On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 2:06:32 +1100, Figinn wrote
(in message <bmbqmc$jl5v8$1@ID-202989.news.uni-berlin.de>):

If he chooses to remain silent and invisible, he really should not

upset that people doubt his existence.
Thomas P.

Is he?

Salavation, aiui in the buy-bull, hinges on belief and baptism.

According to some.

Without divine guidance, whom do I believe?

?

If your pixie chooses not to reveal himself, throwing somone who
doesn't believe into hell seems a bit of an over-reaction to me.

Luckily I don't believe in Hell.

Unless, you're not lucky at all? Belief or lack doesn't change
existance (or lack).

That's been my point for some time now with regards to God and related
concepts (like Heaven, Hell and eterntal reward/punishment).

What I meant by saying "luckily" was that at least I wasn't gonna bash

over the head, sending you to hell without supper merely because you

believe.

Making you unfortunately rare. [Makes me wonder what the purpose of
'salvation' is in your theology...]

I don't particularly care if theists 'bash me over the head' with
<a concept I don't believe in>. I _care_ that Christianity (as a
rather loose 'whole') teaches that is what happens to unbelievers.
I care that a lot of believers seem to accept this from their
'loving' 'God'.

I would also care, if I thought it true, that such is indicative of
a very spiteful, and hateful, being. Worthy of fear, not worship.
I'm curious that so few believers have a problem with such a being.

It /tends/ to suggest that he is 'upset'.

Only if the Biblical accounts can be taken at face value.

Without divine guidance, what else have I?

? All that springs to mind is trying to weed fallacious
consequences out of an argument from popularity.

Or would if there was the slightest suggestion this thing exists.
AFAICT, there is not.

The possibility exists. Much like my not believing in Satan or Hell.

Does the possibility exist? I have _no_ concrete data on this
'god', I have rumours and hearsay about its activities [some of
which I find repugnant]. These activities seemed to have dwindled
as 'enlightenment' spread. As belief in magic, astrology and so on
has declined at the same time [though is still maintained by some,
against all reason].

Is this 'god' like a 'square circle' - impossible by virtue of
conflicting propeties? What are its properties - how do you _know_
this? Can you detect these properties? How may I?

Ahh, the square circle argument ... *again.*

I think you misread my intent....

If there truly was an all powerful God, that God could create whatever

God chose to ... even a square circle. The concept of an all powerful

may not conform to your own thoughts on the subject but would not

the possibility.

I was not suggesting that an all powerful god could (or should be
able to) produce a square circle, but rather that _any_ god needs
to be internally self-consistent [it cannot be like a square circle
itself, since a square circle _is_ an impossibility].

You have asserted this god is possible, please demonstrate this
possibility exists. To do so you need to show that it has
mutually-consistent properties.

Also, the possibility of existence isn't sufficient (merely
necessary) to existence. Why would I believe something exists
simply because it is not impossible [it is possible there is a rock
on Mars with a pattern of cracks that spells my name, should I
believe it exists?]?

You have to make your own choices based on your own experiences. You

correct that there is little or no objective evidence of the existence

God. Many believers use subjective experiences to base their beliefs

If someone has no experiences to draw from, it is likely they won't

(or even worse, believe just because they were taught/told to believe.)

I have experiences, none of them indicate a divinity to me [if I
assumed a divinity I would have to assume, from my experiences,
it's royally pissed at me and mine - e.g. my mother losing her
sight in one eye while delivering the readings at Mass a couple of
weeks ago].

Now, the idea that people use subjective experiences to help them

their beliefs in God does not invalidate God; nor does it prove God. As

have previously stated many times, God could exist without anyone's

or acknowledgement. God could simply be. At the same time, theists

merely be deluding themselves for whatever reason.

Without knowing what 'God' is, 'could possibly be' seems to be
assuming things not in evidence...

Either way, there is no proof. We set up our own personal criteria with

There is not even _evidence_, let alone proof.

regards to the existence of God. In my opinion there is no reason to

A definition of what a 'god' is would help.

belittle you for your own established criteria which indicates
you need more before you believe in such things. Likewise, a
theist should not be belittled merely because their own criteria
has been met.

I try and save the belittlement for special cases. By the same
token, shouldn't I be able to say "That is a ludicrous position" if
my own criteria for the establishment of a position as 'ludicrous'
has been met?

In alt.atheism on 13 Oct 2003 10:09:03 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:17:41 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 01:48:23 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:17:59 +0200, Thomas P.

[snip]

If he chooses to remain silent and invisible, he really should not be
upset that people doubt his existence.

Dr. Frances Shaffer said, "He IS There and He is NOT Silent!"

So?

If you find Him silent and invisible, you have your ears plugged and
your eyes squinted tightly shut.

Unsupported assertion.

Even the evidence in the Bible is astounding. The prophesies are 2nd
to none in ancient religions.

There are 0 filled prophecies.

You keep saying that in spite of the evidence.

You keep saying that despite not showing the evidence.

Prove that there are fulfilled prophecies.

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 15:25:56 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:17:41 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 01:48:23 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:17:59 +0200, Thomas P.

[snip]

If he chooses to remain silent and invisible, he really should not be
upset that people doubt his existence.

Dr. Frances Shaffer said, "He IS There and He is NOT Silent!"

So?

If you find Him silent and invisible, you have your ears plugged and
your eyes squinted tightly shut.

Unsupported assertion.

ONLY your unjustified, ignorant, bigoted position.

Unsupported assertion.

Even the evidence in the Bible is astounding. The prophesies are 2nd
to none in ancient religions.

There are 0 filled prophecies.

You are incorrect.

I am quite correct, actually.

The line of Jesus was prophesied correctly,

False. The book of John says he wasn't of the davidic line.

The town He was born in was prophesied, even the CORRECT Bethlehem
(there are two).

False. Micah 5:2 refers to the TRIBE called Bethelehem Ephrat,
not a town.

That He would be crucified was prophesied,

False.

that He would be executed on a cross made of a tree was prophesied.

False.

I love how you provide nothing for your assertions.

Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 15:25:56 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:17:41 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 01:48:23 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:17:59 +0200, Thomas P.

[snip]

If he chooses to remain silent and invisible, he really should not be
upset that people doubt his existence.

Dr. Frances Shaffer said, "He IS There and He is NOT Silent!"

So?

If you find Him silent and invisible, you have your ears plugged and
your eyes squinted tightly shut.

Unsupported assertion.

ONLY your unjustified, ignorant, bigoted position.

Unsupported assertion.

Even the evidence in the Bible is astounding. The prophesies are 2nd
to none in ancient religions.

There are 0 filled prophecies.

You are incorrect.

I am quite correct, actually.

The line of Jesus was prophesied correctly,

False. The book of John says he wasn't of the davidic line.

The town He was born in was prophesied, even the CORRECT Bethlehem
(there are two).

False. Micah 5:2 refers to the TRIBE called Bethelehem Ephrat,
not a town.

That He would be crucified was prophesied,

False.

that He would be executed on a cross made of a tree was prophesied.

False.

I love how you provide nothing for your assertions.

Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote:

that He would be executed on a cross made of a tree was prophesied.

As opposed to a cross made out of paper mache', I guess. Sheesh, some
people will be impressed by anything.

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote:

that He would be executed on a cross made of a tree was prophesied.

As opposed to a cross made out of paper mache', I guess. Sheesh, some
people will be impressed by anything.