| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2005 02:29:22 PM |
| Object: |
Should we believe in Gods? |
Do any real Gods exist? If so, are they all good, all powerful, benevolent
and caring?
Why do people not insist on at least some modicum of objective evidence that
'their' God is the true and real God instead of just taking the word of
other errant men? Nothing in life is more important, other than food, water
and shelter. A full life on earth and in eternity is dependent on being
correct!
Most importantly, if there is a real God, why does the real God permit the
confusion and dedication of people following fake or false Gods to exist?
Each religion believes that only their God is the real God. If any of these
Gods were a real God and creator of the Universe and everything in it; why
doesn't he inform us clearly and directly that he or it is the "real" God
and that all the others are fakes and imposters? Why does he not expose and
smite the promoters of false Gods? Why would he use errant men to deliver
this most important information?
It is now known that the Universe is in excess of 20 BILLION LIGHT YEARS in
diameter. Light travels at 186,000 MILES PER SECOND. We do not have the
instrumentation to determine how much greater it is. It could be infinity.
This means the Earth is but a speck of dust in size compared to the
Universe. And people are in size but specks of dust on the Earth.
Evidence indicates the age of the Universe to be at least 14 BILLION YEARS.
The scientific evidence is that the world is over 4 BILLION YEARS old.
Archaeological evidence is that man has existed on the earth for
approximately 150,000 years. When the various books of the Bible were
written, mankind believed the earth was flat and that the Sun, Stars and
Planets revolved around the Earth. We now know that the Earth, Stars and
Planets revolve around the Sun and the Earth is but a speck of dust in the
unimaginably vast Universe.
This knowledge is based on a wealth of objective scientific evidence whose
accuracy is supported by factual data; not parables, folklore or mythology.
In the overall scheme of the Universe, man appears to be totally
inconsequential. This certainly does not support the existence of current
God claims.
Why do God's worshippers and followers suffer with and die of the same
diseases, afflictions and accidents as the non-believers?
Millions of men, women and totally innocent children have been
indiscriminately killed and maimed by Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tsunamis, Tidal
Waves, Cyclones, Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, Airplane crashes, Train
wrecks and other disasters.
Why did God permit people ( and innocent children ) of all, and no,
religious beliefs, and of all degrees of goodness and wickedness, to be
indiscriminately killed and injured? Why are not just the wicked punished?
If God is all-merciful why do perfectly innocent children die in the womb or
be born with serious handicaps like blindness, deafness, paralysis,
imbeciles,
joined at the head or body with their twin, be ugly, pretty etc??
Why has God created hundreds of diseases and handicaps that afflict the
good, and the innocent along with the evil?
Why does God put humans on earth with many afflictions, diseases, handicaps,
suffering etc., for a limited period of time, and then let them go to a
joyous eternal life in heaven? Is God sadistic and enjoys suffering? Why not
skip the brutal part?
There is no objective evidence that people of any particular religious
belief, or no religious belief, live any healthier, happier or longer lives.
There is no objective evidence that people of any particular religious
belief, or no religious belief, are wealthier or poorer.
There is no objective proven evidence of any 'dead person' communicating
with conscious friends, relatives or anyone else - only unsubstantiated
claims and opinions. Have your dead friends or relatives communicated with
you? Dreams, illusions and fantasies are not objective evidence.
There is no objective proven evidence of God communicating directly with any
person - only unsubstantiated and unproven claims and opinions.
The Bible (old and new testaments), the Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, Zend-Avesta
and other man created documents are not OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. They are merely,
old unproven and frequently contradictory opinions created and expressed by
errant men.
There are too many religious belief systems to list. Here are just the major
current belief systems: Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism,
Sikhism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism. Within each of these are schisms with
hundreds of variations of the beliefs in all these religions.
Over the centuries people have believed in and adored hundreds of different
Gods. Were any of them really God? If so, which one?
The Bible was not dictated by god to mortal scribes; it was
written and embellished by some 40 authors - claimed prophets, kings,
politicians and clergymen in a variety of styles over a period of three
thousand years. Non of the present books of the Bible are the original
documents which no longer exist. The printing press was not invented till
600 years ago. Prior to that time all copies of the bible were hand copied
by scribes; copied, interpreted, misinterpreted and distorted as they
wished.
They were written in Hebrew, Greek (vernacular), Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic
and Latin. On stone, wood, clay, goatskin and papyrus.
It is an amalgam of history, folklore, mythology and fiction. They are so
abstruse that almost any interpretation that one likes can be claimed.
It is a strange mixture of diverse human documents, metaphors, allegories,
history and fables and irreconcilable notions. Inspired? The Bible is not
even intelligent. It is not even good craftsmanship, and is full of
absurdities and contradictions.
Man has existed on earth for 150,000 years. Why did the Christian and Jewish
Gods wait about 147,000 years to bring the word of their God to mankind?
Why haven't these Gods communicated with us again in the last 20 centuries?
Ancient documents claiming knowledge of the existence of Gods or the word of
God is not proof of anything. It is merely man's mythical beliefs and
opinions at that time.
