| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"shulie" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2006 01:20:27 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The god who wasn't there |
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
Shawn
this statement has more weight than water, than anyone will ever
comprehend.
what the ***** are you talking about??? what kind of ridiculous ***** is going
on in your fucked up delusional head that you would claim to *know* it has
more weight?
to that I can only say, Amen.
pass da dutchie you hypocrite!
--
All Glory To God
For His Mercy, Provision And Grace...
Brutha Man
Check out this site to get a free iPod:
http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=11225401
.
|
|
| User: "Sgt.Sausage" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 12:28:53 PM |
|
|
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gett Wyld" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 01:49:45 PM |
|
|
"Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25379$43c69fd1$42a1e606$18441@FUSE.NET...
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
John 3:1-36
Shawn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonfire of the Deities..." |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 01:55:34 PM |
|
|
"Gett Wyld" <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tpyxf.8555$M%4.5923@newsread3.news
John 3:1-36
Look, if you want people to spend time reading a pile of ancient crap, at
least you could give them a link to an *honest, literal translation* of that
pile of ancient crap...
http://yltbible.com/john/3.htm
Bonf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yatgirl" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 08:45:27 PM |
|
|
'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:
"Gett Wyld" <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tpyxf.8555$M%4.5923@newsread3.news
John 3:1-36
Shawn
Look, if you want people to spend time reading a pile of ancient crap, at
least you could give them a link to an *honest, literal translation* of that
pile of ancient crap...
http://yltbible.com/john/3.htm
Bonf.
LOL I got a lot out of the Book of Shawn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonfire of the Deities..." |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 12:57:01 PM |
|
|
"Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25379$43c69fd1$42a1e606$18441@FUSE
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
If you want it to work, you have to do it the way religions usually do: you
find an innocent, trusting child; you fill its head with superstitious
crap -- and then you keep telling it what terrible, awful, eternal
punishments await it if it ever dares to doubt what you've told it. After
just a few years of this treatment, you've got a kid that's just *too damn
scared* even to be able to consider the question of whether there's
'evidence' or not: the very thought of 'not believing' becomes literally
unthinkable for them.
In short, you never have to tell anyone to 'believe': you just abuse them
psychologically in a way that makes it pretty well impossible for them *not
to*...
Bonf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 07:00:53 PM |
|
|
'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:
"Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25379$43c69fd1$42a1e606$18441@FUSE
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
If you want it to work, you have to do it the way religions usually do: you
find an innocent, trusting child; you fill its head with superstitious
crap -- and then you keep telling it what terrible, awful, eternal
punishments await it if it ever dares to doubt what you've told it. After
just a few years of this treatment, you've got a kid that's just *too damn
scared* even to be able to consider the question of whether there's
'evidence' or not: the very thought of 'not believing' becomes literally
unthinkable for them.
In short, you never have to tell anyone to 'believe': you just abuse them
psychologically in a way that makes it pretty well impossible for them *not
to*...
Actually, intelligent people subjected to that kind of abuse tend to
reject it in the end, if their intelligence is not squashed by the process.
JC DID call for sheep, after all. i think he was on to something...
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest L Sewell, IV" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 02:50:52 PM |
|
|
On 2006-01-12 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> said:
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
Belief comes from knowledge.
--
Ernest L Sewell, IV
East Greenbush, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonfire of the Deities..." |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 02:53:15 PM |
|
|
<Ernest L Sewell>; "IV" <esewell@xxnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2006011215505216807%esewell@xxnycaprrcom...
On 2006-01-12 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> said:
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
Belief comes from knowledge.
.... Except when it comes from *being too scared to believe the opposite*...
Bonf.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 07:02:32 PM |
|
|
Ernest L Sewell wrote:
On 2006-01-12 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage" <someone@microsoft.com> said:
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
Belief comes from knowledge.
Or repetition. Long-known technique.
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zadoc" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 08:43:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Your choice, of course. :-) The Bible makes this plain enough.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
That is a distinct possibility, but who do they think they are trying
to fool? Most of their fellow humans wouldn't even believe them, let
alone God.
Got any children? Suppose your pet cat screams in pain and dashes
past you, dripping water. You find your child with a half full cup
of hot water. You ask your kid if he poured some on the cat. He or
she says no. Who do you believe?
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
You have time between now and physical death to make your choice.
