Re: Definition of God

[Robibnikoff]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156448755.671396.135100@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156438268.131836.281540@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Robibnikoff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Where did he stated he believe there is "only evil"? Sounds like
>> >> projection
>> >> on your part.
>> >
>> > not so much projection as i stayed up late watching baseball and
>> > misread what he said, my bad.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thank goodness for that. I would hope that sort of thinking went out
>> >> with
>> >> the dark ages.
>> >>
>> >
>> > i only added my two cents I'm not trying to change your world or your
>> > beliefs, but I will admit this is fun watching everyone spin because
>> > they can't handle someone believing differently.
>>
>> LOL - You're funny. What in the world makes you think we "can't handle"
>> it?
>> I can handle it quite fine, dearly. I assure you.
>>
>
> glad to here it then, let's call this a debate and do away with the
> terms "moron", "idiot", "straw man" and "dishonest Christain".

Hey, I don't use those terms in the first place. However, one thing you
will soon discover is that you can't get people to do what you want in
Usenet.

>> >> EVERYTHING that's in the bible?
>> >
>> > it was written in older times and by Man so I don't go along with
>> > absolutely everything just most things.
>>
>> Uh huh. Pick and choose what to believe in, eh? How typical. You're
>> what's known as a "Salad Bar Christian".

> i think you misunderstand me a little here, parts of the old testiment
> were replaced with the new testiment.

Such as?

> hey you got any ranch to go with
> that?

No, only blue cheese.

>> >> Yeah, right, sure.
>> >
>> > give it up your not changing anything I've witnessed, you can
>> > believe it didn't happen that's fine with me.
>>
>> Don't worry yourself, deary. I don't believe a word of it.
>
> good for you, it's your right. you wasn't there so what do you care.

I don't

> found it interesting how many people don't believe it but hey we all
> have our own mind. i would probably find it hard to believe myself if
> I hadn't ever experienced it and heard the story.
>> >
>> >> Fine, then bug off, okay?
>> >
>> > no, plain and simple no, this is a discussion board and this is a
>> > seriously interesting discussion to me.
>>
>> Alrighty then - You've been warned
>
> bring it on, I don't know everything there is to know for sure so
> anything new I can learn about what motivates people in what they
> believe in, great. always love learning.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156449090.569294.221770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> snip
>> >
>> > okay, you can call it what you wish, how about a rise?
>>
>> Rise? Hey, whatever blows your dress up, kiddo.
>
> thanks but these days I wear a skirt so it's much easier to get it
> blown up. What does "kiddo" have to do with anything? throwing more
> sarcism out there to help get your view point across?

Maybe.............maybe not. Don't make such a big deal out of it. Usenet
isn't for the thin-skinned. Frankly, you sound pretty young.

>> >> >> EVERYTHING that's in the bible?
>> >> >
>> >> > it was written in older times and by Man so I don't go along with
>> >> > absolutely everything just most things.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know which are the right ones? Is it because you want them
>> >> to be? (Like you had said about belief in the religion in general),
>> >> or
>> >> because of the historicality of certain parts, or what?
>> >
>> > historical things that are backed up by recent archeological
>> > discoveries.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> what i've read,

Such as?

how about you citing something to do with there being
> no "God"?

Why should I? I never made such a statement.

>> not to mention writings from others about Jesus's
>> > existence
>>
>> Such as? Got a cite for that? BTW, Josephus doesn't count as that's a
>> proven
>> forgery
>>
>> >and what happend that have nothing to do with the Bible.
>>
>> What the heck does this mean?
>
> i mean sources that aren't Christian and have nothing to do with the
> Bible.

Such as?