More recent beliefs and religions have evolved such as Mormonism. Joseph
Smith created this religion in 1830 based on his Book of Mormon. He believed
in polygamy and that God has evolved from man and men could evolve into
Gods.
Why do people believe in hundreds of different Gods and religious systems?
How do we know which, if any, is the right one?
Why doesn't the supposed "real God" communicate directly with all of mankind
in a clear and easily understood manner and tell us which religion and
religious beliefs are true and which are fakes and false?
If man, who was supposedly created by god, can efficiently and clearly
communicate with almost the whole world via phone, radio and satellite TV;
why can't the real God communicate in at least as effective a manner? He
could even command free time on International radio and TV! Why doesn't he
tell us clearly, directly and effectively, that he is the real God and what
he expects of us and what rewards we will receive if we obey his demands?
Does God not want to talk to us and assure us he is the real God?
Could it be that these crude, fake and indirect God communications occurred
because it was before the invention of TV and radio and these communications
were not from any real God at all?
Why does God not let those that have died, and gone to a so-called heaven,
communicate with the living and authenticate this eternal life in a castle
in the sky?
Why does he use thousands of errant humans to pass on his word in vague,
abstruse and contradictory manor? Why does he not at least tell us clearly
and
directly which, of all the thousands of preachers, are the ones that truly
represent him?
Why does God not permit the dead parents, relatives and friends to
accurately
communicate his word to the living? What is the purpose of preventing
communication between the living and those in this claimed Heaven and Hell?
Why does much of mankind feel it is so compelling to create imaginary Gods
and an here after instead of accepting the reality that we just do no know
the facts of the Universe, it's boundaries, it's origin or it's destination?
Creating imaginary origins and destinations does no solve the quandary. It
is merely substituting one set of fears for another.
Why live our lives fighting false fears? The finality of death should be no
more frightening than the finality at the end of the day when we go to
sleep. If we fail to wake up we cannot have any regrets or suffering because
our senses no longer exist. There can be no pain, suffering or regrets after
this finality. The real fear should be in being trapped in the painful and
oppressive shear boredom of existing for an eternity.
The evidence is rather strong that no Gods created man, but that man created
Gods. It appears that religious believers are wasting their time and money
on a fools paradise!
From "The Rubaiyat" - by Omar Khayyam
"Yesterday this days madness did prepare:
Tomorrow's silence, triumph, or despair:
Drink! For you know not whence you came, nor why;
Drink! For you know not why you go nor where.
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 03:52:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
If there are then they're advanced multi-stellar races. It was only the
ancient primitive humans who thought they were gods because of their
advanced technology.
Today it's the christians etc. who are the primitive humans who insist on
worshipping the ET's as gods.
If so, are they all good, all powerful, benevolent
and caring?
There are both benevolent and malevolent ones, just like there are both good
and bad humans.
It's the malevolent ones who get us to worship them. The good ones do not
want worship and they don't interfere with us except to help us when we ask
them in our thoughts.
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has
been for us." ~ Pope Leo X (1513-1521)
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 03:11:15 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Do any real Gods exist?
There is no very persuasive evidence that any do.
If so, are they all good, all powerful, benevolent and caring?
(snip)
In a complete evidence vacuum, there seems no reason except wishful
thinking to suspect that any unknown gods would have these wonderful
properties.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 03:58:15 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Do any real Gods exist?
No.
If so, are they all good, all powerful, benevolent
and caring?
As recent events in Asia have shown, if they do exist, they're a bunch
of sadistic bastards.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
yahoo ID: hellward2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 06:20:19 PM |
|
|
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
Per believers ...
Disparate versions have existed, at times, and
continue to exist, to many, at times. Believe or
the alternative is either unpleasant in this life,
or may end up being unpleasant in a life that's
supposed to occur after death. Belief also may
not spare you from unpleasantness in this life.
However, believe in the 'right' God or Gods in
the 'right' way, and chances are good that a
pleasant afterlife awaits, some think.
If so, are they all good, all powerful, benevolent
and caring?
See above.
Why do people not insist on at least some
modicum of objective evidence that 'their'
God is the true and real God instead of just
taking the word of other errant men?
Some do. Many choose a version of God that
mates to whatever they were taught as children,
or whatever is the predominant God belief of
their society or culture. For many, God is a
chameleon that can change its color base on
the circumstances of the moment.
For example, an all-powerful benevolent God
would not allow over 50,000 children to die, or
over 2.3 million birthed babies to die from peri-
natal conditions, in 2002. Therefore, when con-
fronted with the fact that those events transpired,
God either transitions to becoming non-benevol-
ent for reason, not benevolent mysteriously, non-
all-powerful, or (for some) non-existent.
Nothing in life is more important, other than food,
water and shelter.
Oxygen also comes in handy for those of us who
depend on it for life.
A full life on earth and in eternity is dependent
on being correct!
A full life on earth is dependent on many things, in-
cluding life sustaining conditions, finding a place
within the social-cultural construct most exist within,
and having the opportunity to experience life with
physical attributes and life circumstances mating to
good luck.
