| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2005 12:53:50 PM |
| Object: |
Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
(Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/
.
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
11 Sep 2005 08:34:08 PM |
|
|
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's wonder
and awe, the more blind atheists become.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11hmd8l5dlkgi6d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
11 Sep 2005 11:31:59 PM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kW4Ve.8759$c27.2162@trndny01...
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's
wonder and awe, the more blind atheists become.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
Why did you cross-post this to alt.atheism, Dore,
since you find us to be a waste of time. And, don't
try to blame this on whoever first crossposted this
thread. All you had to do is delete alt.atheism from
the newsgroups line.
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11hmd8l5dlkgi6d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
13 Sep 2005 08:21:24 PM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
Why did you cross-post this to alt.atheism, Dore,
since you find us to be a waste of time. And, don't
try to blame this on whoever first crossposted this
thread. All you had to do is delete alt.atheism from
the newsgroups line.
I am not BLAMING it on anyone, the original poster DID crosspost, and I
simply replied to HIM. And how many times do I have to tell you that I don't
care if it gets crossposted to alt.atheism, so why would I go to the bother
of deleting it?
What is the purpose of alt.atheism anyway? I mean if no one but atheists
ever posted to it, the conversations would be very short. What could you all
possibly discuss?
The scenario
1st atheist: God doesn't exist.
2nd atheist: I know.
Period. Nothing else to discuss in alt.atheism.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9tidnUu6CLggmbjeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kW4Ve.8759$c27.2162@trndny01...
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's
wonder and awe, the more blind atheists become.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
Why did you cross-post this to alt.atheism, Dore,
since you find us to be a waste of time. And, don't
try to blame this on whoever first crossposted this
thread. All you had to do is delete alt.atheism from
the newsgroups line.
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11hmd8l5dlkgi6d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
12 Sep 2005 02:19:41 AM |
|
|
Dore wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence.
You would be the last person on planet earth to even understand
the concept of evidence.
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
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 truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely 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.
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.
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.
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 cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
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 defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
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 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 relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
--
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes
agreed an investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
11 Sep 2005 11:42:48 PM |
|
|
Dore wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God,
Praise God from whom e-bo-la flows,
Praise Him all viruses here below,
Praise Him above ye infectious host,
Praise Father, Son, and Ho-leee Ghoooooost......
Ahhhhhhhh-mennnnnnnnn......
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Panama Floyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
11 Sep 2005 08:44:06 PM |
|
|
Dore wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's wonder
and awe, the more blind atheists become.
--
Dore
I thought you didn't post to alt.atheism, Dore. It took less than a day
to prove you lie. Why don't you go play with loaves & fishes or
something?
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
11 Sep 2005 11:30:15 PM |
|
|
Dore wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's wonder
and awe, the more blind atheists become.
So, "For all things created is evidence of God", you say...
Would that God be Astarte, Bast, Ceridwen, Dagda, Epona, Freya, Guan
Yu, Huang Di, Igaluk, Julunggul, Kronos, Loki, Morrigan, Nuadha,
Osiris, Ptah, Quetzlcoatl, Rhea, Shamash, Tiamat, Uranus, Vali,
Wuriupranili, Xi Wangmu, Yan Luo, Zeus, or did you have some other
"God" in mind?
You'll have to be much more specific, you know... I only named a few of
them...
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
13 Sep 2005 08:15:49 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126499415.419884.119130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would that God be Astarte, Bast, Ceridwen, Dagda, Epona, Freya, Guan
Yu, Huang Di, Igaluk, Julunggul, Kronos, Loki, Morrigan, Nuadha,
Osiris, Ptah, Quetzlcoatl, Rhea, Shamash, Tiamat, Uranus, Vali,
Wuriupranili, Xi Wangmu, Yan Luo, Zeus, or did you have some other
"God" in mind?
You'll have to be much more specific, you know... I only named a few of
them...