Cheers,
zadoc@invalid.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yatgirl" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
12 Jan 2006 08:56:55 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
The latter? satan is a xtian deity....non-xtians have no belief in your
gods. There are more options out there than god or satan, but not for
the spiritually retarded. Paganism encompasses many beliefs
globally...we don't have a "hob-goblin" to blame misdeeds on...it is
more taking responsibility for one's own actions. I realize xtians don't
get this and that's ok....LOL maybe in their next life? hee hee
You have time between now and physical death to make your choice.
It is a lovely story though. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 07:05:44 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Your choice, of course. :-) The Bible makes this plain enough.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
That is a distinct possibility, but who do they think they are trying
to fool? Most of their fellow humans wouldn't even believe them, let
alone God.
Got any children? Suppose your pet cat screams in pain and dashes
past you, dripping water. You find your child with a half full cup
of hot water. You ask your kid if he poured some on the cat. He or
she says no. Who do you believe?
So, you are saying that God does not exist? Wow, I would have thought
the opposite from your prior statements!
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
Only in your program. In my program, the default is neither exists (for
how could one exist without the other).
You have time between now and physical death to make your choice.
BTDTGTTS.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "zadoc" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 07:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:05:44 -0800, dan <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote:
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Your choice, of course. :-) The Bible makes this plain enough.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
That is a distinct possibility, but who do they think they are trying
to fool? Most of their fellow humans wouldn't even believe them, let
alone God.
Got any children? Suppose your pet cat screams in pain and dashes
past you, dripping water. You find your child with a half full cup
of hot water. You ask your kid if he poured some on the cat. He or
she says no. Who do you believe?
So, you are saying that God does not exist? Wow, I would have thought
the opposite from your prior statements!
Nope, wrote or implied nothing of the kind. Perhaps you interpreted it
that way, of course. :-)
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
Only in your program. In my program, the default is neither exists (for
how could one exist without the other).
Many Christians, including myself, believe that both exist. You may
not choose to believe. Your choice, your free will.
You have time between now and physical death to make your choice.
BTDTGTTS.
Dan
Cheers,
zadoc@invalid.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 09:27:54 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:05:44 -0800, dan <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote:
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Your choice, of course. :-) The Bible makes this plain enough.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
That is a distinct possibility, but who do they think they are trying
to fool? Most of their fellow humans wouldn't even believe them, let
alone God.
Got any children? Suppose your pet cat screams in pain and dashes
past you, dripping water. You find your child with a half full cup
of hot water. You ask your kid if he poured some on the cat. He or
she says no. Who do you believe?
So, you are saying that God does not exist? Wow, I would have thought
the opposite from your prior statements!
Nope, wrote or implied nothing of the kind. Perhaps you interpreted it
that way, of course. :-)
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
Only in your program. In my program, the default is neither exists (for
how could one exist without the other).
Many Christians, including myself, believe that both exist. You may
not choose to believe. Your choice, your free will.
So if it's our choice, our free will, are you honestly so gullible to
expect that in heavily Christianized societies, we wouldn't have already
had your religion shoved down our throats for decades before you got to
us? Your proselytizing, witnessing, whatever you want to call it, was
already frightfully redundant before you ever got here. Should we
suspect that you're a false diplomat, claiming we have all the choices
in the world while secretly trying to undercut all but one? Are you
claiming free will with your mouth while trying to chain us with your
hands? Are you being hypocritical?
Sergeant Tibbs
--
© Typographical errors contained in this document are the sole copyright
of Typo Demons, Inc., or its subsidiary, Error Monkeys LLC. All rights
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the
prior written permission of the Typo Demons, Inc., or its subsidiary,
Error Monkeys LLC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mary Beth" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
14 Feb 2006 03:46:24 PM |
|
|
Just snipping off any of the cross postin to any other than the 'religious
groups'.
We're in dog groups here, don't bring it back there please.
Thank you,
MaryBeth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 08:41:58 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice. In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
Only in your program. In my program, the default is neither exists (for
how could one exist without the other).
Many Christians, including myself, believe that both exist. You may
not choose to believe. Your choice, your free will.
Wrong again. Man, you sure are wrong a lot of times in a row.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 08:34:05 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Human thought systems will explain whatever they are capable of
explaining. Whatever they can't is of no interest. What are you
suggesting, that we try to comprehend things that are in principle
incomprehensible?