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:50:49 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news9qre2d5e8667o1q492qs7t29ubrjhnnb7@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:41:21 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:genre2ttjlsfegkq27vidfso7h2lsouho3@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ><jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Immortalist wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > God is a concept some humans use as a lever
>> >> >> > [crutch-lever?].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet,
>> >> >> this isn't exactly going out on a limb.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the
>> >> >> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot
>> >> >> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we
>> >> >> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people
>> >> >> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out
>> >> >> of having pain inflicted on them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view
>> >> >> of human sexuality, would I not?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > If evolutionary theory is correct, people with
>> >> >> > particular religious instincts survived and the
>> >> >> > atheists died.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> None.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How are you arriving at this claim?
>> >> >>
>> >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
>> >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
>> >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
>> >> >have none of this assurance.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Neither do Christians, Dan. They want to believe their fantasies, but
>> >> they don't really.
>> >>
>> >Do you speak for Christians?
>>
>> So demonstrate that your pretend friend is more than just a fantasy.
>>
>> What's that?
>>
>> You can't?
>>
>> Given your earlier performance where you couldn't grasp the difference
>> between rationalising in terms of an unjustified presumption, and a
>> conclusion which you pretended to make, that doesn't surprise me.
>>
>Chris, do you consider anything in the religious sphere to be anything,
>but unjustified presumptions? I know the difference between a
>conclusion and a presumption. I did offer what I consider empirical
>evidence for God's existence. And this is evidence which satisfies me.
>You disagreed that this evidence points to a creator, but you offered
>nothing in its place except guesses, supposition and unsupported
>hypotheses.

More dishonesty. Or are you just incapable of reading for
comprehension?

When you beg the question, they are unjustified until you provide
justification.

And you are deluding yourself if you imagine there is empirical
evidence.

You presume it, you don't conclude it.

You have offered nothing that remotely resembles evidence, let one
empirical evidence.

Let alone anything that points to a creator.

And what is wrong with not knowing YET what happened prior to 10^-43
seconds after the big bang?

We're honest about that - unlike you.

Your insistence that the deity you coincidentally happened to already
believe in, did it, is baseless.

You have crashed an area where every claim has to be backed up, and
where the speculations you dismiss are part and parcel of how science
works BECAUSE NOBODY PRETENDS THEY ARE ANY MORE THAN AVENUES TO BE
EXPLORED - which is simply the methodology used for finding out how
reality works.

Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real
world outside your religion.

As does your refusal to back up your "God" claims IN AN AREA WHERE
EVERY CLAIM HAS TO BE BACKED UP. AGAIN, OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

In your "logic", "God" is a presumption not a conclusion nor an
observation.

Because it is the only way to get there using your circular argument,
your argument from ignorance etc.

You have to step aside from any presumptions about it, pretending you
had never heard of it. Then describe the evidence you insist exists
that you never provide, and then explain why it leads to "God" without
any of the presumptions you are supposed not to have.

Hint: without those presumptions you could not even call it "God",
whatever it is you imagine you have found. Let alone any of the
doctrinal attributes you give it.

Until you do that, you have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject.
So stop wasting everybody's time.

>Dan
>

 

[Robibnikoff]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156449315.275054.323260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156440089.647521.176970@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> On 24 Aug 2006 08:48:25 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why do you morons invent beliefs we don't have?
>> >>
>> >> Learn the difference between your stupid, ignorant and smug straw man,
>> >> and the actuality of HAVING ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR MYTHS.
>> >>
>> >
>> > i didn't invent the belief its been around for thousands of years and
>> > is still going.
>>
>> Well, duh, of course not.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it's true either.
>
> what about history books about our country?

What about them?

should we say they are all
> completely false, throw out the constitution and do whatever?

Of course not - That would be stupid.

Since
> it's probably fake anyway?

What makes you think that? Last I heard, history didn't deal too much with
myths and people rising from the dead.

>> > > Another straw man to the point of lying.
>> >>
>> >> Why can't you assholes have a shred of honesty?
>> >
>> > so if I cuss and throw some acusations around I'll be considered
>> > honest? okay, why can't you assholes be a little nicer?
>>
>> Why the **** should we if we don't feel like it?
>
> your proving a point to me, kindness will not abound from
> non-believers. ;]

So? Take a look at some of the raving believers that come into alt.atheism.
One recently prayed that someone here would get cancer. Nice! BTW,
sweetums, we're not telling you you're going to burn in hell for all
eternity. We hear that quite frequently from believers.

