| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Broderick Neilsen" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2005 06:12:52 PM |
| Object: |
Someday... |
Someday you will stand before GOD. How will He judge you?
Life is short
Death is certain
Sin the cause
Christ the solution
- Baptist Saviours of Tennesse
.
|
|
| User: "Alex W." |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
07 Sep 2005 12:42:53 PM |
|
|
"Charles R. Kaiser" <ckaiser@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3o6vm2F4h8jgU1@individual.net...
Alex W. wrote:
Does it also require the arrogance to believe that you picked the
one
right deity out of all the thousands of candidates? Christianity
is
no more and no less believable or ridiculous than any other
religion.
Well, you have to pick one or none. Or I suppose that you could be
an
Omnitheist, but that seems like such a cop-out to me. I'm not
telling
anyone what they have to be, I'm just telling people what I am and
why.
If you are comfortable being what you are, then live your life.
Comfortable? No.
But then, I believe that if you are comfortable with your
God/religion, you are doing it wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 08:48:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:43:50 -0400, "Charles R. Kaiser"
<ckaiser@aci.on.ca> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
Why not simply *forgive* mankind outright? An all-powerful, all merciful
God ought to be able to handle something so simple. I teach eighth grade
and have two daughters. I manage it a couple of dozen times a day.
Why not simply pass all of your students without any of them doing any
of their required work? What have they learned?
So, if a student falls short of expectations, do you advocate
torturing them without mercy for the next year? Perhaps "D" students
could merely lose an eye or something.
When I failed in school, my teachers worked with me to help me learn
the material.
To what end? If forgiveness is so important, if mercy is God's nature,
why not just forgive mankind outright?
To the end of understanding that sin is wrong and that one should try to
live a life as free of sin as possible. I'm not perfect by any means.
I sin every day, but I do try.
OK, he's omnipotent. Just hardwire us so we can't sin.
I'm a truck driver by trade. Our trucks have a speed governor. I
cannot, for love or money, push that truck past 65mph. It's
engineered that way for safety and legal reasons.
If we can come up with a way to stop drivers from speeding, why
couldn't your deity simply engineer us in such a way that we couldn't
break his rules?
Only because you don't think, you just believe. That's part of the
sickness that is Christianity.
That's a very unfair statement to make when you don't even know me.
Being a Christian requires quite a bit of thought an study. Science
more and more doesn't seem to disprove a creator, it *begs* for one.
Only if you read science looking for excuses.
That's not forgiveness or mercy, it's payment for service rendered.
All you have to do is accept that Christ died for your sins. How is
that a payment?
What about Osiris dying and returning to life? Dionysus did the same
trick, as did Mithra. All of them did it so humans could have a
better afterlife.
Why is your story the right one? What proof do you have that a moment
after death I won't find myself in a reed boat on the River of Night
floating towards Anubis' palace to be judged?
Your family cries in airports? Why?
Because people are going away for a journey and they will be missed
while they are gone. Sorry that you seemed to miss the point of that one.
My wife is getting back today from two weeks at Burning Man. I missed
her, but understood she'd be back.
I stopped crying for people who went away when I was four.
True, if God exists. But why pray? To ask God to change His Devine
plan, a plan laid out before the creation of the universe, just for you?
To ask God for the strength to change the change the things that I can,
the strength the accept the things that I can't, and the wisdom to know
the difference. Cliché, I know, but that's what prayer should boil down
to. I pray for the wisdom to make good choices, and the strength to
accept the trails that I face in life. Some people pray for their lotto
numbers to come up. That would be a poor thing to pray for.
Except that the Bible *explicitly* states that God will grant whatever
you pray for. According to the Bible, faith can literally move
mountains. (But not stop hurricanes, evidently.)
[snip Bible crap]
Just a note that you snipped would have been fine. I would have
inferred that you think the Bible is crap by your posting handle.
You have lost your life to a lie, working toward that which is not, and
missed every opportunity to understand that which is real, to base your
efforts on achieving real progress, real goals. And, given free reign,
you'll have burned a lot of heretics at the stake.
I have lost nothing because I have worked toward a goal of living a life
of being happy, having a comfortable home, a loving wife and a caring
family. Your live the life and values that you want to live, and leave
me to mine. My overall goals are the betterment of my neighbourhood,
town, province, country, and world. As I stated, I strive toward those
goals by charitable giving, good works (I will be going down to do work
in the hurricane zone in a few weeks time), and by mentoring), and in
other ways as they are presented. I am totally confused by your last
comment. I don't feel the need to burn anyone at the stake. Granted
that has been a horrible feature of so-called "Christian" movements in
the past, but we can find negative things to say about any group if we
are looking to insult.
