| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Thandarr" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2007 08:31:47 PM |
| Object: |
What is proof |
I'll begin with a quote from scripture.
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
-Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ Superstar
Frequently, when one makes a simple assertion of fact,* someone else
around here challenges them for proof. But what counts for proof
around here?
Eyewitnesses:
"I know God made the world in seven calendar days. I watched him."
Many eyewitnesses:
"And so did my friends."
Iron clad logic.
"God is that greater than which nothing can be conceived. A god who
created the universe is pretty great, but not as great as a god who
created the universe in spite of a handicap. A god who created the
universe with both hands tied behind his back, while blindfolded, with
"Twisted Sister" playing in the background and a Doberman chewing on
his crotch is greater than a god who created the universe with no
handicaps. Non-existence is the greatest handicap. Therefore, a non-
existent god who created the universe must necessarily exist."
A citation to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwinkle.
A citation to a magazine article:
F, Barney, "When my Wife got Home," Penthouse Magazine, Letters to
Penthouse, p. 16.
A citation to a book:
theWizard, Thandarr, Chicken Soup for the Vegetarian's Soul
A citation to another posting on the Internet:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Thandarr
*E.g. "Jesus made the first chocolate Easter Bunny." "Satan wrote
all the rock and roll songs except those sung by Barry Manilow." "If
you think that you can kiss my *****." "Peru is not in Europe." "I'd
like to sleep with Brittany Spears." "Greed is good." "George W. Bush
is a dumbshit who should be tried on the Judge Judy show and sentenced
to be an extra on Prison Break." "My brain hurts." "If a woodchuck
could chuck wood it could chuck up to 47 board-feet/hour."
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 07:34:37 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 08:21:03 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way. I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language. *That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection. Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 12:44:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 1:21 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way. I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language. *That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection. Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Greywolf
It is instructive to realise that all the major religions of the world
have all needed the agent of a "human" prophet to justify the
"existence" of their God or infinity, a prophet claiming they were in
touch with the God, and the God Himself keeping Himself quite out of
touch with the world and the rest of its peoples. So out-of-touch that
He is completely undetectable in any material or scientific sense, and
in no way intervening in any detectable way with how the world and the
Universe functions.
Christianity - Jesus
Buddhism - Buddha
Judaism - Moses
Islam - Mohammed
Taoism - Lao-tse
In Hinduism, the "prophets" are mythological
This dichotomy/dualism is deliberate in their religions. Religion =
Prophet + God
A religion without a prophet is probably a weaker religion. Only a
"prophet" can convince the populace of the necessity of "faith" in an
almighty being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 01:19:53 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 9:44 am, "Jim Roberts" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:21 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way. I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language. *That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection. Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Greywolf
It is instructive to realise that all the major religions of the world
have all needed the agent of a "human" prophet to justify the
"existence" of their God or infinity, a prophet claiming they were in
touch with the God, and the God Himself keeping Himself quite out of
touch with the world and the rest of its peoples. So out-of-touch that
He is completely undetectable in any material or scientific sense, and
in no way intervening in any detectable way with how the world and the
Universe functions.
Christianity - Jesus
Buddhism - Buddha
Judaism - Moses
Islam - Mohammed
Taoism - Lao-tse
In Hinduism, the "prophets" are mythological
No more so than the prophets of the other religions, at least in
regard to their divinity.
This dichotomy/dualism is deliberate in their religions. Religion =
Prophet + God
Religion = Con man/Charismatic delusional + Claims of god
A religion without a prophet is probably a weaker religion. Only a
"prophet" can convince the populace of the necessity of "faith" in > an almighty being.
It astonishes me that anyone can write those first two sentences you
just wrote and not conclude that god does not exist and that the
prophets are scam artists acting out of their own self-interest, but
instead conclude that (at least) some of the "prophets" are credible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
14 Mar 2007 04:15:53 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 6:19 pm, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:44 am, "JimRoberts" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:21 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way. I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language. *That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection. Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Greywolf
It is instructive to realise that all the major religions of the world
have all needed the agent of a "human" prophet to justify the
"existence" of their God or infinity, a prophet claiming they were in
touch with the God, and the God Himself keeping Himself quite out of
touch with the world and the rest of its peoples. So out-of-touch that
He is completely undetectable in any material or scientific sense, and
in no way intervening in any detectable way with how the world and the
Universe functions.
Christianity - Jesus
Buddhism - Buddha
Judaism - Moses
Islam - Mohammed
Taoism - Lao-tse
In Hinduism, the "prophets" are mythological
No more so than the prophets of the other religions, at least in
regard to their divinity.
