Re: Definition of God

[Steve O]

>> 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.
> 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.

Okay, let's run with this for the moment.
I'm going to assume that what you saw is true.
Please bear in mind that I never doubted that you have had experience which
spooked you - it is simply your interpretation of that experience I am
questioning.
So perhaps you could give a little more detail, like, as in, how long ago
was it, where did it happen, how old were you at the time, how many people
were involved, did they witness the sane thing you saw or do their accounts
differ significantly, what were the weather conditions like, were any
hallucinogenic drugs or alcohol involved, did you, or any of the
participants involved suffer from mental disorder, is there any photographic
evidence, was this incident reported to the police, are there any police or
press records in relation to the incident, are there any existing witnesses
who could verify your story, was it perhaps some kind of prank to which you
were exposed, over what sort of time period did this incident occur, and
could your memory of this incident have been affected by time or repeated
retelling of the story?

If you could answer those questions first of all, then we could start on the
serious stuff, such as, "Do you have any explanation as to why or how all
known laws of physics could have been over- ridden in order for this
incident to occur?".


--
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]

>> I believe "God" to be different to many different people. I will admit
>> that I am a Christian, largely due to the fact that I don't want to
>> believe we are born on this earth live out our life and then cease to
>> exist.
>
>
> I am a Billionaire for much the same reason. I don't want to believe
> that I can't afford a small island in the pacific.

Surely the best response so far!
I snorted beer out of my nostrils reading this.
Thanks a bunch, Chris.


--
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]

"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.08.24.21.53.44.425357@exit.com...
> 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.
>
When one doesn't know from which group the writer is posting and if one
wished to respond to a given message, would it not be defeating the purpose
of responding to delete any existing newsgroup? The writer possibility
would never see the response.

Dan Wood
> --
> Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
> Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
> http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
>

 

[Free Lunch]

On 24 Aug 2006 12:26:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1156447574.381655.17250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>Bob wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2006 15:42:19 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't want to
>> >believe we are born on this earth live out our life and then cease to
>> >exist.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> What could be more blissful than nonexistence.
>
>this would be your opinion in regard to the matter.

So, what supports your opinion?

>> I am looking forward to it. One lifetime is enough to last me all
>> eternity.
>>
>> It would be cruel if God forced us to exist as finite creatures for
>> all eternity. The existential dread would drive us mad.
>
>if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a
>little.

What is there to read up on? I'm not aware of any evidence that heaven
exists.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:07:13 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>"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.

Why do you keep repeating this lie, liar?

I discredited your "argument" by pointing out its question-begging,
circular nature and told you what you had to do to CONCLUDE your god
in the real world outside your religion.

I pointed out your total bullshit about "guesses, supposition and
unsupported hypotheses" BECAUSE NOBODY APART FROM YOU, CLAIMS ANY
KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO 10^-43 SECONDS AFTER THE BIG BANG, SO THAT IS ALL
THERE CAN BE, BUT THAT (A) THESE ARE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION, AND
(B) THEY BREAK NO KNOWN LAWS - UNLIKE YOUR UNJUSTIFIED CERTAINTY.

Why do I have to keep repeating this, liar?

>This is the a case of
>>
>> When you beg the question, they are unjustified until you provide
>> justification.

Acknowledge this instead of lying that it was never said.

>> 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 imagine that your argument from ignorance, which is also circular,
is "evidence pointing 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?

BECAUSE YOUR "ARGUMENTS" ARE THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE,
AND CIRCULAR.

>> 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?

Well?

>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 are miles apart, because you have no grasp of logic and repeatedly
ignore what you are told.

Including that the laws of physics merely describe our knowledge.

The physics itself doesn't break down.

>
>> We're honest about that - unlike you.
>>
>More false charges. Which demonstrates your flawed character.

Hardly, liar. Instead of acknowledging your own logic errors you
resorted to slanders about "moral depravity"

>Ever heard the law, "you shall _not_ bear false witness"?

So why do you, deliberately nasty, hypocritical liar?

>Of course, since you are responsibile only to yourself, this
>does not apply to you.

Get that frikking beam out of your own eye, hypocrite.

AND ADDRESS THE EXPLANATIONS OF YOUR LOGIC ERRORS INSTEAD OF RESORTING
TO EVEN MORE PERSONAL LIES.

>> 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.

Another of your lies. It failed because of your logic errors -
fallacies like circular argument, argument from ignorance and
non-sequitur.

But instead of addressing this you resorted to personal slanders.

>> 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.

Hardly, liar.

>> Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real
>> world outside your religion.
>>
>Pontificating again?

Lying 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.

Liar. I am no such thing.

Like most religious fanatics you fail to grasp just how irrelevant
your deity-belief is in the real world outside your religion.