Your choice, of course. :-)
Wrong. No choice involved.
The Bible makes this plain enough.
It makes all sorts of foolish things plain. So what.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Wrong. No choice involved.
Your argument above is enough to convince some folks
that they *should* believe in God, but do they really? Or,
are they just saying "I believe in God" so they've got a
"get out of Jail free" card (in their minds)?
That is a distinct possibility, but who do they think they are trying
to fool? Most of their fellow humans wouldn't even believe them, let
alone God.
Got any children? Suppose your pet cat screams in pain and dashes
past you, dripping water. You find your child with a half full cup
of hot water. You ask your kid if he poured some on the cat. He or
she says no. Who do you believe?
A little parable to hopefully make you think, although it is probably
a waste of time and effort to offer it.
Whether to believe in God or Satan is your free choice.
Wrong. No choice involved.
In computer
terms, the latter is the "default" option.
You have time between now and physical death to make your choice.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "zadoc" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
13 Jan 2006 08:54:06 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2006 18:34:05 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Human thought systems will explain whatever they are capable of
explaining. Whatever they can't is of no interest. What are you
suggesting, that we try to comprehend things that are in principle
incomprehensible?
Like women, you mean? :-) More seriously, a large number of
Christians believe in God, but I don't think that many would claim to
understand his thoughts, motives, etc.
Your choice, of course. :-)
Wrong. No choice involved.
It is you who are in error. Everyone has a choice in what to believe.
Many manage to believe in both God and science.
The Bible makes this plain enough.
It makes all sorts of foolish things plain. So what.
So you apparently choose not to believe in it. Your choice.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Wrong. No choice involved.
Shrug. Oh well, then we disagree and there is no possibility of
agreement.
This isn't the best forum for such discussions, of course. There are
groups that deal only with religion.
Admittedly, there is a lot of political discussion on this group which
is almost as fruitless as discussion of religious issues. :-)
[snip]
Cheers,
zadoc@invalid.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
14 Jan 2006 09:34:51 PM |
|
|
zadoc wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:34:05 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
wrong, they're none the worse for it after they die. But, if one
doesn't believe in God and they're wrong -- well they've got quite a
problem there, haven't they? Hell + Eternity = Ouch!
You assume a choice -- as in "given this (above) rational
argument, I *choose* to believe in God".
It just doesn't work this way for me. I can't *choose* to
believe in your God anymore than I can *choose* to believe
in Pink Unicorns. I see no evidence of either, therefore I
believe that neither exists.
To truly *believe* is not a choice. You are either convinced
that God exists or you are not --- no amount saying "I
choose to believe in God" will change the fact that simply
do not believe s/he exists.
From a strictly human and "logical" point of view, that is a valid
enough statement.
However, has it occurred to you that human thought systems may not
really adequately explain reality?
Human thought systems will explain whatever they are capable of
explaining. Whatever they can't is of no interest. What are you
suggesting, that we try to comprehend things that are in principle
incomprehensible?
Like women, you mean? :-) More seriously, a large number of
Christians believe in God, but I don't think that many would claim to
understand his thoughts, motives, etc.
And that's why it makes absolutely no sense. Believe in something even
though you don't know what it is, what its intentions are, and so on.
I have no choice but to fail to believe in such a nonsensical
proposition.
Your choice, of course. :-)
Wrong. No choice involved.
It is you who are in error.
Arrogant and presumptuous, aren't we? What other remote analysis can
you perform on my cognitive behavior?
Everyone has a choice in what to believe.
That's right, and I fail to believe in what you have chosen to believe
in.
Your claim is of course utterly stupid, arrogant, and presumptuous. As
an excercise, state a proposition that strikes you as irrational.
Doesn't matter what it is, just pick one and state it to yourself.
Okay, ready? Now -- CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT.
Many manage to believe in both God and science.
The Bible makes this plain enough.
It makes all sorts of foolish things plain. So what.
So you apparently choose not to believe in it. Your choice.
See above.
Keep repeating to yourself "I believe in Santa Claus".
Do it a couple of hundred thousand times. When you're
done, do you now believe in Santa Claus? Didn't think
so. That's the way it works for me & this God guy
everyone keeps shoving down my throat.
Some may do. Most don't. Free will. Your decision.
Wrong. No choice involved.
