| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2005 05:01:16 AM |
| Object: |
Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199
Organized religion, "worshipping" in churches, actually flies in the
face of a specific and direct command from the son-of-a-god himself,
according to Bible mythology. In churches, people gather in groups -
often in very large numbers these days - and sing and pray and make a
big show of their "faith" (not that any of them has any, which is why
they have medical insurance). What did the son-of-a-god say about this
behavior? Well, it's right here in Mat 6:6 : "But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray
to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret
shall reward thee openly."
This is the twentieth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
190.
How myths are made.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4559217.stm
reveals: "A German scientist claims to have found the Sirens of the
Greek myth of Odysseus, who lured ships onto the rocks with their song:
they are, in fact, monk seals."
Another legend comes crashing down. Primitive people make primitive
mistakes. No modern, civilized, intelligent human would make a mistake
like this. The assumption of any human with even a modest degree of
sophistication would not be that it is the work of a god, but it is an
aspect of nature.
We don't think thunder is an angry god, it's just the noise of
lightning. We don't think those struck by lightning have offended some
god. We don't think we can make the gods send rain by dancing. We
don't think a volcano is anger spewing out from a hellish, brimstone
and sulfur underworld where the dead are tormented. If we truly felt
that prayer worked, we wouldn't lock our doors at night. We wouldn't
have police or a military or a fire department or ambulances or
doctors.
So why is it that when primitive people tell us all these things, we
swallow it whole? If the Bible had never existed, and it were written
today exactly as it is, would millions believe it was true? Would it
achieve this kind of addictive prominence?
No!
Yet remove that same nonsense by two or three thousand years, and
suddenly it's divine? What's up with that?
Myths are made very easily. They're not unmade so readily because
addiction born of childish fears is the hardest habit to kick.
191.
Religion offers as much hope as a beached whale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4538959.stm
reveals that "Analysis of whales stranded between 1712 and 2003 shows
that more are stranded when solar activity is high."
Scientists have no problem explaining these kinds of issues from the
perspective of evolution. Evolution is imperfect. It's an
opportunist. It goes where it can. There's no planning involved, no
pre-ordained design. On the other hand, it's very hard to explain how
a god could make such a colossal blunder in design when he has infinite
resources and all eternity to work in, especially when this same god is
on record as declaring his work to be good.
Why are whales forced to rely on such a primitive and error-prone
system? If imperfect humans can create a GPS satellite guidance system
that can get us to within a few feet of our target over many thousands
of miles, why it is that this god couldn't come up with a workable
system for whales that doesn't involve them needlessly dying? Why even
have them make these massive migrations anyway, dying along the way?
Is it Satan who likes to make us suffer, or does the best Biblical
"evidence" show that it's god who does?
But rest easy ye of little faith. Better evidence still shows that
there isn't a god at all.
192.
Bush Meat Viruses
(Nope, it's not a comment on the American president)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4551085.stm
reveals that "Researchers say their work proves it is not unusual for
potentially dangerous viruses to jump from primates to man."
Why?
Didn't God see this coming? If he didn't, he's not omniscient and the
Bible lies. If he did he's not omnibenevolent, and the Bible lies.
Why would a god create viruses in the first place, let alone ones that
can mutate and infect humans, and let alone ones that reside in animals
that humans kill to eat?
Didn't this God claim he'd provided "every green herb" for us to eat?
But this is a lie. We cannot eat every green herb and when food is
scarce, people eat whatever they can get. And then they get infected
and die because of this God's incompetence, or lack of foresight, or
because of the fact that he simply doesn't care.
Either that or there is no god in the first place.
193.
God hates country living.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4552645.stm
reveals that "Researchers found using a mobile in rural areas tripled
the risk of malignant or benign tumours compared to urban users."
Does god really hate country folk? It would sure seem so! Why did he
"design" things so that those who could most benefit from cell phones
appear to be at greatest risk from using them? Is that really design
or is it happenstance?
