Serious Question. Honest.

Religions > Atheism > Serious Question. Honest.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 6 of 36

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: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 10:31:49 AM

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f894480.2187325@news...

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> 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

God.

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.

No.

How can you be so sure? It is well documented that there are theists
who turn atheist and vice versa. Are you fundementally different than
your fellow men? Maybe you are, maybe your God specially created you
such that your belief cannot be shaken. But then that would be more
telling of your God's injustice. Anyway, I would have thought a better
answer on your part would have been "I don't know for sure at the
moment and I would prefer not to hazard a guess".

Your thoughts of what my answer should have been (or "a better answer" as
you put it) are of little concern to me. I gave the short version.
However, I will add more as I have some time this afternoon ... if you're
not happy with it, I really don't care.

I have no belief that God "specially created" me so that my "belief

cannot

be shaken." I've been on the other side over the years, starting when I
went to college and took over 30 hours of religion classes, including 4
semesters of Greek. This taught me that the Bible was not the absolute
source I had been taught as a child and threw me into a tailspin, with
regards to faith. It took me about 10 years to reach a point where I am
generally content with my beliefs. These beliefs are not wholly founded

doctrine, religious texts (such as the Bible) or whether all my prayers

get

answered the way I want them to.

So far so good.

So the answer is still no.

Why do you put the word "so"? You haven't justified or explained why
your answer is "no".

Curious. I have answered it to my satisfaction. That and my below comments
is as good as it will get. I have nothing to prove to you.

I am wondering why you are unable to acknowledge that your beliefs can
still change, *especially* given your past history.

My belief system is now founded in things that cannot be significantly
changed.

God could exist without our knowledge. God could exist whether

anybody

believed or not. God could even exist with extraordinary evidence to

the

contrary, if that God chose not to be revealed. God does not depend

for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing

and

God

could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

The question wasn't about God's existance but about your belief in
that, so that's all irrelevant.

You misunderstand. It is quite relevant to me. If my beliefs are such

that

God could exist without my knowledge or even without my approval, what

could

possibly remove that belief?

I don't know exactly "what" but it appears to me that every single
theist who became atheist *used to* believe that God's existence was
not contingent on their belief in it.

I never said I became atheist. I said my faith was put into a "tailspin."
I never had doubts of the existence of God ... my biggest issues were with
the nature of God, since what I had been taught may not have been 100%
accurate.
During those 10 years, I wandered through many different religions,
Catholic, Jewish, pagan, Taoist. By the end of that preliminary journey, I
had made several determinations on what I thought the True nature of God
was, not just what some exclusionary religion said.

If you believe in God, it
automatically follows that you accept the doctrine. If you don't, the
doctrine doesn't make sense or carry any weight.

Whose doctrine? What doctrine? I restrict myself to no one doctrine. In
my opinion, Truth about God exists in bits and pieces of many different
religious interpretations.

You seem to be under the impression that the belief in the objectivity
of a belief makes that belief immutable. It is painfully obvious to me
that this isn't so and I can explain in detail if you need me to. For
now, I'll give you one word: "Science". Think it over carefully.

Belief in the objectivity of a belief is one part of it ... far from the
only part I have no real interest in further comments on that subject but
thank you for the offer.

Essentially I would need God him/her/it-self to tell me that God didn't

exist.

Of course not. Ask any theist turned atheist. It's not God who spoke
to them.

That's their understanding. Fine with me.

Quite a paradox.

None whatsoever.

In your opinion.

I am curious, however. What type of events do you think would cause my
faith to waiver?

It's not my call. I would think, however, a honest and reasonable
person would acknowledge that there may be such events, even if he is
unable to pinpoint them at the time.

I am unaware of any. If I were to take the time to summarize my belief
system to you, you might understand better. Once again, I would essentially
need an all powerful God to tell me an all powerful God doesn't exist.
Short of that, any foreseeable occurance could still fit into my belief
system ... whether I liked it or not, of course. This is why I said no.
Curious as to why you would question my honesty merely because you didn't
care for my answer.

Someone close to me dying?
Something bad happening to me?
Me merely not getting my own way?

Those things that are issues for some have no relevance to me.

Fine. But I am sure there are things of relevance to you.

See above.

Just cuz God
doesn't come down from on high and give me everything I want and/or ask

for

does not mean that God doesn't still exist.