Shrug. Oh well, then we disagree and there is no possibility of
agreement.
Sure there is. You can quit pretending that you are inside my
cognitive processes, accept my perfectly honest rendition of them, and
we will be in agreement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
14 Jan 2006 10:41:36 PM |
|
|
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1137296091.366917.297560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
zadoc wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006 18:34:05 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
zadoc wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:28:53 -0500, "Sgt.Sausage"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
"shulie" <shoo10877@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zqnxf.71$EF5.26@fe01.news.easynews.com...
"Brutha Man" <junkmusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rVjxf.6835$%W1.4102@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In news:Kmjxf.6375$ZA2.1645@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net,
Gett Wyld <simpson-99@NEVERmindspring.com> typed:
Also, if one does believe in God and follow His teachings and is
And that's why it makes absolutely no sense. Believe in something even
though you don't know what it is, what its intentions are, and so on.
I have no choice but to fail to believe in such a nonsensical
proposition.
Now, wait a minute. I believe in my cat, but I have no idea what it is or
especially what it's intentions are!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
15 Jan 2006 09:08:14 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2006 19:34:51 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Like women, you mean? :-) More seriously, a large number of
Christians believe in God, but I don't think that many would claim to
understand his thoughts, motives, etc.
And that's why it makes absolutely no sense. Believe in something even
though you don't know what it is, what its intentions are, and so on.
I have no choice but to fail to believe in such a nonsensical
proposition.
How many people know the details behind atomic fission, gravity and
the variable mindsets of women?
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system. They
have no proof..one way or another..yet they believe.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
15 Jan 2006 07:57:54 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 19:34:51 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Like women, you mean? :-) More seriously, a large number of
Christians believe in God, but I don't think that many would claim to
understand his thoughts, motives, etc.
And that's why it makes absolutely no sense. Believe in something even
though you don't know what it is, what its intentions are, and so on.
I have no choice but to fail to believe in such a nonsensical
proposition.
How many people know the details behind atomic fission, gravity
I'll give you a hint; infinitely more than those who know the details
of how the 3000 year old tribal deity with buttocks governs the
universe (the latter being naught, by defintion, or so I am told over
and over).
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
"Faith" has a particular meaning when it is used by religionists, and
it isn't remotely the same thing as what you're talking about. Why are
you determined to strip all the meaningfulness out of your own
religion?
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system.
Pathetic, simply pathetic. Even if you are correct (which you aren't)
you are simply claiming that your belief system has zero advantages
over raw atheism. That's just pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
16 Jan 2006 01:01:21 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2006 17:57:54 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
Your gay..right? No..gays come closer than straight men in
understanding the variable mindsets of women.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
My own religion? Im Buddhist.
"Faith" has a particular meaning when it is used by religionists, and
it isn't remotely the same thing as what you're talking about. Why are
you determined to strip all the meaningfulness out of your own
religion?
Buddism?
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system.
Pathetic, simply pathetic. Even if you are correct (which you aren't)
you are simply claiming that your belief system has zero advantages
over raw atheism. That's just pathetic.
Neither have any advantages. Least..no one has reported back one way
or the other.
Btw..did I mention Im Buddhist?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
17 Jan 2006 08:55:54 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 17:57:54 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
Your gay..right? No..gays come closer than straight men in
understanding the variable mindsets of women.
You're an idiot..right? Yes..idiots make bigoted generalizations about
entire classes of people, then compound the stupidity with even more
bigoted generalizations.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
My own religion? Im Buddhist.
Okay.
"Faith" has a particular meaning when it is used by religionists, and
it isn't remotely the same thing as what you're talking about. Why are
you determined to strip all the meaningfulness out of your own
religion?
Buddism?
I'll accept that the "faith" concept has no religious meaning for you
if you say so. Does it have no religious meaning for you? I was
arguing with for whom it apparently does, then you popped in parroting
the same false claim that he was. Still, you have to explain why you
falsely called atheism a "faith based belief system".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
16 Jan 2006 09:31:57 AM |
|
|
In <c3hms15b74n897n06mhekn4lc1rqad77e8@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
From: Gunner < >
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.atheism,misc.survivalism,alt.silly.
little.newsgroup,alt.tv.cartoon-network Subject: Re: The god who
wasn't there Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:21 GMT Organization: Coyote
Engineering, a division of the Acme Co. and Yoyodyne Propulsion Inc. A
member of the MegaCorp Group. Reply-To:
On 15 Jan 2006 17:57:54 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
Your gay..right? No..gays come closer than straight men in
understanding the variable mindsets of women.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
My own religion? Im Buddhist.