>> >> Then you're a brainwashed idiot.
>> >
>> > so you have proof that your way of life is better? and everyone should
>> > believe in nothing?
>>
>> What makes you think atheists "believe in nothing"? We just don't
>> believe
>> in god(s).
>
> explain a little of what you believe in so I better understand

I believe that I'm starting to get bored with this conversation

How's that?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[thepossibilities]

here's "dictionary.com"'s definintion of an atheist, found the synonyms
interesting. as for backing up my points it's pointless you won't
believe it anyway. besides i don't see anyone defining an atheist or
proving any of there points.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
a‧the‧ist  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme
being or beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not
inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious
belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of
divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know
anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains
from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever,
especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and
is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:15:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>
>Well, I personally believe my husband's quite the cutie pie, but that's
>probably not what you're looking for

Surely there is no man lovelier than my caro sposo. He knows when to
leave the bit loose, so he gentle, but he never uses his whip.

Lizz 'this is a metaphor. Nobody ever bought me a pony. And I'm still
pissed about it' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:42:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>snip
>>
>> okay, you can call it what you wish, how about a rise?
>
>Rise? Hey, whatever blows your dress up, kiddo.

Your correspondent is probably speaking English English. Rise=raise in
salary.

Lizz 'and I don't wear dresses if I don't have to' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Frank Mayhar]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:45:55 -0700, thepossibilities wrote:
> [ Unimportant. ]

Kiddo, you're crossposting to alt.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.skeptic,
alt.atheism and alt.religion. Except for that last one, you're in the
_wrong_ place to promote your religious belief.

Further, judging from what you've already written, you're way, _way_ out
of your depth. Most folks here in alt.atheism have knocked down the
arguments you've posted so far not once but many, many times. It may be
new to you but it's certainly not new to us.

So I suggest that you do one of three things: You can lurk for a while,
reading what both the regulars and the trolling theists post and learning
just why the attitude of most here is what it is. (You can also go to
Google Groups and read the archives, which will also teach you a lot.)
You can go play in your own sandbox and leave the rest of us alone,
whereby we won't be annoyed and you won't have your cherished beliefs
dissected and torn apart before your eyes. Or, finally, you can recognize
that others don't share your beliefs and that those beliefs have no
objective, provable underpinning, grow a very thick skin, and join the
chaos that is alt.atheism.

The alternative, of course, is to get your rhetorical ass handed to you in
multiple pieces, over and over again. Your choice.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

 

[thepossibilities]

Frank Mayhar wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:45:55 -0700, thepossibilities wrote:
> > [ Unimportant. ]
>
> Kiddo, you're crossposting to alt.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.skeptic,
> alt.atheism and alt.religion. Except for that last one, you're in the
> _wrong_ place to promote your religious belief.
>
> Further, judging from what you've already written, you're way, _way_ out
> of your depth. Most folks here in alt.atheism have knocked down the
> arguments you've posted so far not once but many, many times. It may be
> new to you but it's certainly not new to us.
>
> So I suggest that you do one of three things: You can lurk for a while,
> reading what both the regulars and the trolling theists post and learning
> just why the attitude of most here is what it is. (You can also go to
> Google Groups and read the archives, which will also teach you a lot.)
> You can go play in your own sandbox and leave the rest of us alone,
> whereby we won't be annoyed and you won't have your cherished beliefs
> dissected and torn apart before your eyes. Or, finally, you can recognize
> that others don't share your beliefs and that those beliefs have no
> objective, provable underpinning, grow a very thick skin, and join the
> chaos that is alt.atheism.
>
> The alternative, of course, is to get your rhetorical ass handed to you in
> multiple pieces, over and over again. Your choice.
> --
> Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
> Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
> http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

i would have to ask who is doing the judging here? you or me? I am
juding no one I am just curious as to why you believe the way you do
and you are so inistent on disproving my beliefs. You have some good
advice I will reference the older posts to better understand this
subject. I am pushing nothing, I am stating what I believe in, and
being persecuted for it which is fine, it's expected. if I am cross
posting it wasn't my intent I only wanted to respond to the "Re:
Definition of God" post which I found under sci.logic. And yes I am
relatively new to this group so thanks for the advice.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 24 Aug 2006 13:29:58 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>here's "dictionary.com"'s definintion of an atheist, found the synonyms
>interesting. as for backing up my points it's pointless you won't
>believe it anyway. besides i don't see anyone defining an atheist or
>proving any of there points.
>
>
>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
>a?the?ist? /?e??i?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>
>

 

[Frank Mayhar]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:04:17 -0700, thepossibilities wrote:
> i would have to ask who is doing the judging here? you or me? I am
> juding no one I am just curious as to why you believe the way you do
> and you are so inistent on disproving my beliefs.