And what does this have to do with a god? Everything. Didn't god see
the cell-phone boom? If he did and didn't do something during the
creation to guard us from potential ill-effects, then he's not
omnibenevolent and the Bible lies. If he didn't see it coming, he's
not omniscient, and the Bible lies!
Why didn't god simply make us telepathic? Just that one thing would
have prevented the need for cell-phones entirely. It would have
conferred all kinds of other social benefits on us. (More on this in
the 200th Edition.)
But that could only happen if there were a god. If there isn't a god,
we get what we got.
194.
Hotter than Hell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4560139.stm
reveals: "He said 150,000 people a year were dying because of climate
change impact, so people "have to go beyond their subjective visual
concerns and look at the broader picture"."
It doesn't specify where that guy got his numbers from, but you can
rest assured that if people aren't dying now from global warming (and
they are), they're going to be dying in droves as it gets warmer and
warmer.
The reason for this is that God couldn't design a decent planet. He
made a globe, which means that temperatures are rarely temperate and
cannot be properly controlled. As if that wasn't bad enough, he tilted
the globe so that we get winters and summers, which are extreme and
they kill people. As if that wasn't bad enough, he set the globe
circling around a ball of blazing plasma that irradiates people. Is
this the best he could do? Or does he simple like to torture us?
Or could it be that things developed this way as a result of the nature
of the universe, and no god had anything to do with it?
195.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4562813.stm
reveals: "About 40-70% of all embryos are somewhat abnormal and this is
human nature. So by selecting to transfer only a normal embryo, we
fulfil our dreams to have a healthy child."
Why is this? Can the designer not design an embryo? After designing
the whole universe out of nothing, designing a blob ought to be simple.
The components are simple: 20 or so amino acids specified by a system
of five chemical bases. How hard can that be for a god? But this god
found a way to screw it up and he's aborting 40-70% of all embryos!
Either that or there isn't a god and unlike the Bible, nature never
promotes lies about perfect designers.
196.
Back in May, eight teenagers died as a result of being caught in a
riptide off the coast of S. Africa. Eight. Gone. Just like that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4570439.stm
All of them had mothers and fathers and they doubtlessly had siblings
and friends. They had their whole lives ahead of them. For all we
know they could have contributed to world peace, made new discoveries
to benefit humanity, or cured diseases. Why did God murder them so
callously?
So sorry! Let me rephrase that so I don't tread on the perennially raw
and tender toes of blind believers: Why did God call them home in such
a violent way? This death wasn't anything to do with the stupidity of
human engineering: they didn't die in a crash in a faulty plane or a
bus. They didn't drink themselves to death. They didn't get into a
gang fight. God didn't warn them in a booming flash of light to avoid
tasting the water or in that very day they will die.
They were just going for a swim and they died. If there's a god, this
is entirely at his feet, not at anyone else's.
If he wanted them so desperately, why didn't he magick them bodily into
Heaven in a glowing cloud of sparkling rainbow-colored vapor in full
view of everyone? Wouldn't *that* have been an exit befitting a god's
engineering? But they were flushed like toilet paper and it made
everyone miserable.
So I guess there is a god who's a cruel blunderer, or there isn't a god
at all. Which do you think it is?
But let's contrast this story with:
197.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/22/girl.found/index.html
reveals that "...an 8-year-old Florida girl buried alive with minor
injuries in an abandoned landfill Sunday morning, hours after she was
reported abducted,"
So what was the deal here? God had a point to make so he puts and
eight year old through Hell? What could possibly justify that? if a
human did it, he'd be arrested. Oh! he did. He was! So why is it
that when a god who could have prevented this does nothing, he isn't on
trial too for aiding and abetting attempted murder?
It's not like it's out of character for this god to do such a thing.
Look at the book of Job. God put Job through Hell (including
slaughtering his family) for no other purpose than to settle a bet. In
other words, Satan tempted god and he fell for it!
But what was the logic in that the African teenagers in the previous
reference all died, and the eight-year-old girl lived? Is this god on
the side of the whites? That would explain the prevalence of AIDS in
Africa, wouldn't it now? Just what was the lesson God wanted us to
learn here? How would we know what the lesson was unless God himself
told us? And if he could tell us, why would we need a cruel example?
