| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2003 12:07:11 PM |
| Object: |
Serious Question. Honest. |
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "Orhan Orgun" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 06:04:47 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
I suppose it's the same thing really. If there is no sufficiently
meaningful definition of a god then what? It's like saying, what'll
convince you that there is/isn't a liuriwuy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 12:08:44 AM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
That works for me.
John W
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
I suppose it's the same thing really. If there is no sufficiently
meaningful definition of a god then what? It's like saying, what'll
convince you that there is/isn't a liuriwuy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 02:22:29 AM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2003 05:08:44 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
That works for me.
And that's all He is, is it?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 02:14:32 AM |
|
|
10/11/2003, around 07:08:44 AM, John W wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>... >> Message
originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned! >>
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition
of a god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
The evidence is not quite as omnipresent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 09:49:14 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 11 Oct 2003 05:08:44 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is.
That tells us nothing about this god (i.e. what it is made of,
how it exists, i.e. ontologically) and begs the question that
everything was created.
He is
timeless, existing before all.
Existing before existence is self-contradictory.
He is almighty.
Tells us nothing about what this god really is.
He is Omnipotent,
Which means he can change whatever he wants.
He is
Omniscient,
Which means he knows everything, and therefore cannot change it,
since changing it would mean that what he knew wasn't set. IOW: he's
not omnipotent.
It also has the side-effect of there being no free will.
and He is Omnipresent.
Which means that there is no place apart from god, even this
mythical hell-place.
If there is even ONE place where god is not, then god is not
omnipresent. You do realize that, don't you? That IS what omnipresent
means.
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"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orhan Orgun" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 11:36:10 AM |
|
|
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<604fovsbomuenl4k5btci25c43jbhcnse4@4ax.com>...
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
That works for me.
I'm afraid the request was to "define god in a *reasonably meaningful
way*"
Obviously, this entails defining god in some way such that the
existence of such a god would entail something or another that we
could then empirically test for. COnversely, the lack of existence of
such a god would also entail some empirical consequences that we could
then look for. WIthout these criteria satisfied, god(s) has/have not
been defined in any *meaningful* way.
Taken another way: if there is an omnipotent god, well, this is in
principle consistent with any old thing that one might observe. As
such, one obviously will not come to conclude that such a god exists
based on any evidence. Therefore, the person who is demanding "what
kind of evidence *would* convince you of this god's existence" is
being nonsensical and idiotic.
Mind you, the person who believes in such a god is not necessarily
being nonsensical *or* idiotic. Only the one who asks you to specify
the evidence that would convince you of its existence is.
John W
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
I suppose it's the same thing really. If there is no sufficiently
meaningful definition of a god then what? It's like saying, what'll
convince you that there is/isn't a liuriwuy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xyzzy" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 08:04:06 AM |
|
|
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote:
orhanorgun@sbcglobal.net (Orhan Orgun) wrote:
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
Those are all fine qualities, I will take your word for it. But not
having met or seen anybody or anything with those qualities before,
defining God with more words that are as foreign to me as the word
"God" itself isn't helping me to know "God" any better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 08:10:08 AM |
|
|
Piggyback....
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:04:06 GMT, (xyzzy) wrote:
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote:
orhanorgun@sbcglobal.net (Orhan Orgun) wrote:
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
That's not a definition, it's a statement of what you believe.
Before it can be a definition you have to explain what "creator of all
that is". Demonstrate that it actually exists outside your overworked
imagination AND that it is timeless (whatever that means), and all
the other untustified attributes you have plucked out of nowhere.
Until you do that you are wasting everybody's time because you h ave
nothing whatsoever to say on the subject.
Those are all fine qualities, I will take your word for it. But not
having met or seen anybody or anything with those qualities before,
defining God with more words that are as foreign to me as the word
"God" itself isn't helping me to know "God" any better.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
17 Oct 2003 01:05:33 AM |
|
|
John W wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
Totally unsubstantiated, empty, vague, and [we all know this at the bottom of our heart don't we?] based on
superstition
bob
Hong Kong
People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
Abraham Lincoln
1809-65
That works for me.