Or that in the real world outside it you have to use real world
evidence, methods etc.

>The truth is, I don't care about you, I don't understand why you
>care about me.

I wouldn't give a **** about you - but you made basic logic errors and
when these were pointed out resorted to personal slander instead of
addressing them.

>> 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?

What has this got to do with your abysmal grasp of logic? YOU PRESUME
GOD - YOU DON'T CONCLUDE IT. Which word can't you spell?

>> 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.

Liar. Those are the names of your fallacies.

>> 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

I'm not pretending, liar. Learn some basic logic and apply it. Hint:
YOU START OFF FROM THE PRESUMPTION OF "GOD" BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY
REASON TO INVOKE IT IN YOUR ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. IT IS A
NON-SEQUITUR.

>your only desire is to destroy, yet you offered no direct empirical evidence

Liar.

>to replace that which you would undermine. Only the admission that you

You really are a thoroughly dishonest, nasty piece of work, aren't
you? WHAT PART OF "WE DON'T KNOW YET BUT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES
WHAT THE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION ARE, AND WHY THEY ARE JUSTIFIED"
are you too stupid to understand?

>don't know. Suppositions guesses and unsupported hypothesis
>notwithstanding.

Sheer dishonesty on your part.

>> 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?

Liar. I am talking basic logic. You cannot both presume it and use
that presumption to "conclude" it.

>> 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?

Liar. You offered no evidence. Just obvious fallacies.

>Dan Wood, DDS
>>
>> >Dan
>> >
>

 

[DanWood]

I snipped virtually everything leaving your rants and insane screams.
It proves that you are a raving lunatic unable to carry on a reasoned
and logical discussion. I suspect this is the result of many years of
using illegal drugs. I am afraid you could do physical harm, given
the opportunity. I will have nothing more to do with you!

> Why do you keep repeating this lie, liar?
>
> I discredited your "argument" by pointing out its question-begging,
> circular nature and told you what you had to do to CONCLUDE your god
> in the real world outside your religion.
>
> I pointed out your total bullshit about "guesses, supposition and
> unsupported hypotheses" BECAUSE NOBODY APART FROM YOU, CLAIMS ANY
> KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO 10^-43 SECONDS AFTER THE BIG BANG, SO THAT IS ALL
> THERE CAN BE, BUT THAT (A) THESE ARE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION, AND
> (B) THEY BREAK NO KNOWN LAWS - UNLIKE YOUR UNJUSTIFIED CERTAINTY.
>
> Why do I have to keep repeating this, liar?
>
> Acknowledge this instead of lying that it was never said.
>
> You imagine that your argument from ignorance, which is also circular,
> is "evidence pointing to a creator".
>
>
> BECAUSE YOUR "ARGUMENTS" ARE THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE,
> AND CIRCULAR.
> >
> We are miles apart, because you have no grasp of logic and repeatedly
> ignore what you are told.
>
> Including that the laws of physics merely describe our knowledge.
> >
> >> We're honest about that - unlike you.
> >>
>
> So why do you, deliberately nasty, hypocritical liar?
>
>
> Get that frikking beam out of your own eye, hypocrite.
>
> AND ADDRESS THE EXPLANATIONS OF YOUR LOGIC ERRORS INSTEAD OF RESORTING
> TO EVEN MORE PERSONAL LIES.
>
> >>
> Another of your lies. It failed because of your logic errors -
> fallacies like circular argument, argument from ignorance and
> non-sequitur.
>
>
> Hardly, liar.
>
> >> Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real
> >> world outside your religion.
> >>
> Lying 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.
>
> Liar. I am no such thing.
>
> Like most religious fanatics you fail to grasp just how irrelevant
> your deity-belief is in the real world outside your religion.
>
> Or that in the real world outside it you have to use real world
> evidence, methods etc.
>
> I wouldn't give a **** about you - but you made basic logic errors and
> when these were pointed out resorted to personal slander instead of
> addressing them.
>
> >> In your "logic", "God" is a presumption not a conclusion nor an
> >> observation.
> >>
>
> What has this got to do with your abysmal grasp of logic? YOU PRESUME
> GOD - YOU DON'T CONCLUDE IT. Which word can't you spell?
>
> >> Because it is the only way to get there using your circular argument,
> >> your argument from ignorance etc.
> >>
> Liar. Those are the names of your fallacies.> >>
>
> I'm not pretending, liar. Learn some basic logic and apply it. Hint:
> YOU START OFF FROM THE PRESUMPTION OF "GOD" BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY
> REASON TO INVOKE IT IN YOUR ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. IT IS A
> NON-SEQUITUR.
>
> Liar.
>
>
> You really are a thoroughly dishonest, nasty piece of work, aren't
> you? WHAT PART OF "WE DON'T KNOW YET BUT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES
> WHAT THE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION ARE, AND WHY THEY ARE JUSTIFIED"
> are you too stupid to understand?
>
> Sheer dishonesty on your part.