This dichotomy/dualism is deliberate in their religions. Religion =
Prophet + God
Religion = Con man/Charismatic delusional + Claims of god
A religion without a prophet is probably a weaker religion. Only a
"prophet" can convince the populace of the necessity of "faith" in > an almighty being.
It astonishes me that anyone can write those first two sentences you
just wrote and not conclude that god does not exist and that the
prophets are scam artists acting out of their own self-interest, but
instead conclude that (at least) some of the "prophets" are credible.
I never said that the "prophets" were or were not "con-men". We/I have
left out a whole third dimension or level of social hierarchy in the
growth of a religion
The disciple or apostle
Better if they were "alive" at the time of the "prophet" - word of
mouth from the "prophet" almost guarantees them "sainthood".
So the Religion equation is
Religion = God + Prophet + Disciples
Please note I have said whether or not "God" exists in this
statement. Just observing how Religions grow.
Neither have I argued whether the "prophets" had any form of
credibility or not. Creedence has, however, been given by large masses
of people, without doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
14 Mar 2007 04:29:07 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 1:15 pm, "Jim Roberts" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 6:19 pm, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:44 am, "JimRoberts" <cjdrobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:21 pm, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way. I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language. *That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection. Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Greywolf
It is instructive to realise that all the major religions of the world
have all needed the agent of a "human" prophet to justify the
"existence" of their God or infinity, a prophet claiming they were in
touch with the God, and the God Himself keeping Himself quite out of
touch with the world and the rest of its peoples. So out-of-touch that
He is completely undetectable in any material or scientific sense, and
in no way intervening in any detectable way with how the world and the
Universe functions.
Christianity - Jesus
Buddhism - Buddha
Judaism - Moses
Islam - Mohammed
Taoism - Lao-tse
In Hinduism, the "prophets" are mythological
No more so than the prophets of the other religions, at least in
regard to their divinity.
This dichotomy/dualism is deliberate in their religions. Religion =
Prophet + God
Religion = Con man/Charismatic delusional + Claims of god
A religion without a prophet is probably a weaker religion. Only a
"prophet" can convince the populace of the necessity of "faith" in > an almighty being.
It astonishes me that anyone can write those first two sentences you
just wrote and not conclude that god does not exist and that the
prophets are scam artists acting out of their own self-interest, but
instead conclude that (at least) some of the "prophets" are credible.
I never said that the "prophets" were or were not "con-men". We/I have
left out a whole third dimension or level of social hierarchy in the
growth of a religion
The disciple or apostle
Better if they were "alive" at the time of the "prophet" - word of
mouth from the "prophet" almost guarantees them "sainthood".
And better if they lived before (relatively) universal education, too.
You know when word of mouth was pretty well the only form of
communication for most people.
So the Religion equation is
Religion = God + Prophet + Disciples
Please note I have said whether or not "God" exists in this
statement. Just observing how Religions grow.
By you use of unmodified nouns you are implying existence. You could
avoid argument by stating it like this:
Religion = claim of god + allegedly divine prophet + disciples
Neither have I argued whether the "prophets" had any form of
credibility or not. Creedence has, however, been given by large masses
of people, without doubt.
That's irrelevant. Lots of people have been wrong about other things
on many occassions. Concensus is not evidence of god.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 06:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 8:21 am, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi6dv2tuucfppnqrhjharlje6fhjurgr49@4ax.com...
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
As far as I'm concerned, 'proof' for the existence of 'God' would be for him
to come out in the open and reveal himself to mankind in a most undeniable
way.
I'm not asking about proof for the existence of "God" [TM]. I'm
asking about proof for any assertion of fact.
I mean something like splashing an image of himself (or Jesus) across
the entire sky and 'talking' to his creatures -- in each person listening
own language.
You'd fall for that? Last time it happened it turned out to be fake.
*That* is impossible for 'God' to do because 'God' doesn't
exist. And note, it took a 'face-to-face' with the risen Jesus for 'Doubting
Thomas' to be convinced of the Resurrection.
I think Jesus faked that resurrection. He was really still dead all
along, just pretending to have risen from the dead to put one over on
his friends.
Why shouldn't modern man be
supplied similar 'proof'? And one must ask the obvious question here: 'Would
'Doubting Thomas' have suffered eternal agony and unspeakable torment for
his non-belief if the made-up story about Jesus appearing to him personally
and even dining with him had never taken place?
The Christians avoid answering the question directly. Instead, they quote
John 20:29 ...
'Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.
Blessed are those who had not seen and yet have believed.'
And now I have a bridge to sell thee.
This not answer my question, does it? And it makes Jesus appear rather
foolish because he is expecting people to believe something that every fiber
of our being; every neuron in our brain just *scream*, 'Preposterous!!!'