John W
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
I suppose it's the same thing really. If there is no sufficiently
meaningful definition of a god then what? It's like saying, what'll
convince you that there is/isn't a liuriwuy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
17 Oct 2003 06:06:31 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2003 01:05:33 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>,
Message ID: <3F8F860D.F7D0118F@netvigator.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
John W wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough. He is the Creator of all that is. He is
timeless, existing before all. He is almighty. He is Omnipotent, He is
Omniscient, and He is Omnipresent.
Totally unsubstantiated, empty, vague, and [we all know this at the bottom of our heart don't we?] based on
superstition
Weatherly hasn't the intelligence, education, or integrity to admit
that.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 03:29:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:06:31 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2003 01:05:33 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>,
Message ID: <3F8F860D.F7D0118F@netvigator.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
John W wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
snip
Totally unsubstantiated, empty, vague, and [we all know this at the bottom of our heart don't we?] based on
superstition
Weatherly hasn't the intelligence, education, or integrity to admit
that.
It is very funny when someone who obviously has little education
claims to have advanced degrees. Weatherly is so ignorant he is not
capable of understanding how transparent his lies are.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
21 Oct 2003 07:32:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:29:40 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> ejaculated:
It is very funny when someone who obviously has little education
claims to have advanced degrees. Weatherly is so ignorant he is not
capable of understanding how transparent his lies are.
I think you are being overly generous in your assessment of how
rigorous seminaries are in handing out degrees.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 10:25:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:29:40 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<c1u1pvglie6m0bb2h28b87fe0e2qkt4j3q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:06:31 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2003 01:05:33 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>,
Message ID: <3F8F860D.F7D0118F@netvigator.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
John W wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
snip
Totally unsubstantiated, empty, vague, and [we all know this at the bottom of our heart don't we?] based on
superstition
Weatherly hasn't the intelligence, education, or integrity to admit
that.
It is very funny when someone who obviously has little education
claims to have advanced degrees. Weatherly is so ignorant he is not
capable of understanding how transparent his lies are.
Yes, it is funny. Pathetically sad, too.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
18 Oct 2003 01:48:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:25:16 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:29:40 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<c1u1pvglie6m0bb2h28b87fe0e2qkt4j3q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
It is very funny when someone who obviously has little education
claims to have advanced degrees. Weatherly is so ignorant he is not
capable of understanding how transparent his lies are.
Yes, it is funny. Pathetically sad, too.
Did you see the post in which he put two, whole words together
starting with the same letter and proudly called it alliteration? He
had probably just learned about the word in the "Readers Digest".
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
19 Oct 2003 02:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:48:00 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<bh23pv40u4orrjijoppiprdqjqergii0ol@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:25:16 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:29:40 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<c1u1pvglie6m0bb2h28b87fe0e2qkt4j3q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
It is very funny when someone who obviously has little education
claims to have advanced degrees. Weatherly is so ignorant he is not
capable of understanding how transparent his lies are.
Yes, it is funny. Pathetically sad, too.
Did you see the post in which he put two, whole words together
starting with the same letter and proudly called it alliteration? He
had probably just learned about the word in the "Readers Digest".
Probably X 2.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 09:38:10 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2003 05:08:44 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>,
Message ID: <604fovsbomuenl4k5btci25c43jbhcnse4@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On 10 Oct 2003 16:04:47 -0700, (Orhan Orgun)
wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com>...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
Yeah, I've been asked this many times myself. I always feel a good
start would be to have a reasonably meaningful working definition of a
god. Just something rough and ready would do, no need to be
particularly precise. Then we can talk, right?
But it's then problems start too, as we well know.
Define God? Easy enough.
Congradulations on demonstrating you haven't a clue as to what a
definition is. You've provided a description, not a definition.
He is the Creator of all that is.
Objective supporting evidence?
He is timeless, existing before all.
Objective supporting evidence?
He is almighty. He is Omnipotent,
As long as you don't bring up those pesky primitive chariots because
they were made of *iron.*
He is Omniscient,
As long as you don't bring up those pesky primitive chariots because
they were made of *iron.*
and He is Omnipresent.
Blatantly false.
That works for me.
Delusions and fantasy, yes.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 12:35:54 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that *some other* God is
the One True God?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 01:35:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:35:54 -0700 in alt.atheism, Gregory Gadow
(Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Therion Ware wrote:
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that *some other* God is
the One True God?
***** off.
Some other "God"?
It's Ishtar-Lilith. I know because I see Her every time I come away
from the Chinese.