If you have to ask, you're not going to understand the answer. But, yes,
_you_ are doing the judging. I was just an onlooker who decided to give
you some advice, since you seemed reasonable, just ill-informed. The
other thing that you're going to have to realize if you want to post to
alt.atheism is that _no_ one here is interested in (much less "insistent
on") disproving your beliefs. It's very, very simple: The person making
the assertion has the burden of proof. You assert that there is a god,
fine, you prove it. When you claim that we have to _disprove_ it, you
fall right into the seething pit of fallacies occupied my the rest of the
religious trolls that keep coming through.

None of us, to the best of my knowledge, really care what you believe, as
long as you don't try to tell us that it's "The Truth" and that if we
don't believe as you do some boogey god is going to torture us forever, or
some such. We've heard it too many times and we're seriously _not_
interested in hearing it again.

> You have some good
> advice I will reference the older posts to better understand this
> subject. I am pushing nothing, I am stating what I believe in, and
> being persecuted for it which is fine, it's expected.

See, this is a perfect example of one of the common fallacies. Just
because you're being challenged does _not_ mean that you're being
"persecuted." And the fact that you apparently think it does means that
you have a lot to learn. Particularly about the meaning of the word
"persecution."

> if I am cross
> posting it wasn't my intent I only wanted to respond to the "Re:
> Definition of God" post which I found under sci.logic. And yes I am
> relatively new to this group so thanks for the advice.

You're welcome. If you want to avoid alt.atheism, I urge you to remove
that group from the list of groups to which your articles are posted.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

 

[knucmo]

Bob wrote:

> What could be more blissful than nonexistence.

One cannot experience non-existence.

 

[droth]

thepossibilities wrote:
> droth wrote:
>> thepossibilities wrote:
>>>>> i only added my two cents I'm not trying to change your world or your
>>>>> beliefs, but I will admit this is fun watching everyone spin because
>>>>> they can't handle someone believing differently.
>>>> I think you are seeing something that isn't there (again?).
>>> okay, you can call it what you wish, how about a rise?
>> How about a response ?
>
> thought I did respond when I explained that I misread the earlier post,
> however I deem this issue mute at this point and doesn't matter a whole
> lot in the grand scheme of things.

Ah, sorry, I realize what I said was ambiguous. I meant that instead of
interpreting the comments you have received as "everyone spin[ning]" or
a "rise", which are kind of loaded, why not simply say "response".

>>>>>> EVERYTHING that's in the bible?
>>>>> it was written in older times and by Man so I don't go along with
>>>>> absolutely everything just most things.
>>>> How do you know which are the right ones? Is it because you want them
>>>> to be? (Like you had said about belief in the religion in general), or
>>>> because of the historicality of certain parts, or what?
>>> historical things that are backed up by recent archeological
>>> discoveries. not to mention writings from others about Jesus's
>>> existence and what happend that have nothing to do with the Bible.
>> Okay, so let's get specific.
>>
>> Matthew 19:24:
>> "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a
>> rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
>>
>> A couple of questions:
>> 1. Do you believe this is a true part of the Bible?
>>
>> 2. If so, what archeological evidence, or writings of others, leads you
>> to that conclusion?
>>
>> 3. If not, are there any other quotes attributed to Jesus that you lack
>> archeological evidence of their truth, but still believe them to be true?
>>
> you know other than you not believeing in God why don't you educate me
> a little on what atheists believe so I better understand who I am
> dealing with.

If you aren't interested in answering the questions, that's fine.
However, you DID state the following: 1) that you believe in
Christianity largely because you don't like the option 2) you believe
in the Bible because of historical veracity 3) you believe in the
Bible due to later writings which support it. When asked if you believe
ALL of the Bible, you said no, so I'm wondering what your method is for
determining which parts to believe and which to not believe.

If you need to know anything about me, or my beliefs, to make sense of
yours, then I think you're in trouble.