Why were we 'supplied' with such a 'doubting' mind, eh'?
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion' because it was a 'given' that any new 'apostle' would
be voted into that position by the *other* apostles. Paul was not. And the
'tension' between Paul and Jesus' apostles indicates that the risen Jesus
had not prepared his original disciples for this self-proclaimed 'apostle'
for inclusion in their ranks. Something is very, *very* 'fishy' about Paul's
claims, methinks.
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
Of course the cows and the grass are invisible. If they were visible,
the astronauts would have seen them. Wait! Maybe the astronauts
didn't go to the moon after all. That means the cows are actually
visible.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 09:05:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:21:03 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
He ('Doubting Thomas') and 'Saul of Tarsus' were -- allegedly --provided
personal 'proof' of the Resurrection (and note that 'risen' Jesus didn't
appear to Pontius Pilate or the members of the Sanhedrin who voted against
him, but to his followers -- which hardly constitutes unbiased reporting)
and we're supposed to take *their* word for it? Hah!! Both accounts are
bold-face 'lies'. Those events never really happened. And Paul clearly lied
about his 'conversion'
Paul never claimed to meet a person - his 'Jesus' was a spirit. Jesus
the man was invented years later. How many years? We don't know when
the books attributed to the Paul character were written, so who knows?
Why anyone should expect we atheists to believe in such absurd assertions on
the part of the Jesus people is beyond me. I'd sooner believe that there are
invisible cows grazing on the moon -- munching on invisible grass!
THAT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED UNTIL 2053!!! Do I have to do ALL
the security work around here?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 06:33:54 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 7:34 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
How do you post "objective evidence" on Usenet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 08:16:11 PM |
|
|
"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173828834.716310.88490@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 7:34 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
How do you post "objective evidence" on Usenet?
Here is some objective verifiable evidnece.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a
miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
God supposedly created the world like it is to punish man for Adam and Eve's
'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent animals with
thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be eaten alive by
other animals?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, Wolves, poisonous snakes,
stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill
and eat other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
INNOCENT children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.
These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
all religious persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
systems including flying through the air.
Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has
DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does
he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
There are thousands of religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE VERIFIABLE
EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god beliefs are
based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions' of errant men.
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
welfare of the creatures on Earth.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!
I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 10:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 8:16 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173828834.716310.88490@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 13, 7:34 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
How do you post "objective evidence" on Usenet?
Here is some objective verifiable evidnece.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a
miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
God supposedly created the world like it is to punish man for Adam and Eve's
'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent animals with
thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be eaten alive by
other animals?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, Wolves, poisonous snakes,
stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill
and eat other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
INNOCENT children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.
These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
all religious persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
systems including flying through the air.
Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has
DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does
he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
There are thousands of religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE VERIFIABLE
EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god beliefs are
based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions' of errant men.
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
welfare of the creatures on Earth.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!
I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
So objective evidence is a string of rhetorical questions designed to
challenge a proposition that I did not assert? No wonder nothing gets
resolved on Usenet.
Thandarr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
14 Mar 2007 07:40:14 AM |
|
|
On 13 Mar 2007 20:16:37 -0700, "Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:16 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Here is some objective verifiable evidnece.
[snip]
So objective evidence is a string of rhetorical questions
No, the post was a list of objective evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
14 Mar 2007 09:48:50 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 7:40 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 20:16:37 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:16 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Here is some objective verifiable evidnece.
[snip]
So objective evidence is a string of rhetorical questions
No, the post was a list of objective evidence.
Then what was with all the question marks?
Look you guys. My question was NOT what would be proof of GOD. It's
what counts as proof of ANYTHING. Can I tell you I'm sitting here
naked typing this, or do you need a picture. Believe me, you do not
want a picture.
Thandarr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
15 Mar 2007 07:37:43 AM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2007 19:48:50 -0700, "Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Look you guys. My question was NOT what would be proof of GOD. It's
what counts as proof of ANYTHING. Can I tell you I'm sitting here
naked typing this, or do you need a picture. Believe me, you do not
want a picture.
The picture is objective evidence (of a sort - with modern photo
software, someone who knows what he's doing could produce your face on
my body. Something no one would want to see.) Your statement isn't
objective evidence, it's an assertion.
Whether something is evidentiary or not doesn't depend on the nature
of the claim. The claim that you're sitting nude at your computer is
mundane. My claim that I'm sitting nude at my computer on the surface
of a planet circling a star 1,000 LY from Earth, connected to the
internet by an instantaneous connection, isn't. Both are assertions.
