C
Christopher A. Lee
Guest
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:03:11 GMT, "Semper Lib
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R
Richo
Guest
On Feb 6, 3:34
R
Richo
Guest
On Feb 6, 3:29
R
Richo
Guest
On Feb 6, 3:27
R
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
Guest
"Semper Lib
R
Richard Anacker
Guest
Pastor Frank , 02.05.2008:
> Atheist fundamentalist fanatics always claim, that complex designs like
> living cells need no designer, but just happen to appear out of nothing, and
> from nothing like a miracle.
Xian morons show again and again that they are too clueless to
understand that a living cell does not appear out of nothing and from
nothing like a miracle.
Is this mimicry or are you so stupid?
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
--
Love is the answer, but while you wait for the answer, sex
raises some pretty good questions..
-Woody Allen
> Atheist fundamentalist fanatics always claim, that complex designs like
> living cells need no designer, but just happen to appear out of nothing, and
> from nothing like a miracle.
Xian morons show again and again that they are too clueless to
understand that a living cell does not appear out of nothing and from
nothing like a miracle.
Is this mimicry or are you so stupid?
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
--
Love is the answer, but while you wait for the answer, sex
raises some pretty good questions..
-Woody Allen
R
Richard Anacker
Guest
Christopher A. Lee , 02.06.2008:
> Are there any honest creationists out there?
LOL.
Is the pope a jew?
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christian.religion,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.gods
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
BOB DYLAN - A HARD RAIN
> Are there any honest creationists out there?
LOL.
Is the pope a jew?
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christian.religion,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.gods
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
BOB DYLAN - A HARD RAIN
R
Richard Anacker
Guest
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! , 02.06.2008:
>> That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.
>
> And the complex and purposeful intelligent creator is overwhelming
> evidence of the intelligent creator creator.
You shouldn't forget that the complex and purposeful intelligent
creator creator is overwhelming evidence of the intelligent creator
creator creator.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christian.religion,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.gods
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
Donovan - Universal Soldier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohXsdbF-7jc
>> That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.
>
> And the complex and purposeful intelligent creator is overwhelming
> evidence of the intelligent creator creator.
You shouldn't forget that the complex and purposeful intelligent
creator creator is overwhelming evidence of the intelligent creator
creator creator.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.christian.religion,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.gods
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
Donovan - Universal Soldier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohXsdbF-7jc
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 5 Feb., 05:20, Michael <newsus...@orneveien.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:
>
> > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
> > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
>
> > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver.
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:
>
> > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
> > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
>
> > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver.
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 5 Feb., 14:14, Midwinter <midwinte...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ron Baker,
> "Ron Baker,
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 5 Feb., 14:20, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the
> > world is proof of God.
>
> > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE
> > VERIFIABLE
> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the
> > world is proof of God.
>
> > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE
> > VERIFIABLE
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 6 Feb., 00:07, "Semper Lib
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 6 Feb., 05:03, "Semper Lib
G
gudloos@yahoo.com
Guest
On 6 Feb., 05:27, "Semper Lib
M
Midwinter
Guest
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :
>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
>
> Solipsism is a dead end.
But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
>
> Then who are you talking to?
Read again. You'll see that I said:
"I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,
without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut
feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,
just as I do in mine."
The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -
it cannot be verified with objective evidence.
> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
> is no evidence that works for you.
What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is
mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,
verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,
you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.
> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
> observations?
It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be
flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be
accurate?
> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?
It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn
myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.
It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,
since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be
flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every
scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is
part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the
world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to
establish that that world as a whole is truly real.
Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but
they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is
what's actually there.
>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives
>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp
>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within
>> a certain frame of reference.
>
> How would you know? You don't know what
> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.
True enough.
> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think
> what would happen when you don't trust your perception
> of a red light.
Very clever, that.
I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent
driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether
those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether
the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I
cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed
though they may be.
We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.
>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be
>> supported or denied through science.
>
> What is real that can't be supported by science?
What is real?
>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
>
> Solipsism is a dead end.
But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
>
> Then who are you talking to?
Read again. You'll see that I said:
"I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,
without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut
feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,
just as I do in mine."
The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -
it cannot be verified with objective evidence.
> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
> is no evidence that works for you.
What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is
mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,
verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,
you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.
> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
> observations?
It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be
flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be
accurate?
> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?
It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn
myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.
It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,
since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be
flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every
scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is
part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the
world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to
establish that that world as a whole is truly real.
Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but
they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is
what's actually there.
>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives
>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp
>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within
>> a certain frame of reference.
>
> How would you know? You don't know what
> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.
True enough.
> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think
> what would happen when you don't trust your perception
> of a red light.
Very clever, that.
I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent
driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether
those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether
the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I
cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed
though they may be.
We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.
>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be
>> supported or denied through science.
>
> What is real that can't be supported by science?
What is real?
M
Midwinter
Guest
"Semper Lib
B
Bill M
Guest
"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h4adnWmYRLTqLDTaRVnyhgA@bt.com...
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :
>
>>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
>>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
>>
>> Solipsism is a dead end.
>
> But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>
>
>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
>>
>> Then who are you talking to?
>
> Read again. You'll see that I said:
>
> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,
> without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut
> feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,
> just as I do in mine."
Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts - not
your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods ass and
deal with the real world.
> The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -
> it cannot be verified with objective evidence.
>
>
>> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
>> is no evidence that works for you.
>
> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is
> mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,
> verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,
> you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.
>
>
>> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
>> observations?
>
> It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be
> flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be
> accurate?
>
>
>> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?
>
> It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn
> myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.
> It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,
> since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be
> flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every
> scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is
> part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the
> world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to
> establish that that world as a whole is truly real.
>
> Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but
> they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is
> what's actually there.
>
>
>>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives
>>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp
>>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within
>>> a certain frame of reference.
>>
>> How would you know? You don't know what
>> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.
>
> True enough.
>
>
>> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think
>> what would happen when you don't trust your perception
>> of a red light.
>
> Very clever, that.
>
> I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent
> driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether
> those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether
> the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I
> cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed
> though they may be.
>
> We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.
>
>
>>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be
>>> supported or denied through science.
>>
>> What is real that can't be supported by science?
>
> What is real?
news:h4adnWmYRLTqLDTaRVnyhgA@bt.com...
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said :
>
>>> Pardon me butting in - but solipsism is an interesting question,
>>> especially asked in one of Bill's threads.
>>
>> Solipsism is a dead end.
>
> But that alone doesn't rule it out.
>
>
>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain
>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
>>
>> Then who are you talking to?
>
> Read again. You'll see that I said:
>
> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and so,
> without any 'verifiable, objective evidence', and based solely on my gut
> feeling, I accept that others experience consciousness in their own way,
> just as I do in mine."
Dealing with the 'real world' requires the the use of real world facts - not
your wild emagination. Get your head out of your imaginary Gods ass and
deal with the real world.
> The point remains that that is an assumption based on reasoning alone -
> it cannot be verified with objective evidence.
>
>
>> Well, if you don't have a grip on reality then, yes, there
>> is no evidence that works for you.
>
> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality is
> mine. They may be the same. But unless you can provide objective,
> verifiable evidence for it as a universal reality, then, essentially,
> you cling to a belief and call it undeniable fact.
>
>
>> Gut feeling? You mean it is not repeated consistent
>> observations?
>
> It is indeed. But as I said, if I assume that my perceptions might be
> flawed in some fundamental way, what forces the observations I make to be
> accurate?
>
>
>> What is your gut feeling about fire? Is it hot?
>
> It certainly appears to be, yes - and I certainly feel pain when I burn
> myself. But again, that is merely my perception. I think I feel pain.
> It may be that I do - but there is no objective way for me to test it,
> since everything I experience is based on the perceptions that may be
> flawed, and the consciousness that may or may not be real. Every
> scientific or logical tool I might use to assess the world around me is
> part of the world around me. I can use those tools to establish how the
> world I see around me might work - but ultimately I cannot use them to
> establish that that world as a whole is truly real.
>
> Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - but
> they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see is
> what's actually there.
>
>
>>> This is one of the big problems that faces those who live their lives
>>> crowing about 'verifiable, objective evidence'. They don't grasp
>>> that even supposedly objective evidence can only serve as such within
>>> a certain frame of reference.
>>
>> How would you know? You don't know what
>> reality is. You only have your unreliable perceptions.
>
> True enough.
>
>
>> I hope you don't have a driver's license. I'd hate to think
>> what would happen when you don't trust your perception
>> of a red light.