The eternity thing is dependent on either 1) contin-
uing after death, or 2) reappearing at some point in
a manner that would somehow represent some kind
of connection with a past life, or not. After all, if "you"
appear on planet Xenox 2 trillion 124 billion 393 mil-
lion 322 thousand 651 earth years from now, and
have no memory of ever having existed, would "you"
be "you"?
The 8 arms and 33 legs and 15 sex organs and 5
heads you might have at that point would make it
highly unlikely that "you" would be "you", but hey,
it's worth pondering, philosophically.
After all, infinity is a long time, so who can say what
might happen in an infinite future, in a likely infinite
cosmos?
Most importantly, if there is a real God, why does
the real God permit the confusion and dedication
of people following fake or false Gods to exist?
See the 'free will' thing that christians attribute to God
and Adam/Eve, supposedly giving God the ultimate
excuse for all that's confusing or wrong with this par-
ticular life what with Adam/Eve screwing up. Why
Adam/Eve are blamed for all that goes wrong, in
this life? They're the original guilt-tripped by which
religionists attempt to relieve God of guilt/blame.
Each religion believes that only their God is the
real God. If any of these Gods were a real God
and creator of the Universe and everything in it;
why doesn't he inform us clearly and directly that
he or it is the "real" God and that all the others are
fakes and imposters?
Believers oft-times blame that on 'free will' or blame
that on God loving the belief-without-proof test. Per
that perspective, believers see this life as just a test,
and that places them in the following strange conflict.
The test -- many often provide claims that clearly, be-
lief is valid via a wide array of events and attributions
to a naturalistic world. Within those events, many say,
God belief is justified. When pressed on the fallacies
of their claims, they fall back on the standard standby,
faith is good. In other words, they push the logic of
the notion, but when facing the illogic of their claims,
they say 'just believe'. Pascal's Wager is sometimes
used, but usually, they are able to understand the fal-
lacies of that.
Why does he not expose and smite the promoters
of false Gods?
The smiting thing, sometimes believers are into that,
and in past times many of them participated in the
smiting. Some of them still do. Usually, though, most
view the smiting as either mythical, untrue, or some-
thing God isn't into anymore, for reasons unknown.
Why would he use errant men to deliver this most
important information?
If God doesn't exist, men just made up the concept,
and continue to make up concepts regarding what
God does and doesn't do.
If God existed, in any form close to that portrayed
in ancient religions, it could do a lot of things that it
doesn't do. A baby swept out of a Swiss mother's
arms, in the tsunami, for example. An existent God
could life the baby up, and declare the glory of God.
Actually, it could have done that with any or all of the
over 150,000 tsunami victims.
A God who doesn't exist, makes it difficult for it to
do anything. A God who people pretend exists, they
can believe it can do anything, and no proof is re-
quired, they believe.
It is now known that the Universe is in excess
of 20 BILLION LIGHT YEARS in diameter.
Light travels at 186,000 MILES PER SECOND.
We do not have the instrumentation to determine
how much greater it is. It could be infinity. This
means the Earth is but a speck of dust in size
compared to the Universe. And people are in
size but specks of dust on the Earth.
Generally speaking, that has the appearance of
being accurate, though humans are, of course,
quite larger than specks of dust on earth. How-
ever, in events of earth-wide devastation, the
unimportance of humans relative to naturalistic
events such as the asteroid which destroyed
most life 65 million years ago, or the super-
volcano eruption that destroyed most humans
over 70,000 years ago, does make it appear
that the ancient myths (about Gods) are lacking
in merit.
Evidence indicates the age of the Universe to
be at least 14 BILLION YEARS.
The exact age estimate varies, but that's close.
The scientific evidence is that the world is over
4 BILLION YEARS old.
True.
Archaeological evidence is that man has existed
on the earth for approximately 150,000 years.
That's very close to the latest available information.
When the various books of the Bible were written,
mankind believed the earth was flat and that the
Sun, Stars and Planets revolved around the Earth.
Appear to be human constructs, don't they?
We now know that the Earth, Stars and Planets
revolve around the Sun and the Earth is but a
speck of dust in the unimaginably vast Universe.
Are you me? (-:
This knowledge is based on a wealth of objective
scientific evidence whose accuracy is supported
by factual data; not parables, folklore or mythology.
Correct.
In the overall scheme of the Universe, man ap-
pears to be totally inconsequential. This certainly
does not support the existence of current God
claims.
Well, that's one way of looking at it. On the other hand,
based on our genetic and social-cultural life experi-
ence, we tend to place value on our existence, far
beyond that which may be justified relative to the
enormous realm in which we exist, perhaps.
Why do God's worshippers and followers
suffer with and die of the same diseases,
afflictions and accidents as the non-believers?
Naturalism has no mercy on those faithful in reli-
gions.
Millions of men, women and totally innocent
children have been indiscriminately killed and
maimed by Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tsunamis,
Tidal Waves, Cyclones, Earthquakes, Volcanic
eruptions, Airplane crashes, Train wrecks and
other disasters.
True.