Both require objective evidence - a picture in your case, something
much more in my case. But whether the "evidence" is evidentiary is
the same in either case - the extremeness of my claim just makes it
easier to tell the difference between assertion and evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 09:31:14 PM |
|
|
On 13 Mar 2007 16:33:54 -0700, "Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:34 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 18:31:47 -0700, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Usually, when we say evidence, we mean objective evidence. That is,
not something someone said (or wrote). Seasons are evidence of the
Earth's tilt. They're not "evidence" that some supernatural being
keeps fiddling with the celestial thermostat.
How do you post "objective evidence" on Usenet?
Well ...
If you wanted objective evidence that the Earth's axis was tilted I
could mention the seasons. My post isn't objective evidence, but the
progression of the seasons is. You want evidence that the axis is
moving? The change of "north star" is objective evidence of that. "I
believe that it's tilted" isn't, but that's all we get from theists
regarding their gods - that their belief in their god is evidence that
their god exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 06:40:27 PM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 8:31 pm, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'll begin with a quote from scripture.
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
-Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ Superstar
Frequently, when one makes a simple assertion of fact,* someone else
around here challenges them for proof. But what counts for proof
around here?
Eyewitnesses:
"I know God made the world in seven calendar days. I watched him."
Many eyewitnesses:
"And so did my friends."
Iron clad logic.
"God is that greater than which nothing can be conceived. A god who
created the universe is pretty great, but not as great as a god who
created the universe in spite of a handicap. A god who created the
universe with both hands tied behind his back, while blindfolded, with
"Twisted Sister" playing in the background and a Doberman chewing on
his crotch is greater than a god who created the universe with no
handicaps. Non-existence is the greatest handicap. Therefore, a non-
existent god who created the universe must necessarily exist."
A citation to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwinkle.
A citation to a magazine article:
F, Barney, "When my Wife got Home," Penthouse Magazine, Letters to
Penthouse, p. 16.
A citation to a book:
theWizard,Thandarr, Chicken Soup for the Vegetarian's Soul
A citation to another posting on the Internet:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Thandarr
*E.g. "Jesus made the first chocolate Easter Bunny." "Satan wrote
all the rock and roll songs except those sung by Barry Manilow." "If
you think that you can kiss my *****." "Peru is not in Europe." "I'd
like to sleep with Brittany Spears." "Greed is good." "George W. Bush
is a dumbshit who should be tried on the Judge Judy show and sentenced
to be an extra on Prison Break." "My brain hurts." "If a woodchuck
could chuck wood it could chuck up to 47 board-feet/hour."
So far I have no help. Next time I assert that "The Grinch who Stole
Christmas" is loosely based on the French Revolution." and someone
says, "Your proof?" What am I supposed to do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
14 Mar 2007 01:10:32 AM |
|
|
On 14 Mar., 00:40, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:31 pm, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'll begin with a quote from scripture.
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
-Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ Superstar
Frequently, when one makes a simple assertion of fact,* someone else
around here challenges them for proof. But what counts for proof
around here?
Eyewitnesses:
"I know God made the world in seven calendar days. I watched him."
Many eyewitnesses:
"And so did my friends."
Iron clad logic.
"God is that greater than which nothing can be conceived. A god who
created the universe is pretty great, but not as great as a god who
created the universe in spite of a handicap. A god who created the
universe with both hands tied behind his back, while blindfolded, with
"Twisted Sister" playing in the background and a Doberman chewing on
his crotch is greater than a god who created the universe with no
handicaps. Non-existence is the greatest handicap. Therefore, a non-
existent god who created the universe must necessarily exist."
A citation to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwinkle.
A citation to a magazine article:
F, Barney, "When my Wife got Home," Penthouse Magazine, Letters to
Penthouse, p. 16.
A citation to a book:
theWizard,Thandarr, Chicken Soup for the Vegetarian's Soul
A citation to another posting on the Internet:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
What the hell counts as evidence or proof around here?
Thandarr
*E.g. "Jesus made the first chocolate Easter Bunny." "Satan wrote
all the rock and roll songs except those sung by Barry Manilow." "If
you think that you can kiss my *****." "Peru is not in Europe." "I'd
like to sleep with Brittany Spears." "Greed is good." "George W. Bush
is a dumbshit who should be tried on the Judge Judy show and sentenced
to be an extra on Prison Break." "My brain hurts." "If a woodchuck
could chuck wood it could chuck up to 47 board-feet/hour."
So far I have no help. Next time I assert that "The Grinch who Stole
Christmas" is loosely based on the French Revolution." and someone
says, "Your proof?" What am I supposed to do?-
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Popess Pantiara Evokovitch" |
|
| Title: Re: What is proof |
13 Mar 2007 12:27:06 AM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 9:31 pm, "Thandarr" <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is proof
.... baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.
*roxberry car headbang*
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