>
> Very clever, that.
>
> I have a full, clean driving licence, and quite a number of years spent
> driving in accordance with traffic regulations. I cannot say whether
> those traffic regulations are truly 'real', because I do not know whether
> the world around me is real, or whether I myself am real. However, I
> cannot do otherwise than act in accordance with my perceptions, flawed
> though they may be.
>
> We have already discussed the fact that I perceive fire to be hot.
>
>
>>> the fundamental questions of reality - like solipsism - cannot be
>>> supported or denied through science.
>>
>> What is real that can't be supported by science?
>
> What is real?
B
Bill M
Guest
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e7613fa0-6f82-4ed8-870f-eaaa7cc0523e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 1:16 am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:
>
> > > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
> > > that
> > > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
>
> > > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> > I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver. I know that
> > you cannot do it, because the definition of pure gold coin excludes
> > making
> > it from silver.
>
> > Likewise, the definition of God, or any that I have encountered,
> > preclude
> > "objective, verifiable evidence".
>
> > In fact, you cannot even produce objective, verifiable evidence that G.
> > Bush is the President of the United States. Oh, you can produce
> > newspaper
> > reports, you might even produce the man himself should it happen that he
> > is at your beck and call. But how will I know this man is indeed the
> > president? I cannot. A two million man army at his command is
> > persuasive, but of course, he would have to present all two million of
> > them to me to REALLY convince me.
>
> > Suppose the FBI comes calling and show you their identification. How can
> > you prove it is genuine FBI identification? You cannot; at best you can
> > see that it resembles the first one you ever saw. If the FBI published
> > specifications so as to enable verification, it would also enable
> > counterfeit.
>
> > So, I do not accept your stupid challenge, and I hope you do not accept
> > my
> > equally stupid challenge to produce a gold coin made out of silver.
>
> > Perhaps you are thinking that someone WANTS to convince you of something
> > that you have set up to be impossible. If God wishes it, then it will
> > happen; it is not for anyone else to make happen. That is the way it is
> > with gods. They do what they want, and they do not do what they do not
> > want to do.
>
> What does it feel like to be an abject total failure?- Hide quoted text -
I don't know myself, but you are a good image.
Got your head lost up your imaginary Gods ass again Duke!
You do not seem to know anything but what your preacher tells you.
news:e7613fa0-6f82-4ed8-870f-eaaa7cc0523e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 1:16 am, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote:
>
> > > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
> > > that
> > > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
>
> > > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> > I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver. I know that
> > you cannot do it, because the definition of pure gold coin excludes
> > making
> > it from silver.
>
> > Likewise, the definition of God, or any that I have encountered,
> > preclude
> > "objective, verifiable evidence".
>
> > In fact, you cannot even produce objective, verifiable evidence that G.
> > Bush is the President of the United States. Oh, you can produce
> > newspaper
> > reports, you might even produce the man himself should it happen that he
> > is at your beck and call. But how will I know this man is indeed the
> > president? I cannot. A two million man army at his command is
> > persuasive, but of course, he would have to present all two million of
> > them to me to REALLY convince me.
>
> > Suppose the FBI comes calling and show you their identification. How can
> > you prove it is genuine FBI identification? You cannot; at best you can
> > see that it resembles the first one you ever saw. If the FBI published
> > specifications so as to enable verification, it would also enable
> > counterfeit.
>
> > So, I do not accept your stupid challenge, and I hope you do not accept
> > my
> > equally stupid challenge to produce a gold coin made out of silver.
>
> > Perhaps you are thinking that someone WANTS to convince you of something
> > that you have set up to be impossible. If God wishes it, then it will
> > happen; it is not for anyone else to make happen. That is the way it is
> > with gods. They do what they want, and they do not do what they do not
> > want to do.
>
> What does it feel like to be an abject total failure?- Hide quoted text -
I don't know myself, but you are a good image.
Got your head lost up your imaginary Gods ass again Duke!
You do not seem to know anything but what your preacher tells you.
B
Bill M
Guest
You appear to enjoy engaging in Sophistry and obfuscation. Why waste our
time with your nonsensical polemics???
"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hOmdnRNZeYq9zTXaRVnyhgA@bt.com...
> Okay, Bill, let's see what I can do to address your challenges.
>
> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :
>
>> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of
>> the world is proof of God.