It may be a monosodium-glutamate reaction to you, but it's divine to
me.
Frippery aside, quite right. But when I started this thread it was as
an example to Beowulf as regards questions.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 10:36:10 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
Therion Ware wrote:
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter
of fact, that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least
beyond reasonable dispute, that would convince you
believers that there is no God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that
*some other* God is the One True God?
Getting specific: What would convince the "True Believers" that
I am God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 10:05:21 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
Therion Ware wrote:
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter
of fact, that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least
beyond reasonable dispute, that would convince you
believers that there is no God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that
*some other* God is the One True God?
Getting specific: What would convince the "True Believers" that
I am God?
Thou art God. And I am God. And all that groks is God.
(Am I dating myself, or what?)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 04:43:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:05:21 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>,
Message ID: <3F8ABF31.90E1DD4A@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
JTEM wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote
Therion Ware wrote:
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter
of fact, that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least
beyond reasonable dispute, that would convince you
believers that there is no God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that
*some other* God is the One True God?
Getting specific: What would convince the "True Believers" that
I am God?
Thou art God. And I am God. And all that groks is God.
(Am I dating myself, or what?)
Kinky....................................
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 11:32:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:36:10 -0400,
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote
Therion Ware wrote:
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter
of fact, that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least
beyond reasonable dispute, that would convince you
believers that there is no God.
As a related question, what would convince you believers that
*some other* God is the One True God?
Getting specific: What would convince the "True Believers" that
I am God?
Stand on a mountainside and turn into a burning bush?
Or... maybe, point at Ground Zero and make the World Trade
Towers reappear, fully intact.
Point out over the Pacific Ocean and create a bridge from
L.A. to Tokyo, via Honolulu and Guam.
Create an express elevator to a geostationary satellite?
Move Machu Picchu to the top of Mount Ararat?
Gosh... there're quite a few things you could do that SHOULD
be real convincers... :)
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 03:24:37 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
Getting specific: What would convince the "True
Believers" that I am God?
Stand on a mountainside and turn into a burning bush?
If that is what it would take, then shouldn't they turn away
from the "Christian" church?
That is, assuming they haven't seen their "God" and/or Jesus
on a mountain lately, with or without burning like a bush.
Or... maybe, point at Ground Zero and make the World
Trade Towers reappear, fully intact.
I'd have to agree with you. They would require a standard of
proof that is many orders of magnitude above what they demand
the rest of us to accept.
Such hypocrisy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 12:35:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:24:37 -0400,
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Getting specific: What would convince the "True
Believers" that I am God?
Stand on a mountainside and turn into a burning bush?
If that is what it would take, then shouldn't they turn away
from the "Christian" church?
Good point. That was around 1,500 years before Christ came
on the scene. It would be a reaffirmation for Jewish people.
That is, assuming they haven't seen their "God" and/or Jesus
on a mountain lately, with or without burning like a bush.
Or... maybe, point at Ground Zero and make the World
Trade Towers reappear, fully intact.
I'd have to agree with you. They would require a standard of
proof that is many orders of magnitude above what they demand
the rest of us to accept.
Such hypocrisy!
I'm a Christian. I normal one, like MOST Christians, who have no
problem with people who are not. And perhaps the biggest problem
that Christians face when presenting (unobtrusively, if they do it right)
Christianity to non-Christians is the fact that for the most part, one is
being asked to accept Christianity by faith... without much proof.
However, one more evangelical (i.e., spreading the gospel... not to be
confused with the corruption of that woed by the RRR cultists) tool
that's becoming increasingly useful is the amount of prophecy that is in
the Bible, much of which has already been fulfilled... an much o which
cannot be self-fulfilling. Such as where Christ would be born... and
that no bones woul be broken when he was executed... and many more.
All of which came to pass precisely... adding up to odds that are greater
than all the grains of sand in all the world's beaches -- to one -- of
being right. This has been sufficient proof for many to accept Jesus as
Savior, even though many are still too skeptical, even in the face of
such astronomical odds.
And THERE, the needed orders of magnitude at last become evident.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 04:38:31 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
However, one more evangelical (i.e., spreading the gospel...
not to be confused with the corruption of that woed by the
RRR cultists) tool that's becoming increasingly useful is the
amount of prophecy that is in the Bible,
Postecy.