Or is it that there is no god and ***** happens?
198a.
The Weaker Sex.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4565655.stm
reveals that "Scientists...have discovered that blocking the action of
cannabis-like substances produced naturally by the body can reduce bone
loss."
Three questions: Why do we have cannabis-like substances both inside
and outside our bodies, thereby leading to confusion between the two,
why is it that these particular substances reduce bone loss, and why do
people, particularly women, suffer bone loss in the first place that we
need cannabis-like substances to reduce it?
Once again we have a case of unintelligent design! Clearly the weaker
sex is god. Either that or there is no god, just evolution making the
best it can of a bad job.
198b.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4541281.stm
reveals that: "CT pictures of the brains of more than 150 volunteers
revealed how women come to more harm and quicker than men when they
drink heavily"
Well, we all knew that! But it also reveals: "Women are far more
vulnerable to alcohol-induced brain damage than men..."
Why should that be, given that the Bible declares that women were taken
out of men? Shouldn't we be the same (apart from obvious differences).
Clearly a lot of "evolution" has gone on in women in the 6,000 Bible
years since they were made from a guy's bone (and the guys have been
trying to give them another bone ever since, right?!).
Or is that why they're different?! I mean, according to Bible
mythology, women are made of calcium compounds. And men are made of
dirt. Not that there is any evidence for this, but the Bible couldn't
possibly lie, could it?
So I guess that explains why men and women so different, and gender
science has nothing to do with it.
Or it could be that the Bible is a bunch of farcical myths and there is
no god.
199.
Birth is dangerous to your health.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4586305.stm
reveals that "...exposure to oestrogen may reprogramme tissue and set
it on a path towards the eventual development of disease."
Wait a minute! Exposure after being born (an activity that requires a
woman to be present at all times) to one of the defining
characteristics of women can give you cancer?!!!
Is this supposed to be evidence of intelligent design? Or is it
evidence that no god designed anything, but instead, nature is and
always will be a risky business to be in?
Look for the upcoming Super-Duper Bumper 200th Edition: The Miracles
That Could Have Been! Full of fun facts and embarrassing revelations!
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
04 Jul 2005 12:50:30 PM |
|
|
Still waiting on your cowardly ***** catching up with the latest two in a
long, long, LONG line of unanswered questions. Are you going to
**LIE** that I plagiarised these as well, just so you have a fake
excuse for your cowardice in addressing them?
#1 is from the Weber Intelligence Test Series. The series is stalled
at question #1 because you're so scared of me that you daren't answer
in the format requested. The only conclusion you leave us is that you
lost your WITS:
Consider the case of a true Christian. This Christian believes in god
without any shadow of a doubt. Out of curiosity, this Christian reads
a book which claims there is no god (It's called "Why I am not a
Christian" By Bertrand Russell, BTW). This Christian has a friend who
asks the Christian what she is reading. She responds, "This book
insists there is no god."
Is the Christian insisting there is no god, or is the Christian merely
reporting that the book insists there is no god?
Now let's put that exact scenario into the A/B choice I originally gave
you:
1. The Christian insisted there is no god.
2. The Christian said the book insisted there is no god.
Answer the following question:
Are propositions 1 and 2 above
A. Different ways of saying precisely the same thing, or
B. Saying two different things
Select either only option A or only option B as your answer and tell me
which of the two you have chosen.
Or:
This is the discussion *you* demanded I start. I started it and **YOU
RAN AWAY** 160+ times:
Let's discuss the issue of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations.
If you don't understand the two questions, it's okay to ask for help.
Or you can just run away like you always do.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "El Bleacho" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 11:08:11 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:27:44 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not
presuppose God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
They can make whiskey out of cactus?1?!?! I gotta try that. Does it taste
like sour mash?
--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 12:33:44 PM |
|
|
El Bleacho wrote:
duke wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not
presuppose God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
They can make whiskey out of cactus?1?!?! I gotta try that.
Does it taste like sour mash?