Why did God permit people ( and innocent chil-
dren ) of all, and no, religious beliefs, and of all
degrees of goodness and wickedness, to be
indiscriminately killed and injured? Why are not
just the wicked punished?
The phrase "the wicked" is rather anachronistic, and
in naturalistic terms, all activity of humans might be
better characterized as naturalistic results of genes,
stimuli inclusive of life experience, and random brain
activity.
If God is all-merciful why do perfectly innocent
children die in the womb or be born with serious
handicaps like blindness, deafness, paralysis,
imbeciles, joined at the head or body with their
twin, be ugly, pretty etc??
God doesn't exist is the most self-evident stance,
but God exists and doesn't care or God exists and
can't lift the rock he created or God exists and
for mysterious reasons chooses not to lift the
rock he created, those are alternate explanations.
God apologetics is quite extensive, probably as
much pontifications by the religious in that area
as in the documents written to espouse the God
notions.
Why has God created hundreds of diseases
and handicaps that afflict the good, and the
innocent along with the evil?
Believers blame that on anyone but God -or- on
the mystery of God -and/or- on humans.
Why does God put humans on earth with many
afflictions, diseases, handicaps, suffering etc.,
for a limited period of time, and then let them go
to a joyous eternal life in heaven? Is God sadistic
and enjoys suffering? Why not skip the brutal part?
All go to heaven from the get go? Sounds like fun,
especially if no church-attendance was required,
and anything was allowed so long as no real harm
could transpire. Easy to do, with a really smart God,
but apparently, the God of the ancient myths wasn't
all that sharp.
There is no objective evidence that people of
any particular religious belief, or no religious
belief, live any healthier, happier or longer lives.
Lots of claims, though.
There is no objective evidence that people of
any particular religious belief, or no religious
belief, are wealthier or poorer.
Hmmm, belief is such a difficult thing to pin down,
as many wear the clothing of belief, while having
serious doubts about most religious claims.
There is no objective proven evidence of any
'dead person' communicating with conscious
friends, relatives or anyone else - only unsub-
stantiated claims and opinions. Have your dead
friends or relatives communicated with you?
My mother and sister have not communicated with
me. They both died in the past 10 years.
Dreams, illusions and fantasies are not objective
evidence.
Indeed.
There is no objective proven evidence of God
communicating directly with any person - only
unsubstantiated and unproven claims and opinions.
True.
The Bible (old and new testaments), the Koran,
Bhagavad-Gita, Zend-Avesta and other man cre-
ated documents are not OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.
They are merely, old unproven and frequently
contradictory opinions created and expressed by
errant men.
Errant and quite superstitious men.
There are too many religious belief systems to
list. Here are just the major current belief systems:
Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism,
Sikhism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism. Within each of
these are schisms with hundreds of variations of the
beliefs in all these religions.
Not sure about hundreds, but there are multiple
variations within each of those. Probably, the most
variations among those exist within Christianity.
Over the centuries people have believed in and
adored hundreds of different Gods. Were any
of them really God? If so, which one?
The ecumenical stance is God exists, different inter-
pretations are manifestations of the one true God,
or God as revealed to individuals in many different
ways. Ecumenism tries to accept all/most any faith,
It's somewhat less receptive to disbelief and faiths
which are counter to the predominate ones that
are still around. Faiths no longer practiced? Ecu-
menism probably spins those as manifestations of
the one true God, though since those faiths are no
longer around, many ecumenists are willing to call
them myths.
The Bible was not dictated by god to mortal
scribes; it was written and embellished by some
40 authors - claimed prophets, kings, politicians
and clergymen in a variety of styles over a period
of three thousand years.
None of the present books of the Bible are the
original documents which no longer exist. The
printing press was not invented till 600 years
ago. Prior to that time all copies of the bible were
hand copied by scribes; copied, interpreted, mis-
interpreted and distorted as they wished.
True.
They were written in Hebrew, Greek (vernacular),
Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic and Latin. On stone, wood,
clay, goatskin and papyrus.
It is an amalgam of history, folklore, mythology and
fiction. They are so abstruse that almost any inter-
pretation that one likes can be claimed.
Thanks for that word, abstruse. I was unfamiliar
with that word 'til now. You are correct regarding
the multiple interpretations.
It is a strange mixture of diverse human documents,
metaphors, allegories, history and fables and irrecon-
cilable notions. Inspired? The Bible is not even intel-
ligent. It is not even good craftsmanship, and is full of
absurdities and contradictions.
A realistic version of the acts of the 'believers' and
God, from Genesis to Revelations, would be one
of the most violent and sexually-XXX-rated movies
ever made. It would make the "Passion of Christ"
movie look like a walk in the park.
I wonder if Mel Gibson has thought about doing
"The Bible, God and his Believers, Genesis to
Revelations"? Rapes would be big in that, and
mountains of foreskins, and killing of women
and children, all that by believers. Oh, and the
drowning of almost every living creature, heck,
Mel could just use the footage from the recent
tsunami for that.
Man has existed on earth for 150,000 years.