And all that you named are the imaginations of men, who don't exist. There
is ONLY ONE GOD, the Father of Jesus Christ, MY Father.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126499415.419884.119130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dore wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's
wonder
and awe, the more blind atheists become.
So, "For all things created is evidence of God", you say...
Would that God be Astarte, Bast, Ceridwen, Dagda, Epona, Freya, Guan
Yu, Huang Di, Igaluk, Julunggul, Kronos, Loki, Morrigan, Nuadha,
Osiris, Ptah, Quetzlcoatl, Rhea, Shamash, Tiamat, Uranus, Vali,
Wuriupranili, Xi Wangmu, Yan Luo, Zeus, or did you have some other
"God" in mind?
You'll have to be much more specific, you know... I only named a few of
them...
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
14 Sep 2005 09:40:29 AM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9RKVe.20523$Zv6.7710@trndny03...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126499415.419884.119130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would that God be Astarte, Bast, Ceridwen, Dagda, Epona, Freya, Guan
Yu, Huang Di, Igaluk, Julunggul, Kronos, Loki, Morrigan, Nuadha,
Osiris, Ptah, Quetzlcoatl, Rhea, Shamash, Tiamat, Uranus, Vali,
Wuriupranili, Xi Wangmu, Yan Luo, Zeus, or did you have some other
"God" in mind?
You'll have to be much more specific, you know... I only named a few of
them...
And all that you named are the imaginations of men, who don't exist. There
is ONLY ONE GOD, the Father of Jesus Christ, MY Father.
Is this the same guy that looks like Santa Claus and winced while watching
you getting it up the tailpipe from some aliens?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
12 Sep 2005 03:51:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:34:08 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net>
wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
That's because atheism is the epitome of denying evidence. For all things
created is evidence of God, but yet the more science reveals of it's wonder
and awe, the more blind atheists become.
Simply saying "God did it" is just opinion, unsupported opinion not
evidence.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
04 Sep 2005 05:13:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:53:50 GMT, (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
Nope, an atheist is one that denies God. A person is not really responsible
enough to understand what that until age 15 or thereabouts.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
04 Sep 2005 10:43:21 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:53:50 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
Nope, an atheist is one that denies God.
So a person stranded on a desert island from birth and has no knowledge
of the god you idiots indoctrinate your poor children with "denies god"?
Earl, this statement of yours proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your
god is presupposed. There is no real evidence for this god, yet you
carry on as if it is more than just the belief it actually is. You think
this god actually exists, without ever having any personal experience
with it, conversation with it, ability to touch it, etc. And you think
it is real based solely on the hearsay of others.
Your god is not denyable until you can prove it exists!!
A person is not really
responsible enough to understand what that until age 15 or
thereabouts.
Liar.
I rejected Christianity when I was seven years old. Until that point I
thought of Christianity as merely a set of stories in a comic book we
were reading in Sunday School. Even a child of seven knows that real
events in life leave evidence behind. And even a child of seven (who has
active brain cells) can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I rejected your religion, not your god. Your religion, unfortunately,
exists. This is obvious. Your god does not, based upon the same
observation.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
04 Sep 2005 09:38:24 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:53:50 GMT, (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
Nope, an atheist is one that denies God.
Wrong. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.
A person is not really responsible
enough to understand what that until age 15 or thereabouts.
Oh? Is that an arbitrary line you reached?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: 'I just dont have the evidence to become an Atheist' |
04 Sep 2005 08:19:19 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:53:50 GMT, (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:
Having diligently researched Atheism/Naturalism...i
just dont have any evidence to become an Atheist...
<rofl!> You were _born_ an atheist, ya fucking moron.
Nope, an atheist is one that denies God. A person is not really responsible
enough to understand what that until age 15 or thereabouts.
duke
*****
"The ***** is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Nope. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in god. Those lucky bastards
who haven't even been exposed to the concept of god are atheists. That
would include the newborn.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