 

[Steve O]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156434505.556225.84560@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve O wrote:
>> That seems like a completely irrational thing to say.
>> Just because you hope that death isn't permanent doesn't make it any
>> different.
>> What's the point in forcing yourself to believe in something, as you
>> appear
>> to , simply because the alternative is unthinkable?
>> How do you actually manage to do that?
>> Most of us are incapable of such double think.
>
> i don't force myself to believe in God at all. I freely believe in him
> and his son Jesus.

That isn't what you said.
You said that you were a Christian largely because you don't want to believe
that we are born on this earth, live out our lives and then cease to exist.
To an atheist, that sounds like you only believe in God because the
alternative is too horrible.
I wasn't the only person to interpret your statement that way, judging from
the responses.



>Again if you want to believe you live out your life
> on earth and then it's over and done with and you can be happy with
> this then so be it.

It's not a question of believing, or being happy with it, or wanting or not
wanting eternal oblivion - we have no choice in the matter.
Just wishing that there is an afterlife doesn't mean there is one.
I really cannot understand why you cannot grasp this point.
Unless of course, you have some irrefutable evidence of an afterlife which
I'm not aware of.
If you have, I'd be pleased to hear it.

>
> If you want to believe there is only evil


.... Hold on a minute... who said that I believe there is only evil?
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here.
In fact, for me personally, there is a lot of good and beauty in the world
at the moment.

>that's your choice, pretty
> dismal belief if you ask me but that's your choice as well.

It's not a choice or belief.
You are trying to put words into my mouth.
All I did was question the actual existence of an afterlife and you
immediately assumed that I believed there is only evil in the world.
Your illogical hopping from one subject matter to the other seems strange to
me.
I do not "believe" in the non existence of an afterlife at all - I simply
postulate that there is absolutely no evidence that there is one.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
If you are unable to produce any, then please excuse me for not believing
YOUR assertion.


>
>> There's nothing funny about mental health problems or delusions - I can
>> assure you I'm not laughing- but what makes you think that a medical
>> condition has anything to do with "demons"?
>
> as for mental health problems I agree there is nothing funny about
> them. I believe that people can have mental problems and it's not
> anything to do with Satan or demons.
>
>> I have seen some seriously strange behavior (and criminal behaviour) from
>> other people too- but I didn't automatically conlude that demons were
>> involved, so why should you?
>
> why should I? because I believe in what the Bible says.
>
Am I conversing with someone from the 12th Century here?
Do you seriously believe that criminal behaviour or mental health problems
can be caused by demons?
What the hell is a "demon" supposed to be, anyway?


story snipped

>>
>> Interesting story.
>> But I'd be interested in knowing what kind of mushrooms they had on that
>> site.
>
> again I don't really care if you believe me or not it's your
> perogative, I was there and know what I saw.

Again, it's not a question of belief.
(Why are you people so obsessed with belief anyway?)
It's a simple question of applying logic and common sense to understand how
an incident may or may not have ocurred.
With your story, I am faced with a choice - I can either accept that there
are magical forces previously unknown to science, which allows a young boy
to levitate at rapid speed across a field whilst in the possession of an
invisible and malevolent force, or I can suspect that a bunch of kids on a
camping trip had a go at the magic mushrooms.
I know which explanation I prefer, although admittedly, there are several
others.



--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"



>
>> Steve O
>> a.a. #2240
>> "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the
>> way
>> that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"
>
> if you don't believe that man's hearts are truely evil then explain
> while all the hateful spiteful stuff is going on in the world. With
> all the killings, rapes, wars and so on. Again you can believe how you
> wish, all this speak of is from my experience which is pretty clear cut
> to me and no one is going to convince me otherwise.
>

 

[Steve O]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4l61jbFekg5U1@individual.net...
>
> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> snip
>
>> i don't "think" I saw some guy floating I did see him floating, the
>> others with me witnessed the same thing!!!!. Yes it is clear cut that
>> God exists!!!!!
>
> Yeah, sure. Tell us another story.
> --
I don't know how he makes the leap of logic from
"I saw a guy floating"
to
"There is a God!"

If it is any consolation, I convinced a workmate a while back that I could
float off the ground myself.
(I used the same technique that David Blaine uses to "levitate")
She was absolutely stunned, had no explanation whatsoever, but I didn't hear
her bleating about the existence of a god or gods as a result.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Paul Holbach]

> knucmo wrote:
> > Bob wrote:

> > What could be more blissful than nonexistence.