> Liar. I am talking basic logic. You cannot both presume it and use
> that presumption to "conclude" it.
>
> >How do you know since you never addressed my evidentiary claim?
>
> Liar. You offered no evidence. Just obvious fallacies.
>
> >Dan Wood, DDS
> >>
> >> >Dan
> >> >
> >

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:46:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

Dan, you haven't a shred of honesty. What do you imagine you achieve
by ignoring what you are told, resorting to personal lies and then
amateur-psychologising your own lies to come up with even more sheer
nastiness.


>I snipped virtually everything leaving your rants and insane screams.

What "rant and insane screams", deliberately nasty liar?

>It proves that you are a raving lunatic unable to carry on a reasoned

It proves your psychopathy, sheer dishonesty and mendacity - but
you're a Christian and we've come to expect it when you're confronted
with reality.

>and logical discussion. I suspect this is the result of many years of

No you don't, brainwashed liar.

If you had attempted "logical discussion" you would have addressed
your own logic errors when they were pointed out instead of lying
about "pontificating" - your question begging, your circular argument
and your argument from ignorance.

But instead you piled lie personal upon personal lie, slander upon
slander. And now have the sheer hypocrisy to whine about "discussion".
>using illegal drugs. I am afraid you could do physical harm, given
>the opportunity. I will have nothing more to do with you!

All because you are a dishonest, nasty, sanctimonious, lying hypocrite
who cannot address what he is told.

But your vicious slander gives you another dishonest excuse to ignore
what you were told.

>> Why do you keep repeating this lie, liar?

Well, liar?

>> I discredited your "argument" by pointing out its question-begging,
>> circular nature and told you what you had to do to CONCLUDE your god
>> in the real world outside your religion.

So why lie that I didn't? You know I did because that's when you
accused me of pontificating.

>> I pointed out your total bullshit about "guesses, supposition and
>> unsupported hypotheses" BECAUSE NOBODY APART FROM YOU, CLAIMS ANY
>> KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO 10^-43 SECONDS AFTER THE BIG BANG, SO THAT IS ALL
>> THERE CAN BE, BUT THAT (A) THESE ARE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION, AND
>> (B) THEY BREAK NO KNOWN LAWS - UNLIKE YOUR UNJUSTIFIED CERTAINTY.

Which would not have been repeated or shouted if you have taken any
notice - but in standard dishonest Christian fashion you ignore it and
when it ie repeated you use its repetition as another dishonest excuse
to ignore it.

Address it this time instead of being dishonest.

>> Why do I have to keep repeating this, liar?

Well,liar?

>> Acknowledge this instead of lying that it was never said.

Well,liar?

>> You imagine that your argument from ignorance, which is also circular,
>> is "evidence pointing to a creator".

Well, liar?

>>
>> BECAUSE YOUR "ARGUMENTS" ARE THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE,
>> AND CIRCULAR.

Well, liar?

>> We are miles apart, because you have no grasp of logic and repeatedly
>> ignore what you are told.
>>
>> Including that the laws of physics merely describe our knowledge.

Well, liar?

>> >> We're honest about that - unlike you.
>> >>
>>
>> So why do you, deliberately nasty, hypocritical liar?

Well?

>>
>> Get that frikking beam out of your own eye, hypocrite.

Well?

>> AND ADDRESS THE EXPLANATIONS OF YOUR LOGIC ERRORS INSTEAD OF RESORTING
>> TO EVEN MORE PERSONAL LIES.

Which you snipped yet again, sanctimonious hypocrite. I'll remind you
that instead of addressing what you were told, you accused me of all
sorts of things including "moral depravity".

>> >>
>> Another of your lies. It failed because of your logic errors -
>> fallacies like circular argument, argument from ignorance and
>> non-sequitur.

Well?

>>
>> Hardly, liar.
>>
>> >> Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real
>> >> world outside your religion.
>> >>
>> Lying 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.

Well?

>> >I have nothing to prove to you, you otoh are a crusader for atheism.

Which was another of your personal Lois used as an "Excuse" go ignore
points made.

>> Liar. I am no such thing.

Well?

>> Like most religious fanatics you fail to grasp just how irrelevant
>> your deity-belief is in the real world outside your religion.

Well?

>> Or that in the real world outside it you have to use real world
>> evidence, methods etc.

Well?