A homophobic, misogynistic Buddhist!
Nevermore (and people think religion is dull)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
16 Jan 2006 10:55:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:31:57 -0600, Nevermore <burned@thestake.net>
wrote:
In <c3hms15b74n897n06mhekn4lc1rqad77e8@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
From: Gunner < >
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.atheism,misc.survivalism,alt.silly.
little.newsgroup,alt.tv.cartoon-network Subject: Re: The god who
wasn't there Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:21 GMT Organization: Coyote
Engineering, a division of the Acme Co. and Yoyodyne Propulsion Inc. A
member of the MegaCorp Group. Reply-To:
On 15 Jan 2006 17:57:54 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
Your gay..right? No..gays come closer than straight men in
understanding the variable mindsets of women.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
My own religion? Im Buddhist.
A homophobic, misogynistic Buddhist!
Nevermore (and people think religion is dull)
Homophobic? Hardly so. Misogyistic? How so? Simply because I, like
billions of males on this planet dont understand the variable mindsets
of women?
I rather like women. Emensely. Particularly up close and personal.
Women are often better than sliced bread. But the mental workings of
their brains are still not yet fully understood. Science is still
young.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
|
|
|
| User: "dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
17 Jan 2006 06:37:23 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:31:57 -0600, Nevermore <burned@thestake.net>
wrote:
In <c3hms15b74n897n06mhekn4lc1rqad77e8@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
From: Gunner < >
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.atheism,misc.survivalism,alt.silly.
little.newsgroup,alt.tv.cartoon-network Subject: Re: The god who
wasn't there Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:01:21 GMT Organization: Coyote
Engineering, a division of the Acme Co. and Yoyodyne Propulsion Inc. A
member of the MegaCorp Group. Reply-To:
On 15 Jan 2006 17:57:54 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
and
the variable mindsets of women?
Let's just pretend that this misogynistic ***** never occurred.
Your gay..right? No..gays come closer than straight men in
understanding the variable mindsets of women.
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Once again, someone who isn't smart enough to know that he is
denigrating his own religion.
My own religion? Im Buddhist.
A homophobic, misogynistic Buddhist!
Nevermore (and people think religion is dull)
Homophobic? Hardly so.
Yeah, what are you thinking? A homophobe would NEVER try to insult
someone by calling them an epithet meaning "homosexual"...
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
15 Jan 2006 09:42:24 AM |
|
|
In <n6pks198litevujrtfet2on894o8bjv94h@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
From: Gunner < >
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.atheism,misc.survivalism,alt.silly.
little.newsgroup,alt.tv.cartoon-network Subject: Re: The god who
wasn't there Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:08:14 GMT Organization: Coyote
Engineering, a division of the Acme Co. and Yoyodyne Propulsion Inc. A
member of the MegaCorp Group. Reply-To:
On 14 Jan 2006 19:34:51 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
Like women, you mean? :-) More seriously, a large number of
Christians believe in God, but I don't think that many would claim
to understand his thoughts, motives, etc.
And that's why it makes absolutely no sense. Believe in something
even though you don't know what it is, what its intentions are, and so
on. I have no choice but to fail to believe in such a nonsensical
proposition.
How many people know the details behind atomic fission, gravity and
the variable mindsets of women?
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Actually it's called common verifiable experience that benefits from,
and is informed by, sustained, on-going, detailed experimentation (
especially the women part!)
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system. They
have no proof..one way or another..yet they believe.
That's just sophistry. The burden of proof for specific religions is on
the religion itself. Skepticism of unproven claims is not another form
of faith or belief. If the concept were stretched that broadly it would
render words like faith and belief and evidence meaningless.
Nevermore (I know Faith. Faith is a friend of mine. You're no Faith!)
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
That sig, unlike the preceding, was actually well thought out and made
clever, logical sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strabo" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
16 Jan 2006 02:51:29 PM |
|
|
In Re: The god who wasn't there on Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:42:24
-0600, by Nevermore, we read:
In <n6pks198litevujrtfet2on894o8bjv94h@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
<snipped>
How many people know the details behind atomic fission, gravity and
the variable mindsets of women?
