible to other humans. However, if
you benignly suggested I live in a way that was incompatible with my
own direction, I'd thank you and continue to follow my own advice.
The last thing I'd do is hate you for merely behaving like a human.
The only ones I permit myself to hate are those who prove themselves
to be my mortal enemies.
Good, then you see why I also am not consumed by hate just because I
disagree.
You do a bit more than just disagree.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sheldon Liberman" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
03 Apr 2004 08:41:58 PM |
|
|
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:43:08 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:50:31 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
PaulAbeles wrote:
snip
Do you make any room for the possibility that there may be reasons for
suffering that transcend human ability to comprehend?
Oh I comprehend alright. You don't.
No, Paul, you think you comprehend. But unless you consider yourself to
be the smartest person in the world, there will always be things that
you don't comprehend that other people do, let alone a super-natural One.
That would be a very good point if we were questioning the behavior of
something whose existence was established. God's behavior is not
being questioned, however, his existence is. That being the case, it
is quite valid to point out that the description provided for this god
does not make any sense.
| | | | | | | |