Why did the Christian and Jewish Gods wait
about 147,000 years to bring the word of their
God to mankind?
The explanation that it's mythical handles that, most
convincingly.
Why haven't these Gods communicated with us
again in the last 20 centuries?
Asserting a particular group of documents as the
"final word of God" was really big back in olden
days, for some reason. The Jews did it, the Chris-
tians (actually, more to the point, Romans) did it,
and the Muslims did it. Many believers have offered
up their own views on the matter, since then.
As for why no human has become inspired enough
to try to give a modern interpretation, with a lot less
anti-humanism? Probably it has something to do
with the fact that religious folks, by and large, like
the anti-humanism, for it resides as the stick they
can use to manipulate children into believing, or
else.
Pinning all the anti-humanism on ancients relieves
modern-day religious types of the burden of having
to be responsible regarding such matters, for the
anti-humanism is always blamed on someone not
around, now, or on God itself, on his less than up-
beat days, due to something humans did or did
not do.
Ancient documents claiming knowledge of
the existence of Gods or the word of God is
not proof of anything. It is merely man's myth-
ical beliefs and opinions at that time.
I agree.
More recent beliefs and religions have evolved
such as Mormonism. Joseph Smith created this
religion in 1830 based on his Book of Mormon.
He believed in polygamy and that God has evolved
from man and men could evolve into Gods.
Muslims tend to believe in polygamy, too, for those
rich enough to afford multiple wives.
Why do people believe in hundreds of different
Gods and religious systems?
Childhood brainwashing, for the most part.
How do we know which, if any, is the right one?
The explanation that they're all myths is the
most logical and reasonable explanation, in
my view.
Why doesn't the supposed "real God" com-
municate directly with all of mankind in a clear
and easily understood manner and tell us which
religion and religious beliefs are true and which
are fakes and false?
See above.
If man, who was supposedly created by god,
can efficiently and clearly communicate with
almost the whole world via phone, radio and
satellite TV; why can't the real God communi-
cate in at least as effective a manner?
Logically and reasonably speaking, it's because
he/it/she/they doesn't exist.
He could even command free time on Interna-
tional radio and TV! Why doesn't he tell us
clearly, directly and effectively, that he is the
real God and what he expects of us and what
rewards we will receive if we obey his demands?
If he/it/she/they existed, that's true.
Does God not want to talk to us and assure us
he is the real God?
See above.
Could it be that these crude, fake and indirect
God communications occurred because it was
before the invention of TV and radio and these
communications were not from any real God at
all?
See above.
Why does God not let those that have died, and
gone to a so-called heaven, communicate with
the living and authenticate this eternal life in a
castle in the sky?
Authentication is impossible unless heaven
actually exists. No communication yields the
near-certainty that heaven, like all the other
myths, is a reflection of human desire.
Why does he use thousands of errant humans
to pass on his word in vague, abstruse and
contradictory manor?
See above.
Why does he not at least tell us clearly and
directly which, of all the thousands of preachers,
are the ones that truly represent him?
See above.
Why does God not permit the dead parents,
relatives and friends to accurately communicate
his word to the living?
See above.
What is the purpose of preventing communica-
tion between the living and those in this claimed
Heaven and Hell?
Non-existence is an insurmountable problem
for religious folks, so as with God and the devil,
all they have are claims to offer for 'the dead'
communicating with the living.
Why does much of mankind feel it is so com-
pelling to create imaginary Gods and an here
after instead of accepting the reality that we
just do no know the facts of the Universe, it's
boundaries, it's origin or it's destination?
Childhood indoctrination, and the social-cultural
temptation for many parents to act like they know
a lot more than they really do.
Creating imaginary origins and destinations
does no solve the quandary. It is merely sub-
stituting one set of fears for another.
The fear thing is something religions can't let go
of, for the most part, because without the fear,
religions fear that many of the followers would
stop attending, stop tithing, and stop believing.
Usually, these days, the fear thing is just some-
thing residing in the ancient documents, and no
longer promoted as strongly as it used to be.
Why live our lives fighting false fears? The
finality of death should be no more frightening
than the finality at the end of the day when we
go to sleep. If we fail to wake up we cannot
have any regrets or suffering because our
senses no longer exist. There can be no pain,
suffering or regrets after this finality. The real
fear should be in being trapped in the painful
and oppressive shear boredom of existing for
an eternity.
24-hours in church, now that's scary. An
eternity in church? Yikes, sounds like hell. (-:
The evidence is rather strong that no Gods
created man, but that man created Gods.
I agree.
It appears that religious believers are wasting
their time and money on a fools paradise!
Well, the disappointing aspect of the perpetua-
tion of the myths is that the institutions and peo-
ple responsible for their continuation have done
so little in opening up their churches to discus-
sions of this type. For most believers, churches
are locales where doubt and disbelief are both
religiously scorned and socially discouraged.
Same goes in mosques, temples, and syna-
gogues, with few exceptions.
From "The Rubaiyat" - by Omar Khayyam
"Yesterday this days madness did prepare:
Tomorrow's silence, triumph, or despair:
Drink! For you know not whence you came, nor why;
Drink! For you know not why you go nor where.