> One cannot experience non-existence.

Right, there is nothing that it is like not to be.

#PH

 

[Steve O]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156440089.647521.176970@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2006 08:48:25 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you morons invent beliefs we don't have?
>>
>> Learn the difference between your stupid, ignorant and smug straw man,
>> and the actuality of HAVING ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR MYTHS.
>>
>
> i didn't invent the belief its been around for thousands of years and
> is still going.

Chris, I believe this guy is way too stupid to follow a conversation.

Hardly surprising, really, considering his beliefs.


>
> > Another straw man to the point of lying.
>>
>> Why can't you assholes have a shred of honesty?
>
> so if I cuss and throw some acusations around I'll be considered
> honest? okay, why can't you assholes be a little nicer?
>
>> Then you're a brainwashed idiot.
>
> so you have proof that your way of life is better? and everyone should
> believe in nothing?
>

 

[Steve O]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156448023.302527.99040@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2006 10:21:29 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> On 24 Aug 2006 08:48:25 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why do you morons invent beliefs we don't have?
>> >>
>> >> Learn the difference between your stupid, ignorant and smug straw man,
>> >> and the actuality of HAVING ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR MYTHS.
>> >>
>> >
>> >i didn't invent the belief its been around for thousands of years and
>> >is still going.
>>
>> You meant the belief that brindead theists have about what is in
>> atheists' heads?
>>
>> And that excuses you lying about atheists to our faces, brainwashed
>> moron?
>
> don't get where you are going with this, can you offer a more detailed
> response with less criticism, it distracts from the subject matter. i
> am touching on the subject of God primarily because that is the main
> subject here, I explained why I believe in God so explain to me the
> convincing evidence you have there is no God and what other belief's an
> atheist has.

Are you being deliberately stupid?
The onus is not on us to disprove your whacky ideas.
Under normal circumstances, a negative cannot be proven.
For the question of whether or not your Christian God can exist in the
manner in which it is described, look up the Epicurean Prooblem of Evil.
Yours is an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have no proof
whatsoever for any of your claims at all.





--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Steve O]

>>
>> What makes you think atheists "believe in nothing"? We just don't
>> believe
>> in god(s).
>
> explain a little of what you believe in so I better understand
>

I'll take a chance here and assume for a moment that you are someone who is
genuinely interested in what an atheist thinks.
Atheists believe in many different things.
I personally believe in honesty, loyalty , family and a whole host of other
things.
There are even some things I believe in that other people find difficult to
believe.
I'll give you an example - I believe in the Allen Carr method of quitting
smoking- which postulates that you can quit smoking completely in a matter
of hours.
Some people have difficulty in believing that.
I don't , because I used the method and went from 40 a day to nothing in a
matter of hours, without any side effects or suffering withdrawal symptoms
What I do not believe in, in common with all other atheists, is a god or
gods.
There is nothing to particularly understand- that's all there is to it.
It's very simple.
You probably don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.
I would completely accept your position on that, and I wouldn't try to tell
you how long the Tooth Fairy story has existed, or how many people actually
believe in the Tooth Fairy, or give examples of people who have actually
found cash underneath their pillow following a tooth loss, or try to offer
those facts as evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
To put it simply, and to paraphrase a well known atheist expression - I
simply believe in one less God than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you will
understand why I dismiss yours.
I hope that explains things for you.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[DanWood]