It is only after soemthing happens when someone claims it was
predicted.
much of which has already been fulfilled...
You're not talking about lava lamps, are you?
an much o which cannot be self-fulfilling.
I knew a guy who could suck his own....
Such as where Christ would be born...
Cites, please. I'm not aware of anything that supports such a
claim in the absence of some hefty revisionism.
and that no bones woul be broken when he was executed...
If that's the case, Jesus was never cruxified! I mean, they did
drive those nails into the bones....
and many more.
Yankees in six?
Well, there's always the cubs....
All of which came to pass precisely...
If you drink enough alcohol and squint real hard...
adding up to odds that are greater
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 07:17:11 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:24:37 -0400,
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Getting specific: What would convince the "True
Believers" that I am God?
Stand on a mountainside and turn into a burning bush?
If that is what it would take, then shouldn't they turn away
from the "Christian" church?
Good point. That was around 1,500 years before Christ came
on the scene. It would be a reaffirmation for Jewish people.
That is, assuming they haven't seen their "God" and/or Jesus
on a mountain lately, with or without burning like a bush.
Or... maybe, point at Ground Zero and make the World
Trade Towers reappear, fully intact.
I'd have to agree with you. They would require a standard of
proof that is many orders of magnitude above what they demand
the rest of us to accept.
Such hypocrisy!
I'm a Christian. I normal one, like MOST Christians, who have no
problem with people who are not. And perhaps the biggest problem
that Christians face when presenting (unobtrusively, if they do it right)
Christianity to non-Christians is the fact that for the most part, one is
being asked to accept Christianity by faith... without much proof.
However, one more evangelical (i.e., spreading the gospel... not to be
confused with the corruption of that woed by the RRR cultists) tool
that's becoming increasingly useful is the amount of prophecy that is in
the Bible, much of which has already been fulfilled... an much o which
cannot be self-fulfilling. Such as where Christ would be born... and
that no bones woul be broken when he was executed... and many more.
All of which came to pass precisely...
.....rolls on floor, lots of laughs....
how do you know the prophesys were not written AFTER THE FACT????
you don't, you have no way of knowing
Bob
Hong kong
"Religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
[Woden]
adding up to odds that are greater
than all the grains of sand in all the world's beaches -- to one -- of
being right. This has been sufficient proof for many to accept Jesus as
Savior, even though many are still too skeptical, even in the face of
such astronomical odds.
And THERE, the needed orders of magnitude at last become evident.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:38:59 PM |
|
|
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:3F8A9727.5EFD4621@netvigator.com...
....rolls on floor, lots of laughs....
how do you know the prophesys were not written AFTER THE FACT????
you don't, you have no way of knowing
True...how do you know they were not?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 02:04:00 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:3F8A9727.5EFD4621@netvigator.com...
....rolls on floor, lots of laughs....
how do you know the prophesys were not written AFTER THE FACT????
you don't, you have no way of knowing
True...how do you know they were not?
If I presented you with a document dated 9/9/01 stating that airplanes
would hit the WTC towers but I couldn't present anything to validate the
date, would you assume that I was a prophet or that I wrote it after the
fact?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SumBuny" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 03:33:02 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:unhoovsv8td17daq2v7mpaskbub1pep3gp@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:3F8A9727.5EFD4621@netvigator.com...
....rolls on floor, lots of laughs....
how do you know the prophesys were not written AFTER THE FACT????
you don't, you have no way of knowing
True...how do you know they were not?
If I presented you with a document dated 9/9/01 stating that airplanes
would hit the WTC towers but I couldn't present anything to validate the
date, would you assume that I was a prophet or that I wrote it after the
fact?
Guilty until proven innocent?
Buny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 04:03:20 PM |
|
|
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:unhoovsv8td17daq2v7mpaskbub1pep3gp@4ax.com...
"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:3F8A9727.5EFD4621@netvigator.com...
....rolls on floor, lots of laughs....
how do you know the prophesys were not written AFTER THE FACT????
you don't, you have no way of knowing
True...how do you know they were not?
If I presented you with a document dated 9/9/01 stating that airplanes
would hit the WTC towers but I couldn't present anything to validate the
date, would you assume that I was a prophet or that I wrote it after the
fact?
Guilty until proven innocent?
Gullible until proven skeptical.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