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Actually it's called common verifiable experience that benefits from,
and is informed by, sustained, on-going, detailed experimentation (
especially the women part!)
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system. They
have no proof..one way or another..yet they believe.
That's just sophistry. The burden of proof for specific religions is on
the religion itself. Skepticism of unproven claims is not another form
of faith or belief. If the concept were stretched that broadly it would
render words like faith and belief and evidence meaningless.
Your premise is illogical. A burden of proof cannot be required
to validate a belief.
It is not skepticism that is at issue but a skeptic's
conclusion that behavior must be grounded in fact. Atheism
is a conclusion that implies fact whereas a belief does
not.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The claim of
aethism is based on belief because the claim of "no god" cannot
be proven. The proper and honest term is "agnostic", one who
doesn't know whether or not there is a god.
Nevermore (I know Faith. Faith is a friend of mine. You're no Faith!)
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
That sig, unlike the preceding, was actually well thought out and made
clever, logical sense.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: The god who wasn't there |
16 Jan 2006 04:12:21 PM |
|
|
In <rhvns1dubgk728r9jlouf1m7e0tdg34ru6@4ax.com> Strabo wrote:
From: Strabo <strabo@flashlight.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca,alt.atheism,misc.survivalism,alt.silly.
little.newsgroup,alt.tv.cartoon-network Subject: Re: The god who
wasn't there Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:51:29 -0500
In Re: The god who wasn't there on Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:42:24
-0600, by Nevermore, we read:
In <n6pks198litevujrtfet2on894o8bjv94h@4ax.com> Gunner wrote:
<snipped>
How many people know the details behind atomic fission, gravity and
the variable mindsets of women?
But they all take such for granted. Its called Faith.
Actually it's called common verifiable experience that benefits from,
and is informed by, sustained, on-going, detailed experimentation (
especially the women part!)
Same with Athiests. Its just another faith based belief system.
They have no proof..one way or another..yet they believe.
That's just sophistry. The burden of proof for specific religions is
on the religion itself. Skepticism of unproven claims is not another
form of faith or belief. If the concept were stretched that broadly
it would render words like faith and belief and evidence meaningless.
Your premise is illogical. A burden of proof cannot be required
to validate a belief.
Sure it can. The FBI believed Ted Kaczynski was the Unibomber. Then
they had to prove that belief beyond a reasonable doubt. Stuff like
that happens every day world wide. Otherwise all we would have is a
bunch of unsupported hypotheses and no conclusions in our lives.
It is not skepticism that is at issue but a skeptic's
conclusion that behavior must be grounded in fact. Atheism
is a conclusion that implies fact whereas a belief does
not.
What's at issue is the conclusion that atheism is "just another faith-
based belief system" and that is as stupid as saying that someone who
walks into a Lexus dealership and decides not to purchase one is "just
another Lexus owner without the car".
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The claim of
aethism is based on belief because the claim of "no god" cannot
be proven. The proper and honest term is "agnostic", one who
doesn't know whether or not there is a god.
You've just managed to squeeze all the meaning out of agnostic as well.
If that was the logical way to define it then every devoutly religious
person would fall under the exact same definition; because, with the
possible exception of Pat Robertson, I don't know to many people who
claim to have actually spoken to God in their lifetimes.
"Belief" is an affirmative act. You have to actually believe something.
When somebody tells you something that you simply don't believe (the
whale swallowed Jonah and he rode around inside of it for weeks and
survived) that does not mean that you have to rely on "faith" that it
didn't occur. You simply don't believe it.
Example: I swear to you that the entire Southern Hemisphere was just
this minute eaten by a giant space alligator! How much time are you
going to waste wondering if that's even true? Is your skepticism of
this outrageous, unproven, highly unlikely claim worth no more than my
emphatic assertion that it's true, true, true and I can bring in a dozen
friends of mine to say so? Is the needle set right at 50/50 on this
topic for the rest of your life? No matter how many times you see NO
evidence that the Southern Hemisphere was bitten off you are going to
have to say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? And
are you going to accord someone who INSISTS that there's no proof a
giant space alligator DIDN'T bite the Southern Hemisphere off in the
year 2006 and persists in doing so for the next 2,000 years the kind of
respect you would accord someone who doesn't buy this theory and goes
off and does something interesting with their Sunday mornings?
Nevermore
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