>
> Your challenge is directed at concept of single god, as defined by
> monotheistic religions.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful creator
>
> This implies a single being directly and consciously response for
> existence of world or cosmos.
>
>
>> all loving and caring
>
> Challenge is directed at god defined as universally benevolent.
>
>
>> intelligent designer
>
> Reiterates definition from 'all powerful creator'.
>
>
>> Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this
>> horrible way?
>
> Appeal to emotion, along with implication that adult lives are not as
> important as those of children.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent
>> children" to die at birth?
>
> Repetition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die
>
> Reptition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
> Deity being challenged defined as male.
>
>
>> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam
>> and Eve's 'original sin'.
>
> Adam and Eve feature in Abramic mythology only. God being challenged is
> therefore that of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.
>
>
>> Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Intended meaning of 'supposedly' not
> clear - term usually implies doubt about a claim.
>
>
>> Why did this all powerful and loving creator
>
> Repetition of definition; God as necessarily omnibenevolent.
>
>
>> Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children!
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent
>> children.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Men and women can also be 'totally
> innocent', but the same assumption is not made for them. This implies
> that at least some adults deserved to die from the Black Death. I would
> contest that.
>
>
>> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
>> innocent children indiscriminately.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion - see above re bubonic plague.
>
>
>> ALL god beliefs
>
> Indicates challenge towards all forms of religion.
>
> So, Bill, how do I defend my religious beliefs against your challenges?
>
> Well, given that your challenge is directed against a single omnipotent,
> omnibenevolent, male creator god, none of it applies to my religion.
> Which also doesn't include Adam and Eve.
>
> "Think of the children" - employed repeatedly throughout your lecture -
> is an empty argument and can be discarded as the weak rhetoric it is.
>
>
> Which leaves us with relatively little. In fact, the only thing I can
> really address in terms of my own belief system is the question you asked
> of how come mankind has managed to do all these wonderful things you've
> listed, find these marvellous cures and make stunning discoveries - all,
> so you presume, without the help of gods.
>
> Many Christians would argue that if God hadn't wanted us to fly, He
> wouldn't have led us to discover how to make airfoils.
>
> The truth is that we have achieved these things because it's in our
> nature - whether that nature was designed or not. In the same way that it
> appears to be our nature to exploit our world to make weapons out of
> natural diseases, and engineer them into new variants in order to cause
> even more agony and suffering. The way it appears to be our nature to
> discover the spectacular beauty of the quantum world, and turn it
> immediately towards wreaking massive death and destruction on our
> fellows. The way we discover these wonderful cures for terrible ills,
> and then withhold them until the sufferers stump up enough money. The
> way we burn and rip the land, fill the sea and the sky with toxic filth,
> and guzzle resources we cannot afford to support lifestyles we do not
> need.
>
> It's one thing to labour our merits as proof that we don't need gods -
> but it leaves us with a rather skewed impression of what mankind is. If
> we can take the credit for our achievements, then we must also take the
> blame for our failings. If some god or other is to be blamed for the
> evil that we do, then that god should also be credited with our good.
>
>
>> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
>> all-caring and benevolent god.
>
> You're probably right.
>
>
>> The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern
>> about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
>
> And it continually puzzles me why so many people imagine He should -
> given the time so many of them spend trying to express just how big He is
> in comparison to us.
>
>
>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
>> that their god actually exists except in their over active
>> imaginations.
>>
>> Who will accept the challenge???
>
> To conclude: speaking for myself, I don't need to. Your challenge
> doesn't apply to my beliefs.
time with your nonsensical polemics???
"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hOmdnRNZeYq9zTXaRVnyhgA@bt.com...
> Okay, Bill, let's see what I can do to address your challenges.
>
> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said :
>
>> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of
>> the world is proof of God.
>
> Your challenge is directed at concept of single god, as defined by
> monotheistic religions.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful creator
>
> This implies a single being directly and consciously response for
> existence of world or cosmos.
>
>
>> all loving and caring
>
> Challenge is directed at god defined as universally benevolent.
>
>
>> intelligent designer
>
> Reiterates definition from 'all powerful creator'.
>
>
>> Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this
>> horrible way?
>
> Appeal to emotion, along with implication that adult lives are not as
> important as those of children.
>
>
>> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent
>> children" to die at birth?
>
> Repetition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die
>
> Reptition of previous appeal to emotion.
>
> Deity being challenged defined as male.