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nj1se2hjpvmltcb8ce1vjav1lergieften@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:50:49 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news9qre2d5e8667o1q492qs7t29ubrjhnnb7@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:41:21 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:genre2ttjlsfegkq27vidfso7h2lsouho3@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Immortalist wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > God is a concept some humans use as a lever
> >> >> >> > [crutch-lever?].
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet,
> >> >> >> this isn't exactly going out on a limb.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the
> >> >> >> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot
> >> >> >> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we
> >> >> >> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people
> >> >> >> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out
> >> >> >> of having pain inflicted on them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view
> >> >> >> of human sexuality, would I not?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > If evolutionary theory is correct, people with
> >> >> >> > particular religious instincts survived and the
> >> >> >> > atheists died.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> None.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How are you arriving at this claim?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
> >> >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> >> >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> >> >> >have none of this assurance.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither do Christians, Dan. They want to believe their fantasies,
but
> >> >> they don't really.
> >> >>
> >> >Do you speak for Christians?
> >>
> >> So demonstrate that your pretend friend is more than just a fantasy.
> >>
> >> What's that?
> >>
> >> You can't?
> >>
> >> Given your earlier performance where you couldn't grasp the difference
> >> between rationalising in terms of an unjustified presumption, and a
> >> conclusion which you pretended to make, that doesn't surprise me.
> >>
> >Chris, do you consider anything in the religious sphere to be anything,
> >but unjustified presumptions? I know the difference between a
> >conclusion and a presumption. I did offer what I consider empirical
> >evidence for God's existence. And this is evidence which satisfies me.
> >You disagreed that this evidence points to a creator, but you offered
> >nothing in its place except guesses, supposition and unsupported
> >hypotheses.
>
> More dishonesty. Or are you just incapable of reading for
> comprehension?
>
This is so typical of you. You did not respond to _anything_ I wrote
above. You chose instead to engage in personal insults and slander.
When you can't discredit the man's argument then discredit the man.
This has been you strategy from the beginning.
>
This is the a case of
>
> When you beg the question, they are unjustified until you provide
> justification.
>
> And you are deluding yourself if you imagine there is empirical
> evidence.
>
If you read anything I wrote, then explain what is the empirical evidence
that I believe pointed to a Creator.
>
> You presume it, you don't conclude it.
>
> You have offered nothing that remotely resembles evidence, let one
> empirical evidence.
>
How can you pretend to be addressing anything I wrote?
>
> Let alone anything that points to a creator.
>
> And what is wrong with not knowing YET what happened prior to 10^-43
> seconds after the big bang?
>
If you had bothered to read my post you would have realized we were
not so far apart. We cannot know at the present time what happened
prior to Planck time. There is no doubt that some physics was at
play during this epoch, but modern physics cannot be brought to bear
on whatever events that took place.
>
> We're honest about that - unlike you.
>
More false charges. Which demonstrates your flawed character.
Ever heard the law, "you shall _not_ bear false witness"?
Of course, since you are responsibile only to yourself, this
does not apply to you.
>
> Your insistence that the deity you coincidentally happened to already
> believe in, did it, is baseless.
>
Except for the reason which I gave which is unacceptable to you.
>
> You have crashed an area where every claim has to be backed up, and
> where the speculations you dismiss are part and parcel of how science
> works BECAUSE NOBODY PRETENDS THEY ARE ANY MORE THAN AVENUES TO BE
> EXPLORED - which is simply the methodology used for finding out how
> reality works.
>
Yes, but this is your faith.
>
> Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real
> world outside your religion.
>
Pontificating again?
>
> As does your refusal to back up your "God" claims IN AN AREA WHERE
> EVERY CLAIM HAS TO BE BACKED UP. AGAIN, OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.
>
I have nothing to prove to you, you otoh are a crusader for atheism.
The truth is, I don't care about you, I don't understand why you
care about me.
>
> In your "logic", "God" is a presumption not a conclusion nor an
> observation.
>
How would can one observe events that occured 14^9 years ago?
>
> Because it is the only way to get there using your circular argument,
> your argument from ignorance etc.
>
Pontificating again or is it: attacking the man rather than his arguments
again.
>
> You have to step aside from any presumptions about it, pretending you
> had never heard of it. Then describe the evidence you insist exists
> that you never provide, and then explain why it leads to "God" without
> any of the presumptions you are supposed not to have.
>
I did give the reason I believed it which you never actually addressed
except
to pretend it's an unjustified presumption. Furthermore, I noted that
your only desire is to destroy, yet you offered no direct empirical evidence
to replace that which you would undermine. Only the admission that you
don't know. Suppositions guesses and unsupported hypothesis
notwithstanding.
>
>
> Hint: without those presumptions you could not even call it "God",
> whatever it is you imagine you have found. Let alone any of the
> doctrinal attributes you give it.
>
You don't know what you are talking about. How can you pretend
to know anything about any doctrinal attributes of mine?
>
> Until you do that, you have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject.
> So stop wasting everybody's time.
>
How do you know since you never addressed my evidentiary claim?

Dan Wood, DDS
>
> >Dan
> >