You can't make whiskey out of a cactus, but you can make tequila
out of an agave plant. And you can make wine out of lots of cactus
fruit, such as the saguaro.
Of course, duke's brain is so addled that we'd have no way of
determining the alcohol content of his beverages by simple
analysis of his writing.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "El Bleacho" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 03:47:58 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
You can't make whiskey out of a cactus, but you can make tequila
out of an agave plant. And you can make wine out of lots of cactus
fruit, such as the saguaro.
Of course, duke's brain is so addled that we'd have no way of
determining the alcohol content of his beverages by simple
analysis of his writing.
My experience is limited, having never drank anything harder than beer.
Even at that, I cannot drink more than about half of a bottle before the
taste annoys me to the point that I need a quart of cold water to get the
beer taste out of my mouth.
--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 06:04:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:08:11 GMT, "El Bleacho" <ElBleacho@Clorox.gov> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:27:44 GMT, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not
presuppose God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
They can make whiskey out of cactus?1?!?! I gotta try that. Does it taste
like sour mash?
Ask snowden.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 06:30:07 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:27:44 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not presuppose
God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
I don't drink alcohol. And my name's not snowden. Got that, hurl?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
27 Jun 2005 06:03:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:30:07 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:27:44 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not presuppose
God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
I don't drink alcohol. And my name's not snowden. Got that, hurl?
Your liver is going to bail out of you if you don't put the booze down.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
28 Jun 2005 04:57:56 AM |
|
|
Chicken ***** Lied:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:30:07 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:27:44 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
The belief in no God is to presuppose God. Since we do not presuppose
God, there is no "belief."
You're drinking too much bad cactus whiskey, snowden.
I don't drink alcohol. And my name's not snowden. Got that, hurl?
Your liver is going to bail out of you if you don't put the booze down.
Better a liver than a brain. Doctors can fix livers. There's nothing
that can be done for a brain that's gone to hell like yours has,
*****.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
24 Jun 2005 06:31:09 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 24 Jun 2005 15:41:29 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Bill wrote:
Unfortunately most religious believers will close their eyes and mind to
these truths and retreat to their
fortress of beliefs in the hope this will gain them an eternal life in a
mystical heaven.
The fear of death and an after life is a powerful wall to protect people
from reality.
Religious belief requires a closed mind!
Bill! We atheists know that, but that's no reason to hide the truth
when there are theists crapping up the Internet with their lies every
day.
Atheism requires no mind.
You're right. It requires a brain.
Logical sense need not apply.
....to theology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
25 Jun 2005 08:49:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:31:09 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Atheism requires no mind.
You're right. It requires a brain.
A brain with no mind is a dead brain.
Logical sense need not apply.
...to theology.
to atheism.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
25 Jun 2005 09:10:53 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:31:09 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Atheism requires no mind.
You're right. It requires a brain.
A brain with no mind is a dead brain.
A mind is a fictional construct containing thought, perception, emotion,
will, memory, and imagination. All exist within a brain. Therefore, to
lump the above into the fictional construct labeled "the mind" is
disingenious. Everything is brain. Nothing is "mind."
Logical sense need not apply.
...to theology.
to atheism.
No, atheism has logical sense. Cite even one illogic in atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "El Bleacho" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Is no God - Parts 190-199 |
25 Jun 2005 12:30:17 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
A mind is a fictional construct containing thought, perception,
emotion, will, memory, and imagination. All exist within a brain.
No empirical scientific proof limits mind to existing within a brain. We do
not have any clue what happens to a mind when a brain ceases to function;
but in fact there have been studies showing that a mind can continue to
exist and be aware when a brain ceases to function (temporary death).
Therefore, to lump the above into the fictional construct labeled
"the mind" is disingenious. Everything is brain. Nothing is "mind."
You need to read some books on brain-mind dualism. You obviously have no
formal or informal education whatsoever in that topic; or would have made
more well thought out statements quoted above.
Here is a blurb on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
Here is a more detailed overview of dualism; with a host of references at
the bottom for you to research:
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html
--
_____________________
I am hung like Einstein;
and as smart as a horse!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
