Re: Definition of God

[Bob]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:10:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>Please define what you mean by "heaven".

>I mean a place for an afterlife.

Is that not circular?

Q: Where do you go when you die?
A: Heaven.

Q: What is Heaven?
A: The place for afterlife.

Q: Isn't that the same as where you go when you die?
A: Yep. The place you go when you die is the place for afterlife,
which is the place you go when you die.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On 25 Aug 2006 06:36:49 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachDELETETHENAME@freenet.de> wrote:

>> 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."

What else is bliss but the condition where you have no cares
whatsoever. Because we are necessarily finite creatures, we will never
be able to rid ourselves of concerns, no matter how well taken care of
we are. As long as we have free will, we will have to face making
decisions, and that means we will have to care about the situation we
are confronting. That is the antithesis of bliss.

Although I think Existentialism is overdone, there is something to the
concept of Existential Dread. We have the capacity to rationalize away
the fact that we do not understand our own existence, but that can go
only so far. Each person who is rational to begin with (which leaves
out people who voted for Gore and Kerry), has to face Existential
Dread at sometime in their life, unless they are perpetually stoned.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On 25 Aug 2006 08:54:46 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still
>evolving into humans?

They are. Who do you think voted fro Gore and Kerry?

Certainly no rational person would do anthing that idiotic.


--

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

 

[DanWood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4lao82F11b41U1@individual.net...
>
> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news9OHg.22298$j8.13315@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:4l9mkeFrldmU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news9eue2ds3eupugud4750qk3amm0q8guvei@4ax.com...
> >> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >"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.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> >> >>> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect
> >> >>> that it can't exist without the brain.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is
amenable
> >> >>> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is
> >> >>> "consciousness".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body,
> >> >>> even
> >> >>> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts
on
> >> >>> up to the sky when you die).
> >> >>>
> >> >>Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death,
> >> >>he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and
genuine
> >> >>assurance which is all that counts.
> >> >>
> >> >>My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly
> >> >>an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical
> >> >>profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his
> >> >>life.
> >> >>
> >> >>I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace
> >> >>of mind their faith provided for them after their loss.
> >> >
> >> > I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him.
I
> >> > would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he
was
> >> > going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc.
> >> >
> >> >> So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times
that's
> >> >>all that really matters.
> >>
> >> It's a comforting lie.
> >>
> > Is it: do you have evidence to back up your claim?
> >
>
> Stop shifting the burden of proof.
> It's a dishonest tactic, one which we often see from theists.
>
You made a claim. The only thing I said was, "so, whether it's real
or not it is comforting, at such times that's all that matters."


>
> --
> 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?"
>
>
>

 

[Bob]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:50:20 GMT, droth <drothnine@shaw.ca> wrote:

>2. Space is really big.

You bet it is, sparky.

It even has billions and billions of stars in it.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:25:04 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>There was no before.

Our dinky little universe is just a very small part of the Universe,
which is the totality of the material world. While our universe did
begin in time, the Universe did not. The Universe has existed for
eternity, because it is a Mode of Being, that is, a manifestation of
certain characteristics of God. It has always existed just like God
has always existed.

>The big bang was the beginning. It was the
>beginning of space time, the laws of physics and ultimately the
>beginning of life on at least one planet.

The Big Bang is not even a theory, because it has so many problems.
The latest notion from superstring theory is that our universe was
created from a black hole in the Universe. Read Brian Greene's books
to see how that happens.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:43:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>"If we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around? "

We need someone to vote for the Demoncraps.


--

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

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:12:15 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:fifue2ldat8h6bj3akhddmnkvgcbbhv6td@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Aug 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>>>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> >>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.
>>>> >
>>>> >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God
>>>> >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right?
>>>> >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be
>>>> >right.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be so ****ing stupid.
>>>
>>>i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little
>>>pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I
>>>do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the
>>>big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of
>>>theists.
>>
>> Nobody is attacking you for being theist, moron, but for inventing
>> strawman beliefs for everybody else, like your smugly stupid "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".
>>
>> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented
>> about us.
>>
>> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your religion, in
>> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in
>> it, simply don't apply.
>>
>> And in this real world, your religion is merely one of hundreds if not
>> thousands each with its own deity-beliefs, its own myths and legends
>> etc. All of which are irrelevant and ignored to everybody else outside
>> it.
>>
>> Including yours.
>>
>> Start thinking for a change, and showing courtesy and consideration
>> for those outside your religion instead of repeating its lies about
>> them to their faces, and instead of insulting their intelligence by
>> telling them its fairy tales trump reality.
>>
>>
>------------------------
>
>As if you avoid doing that very same thing yourself to anyone who believes
>even slightly different with your own views. You discourteous inconsiderate
>little lying cretin.

Except that you know perfectly well I'm deoing no such thing. Why do
lying theists pretend that t is "anyone who believes differently"
instead of what it actually is, treating individual idiots as idiots
and individual liars as liars?

>> And in this real world, your religious alligance to atheism is merely
>> one of hundreds if not thousands each with its own beliefs, its own myths
>> and legends
>> etc. All of which are irrelevant and ignored to everybody else outside
>> of your tiny small minded little world .

The dishonest liar makes unmarked changes to what I wrote.

There is no "religious alligiance (sic) to atheism" outside his
deliberate ignorance,

>> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your atheism , in
>> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in
>> it, simply don't apply.

And the dishonest liar does it again. In the real world, atheism isn't
even an -ism because it's merely the demographic label for people who
aren;t any kind of theist.

There are no "doctrines about the real world" - there is just the real
world.

>Maybe a time will come where you can actually practice what you preach. I

I'm "preaching" nothing, liar. And there is nothing to practice.

Keep your religion to yourself, don't make real world claims you can't
back up, and don't lie about those who don't share your religion.

>say maybe, as I don't believe in miracles. But do you have to be so ****ing
>stupid, for so ****ing long?

The only stupidity here is yours. There is no symmetry between theist
and atheist.

>Cop that braveheart!!! LOL

**** off and die.

>-----------------------------------
>
>Insert usual irrational blathering, insults, and lies here >>>>
>

 

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:38:13 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<44f04dcf.56978125@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:10:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>>Please define what you mean by "heaven".
>
>>I mean a place for an afterlife.
>
>Is that not circular?
>
>Q: Where do you go when you die?
>A: Heaven.
>
>Q: What is Heaven?
>A: The place for afterlife.
>
>Q: Isn't that the same as where you go when you die?
>A: Yep. The place you go when you die is the place for afterlife,
>which is the place you go when you die.

I'm trying the most general reasonable definition. I don't want the
pro-afterlife advocates to claim that I'm using some artificially narrow
definition to defend my point that no evidence whatsoever supports their
hypothesis that a heaven exists, that there is no evidence whatsoever
that any sort of afterlife exists.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:02:11 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<44f05371.58420484@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:25:04 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>There was no before.
>
>Our dinky little universe is just a very small part of the Universe,
>which is the totality of the material world. While our universe did
>begin in time, the Universe did not. The Universe has existed for
>eternity, because it is a Mode of Being, that is, a manifestation of
>certain characteristics of God. It has always existed just like God
>has always existed.

Thanks Humpty Dumpty for your complete redefinitions of words into an
incomprehensible mess.

>>The big bang was the beginning. It was the
>>beginning of space time, the laws of physics and ultimately the
>>beginning of life on at least one planet.
>
>The Big Bang is not even a theory, because it has so many problems.

Nonsense.

>The latest notion from superstring theory is that our universe was
>created from a black hole in the Universe. Read Brian Greene's books
>to see how that happens.

Why do you think this affects the Big Bang?

 

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:56:24 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<44f052e6.58281390@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
>On 25 Aug 2006 08:54:46 -0700, "thepossibilities"
><bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still
>>evolving into humans?
>
>They are. Who do you think voted fro Gore and Kerry?
>
>Certainly no rational person would do anthing that idiotic.

Because you think it's rational to vote for the totally incompetent and
morally corrupt George W Bush.

Maybe you don't know what 'rational' means.

 

[DanWood]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44f04c04.56519609@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain?
>
> Yes, based on the preponderance of the evidence. No other organ, no
> other location, shows the connection with consciousness.
>
> >No one knows for certain.
>
> There is only one thing you can be certain about and that is your
> knowledge that you exist. Everything else is based on assumptions
> (called axioms in formal logic systems).
>
You can know death and taxes!
>
> So I am not concerned with the fact that no one knows for certain. But
> I do know that the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact
> that the brain alone is the source of consciousness.
>
Pain exist, but you cannot measure it, nevertheless pain exist. It could
be the same with conscienceness.
>
Dan Wood, DDS
>
> --
>
> I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just sent me
some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth, signed
Dan Wood.

This explains a lot.

 

[Sean]

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:eml0f25gd61q48llggg8a8vqgln81qtl4b@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:12:15 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
>

woo hoo Chrisie goes hard.

Now read this folks :::

> In the real world, atheism isn't
> even an -ism

Sure Chrisie, sure. In the real world? Sure, if you say so. Everyone knows
you ain't no liar!!

>
> **** off and die.
>

Pretty well sums up what Christopher A. Lee really thinks.

Some poster boy for the Atheists. Gee whiz, are you guys ever so lucky
having Chrisie as a spokesperson!!!

ROTFLMAO

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

ok enough of me, please resume normal programming, and I'll slip C.A.L. back
on the block sender list where he belongs.

 

[DanWood]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
> <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
> >confined exclusively inside the brain
>
> Actually there is a very good reason.
>
> Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
> Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
>
This may not be the best analogy, but I've seen a few patients who
were in excruciating pain. But there was no physical reason. There
was no test to measure pain in such cases, but one could not deny
they were in pain. Perhaps it was psychosomatic, but real enough
to them.
There is a question as to wheather or not "lower" animals are
conscience if so, how far down the scale.

Regards,
Dan Wood, DDS
>
> --
>
> I just neutered the cat - now he's French.

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:27:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>> There is only one thing you can be certain about and that is your
>> knowledge that you exist. Everything else is based on assumptions
>> (called axioms in formal logic systems).

>You can know death and taxes!

Not with absolute certainty.

>Pain exist, but you cannot measure it, nevertheless pain exist. It could
>be the same with conscienceness.

That's an epistemological (psychological) statement and therefore has
nothing to do with the real objective world.


--

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

 

[Enkidu]

spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
news:44f07229.66284968@news-server.houston.rr.com:

> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:27:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is only one thing you can be certain about and that is your
>>> knowledge that you exist. Everything else is based on assumptions
>>> (called axioms in formal logic systems).
>
>>You can know death and taxes!
>
> Not with absolute certainty.

You admit our existence implicitly by discussing philosophy with us. If
you doubted the existence of everything but yourself, who could you
possibly be corresponding with?

--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"Free societies...are societies in motion, and with motion comes
tension, dissent, friction. Free people strike sparks, and those sparks
are the best evidence of freedom's existence."
-- Salman Rushdie

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:08:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>I'm trying the most general reasonable definition.

Heaven is not a reasonable entity so attempting to define it is not
reasonable.

>I don't want the
>pro-afterlife advocates to claim that I'm using some artificially narrow
>definition to defend my point that no evidence whatsoever supports their
>hypothesis that a heaven exists, that there is no evidence whatsoever
>that any sort of afterlife exists.

OK, but you do not have to indulge people who are simply too dull to
understand what you claim.

I can find no reason to accept the existence of life after death. Life
for humans consists in being capable of conscious awareness. In fact
it is that very conscious awareness that is the only thing each
individual human can be absolutely certain of. Consciousness is a
property of brain activity. When the brain dies, our counsciousness
disappears.

Therefore there can be no life after death in a real objective
ontological sense.

When a snowflake melts it ceases to exist forever. There is no
rational means for a melted snowflake to continue being a snowflake.
The same is true of our consciousness.

I suppose you could imagine that at the moment of brain death, the
energy that constituted consciousness - the electromagnetic field in
the brain - could transfer to another supportive substance and
continue that way. But there is nothing rational that we know of to
support that claim.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:11:09 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>They are. Who do you think voted fro Gore and Kerry?

>>Certainly no rational person would do anthing that idiotic.

>Because you think it's rational to vote for the totally incompetent and
>morally corrupt George W Bush.

>Maybe you don't know what 'rational' means.

Maybe you don't know what the lesser of evils means.

Gore and Kerry are bloody commies who would turn America into Britain,
which has to be one of the most ****ed up places on Earth.


--

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

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:10:10 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>The Big Bang is not even a theory, because it has so many problems.

>Nonsense.

The Big Band is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.

The biggest problem is the necessity of a singularity.


--

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