If you stopped believing in God, the
previous paragraph would have no meaning.

How so?

Because the question of whether God's existance depends on believers
or not is meaningless for an atheist for whom God is a work of
fiction. It's like asking if Kirk could defeat Piccard in a battle.

Same ship? Gimme $100 on Kirk.
Take care,
Figinn
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 09:01:30 PM

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]

An all powerful God could convince you that it doesn't exist without
you knowing that its coming from an all powerful God so it seems to me
that your reasoning is faulty. That is, you cannot use the "paradox"
as a reason for the impossibility of a change in your belief system
(*).
More importantly, you are assuming that you have reached an immutable
mental state, which I find hard to swallow, lest you are a robot
that's unable to execute self modify code.

Short of that, any foreseeable occurance could still fit into my belief
system ...

Then forgive me for being blunt but your belief system doesn't say
anything or have any relevance. What differentiates your belief system
from a null belief system?
(*) Even if the change in your belief system resulted in a paradox wrt
your (old) belief system, that's not an argument against the change
because the change itself is not necessarily governed by your belief
system.
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 05:32:34 AM

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f8b5313.42049163@news...

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]

I am unaware of any. If I were to take the time to summarize my belief
system to you, you might understand better. Once again, I would

essentially

need an all powerful God to tell me an all powerful God doesn't exist.

An all powerful God could convince you that it doesn't exist without
you knowing that its coming from an all powerful God so it seems to me
that your reasoning is faulty. That is, you cannot use the "paradox"
as a reason for the impossibility of a change in your belief system
(*).

More importantly, you are assuming that you have reached an immutable
mental state, which I find hard to swallow, lest you are a robot
that's unable to execute self modify code.

Short of that, any foreseeable occurance could still fit into my belief
system ...

Then forgive me for being blunt but your belief system doesn't say
anything or have any relevance. What differentiates your belief system
from a null belief system?

(*) Even if the change in your belief system resulted in a paradox wrt
your (old) belief system, that's not an argument against the change
because the change itself is not necessarily governed by your belief
system.

You seem much more interested in this than I.
Figinn
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 08:46:12 AM

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote
You seem much more interested in this than I.

You are still reading, aren't you?
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 05:36:34 AM

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f8dfd64.2329349@news...

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

You seem much more interested in this than I.

You are still reading, aren't you?

Obviously.
However, I'm not going out of my way to refute the belief system of another
person. You are. I admit I am curious as to your own motivations, yet you
have not really said much of substance to this point.
Figinn
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 07:42:57 AM

"Figinn" <ihatespam-Figinn@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote
You seem much more interested in this than I.

You are still reading, aren't you?

Obviously.

However, I'm not going out of my way to refute the belief system of another
person. You are. I admit I am curious as to your own motivations,

My motivation? I am curious as to how and why somebody can claim he
has attained an immutable belief system. I am not trying to refute
your belief system, btw. In fact, I am not interested in your belief
system but why you would think you have reached the center of the
universe and the end of time regarding your beliefs.

yet you have not really said much of substance to this point.

I think I have said enough. You haven't followed up the points I made
in my second to last post.
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	16 Oct 2003 07:47:26 PM

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f8d3c24.40151244@news...

"Figinn" <ihatespam-Figinn@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

You seem much more interested in this than I.

You are still reading, aren't you?

Obviously.

However, I'm not going out of my way to refute the belief system of

another

person. You are. I admit I am curious as to your own motivations,

yet you have not really said much of substance to this point.

I think I have said enough. You haven't followed up the points I made
in my second to last post.

Nope. Have no desire to. Your opinions of my belief system are irrelevant.
Good day.
Figinn
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 10:35:12 PM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:55:51 -0400, "Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
[ng's trimmed]

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.

No.

God could exist without our knowledge. God could exist whether anybody
believed or not. God could even exist with extraordinary evidence to the
contrary, if that God chose not to be revealed. God does not depend on us
for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and God
could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

Sounds like the old "My god is so omnipotent that he can save us even
if he doesn't exist" crapola.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "James"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	25 Oct 2003 03:40:05 PM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of->dis.com> 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.

Hello,
Yes, remove this universe, then see if one pops into existence out of
nothingness.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	25 Oct 2003 04:47:56 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:05 -0400 in alt.atheism, James (James
<voja@surfbest.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of->dis.com> wrote:

Hello,

Yes, remove this universe, then see if one pops into existence out of
nothingness.

Why bother since that, in so far as we can tell, appears to be the
case with this one?
--
"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: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	25 Oct 2003 03:50:16 PM

James <voja@surfbest.net> wrote:

Hello,

Yes, remove this universe, then see if one pops into existence out of
nothingness.

Nope, that'd just convince you that your god is good enough to make a
whole new universe for you.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	25 Oct 2003 03:46:45 PM

James wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of->dis.com> wrote:

Hello,

Yes, remove this universe, then see if one pops into existence out of
nothingness.

Sincerely, James

Aw, heck, I did that *last* week, and this is the result.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	26 Oct 2003 05:14:48 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:05 -0400, James <voja@surfbest.net>, Message
ID: <2snlpvsvd8it75heaa6g3i2tubq355opdk@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of->dis.com> wrote:

Hello,

Yes, remove this universe, then see if one pops into existence out of
nothingness.

Thank you very much James for demonstrating your terminal lack of
ability to think. Please do the world a favour and don't breed.

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: "John W"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 02:17:52 PM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
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.	10 Oct 2003 02:28:47 PM

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.
--
"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: "John W"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 12:04:51 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
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 01:16:58 AM

On 11 Oct 2003 05:04:51 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

Well, I don't know if you could, but in principle I don't see a
problem. That said, I think the very fact of unbelief goes a
considerable way to showing that there is no God, at least of a
particular kind.
Consider: The Christian God is traditionally thought to be omnipotent,
omniscient and all loving. Since He is omniscient He know precisely
what would convince me that He exists. Since He is omnipotent it would
cost Him nothing to provide me with this evidence, and because He
loves me He's motivated to provide it. Yet I don't believe. QED there
are no omnipotent, omniscient and all loving Gods.
--
"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: "Doug Semler"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 04:02:37 AM

In news:7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

John W

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: If an acceptable, objectively verifiable *fact* is presented
which shows the existence of god, I will accept as fact that a powerful
being exists. To me, an acceptable, objectively verifiable fact would be a
face showing up in the moon observed by the entire world's populace
(including the blind) with a booming voice audible to the entire world's
populace (including the deaf) would be evidence of such a powerful being.
Maybe not god (maybe some alien trickster), but at least it would be a
start. Or if all of a sudden I awoke to a world free of war, famine,
pestilience, and harsh winters. Or if all the dead bodies currently buried
in the world arose and started Armageddon...you know, things like that.
Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the contradictory
writings of other religions. Besides which, the Bible is also
self-contradictory. And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.
The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it assumes
the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes a designer
by stating "design" in the premise).
The "all complex things are created" argument is not acceptable, because it
implies infinite regression of creators (namely, god is, by definition
infinitely complex, therefore, by using the premise that all complex things
are created, god must have been created).
The "nature has laws, there must be a lawgiver" argument is not acceptable,
for 2 reasons. The first is that the term "law" is misused in this sense,
as natural laws are actually descriptions of observations. And the second is
the inherent question: Why this particular set? What I mean is why did god
specifically choose ~300,000 km/s as the speed of light? Why not any of the
other infinite number of possibilities?
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, uneqyl nalbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 04:20:55 AM

"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
news:dZmdnc7h-9CzWhqiU-KYuA@wideopenwest.com:

Could I reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT
whatever, that would cause you to believe in God and in
His Son?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: If an acceptable, objectively verifiable
*fact* is presented which shows the existence of god, I
will accept as fact that a powerful being exists.

Best answer to that question that I've heard, was given by
someone (I forget who) on this newsgroup (alt.atheism). God, as
advertised, would know exactly what it would take to convince
me, and would have the power to make it so, and would care
enough to will it thus (paraphrasing).
.

User: "John"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 05:16:31 PM

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:02:37 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

In news:7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

John W

You truly have boxed yourself in. You now state that you're smarter
than all Christians who have ever lived before you, because the
BRILLIANT Dr. C S Lewis decided that there WAS enough evidence to
believe Christianity.
Rather than looking for God, (which is how you find Him), you look for
proof only that there IS NO god. In other words, each "Problem" you've
resolved is merely a rebuff of choices/insights made by brighter folk
than you or me.
What you have proved merely is that you aren't interested. If Jesus
Christ knocked on your door tomorrow, and you opened it, and He
levitated 2 feet off the ground, then pointed at you and YOU levitated
2 feet off the ground, you'd slam the door in His face. "Not
interested!"

Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the contradictory
writings of other religions.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. You speak from a VERY shallow
reading, looking ONLY for "inconsistencies", rather than Truth.
And if you seek "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in 66 books
written by some 40 authors, you will find them.
IF you are looking for Truth, you will find truth. Such as Daniel
accurately prophesying the future 3 World Kingdoms AFTER Babylon
(his).
The ONLY "explanation" other than truth is that the passage was
"written AFTERWARDS." That is not proof, since the Jews have evidence
of DAniel being written CENTURIES before Christ.
However, you will cling to the plea "it was written AFTERWARDS,
OBVIOUSLY, because we KNOW men can't see the future." Men, maybe not;
God CAN see the future.
And there is PLENTY of evidence for God inspiring the prophets of the
Old Testament, as well as Him inspiring the apostles of the New
Testament.
You just have to open your little mind. THAT's what is not going to
happen! (you opening your mind).
Your battle is NOT intellectual; your battle is spiritual;moral. You
do not wish to obey/submit/worship.
John W
Besides which, the Bible is also

self-contradictory.

Not so.
And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.
Not so. In fact, if you take the overview of Genesis, creation occurs
in the same order as does evolution.

The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it assumes
the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes a designer
by stating "design" in the premise).

You miss the point in your rush to disqualify. Your remark is like
saying "we know there can't be flashlights, even though you are
holding one, since we know science cannot build flashlights."
Your thinking is skewed, and you merely don't see the flashlight, with
the full glare in your face! Why don't you see it? You have your eyes
TIGHTLY shut!

The "all complex things are created" argument is not acceptable, because it
implies infinite regression of creators (namely, god is, by definition
infinitely complex, therefore, by using the premise that all complex things
are created, god must have been created).

You violate "first cause." Science admits "it all started SOMEWHERE!"
Why not with God? You call your "first cause" evolution. Where did the
elements come from?
For your "evolution" we substitute the word/name "God", and we then
can collapse the BILLIONS of years YOUR god requires with a few
thousand our God required (for the earth in its current
configuration).

The "nature has laws, there must be a lawgiver" argument is not acceptable,
for 2 reasons. The first is that the term "law" is misused in this sense,
as natural laws are actually descriptions of observations. And the second is
the inherent question: Why this particular set? What I mean is why did god
specifically choose ~300,000 km/s as the speed of light? Why not any of the
other infinite number of possibilities?

Because He created the laws, He knows/knew what works.
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 11:02:55 PM

In alt.atheism on 11 Oct 2003 22:16:31 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:02:37 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

In news:7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

John W

CS Lewis wasn't brilliant. In fact, he wasn't even smart. He was
a loony apologist for your religion.

Rather than looking for God, (which is how you find Him), you look for
proof only that there IS NO god.

Rather a nice lie.
You just violated a commandment.
[snip]

Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the contradictory
writings of other religions.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Certainly does.

And if you seek "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in 66 books

That's the protestant canon. The catholic canon has 72 or 73. And
the coptic has more.
But you wouldn't know that, would you?

written by some 40 authors, you will find them.

Which contradicts your statement that the bible doesn't
contradict itself.

IF you are looking for Truth, you will find truth. Such as Daniel
accurately prophesying the future 3 World Kingdoms AFTER Babylon
(his).

No such prophecy exists.

The ONLY "explanation" other than truth is that the passage was
"written AFTERWARDS." That is not proof, since the Jews have evidence
of DAniel being written CENTURIES before Christ.

And has nothing to do with jesus.

However, you will cling to the plea "it was written AFTERWARDS,
OBVIOUSLY, because we KNOW men can't see the future." Men, maybe not;
God CAN see the future.

And there is PLENTY of evidence for God inspiring the prophets of the
Old Testament, as well as Him inspiring the apostles of the New
Testament.

Actually, there isn't. Thanks for playing.

You just have to open your little mind. THAT's what is not going to
happen! (you opening your mind).

Your battle is NOT intellectual; your battle is spiritual;moral. You
do not wish to obey/submit/worship.

Nice lie.

John W

Besides which, the Bible is also

self-contradictory.

Not so.

And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.

Not so. In fact, if you take the overview of Genesis, creation occurs
in the same order as does evolution.

Not so. Genesis 2 has man created before the rest of the animals.

The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it assumes
the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes a designer
by stating "design" in the premise).

You miss the point in your rush to disqualify. Your remark is like
saying "we know there can't be flashlights, even though you are
holding one, since we know science cannot build flashlights."

What you're saying is that god must have a designer. Good. So
what is god's designer?
[snip]

You violate "first cause."

Yes, you do. What is the cause of god?
Note: "god is uncaused" is not an acceptible answer.
[snip]

Because He created the laws, He knows/knew what works.

How can you create before time?
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: "John W"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 09:54:52 AM

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:02:55 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 11 Oct 2003 22:16:31 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:02:37 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

In news:7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

John W

CS Lewis wasn't brilliant. In fact, he wasn't even smart. He was
a loony apologist for your religion.

You're entitled to your crackpot opinion. Many of us have found Dr.
Lewis to be a genius for Christian apologetics.
I'd trust him over you any day.

Rather than looking for God, (which is how you find Him), you look for
proof only that there IS NO god.

Rather a nice lie.

You just violated a commandment.

[snip]

Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the contradictory
writings of other religions.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Certainly does.

And if you seek "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in 66 books

That's the protestant canon. The catholic canon has 72 or 73. And
the coptic has more.

But you wouldn't know that, would you?

I know the Bible has 66 books. The Roman version is corrupted with the
A, "documents" that didn't make the cut for various reasons. There
WERE rules for canonizing the Books of the Bible. The A didn't measure
up!

written by some 40 authors, you will find them.

Which contradicts your statement that the bible doesn't
contradict itself.

I have not contradicted myself YET.

IF you are looking for Truth, you will find truth. Such as Daniel
accurately prophesying the future 3 World Kingdoms AFTER Babylon
(his).

No such prophecy exists.

You evidently cannot read the book of Daniel.
The prophesy exists and you are a liar, because you didn't bother to
check before you passed on incorrect information.

The ONLY "explanation" other than truth is that the passage was
"written AFTERWARDS." That is not proof, since the Jews have evidence
of DAniel being written CENTURIES before Christ.

And has nothing to do with jesus.

You miss so much!

Actually, there isn't. Thanks for playing.

You obviously haven't looked. I know Paul was inspired. He wrote to
the Ephesian church, and I've leaned on the church he wrote to, one of
6 1st century churches Paul built that's still there.

Nice lie.

No, THAT is a lie. I have you cold. You are spiritually / morally
corrupt.

And you have wasted enough of my time.
John W

John W

Besides which, the Bible is also

self-contradictory.

Not so.

And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.

Not so. In fact, if you take the overview of Genesis, creation occurs
in the same order as does evolution.

Not so. Genesis 2 has man created before the rest of the animals.

The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it assumes
the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes a designer
by stating "design" in the premise).

You miss the point in your rush to disqualify. Your remark is like
saying "we know there can't be flashlights, even though you are
holding one, since we know science cannot build flashlights."

What you're saying is that god must have a designer. Good. So
what is god's designer?

[snip]

You violate "first cause."

Yes, you do. What is the cause of god?

Note: "god is uncaused" is not an acceptible answer.

[snip]

Because He created the laws, He knows/knew what works.

How can you create before time?

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"

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 12:57:37 PM

In alt.atheism on 12 Oct 2003 14:54:52 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 04:02:55 GMT, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

In alt.atheism on 11 Oct 2003 22:16:31 GMT, John
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:02:37 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

In news:7p3fovggqi386a35elv4grck2uv3i2it0l@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:28:47 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 19:17:52 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

Short answer: No.

Good answer in as much as it tells me all I need to know.

Congratulations. Glad I made you happy. Now turn it around. Could I
reveal ANY FACT to you, ANY FACT whatever, that would cause you to
believe in God and in His Son?

John W

CS Lewis wasn't brilliant. In fact, he wasn't even smart. He was
a loony apologist for your religion.

You're entitled to your crackpot opinion.

Which just happens to be a fact.

Many of us have found Dr.
Lewis to be a genius for Christian apologetics.

And there is much for the xers to apologize for.

I'd trust him over you any day.

Such is your problem.

Rather than looking for God, (which is how you find Him), you look for
proof only that there IS NO god.

Rather a nice lie.

You just violated a commandment.

[snip]

Nice how you completely overlooked that. I'll keep it in as a
reminder to you.

Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the contradictory
writings of other religions.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Certainly does.

And if you seek "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in 66 books

That's the protestant canon. The catholic canon has 72 or 73. And
the coptic has more.

But you wouldn't know that, would you?

I know the Bible has 66 books.

or 72 or more, depending on the canon.

The Roman version is corrupted with the
A, "documents" that didn't make the cut for various reasons. There
WERE rules for canonizing the Books of the Bible. The A didn't measure
up!

Of course, the catholic canon came before the protestant one. And
the apocrypha was around before the protestant, too.
But you don't care about that, do you? You smell like a southern
baptist.

written by some 40 authors, you will find them.

Which contradicts your statement that the bible doesn't
contradict itself.

I have not contradicted myself YET.

You certainly did.

IF you are looking for Truth, you will find truth. Such as Daniel
accurately prophesying the future 3 World Kingdoms AFTER Babylon
(his).

No such prophecy exists.

You evidently cannot read the book of Daniel.

I did. There is no such prophecy.

The ONLY "explanation" other than truth is that the passage was
"written AFTERWARDS." That is not proof, since the Jews have evidence
of DAniel being written CENTURIES before Christ.

And has nothing to do with jesus.

You miss so much!

Yes, you do like to lie, don't you.

Actually, there isn't. Thanks for playing.

You obviously haven't looked. I know Paul was inspired.

You obviously like to lie, which is the only thing that needs
inspiration. The truth has no need to be inspired.

He wrote to
the Ephesian church, and I've leaned on the church he wrote to, one of
6 1st century churches Paul built that's still there.

So what? The city of Troy existed. Does that mean that the greek
gods did? No.
So what does the fact that this specific church building exists
have to do with anything? Answer: nothing.

Nice lie.

No, THAT is a lie.

No, that's a nice lie.
You would have to prove your case, rather than relying on CS
Lewis' crap psychobabble.
I'll leave the rest in here to show how cowardly you are.

Besides which, the Bible is also

self-contradictory.

Not so.

And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.

Not so. In fact, if you take the overview of Genesis, creation occurs
in the same order as does evolution.

Not so. Genesis 2 has man created before the rest of the animals.

Notice how John didn't address this. Why? He's a coward.

The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it assumes
the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes a designer
by stating "design" in the premise).

You miss the point in your rush to disqualify. Your remark is like
saying "we know there can't be flashlights, even though you are
holding one, since we know science cannot build flashlights."

What you're saying is that god must have a designer. Good. So
what is god's designer?

[snip]

Notice how John didn't address this. Why? He's a coward.

You violate "first cause."

Yes, you do. What is the cause of god?

Note: "god is uncaused" is not an acceptible answer.

[snip]

Notice how John didn't address this. Why? He's a coward.

Because He created the laws, He knows/knew what works.

How can you create before time?

Notice how John didn't address this. Why? He's a coward.
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: "Daniel Kolle"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 04:26:00 PM

Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> thought hard and said:

You smell like a southern
baptist.

He is. Down here, you can tell them apart from everyone else.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.

User: "John W"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 04:23:12 AM

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:26:00 -0500, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> thought hard and said:

You smell like a southern
baptist.

He is. Down here, you can tell them apart from everyone else.

You, daniel, are a liar. I have said NUMEROUS times, I was raised a
Southern Baptist by a mother whose father was a Southern Baptist
preacher, so I come by the preaching and by Christianity naturally.
However, once I left home, I left the Southern Baptists. Eventually,
after my 2nd marriage, I left the Baptists. Too much man-made dogma.
I am now a 1st Century, New Testament Christian.
And I still have the gospel in my marrow. I managed to lead a
Mennonite man to Christ on the bus today.
PTL!!
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 07:36:21 PM

In alt.atheism on 13 Oct 2003 09:23:12 GMT, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:26:00 -0500, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> thought hard and said:

You smell like a southern
baptist.

He is. Down here, you can tell them apart from everyone else.

That leaves out part of the NT, since part of it was written in
the 2nd century CE.
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: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 06:04:31 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 09:23:12 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>,
Message ID: <cjrkov83fgmtn4sdih94s6mpl12d7499ua@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:26:00 -0500, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> thought hard and said:

You smell like a southern
baptist.

He is. Down here, you can tell them apart from everyone else.