Funny, I do the same things. Except I don;t need a 2,000 year old
book to tell me that bettering the world is a good thing.
Then your God is worthy of the contempt we hold Him in, and we will tell
Him that. We are not groveling cowards.
Then I'm sure that you will get your chance to do so.
Unless of course we end up in the Norse afterlife. I'll be brawling
and drinking mead in Valhalla, while you build a boat for Hel out of
bits of bone.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
09 Sep 2005 04:09:41 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Only because you don't think, you just believe. That's part of the
sickness that is Christianity.
That's a very unfair statement to make when you don't even know me.
Being a Christian requires quite a bit of thought an study. Science
more and more doesn't seem to disprove a creator, it *begs* for one.
Only if you read science looking for excuses.
I have never noticed atheists to be particularly well-educated. As a
rule they will believe whatever is convenient. That's why they all
parrot the same old 'Christians just believe' nonsense, rather than
thinking about it first.
What about Osiris dying and returning to life? Dionysus did the same
trick, as did Mithra. All of them did it so humans could have a
better afterlife.
Here again you're just repeating ignorant hearsay. Why didn't you
check your facts first? Why not think for yourself for once? Ask
yourself:
1. Which ancient text talks about Mithras being resurrected?
2. I notice that Lazarus died and rose again. How does this prove
that Lazarus 'was' Jesus.
Why is your story the right one? What proof do you have that a moment
after death I won't find myself in a reed boat on the River of Night
floating towards Anubis' palace to be judged?
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative. And any fool can come up with the sort
of jeer you repeat here. If you have to make assertions of things you
don't believe yourself, surely your argument has already
self-destructed?
Think. Don't just idly conform to some convenient subset of societal
values, as almost every atheist does.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
09 Sep 2005 04:43:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Douglas Berry wrote:
Only because you don't think, you just believe. That's part of the
sickness that is Christianity.
That's a very unfair statement to make when you don't even know me.
Being a Christian requires quite a bit of thought an study. Science
more and more doesn't seem to disprove a creator, it *begs* for one.
Only if you read science looking for excuses.
I have never noticed atheists to be particularly well-educated. As a
rule they will believe whatever is convenient. That's why they all
parrot the same old 'Christians just believe' nonsense, rather than
thinking about it first.
What about Osiris dying and returning to life? Dionysus did the same
trick, as did Mithra. All of them did it so humans could have a
better afterlife.
Here again you're just repeating ignorant hearsay. Why didn't you
check your facts first? Why not think for yourself for once? Ask
yourself:
1. Which ancient text talks about Mithras being resurrected?
2. I notice that Lazarus died and rose again. How does this prove
that Lazarus 'was' Jesus.
Why is your story the right one? What proof do you have that a moment
after death I won't find myself in a reed boat on the River of Night
floating towards Anubis' palace to be judged?
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture -- don't steal, don't lie so as to cause harm, don't kill
without exceptional reason, do take care of others, the usual. It doesn't
seem necessary to cannonize some formal system, except for legal purposes.
Other than that -- as these impulses are inbred, appearing in most
cultures, Christian or otherwise -- what's to replace? It's a part
of the social contract, and not just the Christian one.
But if you insist on philosophical formulizations of all this
by atheists, you can read Paul Kurtz' endless weighty reflections
on his Eupraxophy, or the Humanist Manifesto, Mark Whatever,
or the endless pondrous exchanges on the theoretical underpinnings
of the whichness of what that grace the pages of "Free Inquiry".
But most atheists no more need this formulaization than most
Christians would kill freely if the Bible had not forbidden
them to do so.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
09 Sep 2005 05:20:18 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
I agree.
-- don't steal, don't lie so as to cause harm, don't kill
without exceptional reason, do take care of others, the usual.
Are those the values of atheists? Are those the values of our society?
I think both might be questioned.
It doesn't seem necessary to cannonize some formal system, except for legal purposes.
I think it is necessary to deal with a choice of value-idea systems
explicitly, rather than treating conformity as a default, tho.
But if you insist on philosophical formulizations of all this
by atheists...
I insist that atheists have to justify their position.