Knowledge on those matters is quite extensive
insofar as naturalistic explanations go, but truly,
the knowing of the ultimate is best understood
to be short of human experience, to date. The
quest is ongoing, the suspicions of a totally
naturalistic infinite realm are theoretically quite
likely, and the possibility exists that at some
point human knowledge will so far outweigh
the remnants of human myth, that belief as now
bragged about by the likes of GW Bush will no
longer be in play.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 07:02:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 12:09:33 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4l01u0hv06cg6osp1ncqdfrp83a684uqk0@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
About the same way you determine there is no Sant Clause, Easter Bunny or
Gremlins.
If you can find no objective evidence for something's existence it is
logical and reasonable to assume it does not exist.
Certainly you don't make life time commitments to something when there is no
evidence for it's existence.
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 07:58:54 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
Garbage in, garbage out.
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Nice use of text for a graphic display
of a sword, I think, though some might
consider that to be a bit emblematic of
some of the less-than-pro-human as-
pects of religious faith.
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Helmets and swords? No wonder such
documents spawned the likes of so-
called holy crusades -and- holy wars,
-and- 9-11 ... )-:
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 09:35:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:58:54 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 12:18:32 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5j91u0hamnnblhn0vpqcb5lq64cssk1iik@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:58:54 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
When there is no objective evidence for something's existence it makes no
sense
what so ever to devote a portion of ones limited life to honoring or obeying
it.
Adults do not waste time praying and paying tithes to Santa Clause, the
Easter Bunny or Gremlins.
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 10:43:25 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" wrote...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
[...]
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. [...]
You asked the question "How do you verify that
there is no God", and the reply was based on the
question.
Put another way, if you had asked "How do you
verify there is no tooth fairy, and the reply had
been 'You inquire regarding the claims for a tooth
fairy', you'd have the same status.
The claimant would be in the position of proving
the tooth fairy, just as the claimant is in the posi-
tion of proving there is a God.
It's your claim, so my inquiry is ... God, what evi-
dence do you have that God exists, and what,
exactly, is it that you're claiming exists?
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 10:11:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:43:25 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
[...]
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. [...]
You asked the question "How do you verify that
there is no God", and the reply was based on the
question.
You didn't give me any way to verify that there is no
God. Claiming that others can't prove there is, does
not mean that you have proved that there isn't. I'm
not going to go in circles on this. I have stated a
simple logical fact.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 10:59:03 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:crl2u0dg9fu9cvmtjdroqfb2arar2250kt@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:43:25 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
[...]
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. [...]
You asked the question "How do you verify that
there is no God", and the reply was based on the
question.
You didn't give me any way to verify that there is no
God. Claiming that others can't prove there is, does
not mean that you have proved that there isn't. I'm
not going to go in circles on this. I have stated a
simple logical fact.
This is not a logical fact but total illogic.
This is equivalent to saying because I didn't prove there is no Santa,
Easter Bunny
and Gremlins they must exist. In logic you can't prove a negative.
What is your objective proof that God exists??
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 06:44:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:35:40 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:58:54 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the religious story is thus:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely. If you cannot demonstrate in any
way shape of form that there is a god then surely you must
have invented that god if you claim one exists? If you cannot
make such a claim and fall back to believing there is one then
fine, that's your belief but you must then accept that others might
find such beliefs to be irrational as believing something does
not make it so no matter how desirable such belief is or how
hard you try to believe.
ps I do not normally cross post but as your post has been
incorrectly posted to a newsgroup for atheists I have replied.
I am not interested in posting to a Christian newsgroup where
views of atheists do not belong. Further replies will only
be to the appropriate newsgroup.
I do not wish to offend Christians and I am sure that you have
no desire to offend us so It would be much appreciated if you
would cease posting your Christian views here where they do not
belong.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 10:14:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
3) If God is all powerful, why would He bow to your
demands for proof? That would put you in control of
Him, which would make you God. You don't seem to get
that.
As for the cross posting, I responded to a post that
already included alt.atheism.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 11:04:10 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:otl2u0tc5j9314ipk5vh4bm0pmsmja3juf@4ax.com...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
3) If God is all powerful, why would He bow to your
demands for proof? That would put you in control of
Him, which would make you God. You don't seem to get
that.
You are engaging in total illogic because you can't prove the existence of
your imaginary God.
If God wants use to comply with his laws, wishes and demands why does he
communicate
this to us directly? Is the all powerful unable to communicate with man?
As for the cross posting, I responded to a post that
already included alt.atheism.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 01:58:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:14:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
If evidence was forthcoming then of course I would give it
due consideration. People have been asking for a long time
but none has been provided so I am not holding my breath.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
Clearly this notion you have of a god must have come
from somewhere.
3) If God is all powerful, why would He bow to your
demands for proof? That would put you in control of
Him, which would make you God. You don't seem to get
that.
That is not the point. I am not asking a god to provide evidence
as I do not believe such a god exists. You are the one who seems
to be claiming a god exists (unless of course you merely believe
a god exists which I don't) . If you can offer no evidence whatsover
to substantiate your claim then you must have invented this god,
(Leastways somebody else invented this god and you were
naive to accept it unchallenged)
As for the cross posting, I responded to a post that
already included alt.atheism.
ok, where are you posting from? I will remove all but your
newsgroup and mine so I am not crossposting all over the place
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 02:06:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:58:58 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:14:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
3) If God is all powerful, why would He bow to your
demands for proof? That would put you in control of
Him, which would make you God. You don't seem to get
that.
That is not the point.
It is the point, since you are the one requiring the
evidence and we both know, that you would demand God in
a test tube.
As for the cross posting, I responded to a post that
already included alt.atheism.
ok, where are you posting from? I will remove all but your
newsgroup and mine so I am not crossposting all over the place
No need to. This is as far as I go with it.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
09 Jan 2005 02:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:06:55 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:58:58 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:14:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
Then you are pre judging me without evidence.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim
that a god exists? If you don't it has to be invention.
3) If God is all powerful, why would He bow to your
demands for proof? That would put you in control of
Him, which would make you God. You don't seem to get
that.
That is not the point. I am not asking a god to provide evidence
as I do not believe such a god exists. You are the one who seems
to be claiming a god exists (unless of course you merely believe
a god exists which I don't) . If you can offer no evidence whatsover
to substantiate your claim then you must have invented this god,
(Leastways somebody else invented this god and you were
naive to accept it unchallenged)
[snipped quote restored]
It is the point, since you are the one requiring the
evidence and we both know, that you would demand God in
a test tube.
Evidence of YOUR CLAIM that a god exists. I am making no demands
whatsoever of a god I do not believe exists and you have attempted
to dodge the question by selective snipping changing the meaning
of me saying 'it is not the point'. At no point have I said I am
making demands of you supposed god. That would be illogical
As long as people like you CLAIM there is a god I will require
evidence to substantiate that claim otherwise your claim is
fiction and I have no reason to accept this fictional god that
clearly only exists in the mind of its inventor.
As for the cross posting, I responded to a post that
already included alt.atheism.
ok, where are you posting from? I will remove all but your
newsgroup and mine so I am not crossposting all over the place
No need to. This is as far as I go with it.
You cannot go further. You are claiming the existence of a god
and cannot substantiate that claim.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
10 Jan 2005 09:38:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:45:33 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:06:55 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:58:58 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:14:26 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:44:07 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
How do you verify that there is no God?
You inquire regarding the claims for God.
That was weak. If you claim there is no God, then you
must prove it. If I am unable to prove there is, that
does not by default mean there isn't.
Just that it is extremely unlikely.
That's not correct either.
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
Then you are pre judging me without evidence.
No I am not. See below.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim
that a god exists? If you don't it has to be invention.
Thank you for proving my point. Whether I provide
evidence or not, is irrelevant. Either He exists, or
He doesn't.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
10 Jan 2005 10:50:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:38:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:45:33 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
Then you are pre judging me without evidence.
No I am not. See below.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim
that a god exists? If you don't it has to be invention.
Thank you for proving my point. Whether I provide
evidence or not, is irrelevant. Either He exists, or
He doesn't.
I do not see how a request for evidence proves your
assumption that I would reject it. I would not even bother
asking if you were right.
Who is he? I don't recall this conversation mentioning
any individuals. I was discussing your notion of a 'god'
and was wondering where you got this notion from and
whether you invented it or not. As you seem not interested
in answering I will let it drop.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
10 Jan 2005 10:53:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:50:30 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:38:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:45:33 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
Then you are pre judging me without evidence.
No I am not. See below.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim
that a god exists? If you don't it has to be invention.
Thank you for proving my point. Whether I provide
evidence or not, is irrelevant. Either He exists, or
He doesn't.
I do not see how a request for evidence proves your
assumption that I would reject it. I would not even bother
asking if you were right.
Who is he? I don't recall this conversation mentioning
any individuals. I was discussing your notion of a 'god'
and was wondering where you got this notion from and
whether you invented it or not. As you seem not interested
in answering I will let it drop.
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
10 Jan 2005 11:46:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:53:22 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:50:30 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:38:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:45:33 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
1) You would not accept what a believer offers as
evidence anyway.
How do you know what I would or would not accept.
That is an unwarranted assumption.
No it isn't.
Then you are pre judging me without evidence.
No I am not. See below.
2) I could offer no evidence and that doesn't say one
way or the other.
If you have no evidence to offer where does you notion
there is a god come from? Intuition, a dream, your imagination
you were brainwashed as a child when too young to understand?
I didn't say I had no evidence. I said that if I
didn't, that does not disprove the existence of God and
it doesn't.
So do you have any evidence to support your claim
that a god exists? If you don't it has to be invention.
Thank you for proving my point. Whether I provide
evidence or not, is irrelevant. Either He exists, or
He doesn't.
I do not see how a request for evidence proves your
assumption that I would reject it. I would not even bother
asking if you were right.
Who is he? I don't recall this conversation mentioning
any individuals. I was discussing your notion of a 'god'
and was wondering where you got this notion from and
whether you invented it or not. As you seem not interested
in answering I will let it drop.
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
I said no such thing. I asked you where you got YOUR
notion from of a god. I postulated that if you don't have
such evidence to support this notion then clearly you must
have invented it otherwise where did you get the notion
from? Without any evidence or knowledge you can only have
plucked the idea from thin air. Whether you have such evidence
or not I don't know but you seem not interested in presenting it.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
10 Jan 2005 04:37:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:52 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
I said no such thing. I asked you where you got YOUR
notion from of a god. I postulated that if you don't have
such evidence to support this notion then clearly you must
have invented it otherwise where did you get the notion
from?
Let's cut the bull. What you are talking about is
evidence that you would accept. To deny that is
foolish, since you wouldn't label anything unacceptable
to you, as evidence. You then claim that if I possess
none of this evidence, then I must have invented God.
That isn't logical. But you believe it if you wish. I
am done arguing over words with you.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
11 Jan 2005 04:47:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:37:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:52 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
I said no such thing. I asked you where you got YOUR
notion from of a god. I postulated that if you don't have
such evidence to support this notion then clearly you must
have invented it otherwise where did you get the notion
from?
Let's cut the bull. What you are talking about is
evidence that you would accept. To deny that is
foolish, since you wouldn't label anything unacceptable
to you, as evidence. You then claim that if I possess
none of this evidence, then I must have invented God.
That isn't logical. But you believe it if you wish. I
am done arguing over words with you.
What would you call something that was created out
of pure thinking? I call it invention (or fantasy) but I
suppose I could be wrong and just believe it so.
You know it was a very simple question. I presume you have
some notion that there is something that you call god. All
I am asking is where did you get this notion from. Did you
invent the notion or do you have some evidence
to support it? It surely has to be one or the other.
Perhaps you only pretend (believe) this notion is true which
is fine. I don't know, that is why I was asking.
Clearly you seem unable to answer. Perhaps it troubles you?
If so I am sorry to question your beliefs and will be happy to let the
matter drop, I know how sensitive it can be for believers who
don't like their 'faith' questioned.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
12 Jan 2005 07:17:14 PM |
|
|
You have this guy in a corner and he is desperately trying to get out of it.
He probably will pass up replying to avoid stating more nonsense.
--
Bill
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:g4a7u0tm4a8jsuvkms4ohid0gtu6b4n3id@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:37:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:52 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
I said no such thing. I asked you where you got YOUR
notion from of a god. I postulated that if you don't have
such evidence to support this notion then clearly you must
have invented it otherwise where did you get the notion
from?
Let's cut the bull. What you are talking about is
evidence that you would accept. To deny that is
foolish, since you wouldn't label anything unacceptable
to you, as evidence. You then claim that if I possess
none of this evidence, then I must have invented God.
That isn't logical. But you believe it if you wish. I
am done arguing over words with you.
What would you call something that was created out
of pure thinking? I call it invention (or fantasy) but I
suppose I could be wrong and just believe it so.
You know it was a very simple question. I presume you have
some notion that there is something that you call god. All
I am asking is where did you get this notion from. Did you
invent the notion or do you have some evidence
to support it? It surely has to be one or the other.
Perhaps you only pretend (believe) this notion is true which
is fine. I don't know, that is why I was asking.
Clearly you seem unable to answer. Perhaps it troubles you?
If so I am sorry to question your beliefs and will be happy to let the
matter drop, I know how sensitive it can be for believers who
don't like their 'faith' questioned.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
12 Jan 2005 07:13:45 PM |
|
|
The burden of proof rests with the claimant that there is a god.
I claim there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods. Do you
have objective evidence that there are gods that will prove my claim false?
--
Bill
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4q06u0hdgr6ni7jbkcvfrcomheh7auadri@4ax.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:52 +0000, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> pontificated:
Fact: You claimed that if I could not provide evidence,
that it means that God does not exist. That is a false
claim.
I said no such thing. I asked you where you got YOUR
notion from of a god. I postulated that if you don't have
such evidence to support this notion then clearly you must
have invented it otherwise where did you get the notion
from?
Let's cut the bull. What you are talking about is
evidence that you would accept. To deny that is
foolish, since you wouldn't label anything unacceptable
to you, as evidence. You then claim that if I possess
none of this evidence, then I must have invented God.
That isn't logical. But you believe it if you wish. I
am done arguing over words with you.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we believe in Gods? |
08 Jan 2005 10:45:48 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:58:54 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
"Pastor Dave" wrote ...
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:20:19 -0600, while scaling the
Mt. Everest, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<prohumanist@gr8mail.com> pontificated:
Bill, thanks for the post. Your views are very
close to my own on most of these matters:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CoXDd.84302$uM5.25378@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Do any real Gods exist?
In the human imagination there exists whatever
one wishes to believe is real, but as for some-
thing apart from human imagination, existing
independently in a manner that can be tested,
doubted, verified, the r | | | | | |