>
>
>> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam
>> and Eve's 'original sin'.
>
> Adam and Eve feature in Abramic mythology only. God being challenged is
> therefore that of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.
>
>
>> Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Intended meaning of 'supposedly' not
> clear - term usually implies doubt about a claim.
>
>
>> Why did this all powerful and loving creator
>
> Repetition of definition; God as necessarily omnibenevolent.
>
>
>> Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children!
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion.
>
>
>> The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent
>> children.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion. Men and women can also be 'totally
> innocent', but the same assumption is not made for them. This implies
> that at least some adults deserved to die from the Black Death. I would
> contest that.
>
>
>> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
>> innocent children indiscriminately.
>
> Repetition of appeal to emotion - see above re bubonic plague.
>
>
>> ALL god beliefs
>
> Indicates challenge towards all forms of religion.
>
> So, Bill, how do I defend my religious beliefs against your challenges?
>
> Well, given that your challenge is directed against a single omnipotent,
> omnibenevolent, male creator god, none of it applies to my religion.
> Which also doesn't include Adam and Eve.
>
> "Think of the children" - employed repeatedly throughout your lecture -
> is an empty argument and can be discarded as the weak rhetoric it is.
>
>
> Which leaves us with relatively little. In fact, the only thing I can
> really address in terms of my own belief system is the question you asked
> of how come mankind has managed to do all these wonderful things you've
> listed, find these marvellous cures and make stunning discoveries - all,
> so you presume, without the help of gods.
>
> Many Christians would argue that if God hadn't wanted us to fly, He
> wouldn't have led us to discover how to make airfoils.
>
> The truth is that we have achieved these things because it's in our
> nature - whether that nature was designed or not. In the same way that it
> appears to be our nature to exploit our world to make weapons out of
> natural diseases, and engineer them into new variants in order to cause
> even more agony and suffering. The way it appears to be our nature to
> discover the spectacular beauty of the quantum world, and turn it
> immediately towards wreaking massive death and destruction on our
> fellows. The way we discover these wonderful cures for terrible ills,
> and then withhold them until the sufferers stump up enough money. The
> way we burn and rip the land, fill the sea and the sky with toxic filth,
> and guzzle resources we cannot afford to support lifestyles we do not
> need.
>
> It's one thing to labour our merits as proof that we don't need gods -
> but it leaves us with a rather skewed impression of what mankind is. If
> we can take the credit for our achievements, then we must also take the
> blame for our failings. If some god or other is to be blamed for the
> evil that we do, then that god should also be credited with our good.
>
>
>> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
>> all-caring and benevolent god.
>
> You're probably right.
>
>
>> The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern
>> about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
>
> And it continually puzzles me why so many people imagine He should -
> given the time so many of them spend trying to express just how big He is
> in comparison to us.
>
>
>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
>> that their god actually exists except in their over active
>> imaginations.
>>
>> Who will accept the challenge???
>
> To conclude: speaking for myself, I don't need to. Your challenge
> doesn't apply to my beliefs.
B
Bill M
Guest
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d1cecf67-42ab-49bd-bf2d-48a1d5a44a59@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 7:20 am, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the
> > world is proof of God.
>
> > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO
> > OJECTIVE
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL
> > god beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims of
> > errant men.
>
> > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
> > that
> > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
> > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> Mr Bill,
> I have offered you objective, verifiable evidence in previous posts to
> your
> question.
> I posed an experiment YOU could perform for yourself to see for yourself
> that the Bible contains instructions on how to improve your mental
> capacity.
> YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY PROOF.
Proof? He refuses to accept evidence.
Where is it??? I don't accept your imagination and opinions as evidence!
news:d1cecf67-42ab-49bd-bf2d-48a1d5a44a59@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 7:20 am, "rjbjr" <rjburn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the
> > world is proof of God.
>
> > There are thousands of different 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 and claims of
> > errant men.
>
> > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence
> > that
> > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
> > Who will accept the challenge???
>
> Mr Bill,
> I have offered you objective, verifiable evidence in previous posts to
> your
> question.
> I posed an experiment YOU could perform for yourself to see for yourself
> that the Bible contains instructions on how to improve your mental
> capacity.
> YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT MY PROOF.
Proof? He refuses to accept evidence.
Where is it??? I don't accept your imagination and opinions as evidence!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 343
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 28
S
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 21
S