[Rest of Dan's mendacity sniped]

 

[Nosterill]

thepossibilities wrote:
> 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 asking for positive evidence of a negative? It doesn't work
like that. Some posters, such as C. Barwell, have attempted to disprove
God as defined in Christian mythology by identifying paradoxes and
logical falacies within those definitions. That isn't the same as
disproving the possibility of any supernatural being. It isn't possible
to scientifically prove that there isn't a supernatural being out
there, just as it isn't possible to prove that there aren't hordes of
invisible green gibbons that do not interact with any currently
observable phenomena. Given that the body of hard evidence for the
existence of these green gibbons is as great as that for any other
supernatural beings, why would you choose to believe in one more than
the other? Why would you choose to believe in any of them at all?

The reason that most of us don't believe in gods, fairies, Santa Claus
etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.

 

[Nosterill]

Free Lunch wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 12:26:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <1156447574.381655.17250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
> >Bob wrote:
> >> On 23 Aug 2006 15:42:19 -0700, "thepossibilities"
> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I don't want to
> >> >believe we are born on this earth live out our life and then cease to
> >> >exist.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >> What could be more blissful than nonexistence.
> >
> >this would be your opinion in regard to the matter.
>
> So, what supports your opinion?
>
> >> I am looking forward to it. One lifetime is enough to last me all
> >> eternity.
> >>
> >> It would be cruel if God forced us to exist as finite creatures for
> >> all eternity. The existential dread would drive us mad.
> >
> >if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a
> >little.
>
> What is there to read up on?

Baedecker?

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 25 Aug 2006 03:22:33 -0700, "Nosterill" <fladgate@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>thepossibilities wrote:
>> 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 asking for positive evidence of a negative? It doesn't work
>like that. Some posters, such as C. Barwell, have attempted to disprove
>God as defined in Christian mythology by identifying paradoxes and
>logical falacies within those definitions. That isn't the same as
>disproving the possibility of any supernatural being. It isn't possible
>to scientifically prove that there isn't a supernatural being out
>there, just as it isn't possible to prove that there aren't hordes of
>invisible green gibbons that do not interact with any currently
>observable phenomena. Given that the body of hard evidence for the
>existence of these green gibbons is as great as that for any other
>supernatural beings, why would you choose to believe in one more than
>the other? Why would you choose to believe in any of them at all?
>
>The reason that most of us don't believe in gods, fairies, Santa Claus
>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.

And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple
and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and
invents positions we don't have.

 

[Bob]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>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 some theists.

Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
exists.

There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is
sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.


--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

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

>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.

What about a Jesuitical Heathen Troll like me?



--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:23:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> I am a Billionaire for much the same reason. I don't want to believe
>> that I can't afford a small island in the pacific.

>Surely the best response so far!
>I snorted beer out of my nostrils reading this.
>Thanks a bunch, Chris.

Aw ****! Here come the ****ing sock puppets.


--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On 24 Aug 2006 12:26:14 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> What could be more blissful than nonexistence?

>this would be your opinion in regard to the matter.

It is a question, not a statement. I am very curious if anyone can
find a condition after death that is more blissful than nonexistence.
But this condition must be real, objective, ontological. No fantasies
allowed. The condition must be based on rational arguments and not
pontification.

>if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a
>little.

Heaven? That's a religious fantasy.

If that's all you can come up with, then you should not be
participating in this subthread.



--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:15:54 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>>> It would be cruel if God forced us to exist as finite creatures for
>>> all eternity. The existential dread would drive us mad.

>> if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a
>> little.

>LOL - Perhaps you could prove it exists first

More importantly, at the outset it is necessary that the poster
provide a rational definition of heaven, one that satisfies the
requirements of the real objective ontological world.

--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:31:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a
>>little.

Please define what you mean by "heaven".

>What is there to read up on? I'm not aware of any evidence that heaven
>exists.

Please define what you mean by "heaven".


--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On 24 Aug 2006 15:32:52 -0700, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> What could be more blissful than nonexistence.

>One cannot experience non-existence.

That's what makes it blissful.

Blissful refers to my feelings NOW, not when I am dead.

Of course, I cannot experience bliss when I am dead. DUH!


--

I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Paul Holbach]

> Bob schrieb:

> Blissful refers to my feelings NOW, not when I am dead.
>
> Of course, I cannot experience bliss when I am dead. DUH!

You should've written:
"The prospect of nonexistence is blissful."

#PH

 

[DanWood]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >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 some theists.
>
> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
> exists.
>
> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is
> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.
>
That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
exclusively in the brain?
No one knows for certain.
>
Dan Wood, DDS
> --
>
> I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Gospel Bretts]

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?
>>

Dan, I don't have to be the Christians designated spokesperson to
comment on my observations. You guys repeatedly prove to all
non-biased observers that you really don't believe what you say you
believe.

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

Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist