A
Andrew
Guest
On 2007-11-07 14:03:30 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
>
> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
>>
>>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely
>>> on
>>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death.
>>
>> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and
>> never supply it.
>
> You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied frequently.
>
> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
This is not objective evidence.
>
> There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods
> actually exist.
>
> Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
> designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
> Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
> serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
> punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
> and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
> of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning.
>
>
> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
> to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
> brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
> others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
> pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of
> starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate
> into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious
> affiliation?
This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. And are
you suggesting that when people die while in robust good health and at
the peak of their abilities this is a good thing?
>
> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's
> 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and
> animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be
> eaten by other animals?
Your first sentence here (and your first non-question) is an inaccurate
understanding of Christian belief. And it is not objective evidence.
The rest is not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
>
> Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
> jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes,
> stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
> and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully
> kill and eat other animals to survive?
This is not objective e
vidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
>
> World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
> ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
> millions maimed for life.
All of this was carried out by human beings.
>
> The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
> children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
> INNOCENT children!
>
> There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
> and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
> totally innocent children.
>
> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
> innocent children indiscriminately.
>
>
>
> Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
> indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
> malnutrition.
>
> These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
> all religious persuasions.
All these are facts, but you do not show how they are evidence for the
non-existence of God.
>
>
> Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
> serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
> purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
> systems including flying through the air.
And dropping bombs that slaughter millions of people. We have developed
with biological and chemical weapons. We have invested hugely more of
our wealth and inventive powers on developing ways of maiming,
destroying and killing than we have on healing, building and life. Are
you beginning to see just how subjective all this is?
>
> Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
> food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has
>
> DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
>
>
> Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
> torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
> he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven?
Not objective evidence - no reference to any statement of fact whatsoever.
> And why does
> he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
> siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god
> beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant
> men.
Use of the word 'errant' circularises the argument - an error in logic.
>
> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
> all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
> objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
> welfare of the creatures on Earth.
You haven't actually demonstrated any of this.
>
>
> The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
> that man created gods!
You have given no objective evidence of anything of the sort.
Rhetorical questioning does not qualify as evidence. Evidence implies
that you supply information - you don't demand it.
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods.
> Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic
> than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy
Category error - Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are KNOWN not to
exist; there is no question otherwise. They are a social fiction and
universally recognised as such. I have been both Santa and the Tooth
Fairy. The same cannot be said for God.
>
>
> Evidence of gods;
>
>
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any
> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
Use of the word "errant" implies an assumed conclusion. There is no
objective verifiable evidence that I have ever spoken to my sister.
>
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any
> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
Use of the word 'errant' implies a subjective judgement and opinion -
not objective evidence.
>
>
> Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does
> he never authenticate his very existence?
Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods,
> Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of man.
I wasn't the one offering objective evidence - you were. And you simply
haven't provided any. Look at your point about lions and sharks etc.
Lions and sharks are magnificaent animals. They are beautiful and
elegant. To regard them as 'evil' implies a subjective viewpoint.
And that holds for everything else you've written here. Most of your
points take the form "Would a loving, caring, parental God allow X?"
where 'X' is something you regard as bad. Even leaving aside the
question of whether things can be objectively bad, you're making the
assumption at every turn that the answer ought to be 'no'. The very
fact that you're making an 'ought' assumption should show you that
you're simply peddling subjective opinion.
You are making the assumption all the way through that a loving caring
parent will prevent at all costs any harm, physical or emotional,
coming to his child. Is that a valid opinion? I think not.
To cases. My son recently broke his arm. It caused him pain. I could
have stopped that pain - along with all the suffering he has ever
experienced. If, when he was born, I had ensured his nursery was 100%
safe, then never let him out, I could have guaranteed him years of
pain-free, worry-free life. He would have wanted for nothing. Would
that have been the behaviour of a loving, caring parent? I think not. I
think most people would regard it as self-indulgent and abusive.
And this is the problem you have. Your assumptions about what it would
mean to be a loving caring God suggest an infantile percetion of
things. And I use the word in its precise sense. A very small child has
an entirely self-centred view of the world. It expects all its wants
and needs to be supplied by an adoring parent. This is reasonable in a
one-year old; but a loving caring parent does not allow it to continue
into adulthood.
>
> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
>>
>>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely
>>> on
>>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death.
>>
>> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and
>> never supply it.
>
> You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied frequently.
>
> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
This is not objective evidence.
>
> There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods
> actually exist.
>
> Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
> designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
> Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
> serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
> punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
> and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
> of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning.
>
>
> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
> to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
> brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
> others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
> pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of
> starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate
> into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious
> affiliation?
This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. And are
you suggesting that when people die while in robust good health and at
the peak of their abilities this is a good thing?
>
> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's
> 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and
> animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be
> eaten by other animals?
Your first sentence here (and your first non-question) is an inaccurate
understanding of Christian belief. And it is not objective evidence.
The rest is not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
>
> Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
> jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes,
> stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
> and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully
> kill and eat other animals to survive?
This is not objective e
vidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
>
> World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
> ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
> millions maimed for life.
All of this was carried out by human beings.
>
> The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
> children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
> INNOCENT children!
>
> There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
> and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
> totally innocent children.
>
> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
> innocent children indiscriminately.
>
>
>
> Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
> indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
> malnutrition.
>
> These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
> all religious persuasions.
All these are facts, but you do not show how they are evidence for the
non-existence of God.
>
>
> Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
> serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
> purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
> systems including flying through the air.
And dropping bombs that slaughter millions of people. We have developed
with biological and chemical weapons. We have invested hugely more of
our wealth and inventive powers on developing ways of maiming,
destroying and killing than we have on healing, building and life. Are
you beginning to see just how subjective all this is?
>
> Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
> food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has
>
> DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
>
>
> Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
> torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
> he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven?
Not objective evidence - no reference to any statement of fact whatsoever.
> And why does
> he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
> siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god
> beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant
> men.
Use of the word 'errant' circularises the argument - an error in logic.
>
> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
> all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
> objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
> welfare of the creatures on Earth.
You haven't actually demonstrated any of this.
>
>
> The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
> that man created gods!
You have given no objective evidence of anything of the sort.
Rhetorical questioning does not qualify as evidence. Evidence implies
that you supply information - you don't demand it.
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods.
> Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic
> than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy
Category error - Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are KNOWN not to
exist; there is no question otherwise. They are a social fiction and
universally recognised as such. I have been both Santa and the Tooth
Fairy. The same cannot be said for God.
>
>
> Evidence of gods;
>
>
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any
> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
Use of the word "errant" implies an assumed conclusion. There is no
objective verifiable evidence that I have ever spoken to my sister.
>
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any
> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
Use of the word 'errant' implies a subjective judgement and opinion -
not objective evidence.
>
>
> Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does
> he never authenticate his very existence?
Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning.
>
> There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods,
> Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of man.
I wasn't the one offering objective evidence - you were. And you simply
haven't provided any. Look at your point about lions and sharks etc.
Lions and sharks are magnificaent animals. They are beautiful and
elegant. To regard them as 'evil' implies a subjective viewpoint.
And that holds for everything else you've written here. Most of your
points take the form "Would a loving, caring, parental God allow X?"
where 'X' is something you regard as bad. Even leaving aside the
question of whether things can be objectively bad, you're making the
assumption at every turn that the answer ought to be 'no'. The very
fact that you're making an 'ought' assumption should show you that
you're simply peddling subjective opinion.
You are making the assumption all the way through that a loving caring
parent will prevent at all costs any harm, physical or emotional,
coming to his child. Is that a valid opinion? I think not.
To cases. My son recently broke his arm. It caused him pain. I could
have stopped that pain - along with all the suffering he has ever
experienced. If, when he was born, I had ensured his nursery was 100%
safe, then never let him out, I could have guaranteed him years of
pain-free, worry-free life. He would have wanted for nothing. Would
that have been the behaviour of a loving, caring parent? I think not. I
think most people would regard it as self-indulgent and abusive.
And this is the problem you have. Your assumptions about what it would
mean to be a loving caring God suggest an infantile percetion of
things. And I use the word in its precise sense. A very small child has
an entirely self-centred view of the world. It expects all its wants
and needs to be supplied by an adoring parent. This is reasonable in a
one-year old; but a loving caring parent does not allow it to continue
into adulthood.