Rationalisations of this in a book somewhere are neither here nor
there, surely.
But most atheists no more need this formulaization than most
Christians would kill freely if the Bible had not forbidden
them to do so.
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians. Whether
Christianity is right or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 09:11:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
I agree.
-- don't steal, don't lie so as to cause harm, don't kill
without exceptional reason, do take care of others, the usual.
Are those the values of atheists? Are those the values of our society?
I think both might be questioned.
It doesn't seem necessary to cannonize some formal system, except for legal purposes.
I think it is necessary to deal with a choice of value-idea systems
explicitly, rather than treating conformity as a default, tho.
But if you insist on philosophical formulizations of all this
by atheists...
I insist that atheists have to justify their position.
Rationalisations of this in a book somewhere are neither here nor
there, surely.
But most atheists no more need this formulaization than m ost
Christians would kill freely if the Bible had not forbidden
them to do so.
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians.
LOL! This from the guy who takes great pains to avoid articulating
his own religious beliefs and spends virtually 100% of his time in
a.a.
engaging in vituperation against atheists. A text book example of
projection.
Whether
Christianity is r ight or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
State your belief system then. Or maybe you better snip this
inconvenient
question to avoid further embarrassment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
09 Sep 2005 06:01:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1126304418.344583.111000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
I agree.
-- don't steal, don't lie so as to cause harm, don't kill
without exceptional reason, do take care of others, the usual.
Are those the values of atheists? Are those the values of our society?
I think both might be questioned.
It doesn't seem necessary to cannonize some formal system, except for legal purposes.
I think it is necessary to deal with a choice of value-idea systems
explicitly, rather than treating conformity as a default, tho.
But if you insist on philosophical formulizations of all this
by atheists...
I insist that atheists have to justify their position.
Rationalisations of this in a book somewhere are neither here nor
there, surely.
But most atheists no more need this formulaization than most
Christians would kill freely if the Bible had not forbidden
them to do so.
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians.
Some do, mostly for fun (we see both that and its inverse in this froup
constantly).
But what I was trying to say was: most don't feel any need to cannonize
their system of beliefs because most see little need for change. Few
atheists feel any need to say "burning your neighbor's house down is bad",
or "raping little girls in the park is bad" -- because for the most
part, everyone, atheist and believer alike, agree.
Whether
Christianity is right or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
Oh, I suspect if you asked an average atheist "What do you think is
moral? What do you think is immoral?", you'd get about as cogent
and extensive a set of answers as you would from the average Christian.
It's just that the need rarely arises, so you don't hear too
much speechifying about it.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 03:06:03 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126304418.344583.111000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians.
Some do, mostly for fun (we see both that and its inverse in this froup
constantly).
But what I was trying to say was: most don't feel any need to cannonize
their system of beliefs because most see little need for change.
Possibly we are at cross-purposes here.
I think that in threads such as this that we're discussing the choice
between two different sets of beliefs; one which is determined by the
bible and the church; the other being determined by the values and
ideas that happen to be fashionable in the time and place in which
people grow up.
I think that the choice between these needs to be made explicit, and
the latter subjected to examination, rather than treated as a silent
default.
Whether
Christianity is right or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
Oh, I suspect if you asked an average atheist "What do you think is
moral? What do you think is immoral?", you'd get about as cogent
and extensive a set of answers as you would from the average Christian.
I would say that asking about individual issues is to look at too low a
level. What about the systems to which each belong?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 09:20:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126304418.344583.111000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely eng age in vituperation against Christians.
Some do, mostly for fun (we see both that and its inverse in this froup
constantly).
But what I was trying to say was: most don't feel any need to cannonize
their system of beliefs because mo st see little need for change.
Possibly we are at cross-purposes here.
I think that in threads such as this that we're discussing the choice
between two different sets of beliefs; one which is determined by the
bible and the church;
Like plural marriage and keeping concubines? Slavery?
Killing the wives and children of your enemies? Go ahead,
defend these traditional values of yours. We're waiting.
the other being determined by the values and
ideas that happen to be fashionable in the time and place in which
people grow up.
Like equality--not treating women and minorities as second
class (or worse) citizens? When are you ever going to defend
_your_ Biblical values? Never?
<abuse snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
12 Sep 2005 04:29:10 PM |
|
|
In article <1126339563.697606.66620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126304418.344583.111000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians.
Some do, mostly for fun (we see both that and its inverse in this froup
constantly).
But what I was trying to say was: most don't feel any need to cannonize
their system of beliefs because most see little need for change.
Possibly we are at cross-purposes here.
I think that in threads such as this that we're discussing the choice
between two different sets of beliefs; one which is determined by the
bible and the church; the other being determined by the values and
ideas that happen to be fashionable in the time and place in which
people grow up.
I think that the choice between these needs to be made explicit, and
the latter subjected to examination, rather than treated as a silent
default.
Whether
Christianity is right or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
Oh, I suspect if you asked an average atheist "What do you think is
moral? What do you think is immoral?", you'd get about as cogent
and extensive a set of answers as you would from the average Christian.
I would say that asking about individual issues is to look at too low a
level. What about the systems to which each belong?
I'm not too sure that that's the operationally important part.
One person in society may dislike adultery because "it's just
cheating", another may say he feels the same way "because
the Bible says so". I suspect that (in a stable society),
most people hold to the same values, although they
may attribute it to "common decency" or "my upbringing"
or "God's will", as individual circumstances dictate.
Someone who believes in Golden Rule may have gotten
it from Christianity or Confucianism or Sikhism;
the results are (happily or dolefully) the same.
I would also observe that looking at the systematic
level is difficult, because even there most people
will pick and choose. A Christian may well
believe in charity and but opt out of some of Jesus'
harder teachings such as passivity in the face of insult.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
13 Sep 2005 01:35:46 AM |
|
|
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper,
High Priestess Bastet of the Unchurch Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dg4rv6$qtq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1126339563.697606.66620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126304418.344583.111000@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1126300181.445815.44120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk writes:
What proof do you have that living by some subset of societal
values is
a faintly rational thing to do?
Most atheists have nothing whatever to say for the value-idea
system
they propose as an alternative.
Most atheists in fact go along with the default embedded values of
their culture
The problem, tho, is that atheists are unable to articulate their own
beliefs, but merely engage in vituperation against Christians.
That's not true. Most of the atheists I know of, including
myself, are humanists. Humanism is a philosophy/morality
that any sensible person can live by whether they are
atheist or religious. These Humanist Manifestos articulate
our beliefs and how they have been developing quite clearly:
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper,
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Some do, mostly for fun (we see both that and its inverse in this froup
constantly).
But what I was trying to say was: most don't feel any need to cannonize
their system of beliefs because most see little need for change.
Possibly we are at cross-purposes here.
I think that in threads such as this that we're discussing the choice
between two different sets of beliefs; one which is determined by the
bible and the church; the other being determined by the values and
ideas that happen to be fashionable in the time and place in which
people grow up.
I think that the choice between these needs to be made explicit, and
the latter subjected to examination, rather than treated as a silent
default.
Whether
Christianity is right or wrong, any belief-system that cannot be
stated
by its adherents seems unlikely to have much to be said for it.
Oh, I suspect if you asked an average atheist "What do you think is
moral? What do you think is immoral?", you'd get about as cogent
and extensive a set of answers as you would from the average Christian.
I would say that asking about individual issues is to look at too low a
level. What about the systems to which each belong?
I'm not too sure that that's the operationally important part.
One person in society may dislike adultery because "it's just
cheating", another may say he feels the same way "because
the Bible says so". I suspect that (in a stable society),
most people hold to the same values, although they
may attribute it to "common decency" or "my upbringing"
or "God's will", as individual circumstances dictate.
Someone who believes in Golden Rule may have gotten
it from Christianity or Confucianism or Sikhism;
the results are (happily or dolefully) the same.
I would also observe that looking at the systematic
level is difficult, because even there most people
will pick and choose. A Christian may well
believe in charity and but opt out of some of Jesus'
harder teachings such as passivity in the face of insult.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 09:37:54 AM |
|
|
On 9 Sep 2005 14:09:41 -0700, wrote:
I have never noticed atheists to be particularly well-educated. As a
rule they will believe whatever is convenient. That's why they all
parrot the same old 'Christians just believe' nonsense, rather than
thinking about it first.
"Excuse me sir, (whispered aside) but your err... assumption is
showing"
Me?
Two degrees:
One in Electrical Engineering - well it was an HNC at the time which
has since been upgraded to BsC.
Also a BA majoring in history.
And yes I did think about it first so when these Christian believers
started asking me to share their beliefs I was ready to ask them for
justification. They seemed to get quite indignant about that and
instead of demonstrating how they know there is a god by pointing
me to any kind of evidence to justify this belief expected me to share
their belief just on their say so by some kind of blind 'faith'.
Strange very strange.
So sir, having 'met me' as it wer will you now stop saying you have
never noticed an atheist who is well educated and has not given
the Christian claims about gods any thought, or will you continue
to assert this in what will from now on be a lie?
Do not be surprised if atheists with far greater education and
intelligence than I 'meet you' with their replies and information
as to how they approached the Christian claims.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 11:16:05 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 14:09:41 -0700, wrote:
I have never noticed atheists to be particularly well-educated. As a
rule they will believe whatever is convenient. That's why they all
parrot the same old 'Christians just believe' nonsense, rather than
thinking about it first.
"Excuse me sir, (whispered aside) but your err... assumption is
showing"
[rant snipped]
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of atheists as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 09:24:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On 9 Sep 2005 14:09:41 -0700, wrote:
I have never noticed atheists to be particularly well-educated. As a
rule they will believe whatever is convenient. T hat's why they all
parrot the same old 'Christians just believe' nonsense, rather than
thinking about it first.
"Excuse me sir, (whispered aside) but your err... assumption is
showing"
[rant snipped]
Rest in Pearse snips the evidence that proves him wrong
and then offers an ad hominem attack in response:
Another interesting atheist habit
<abuse snipped>d
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miss Elaine Eos" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 03:02:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1126368965.464382.86240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of atheists as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
Another interesting christian habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) christian claim, then pretend the comments were
made in a vacuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of christians as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
---
Another interesting liberal habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) liberal claim, then pretend the comments were made
in a vacuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of liberal as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
---
Another interesting French habit is to edit posts to remove the original
(outrageous) French claim, then pretend the comments were made in a
vacuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of the French as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
Misc "well, ok -- maybe that last one... <G>"
--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc J. Schneiderman" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
11 Sep 2005 07:47:32 AM |
|
|
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of christians as people who you
want to invite to dinner.
:-)
(sorry Ted)
CigarBaron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
11 Sep 2005 03:29:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:47:32 -0400, "Marc J. Schneiderman"
<garbaron@telerama.com> wrote:
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of christians as people who you
want to invite to dinner.
Yes, with Chianti, fava beans and the works... ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
Those first to step up and say,
"Now is not the time for placing blame"
...
...are quite often to blame....
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 03:26:57 PM |
|
|
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
In article <1126368965.464382.86240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of atheists as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
Another interesting christian habit ....
[Rant snipped unread]
Curious that those who keep talking about 'thinking for yourself' can't
even think of their own comments, but have to copy from others.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 05:23:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
In article <1126368965.464382.86240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of atheists as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
Another interesting christian habit ....
[Rant snipped unread]
Curious that those who keep talking about 'thinking for yourself' can't
even think of their own comments, but have to copy from others.
You mean like having a bible to do al your thinking for you?
And still, you are incapable of thinking of any answers for
yourself when I slap you around here.
You just shut up and are silent. Mr. Can't-Hack-It.
Part 1
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
--
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes
agreed an investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miss Elaine Eos" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
10 Sep 2005 07:03:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1126384017.477802.115210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
In article <1126368965.464382.86240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
It all helps to reinforce the stereotype of atheists as people who you
wouldn't want to invite to dinner.
Another interesting christian habit ....
[Rant snipped unread]
Curious that those who keep talking about 'thinking for yourself' can't
even think of their own comments, but have to copy from others.
How would you know that, if you snipped the rant (?!), unread?
Misc "Or are you a liar, too?"
--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
11 Sep 2005 04:12:33 AM |
|
|
On 10 Sep 2005 09:16:05 -0700, wrote:
Another interesting atheist habit is to edit posts to remove the
original (outrageous) atheist claim, and then pretend the comments were
made in a vaccuum, and respond as if they were.
We have learned. From you and pastor Chuckles.
All the best,
Jos
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex W." |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 12:38:14 PM |
|
|
"Charles R. Kaiser" <ckaiser@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3o4dl3F41h2aU1@individual.net...
Douglas Berry wrote:
OK, and an all powerful God couldn't just say "stop, itys no
longer
needed"? You are acting like there was some higher law that even
your
God was forced to follow. Look at your wording... sacrifices that
were required, and the only way to stop them was another
sacrifice?
In a sense, that's what he did. Because Jesus *WAS* God and he
offered
himself as a gift to be accepted by mankind as a way toward
salvation.
"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6
who,
though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a
thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of
a
servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human
form, 8he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of
death,
even death on a cross." Philip. 2:5-8 ESV
sorry, doesn't work.
Works for me.
An all-powerful deity would have no need for such a gesture.
Simply
saying "you're forgiven, for I have said so" would be enough.
You are only forgiven if you accept the "gift" of his sacrifice.
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of the recipient.
In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness is one of the most
petty-minded things you could possibly do; it devalues the act to the
point of meaninglessness.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 ESV
..... thereby condemning all those who were not of the People and born
before JC to unending damnation ....
So, if this is the case, why do Christians mourn? Why do they
fight
death? I would think being diagnosed with terminal cancewr would
cause someone with your world view to sing and dance in the
streets!
After all, that diagnosis means that you'll be in Heaven soon,
right?
And within an eye blink, all yopur loved ones will join you?
Please explain why Christians mourn, and treat funerals as sad
occasions, please.
Not all Christians treat funerals as sad occasions. Many are quite
joyous celebrations of lives lived to the fullest. But you are
right
that many are quite sad, but that should not be the the way it
should
be! It is natural and human to mourn, but it should be seen more as
an
"until I see you again" rather than a "goodbye forever!" People in
my
family cry at funerals for the same reason that they cry at the
airport.
Because that gold-digging third wife is making off with your property?
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 12:52:21 PM |
|
|
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of
the recipient. In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness
is one of the most petty-minded things you could possibly
do; it devalues the act to the point of meaninglessness.
My nephew has repeatedly lied and stolen from me. I refuse to forgive
his actions until I see some indication from him that he thinks his
actions are wrong, that he intends to repair the damage, and that he
commits to avoiding similar behavior in the future.
Does that make me petty?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex W." |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 07:00:58 PM |
|
|
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:pHkTe.312024$x96.247543@attbi_s72...
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of
the recipient. In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness
is one of the most petty-minded things you could possibly
do; it devalues the act to the point of meaninglessness.
My nephew has repeatedly lied and stolen from me. I refuse to
forgive
his actions until I see some indication from him that he thinks his
actions are wrong, that he intends to repair the damage, and that he
commits to avoiding similar behavior in the future.
Does that make me petty?
If you treat forgiveness as nothing more than a reward for fulfilment
of your demands, it has no more meaning or moral value than giving the
dog a treat for successfully learning to heel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 07:18:43 PM |
|
|
Alex W. wrote:
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:pHkTe.312024$x96.247543@attbi_s72...
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of
the recipient. In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness
is one of the most petty-minded things you could possibly
do; it devalues the act to the point of meaninglessness.
My nephew has repeatedly lied and stolen from me. I refuse to
forgive
his actions until I see some indication from him that he thinks his
actions are wrong, that he intends to repair the damage, and that he
commits to avoiding similar behavior in the future.
Does that make me petty?
If you treat forgiveness as nothing more than a reward for fulfilment
of your demands, it has no more meaning or moral value than giving the
dog a treat for successfully learning to heel.
Your answer is not explicit. I'll simplify:
If I decline forgiveness for past behavior because there's no intent to
avoid that behavior in the future, am I being being petty?
My "demand" is not an arbitrary trick that I want him to perform, I just
want to know that his error is seen as such, by him, before excusing it.
Is that asking too much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 10:08:03 PM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
Alex W. wrote:
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:pHkTe.312024$x96.247543@attbi_s72...
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of
the recipient. In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness
is one of the most petty-minded things you could possibly
do; it devalues the act to the point of meaninglessness.
My nephew has repeatedly lied and stolen from me. I refuse to
forgive
his actions until I see some indication from him that he thinks his
actions are wrong, that he intends to repair the damage, and that he
commits to avoiding similar behavior in the future.
Does that make me petty?
If you treat forgiveness as nothing more than a reward for fulfilment
of your demands, it has no more meaning or moral value than giving the
dog a treat for successfully learning to heel.
Your answer is not explicit. I'll simplify:
If I decline forgiveness for past behavior because there's no intent to
avoid that behavior in the future, am I being being petty?
My "demand" is not an arbitrary trick that I want him to perform, I just
want to know that his error is seen as such, by him, before excusing it.
Is that asking too much?
Do you make any effort to *show* him the error? Or do you just yell at
him a lot?
Or do you, like God, spitefully hide the error from him, and
*guarantee* that he continues to make errors, so that you can punish
him forever?
Isaiah 6:9-10
"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with
their heart, and convert, and be healed."
John 12:40
"He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they
should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and
be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:"
--Billy
Luke 14:26 "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
--Jesus Christ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
07 Sep 2005 12:33:54 AM |
|
|
William T. Goat wrote:
Grinder wrote:
Alex W. wrote:
"Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:pHkTe.312024$x96.247543@attbi_s72...
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of
the recipient. In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness
is one of the most petty-minded things you could possibly
do; it devalues the act to the point of meaninglessness.
My nephew has repeatedly lied and stolen from me. I refuse to
forgive
his actions until I see some indication from him that he thinks his
actions are wrong, that he intends to repair the damage, and that he
commits to avoiding similar behavior in the future.
Does that make me petty?
If you treat forgiveness as nothing more than a reward for fulfilment
of your demands, it has no more meaning or moral value than giving the
dog a treat for successfully learning to heel.
Your answer is not explicit. I'll simplify:
If I decline forgiveness for past behavior because there's no intent to
avoid that behavior in the future, am I being being petty?
My "demand" is not an arbitrary trick that I want him to perform, I just
want to know that his error is seen as such, by him, before excusing it.
Is that asking too much?
Do you make any effort to *show* him the error? Or do you just yell at
him a lot?
I don't yell him at all. He acknowledges that he would not
like to be lied to or stolen from, but has very little patience
for any conversation that might activate his conscience.
Generally those exchanges end with him pointing out that I'm
not his mother, and he doesn't have to listen to anything I
have to say.
Or do you, like God, spitefully hide the error from him, and
*guarantee* that he continues to make errors, so that you can punish
him forever?
[snip]
At this point, the only thing I hide from him is my bank cards,
valuables and money.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles R. Kaiser" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 06:45:26 PM |
|
|
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of the recipient.
In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness is one of the most
petty-minded things you could possibly do; it devalues the act to the
point of meaninglessness.
But if you don't accept a gift, then you can't have a gift. If I give
you a beer and you don't drink it, I have given you a beer, but you
haven't in any way benefited from my gift of that beer. If I offer you
my forgiveness, and you don't accept it, isn't that the same thing?
--
___ ____________
\ \/ ___ ___/ Charles R. Kaiser MFA 1991
\ / / / -- GO HOKIES! --
\ / / /
\/ /__/ Technical Theatre & Design - fewer actors, more beer
Direct all incoming fire to: 17TPJ2411274412
Zone 17T Zone CM -81 E 624112 N 4874412
44° 00'44.55" N, 79° 27'05.92" W 44.0123706, -79.45164444
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex W." |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 07:11:15 PM |
|
|
"Charles R. Kaiser" <ckaiser@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3o6o0pF4f2abU1@individual.net...
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of the
recipient.
In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness is one of the most
petty-minded things you could possibly do; it devalues the act to
the
point of meaninglessness.
But if you don't accept a gift, then you can't have a gift. If I
give
you a beer and you don't drink it, I have given you a beer, but you
haven't in any way benefited from my gift of that beer. If I offer
you
my forgiveness, and you don't accept it, isn't that the same thing?
But you don't offer me forgiveness. You offer me a brew if, and only
if, I accept that you are an all-round great guy, the bestest pal a
Limey could ever have, and I promise to vote Democrat forever....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Someday... |
06 Sep 2005 11:10:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:45:26 -0400, "Charles R. Kaiser"
<ckaiser@aci.on.ca> wrote:
Alex W. wrote:
Forgiveness does not require the approval or consent of the recipient.
In fact, tying conditions onto forgiveness is one of the most
petty-minded things you could possibly do; it devalues the act to the
point of meaninglessness.
But if you don't accept a gift, then you can't have a gift. If I give
you a beer and you don't drink it, I have given you a beer, but you
haven't in any way benefited from my gift of that beer. If I offer you
my forgiveness, and you don't accept it, isn't that the same thing?
If you offer your forgiveness, and the consequence for my refusal to
accept it is going to Hell, that's QUITE a different thing.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
Those first to step up and say,
"Now is not the time for placing blame"
...
...are quite often to blame....
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
