Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On 6 Jan 2007 17:55:23 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 4 Jan 2007 18:24:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. >> >> > >> >> >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling >> >> >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. >> >> >> >> We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is >> >> simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more >> >> limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. >> > >> >Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty >> >spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can >> >sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles >> >of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and >> >below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that >> >the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone >> >says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god >> >then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find >> >god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. >> >> I'm not underestimating our achievments at all. It's amazing that we >> can see what a far distant star is made of (or at least what it was >> made of ten billion years ago). All of these machines tell us things >> about the universe we inhabit. No surprise there. > >Well yeah, you were underestimating our achievements. You said "...we >have a very limited array of senses and an even more limited corpus of >information about what exists and what doesn't." That just isn't true >and does the human mind a disservice. Not at all. It admits that we could, and some day, will discover more. Do you assume that science and technology as they presently exist are perfect? There is nothing else to study? I hope that stagnating day never comes! >> >> I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that >> >> brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there >> >> is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >> >> time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >> >> exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >> > >> >We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter >> >Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? >> >> Indeed. Where are they? I'm not saying they're _anywhere_ around here! > >You seem as if you might be avoiding the question. I DON'T know where "the gods" are. It is true that I believe there is a creator of this universe, but that doesn't mean I have his address and phone number! >> >> >> > To ask me to >> >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >> >> >The same >> >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. >> >> > >> >> >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide >> >> >if we should believe that or not. >> >> >> >> Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no >> >> sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a >> >> "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some >> >> evidence should back up the claim. >> > >> >Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is >> >something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say >> >god exists, where's the evidence? >> >> It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are >> scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence >> becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like >> gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to >> accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily >> be denied or ignored. There is no objective data to discuss. There is >> nothing "reasonable" for science to come to grips with > >Reason is reason. "Spiritual reasons" is an oxymoron. "Reasonable" >implies reason. Without any evidence, there is no reason to think your >god exists. > >> >> >I've tried to prove that god exists, >> >> >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is >> >> >different than yours. >> >> >> >> Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though >> >> I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, >> >> there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know >> >> that God exists". >> > >> >Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and >> >other kinds of facts. >> > >> >> >You believe god exists despite the lack of >> >> >evidence, >> >> >> >> This is true. >> >> >> >> >whereas I don't. >> >> >> >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that >> >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient >> >> evidence. >> > >> >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. >> >> We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and >> everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. > >> >The universe can >> >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. >> >> I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a >> reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this >> position. >> >> >And if you think the >> >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. >> >> If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of >> entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. > >Entropy is chaos. Every closed system in the universe is being >destroyed by chaos. Stars explode, galaxies collide, species go >extinct, natural disasters kill thousands of people. How is that >orderly? In what way is it not? Events unfold as they unfold, one following another. Is your idea of an "orderly universe" one that is stagnant? Where nothing changes? >> >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god >> >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good >> >> >enough. >> >> >> >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. >> > >> >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the >> >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence >> >from science. >> >> Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. >> >> >> If you want to take the agnostic >> >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether >> >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more >> >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. >> > >> >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter >> >Bunny. >> >> Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine >> that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours >> that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. > >Nah. Faith is a requires belief without evidence. Exactly. You believe there is no God without any evidence whatsoever. This is a faith based position. >I can back up what I think with evidence. Then please do. I asked a while back for some evidence to be proffered. Thus far, the discussion has included about everything _except_ actual evidence to back up the initial assertion, which was that "We know that God does not exist". >That's not faith. > >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. >> >> Already agreed. >> >> > They'd at >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. >> >> Larger brains too. >> >> >But there is not one iota of >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is >> >populated with super beings. >> >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. > >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are >impossible. Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 thousand miles an hour! While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility of a thing. >> >> But you up the ante when >> >> you make an absolute claim. >> > >> >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence >> >for that, too. >> >> Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the >> truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is >> readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. >> >> >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. >> >> That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be >> making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around >> the claim that "We know God does not exist". > >Have you checked the subject title? This discussion is about several >different things so far. Indeed so. The present discussion is about a particular claim, namely: "We know that God doesn't exist". This particular discussion doesn't have anything to do with the subject line. I've already posited one possible explanation for what "God" was doing the morning before creation (and have expanded the theme a little into a short story -- so I am duly grateful to the OP of this thread for a good story idea!). >Even if you want to evade the question, the >question still stands. Where is your evidence for god? OK, let's review recent history in this discussion. I've already stated that I find the existence of this universe and its orderly contents and events to be evidence sufficient for the existence of a creator. I've already said that I admit agreement with the statement that a creator is not actually required. And I've already said that I do not agree with the belief that God does not exist. Enought of my particular claim -- it is not in question within this discussion. This discussion is about an entirely different claim, namely: "We know that God does not exist." >> >> When you had claimed that God exists, you >> >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. >> > >> >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the >> >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing >> >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. >> > >> >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of >> >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist >> >> is in the exact same boat. >> > >> >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, >> >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. >> >> Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well >> be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new >> case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than >> opening arguments. > >God's greatest achievments are that it supposedly created the universe >and that it created humans. By studying nature we've learned that god >is not required for the universe to exist, and by studying evolution we >know that god did not create humans. > >However, the onus is upon those making the claim of god's existence to >provide proof; all I can do is say I don't believe you without proof, >and that another lawyer has come up with a much more solid case. I'm >tossing your case out. Good fodder for a different discussion. Let's stick to the claim being discussed here in this discussion! No one as of yet has been able to provide any shred of evidence that God does not exist. I can only conclude that the question is very much open. >> >> He has to provide not just a lack of >> >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim >> >> that in no way can God exist. >> > >> >Study some science. >> >> I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and >> agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of >> religion. > >Study more science. God IS psuedoscience. That will remain to be seen. We may yet meet "God" in the physical world. >> >God is not required for the universe to work. In >> >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. >> >> How so? > >A supernatural super evolved complex life form cannot spontaneously >spring into existence. Evolution happens in gradual steps, usually over >long periods of time. It took over 13 billion years for the universe to >produce us, such as we are, how would you think that the first thing to >exist would be god? Who ever said God sprang into existence? Certainly not me! >Quantum physics also disallows for complex life >forms cannot spontaneoulsy occur. And, of course, you have no evidence >that the supernatural spiritual world exists in the first place. You >are tilting at windmills. Could be. I've never claimed to have proof of the spitiual world, either! >> >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers >> >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for >> >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". >> > >> >Well, it is. >> >> Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to >> the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. > >You can dismiss me all you want, but you're still deluded. You can insult me all you want, but you still haven't provided one single piece of evidence to support the original claim that God does not exist. >> >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a >> >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God >> >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." >> >> > >> >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? >> >> >> >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's >> >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour >> >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly >> >> not the stupidest thing people do! >> > >> >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat >> >to our safety. >> >> Only because they are the majority. > >That's crap. No skin off my nose if you don't like the truth. The fact is, given that a non-trivial hypermajority of the world's population believe in gods and are more or less religious. It can hardly be any other way but that religionists will be responsible for the vast majority of threats to our safety. >Just because there's lots of a certain group, doesn't mean >they will be dangerous. What if the majority of people were pacifists? A good question! I would hazard the guess that the instant an enemy nation figures this out, we'd be toast because we wouldn't fight back. We'd become our own worst enemy and the greatest threat to our own safety. >> If the majority were atheists, >> we'd still be in the same rickety boat. > >You like making assertions without evidence, don't you? I learned from you. Or are you now positing that Atheists don't share in human nature? >You have no >idea if this is true or not, because atheists have never been the >majority. We could look at "godless" and atheistic communism and the states where they _are_ the majority, or at least where atheists are in power, for some evidence. Let's see. Under Stalin's godless communist government, maybe 20 million dead? Believe me, I haven't met a budding Stalin among the Atheists I've met here on Usenet. But, you never know...in another reality, the name "Neil Kelsey" could send shivers of fear down the necks of billions. >And we would eliminate religious conflict, wouldn't we? Like I said elsewhere, eliminating religious conflict will not really solve any problems. People are good at devising conflicts over just about any issue we can imagine. If you eliminate religion as a source of conflict, people will start fighting over something even more trivial like whether to button a shirt up or down. >And >if that were eliminated, then a lot of the world's conflicts would be >eliminated, wouldn't they? No. I try to be optimistic and hope that people will wake up and realise how terrible we can be -- and to be honest, how terrible we have been of late! But I am not so much of an idealist that I think that merely eliminating one justification for violence will end all violence. Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <h571q2lv3s0qg8ln1jde6rbmed0cgbl9od@4ax.com> >On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: > >>Grow the fuck up. > >Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! Perhaps you think that he should woken up on the side of the bed that infants pray next to? -- Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 "Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote > > One, not all theists posit that the entire universe was "created > (just) for us". Whatever the cause, it now exists and we find > ourselves in it. It's up to us to make a meaning of this curious > situation. Most Christians understand that this world -- the Earth -- > was created for our benefit. Two, we do not yet know what our > future generations will be capable of. We may yet see the day > when humans can as easily travel to the ends of this universe > (or even travel outside it) as we can step in a lift on the ground > floor and be transported to the fourth floor. How do you arrive at the conclusion that "the Earth -- was created for our benefit"? Mankind is a relative newcomer to this planet dating back only a few million years. There are numerous life forms which has existed much longer than that. Turtles have been here for over 200 million years. Do you think that mankind will last as long as the turtle? Insects are much more plentiful that humans. Not only are there more insects, but they make up a greater proportion of the total living matter. I'm not that sure that mankind will ever "travel to the ends of this universe." The problem is that by the time any intelligence has the technology to explore outer space, that intelligence would have the ability to destroy itself. We are making the first steps to explore outer space. We cannot be certain of our future. --Wax Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:45:16 GMT, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > >"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> One, not all theists posit that the entire universe was "created >> (just) for us". Whatever the cause, it now exists and we find >> ourselves in it. It's up to us to make a meaning of this curious >> situation. Most Christians understand that this world -- the Earth -- >> was created for our benefit. Two, we do not yet know what our >> future generations will be capable of. We may yet see the day >> when humans can as easily travel to the ends of this universe >> (or even travel outside it) as we can step in a lift on the ground >> floor and be transported to the fourth floor. > >How do you arrive at the conclusion that "the Earth -- was created for our >benefit"? I don't arrive at that conclusion. I'm pointing out that many Christians believe this. >Mankind is a relative newcomer to this planet dating back only a few million >years. There are numerous life forms which has existed much longer than >that. Turtles have been here for over 200 million years. Do you think that >mankind will last as long as the turtle? Ask again in, say, 300M years. It may well be that humankind's end will be in 30 years. Or maybe something like us will be around a billion years from now. >Insects are much more plentiful that humans. Not only are there more >insects, but they make up a greater proportion of the total living matter. True that. >I'm not that sure that mankind will ever "travel to the ends of this >universe." The problem is that by the time any intelligence has the >technology to explore outer space, that intelligence would have the ability >to destroy itself. We are making the first steps to explore outer space. >We cannot be certain of our future. Once again, fully agreed. We do not know the future (yet, anyway). I prefer to hope for the best possible. Padraic >--Wax > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:34:22 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown ><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > - Refer: <h571q2lv3s0qg8ln1jde6rbmed0cgbl9od@4ax.com> >>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: >> >>>Grow the fuck up. >> >>Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! > >Perhaps you think that he should woken up on the side of the bed that >infants pray next to? There is no reason to fall prey to insults or bad language. Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 6 Jan 2007 17:55:23 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 4 Jan 2007 18:24:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> >> >> >> statement. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > >> >> > > >> >> >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling > >> >> >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. > >> >> > >> >> We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is > >> >> simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more > >> >> limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. > >> > > >> >Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty > >> >spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can > >> >sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles > >> >of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and > >> >below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that > >> >the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone > >> >says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god > >> >then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find > >> >god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. > >> > >> I'm not underestimating our achievments at all. It's amazing that we > >> can see what a far distant star is made of (or at least what it was > >> made of ten billion years ago). All of these machines tell us things > >> about the universe we inhabit. No surprise there. > > > >Well yeah, you were underestimating our achievements. You said "...we > >have a very limited array of senses and an even more limited corpus of > >information about what exists and what doesn't." That just isn't true > >and does the human mind a disservice. > > Not at all. It admits that we could, and some day, will discover more. > Do you assume that science and technology as they presently exist are > perfect? There is nothing else to study? I hope that stagnating day > never comes! Well. I'm glad you've changed your tune. Now I agree with you. > >> >> I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that > >> >> brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there > >> >> is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a > >> >> time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact > >> >> exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. > >> > > >> >We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter > >> >Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? > >> > >> Indeed. Where are they? I'm not saying they're _anywhere_ around here! > > > >You seem as if you might be avoiding the question. > > I DON'T know where "the gods" are. It is true that I believe there is > a creator of this universe, but that doesn't mean I have his address > and phone number! If you don't then I think you're fooling yourself. If you do then give it to me so I can see for myself. > >> >> >> > To ask me to > >> >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >> >> >> >The same > >> >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > >> >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > >> >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > >> >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > >> >> > > >> >> >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide > >> >> >if we should believe that or not. > >> >> > >> >> Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no > >> >> sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a > >> >> "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some > >> >> evidence should back up the claim. > >> > > >> >Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is > >> >something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say > >> >god exists, where's the evidence? > >> > >> It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are > >> scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence > >> becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like > >> gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to > >> accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily > >> be denied or ignored. There is no objective data to discuss. There is > >> nothing "reasonable" for science to come to grips with > > > >Reason is reason. "Spiritual reasons" is an oxymoron. "Reasonable" > >implies reason. Without any evidence, there is no reason to think your > >god exists. > > > >> >> >I've tried to prove that god exists, > >> >> >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is > >> >> >different than yours. > >> >> > >> >> Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though > >> >> I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, > >> >> there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know > >> >> that God exists". > >> > > >> >Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and > >> >other kinds of facts. > >> > > >> >> >You believe god exists despite the lack of > >> >> >evidence, > >> >> > >> >> This is true. > >> >> > >> >> >whereas I don't. > >> >> > >> >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that > >> >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient > >> >> evidence. > >> > > >> >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. > >> > >> We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and > >> everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. > > > >> >The universe can > >> >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. > >> > >> I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a > >> reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this > >> position. > >> > >> >And if you think the > >> >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. > >> > >> If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of > >> entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. > > > >Entropy is chaos. Every closed system in the universe is being > >destroyed by chaos. Stars explode, galaxies collide, species go > >extinct, natural disasters kill thousands of people. How is that > >orderly? > > In what way is it not? Events unfold as they unfold, one following > another. Is your idea of an "orderly universe" one that is stagnant? > Where nothing changes? Clearly you don't understand what entropy is. > >> >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god > >> >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good > >> >> >enough. > >> >> > >> >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. > >> > > >> >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the > >> >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence > >> >from science. > >> > >> Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. > >> > >> >> If you want to take the agnostic > >> >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether > >> >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more > >> >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. > >> > > >> >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter > >> >Bunny. > >> > >> Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine > >> that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours > >> that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. > > > >Nah. Faith requires belief without evidence. > > Exactly. You believe there is no God without any evidence whatsoever. > This is a faith based position. I guess you wrote that before you read the part about evolution, etc. There is no evidence for god and there is plenty of evidence for an alternative, contradictory, and natural (not supernatural) explanation. > >I can back up what I think with evidence. > > Then please do. I asked a while back for some evidence to be > proffered. Thus far, the discussion has included about everything > _except_ actual evidence to back up the initial assertion, which was > that "We know that God does not exist". I know that you have no evidence for god's existence (and theists have had thousands of years to come up with some), and that there is a natural and plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm concluding god is a human delusion on this basis. > >That's not faith. > > > >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits > >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability > >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. > >> > >> Already agreed. > >> > >> > They'd at > >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. > >> > >> Larger brains too. > >> > >> >But there is not one iota of > >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is > >> >populated with super beings. > >> > >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our > >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. > > > >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are > >impossible. > > Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those > directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for > people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else > decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- > that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 > mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 > thousand miles an hour! > > While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are > impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility > of a thing. Disagree. If that something vioaltes all laws of physics then it's best labelled as fiction, because mass delusions can cause plenty of harm. Like 9/11. Like the Crusades. > >> >> But you up the ante when > >> >> you make an absolute claim. > >> > > >> >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence > >> >for that, too. > >> > >> Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the > >> truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is > >> readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. > >> > >> >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. > >> > >> That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be > >> making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around > >> the claim that "We know God does not exist". > > > >Have you checked the subject title? This discussion is about several > >different things so far. > > Indeed so. The present discussion is about a particular claim, namely: > "We know that God doesn't exist". This particular discussion doesn't > have anything to do with the subject line. > > I've already posited one possible explanation for what "God" was doing > the morning before creation (and have expanded the theme a little into > a short story -- so I am duly grateful to the OP of this thread for a > good story idea!). > > >Even if you want to evade the question, the > >question still stands. Where is your evidence for god? > > OK, let's review recent history in this discussion. I've already > stated that I find the existence of this universe and its orderly > contents and events to be evidence sufficient for the existence of a > creator. I've already said that I admit agreement with the statement > that a creator is not actually required. And I've already said that I > do not agree with the belief that God does not exist. Enought of my > particular claim -- it is not in question within this discussion. This > discussion is about an entirely different claim, namely: "We know that > God does not exist." I've stated what I think about that above. > >> >> When you had claimed that God exists, you > >> >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. > >> > > >> >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the > >> >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing > >> >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. > >> > > >> >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of > >> >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist > >> >> is in the exact same boat. > >> > > >> >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, > >> >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. > >> > >> Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well > >> be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new > >> case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than > >> opening arguments. > > > >God's greatest achievments are that it supposedly created the universe > >and that it created humans. By studying nature we've learned that god > >is not required for the universe to exist, and by studying evolution we > >know that god did not create humans. > > > >However, the onus is upon those making the claim of god's existence to > >provide proof; all I can do is say I don't believe you without proof, > >and that another lawyer has come up with a much more solid case. I'm > >tossing your case out. > > Good fodder for a different discussion. Let's stick to the claim being > discussed here in this discussion! No one as of yet has been able to > provide any shred of evidence that God does not exist. I can only > conclude that the question is very much open. > > >> >> He has to provide not just a lack of > >> >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim > >> >> that in no way can God exist. > >> > > >> >Study some science. > >> > >> I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and > >> agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of > >> religion. > > > >Study more science. God IS psuedoscience. > > That will remain to be seen. We may yet meet "God" in the physical > world. What other worlds are there? > >> >God is not required for the universe to work. In > >> >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. > >> > >> How so? > > > >A supernatural super evolved complex life form cannot spontaneously > >spring into existence. Evolution happens in gradual steps, usually over > >long periods of time. It took over 13 billion years for the universe to > >produce us, such as we are, how would you think that the first thing to > >exist would be god? > > Who ever said God sprang into existence? Certainly not me! Are you saying "god" had no beginning? > >Quantum physics also disallows for complex life > >forms cannot spontaneoulsy occur. And, of course, you have no evidence > >that the supernatural spiritual world exists in the first place. You > >are tilting at windmills. > > Could be. I've never claimed to have proof of the spitiual world, > either! You should have been a politiician. > >> >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers > >> >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for > >> >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". > >> > > >> >Well, it is. > >> > >> Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to > >> the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. > > > >You can dismiss me all you want, but you're still deluded. > > You can insult me all you want, but you still haven't provided one > single piece of evidence to support the original claim that God does > not exist. That is not an insult. If you believe in something for which there is no evidence, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't exist (e.g. evolution), then you are deluded. > >> >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a > >> >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God > >> >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." > >> >> > > >> >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? > >> >> > >> >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's > >> >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour > >> >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly > >> >> not the stupidest thing people do! > >> > > >> >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat > >> >to our safety. > >> > >> Only because they are the majority. > > > >That's crap. > > No skin off my nose if you don't like the truth. The fact is, given > that a non-trivial hypermajority of the world's population believe in > gods and are more or less religious. It can hardly be any other way > but that religionists will be responsible for the vast majority of > threats to our safety. I know it's true that the religious are a majority, it's just crap that it's because they're the majority that they're a threat to our safety. It's because they're religious that they're a threat. > >Just because there's lots of a certain group, doesn't mean > >they will be dangerous. What if the majority of people were pacifists? > > A good question! I would hazard the guess that the instant an enemy > nation figures this out, we'd be toast because we wouldn't fight back. > We'd become our own worst enemy and the greatest threat to our own > safety. I assume you're American? Ethnocentricity does not become you. And America is not a pacifist nation. You don't seem to pay much attention to current events if you think America would let another country walk all over them. > >> If the majority were atheists, > >> we'd still be in the same rickety boat. > > > >You like making assertions without evidence, don't you? > > I learned from you. Or are you now positing that Atheists don't share > in human nature? I disagree that it's "human nature" to kill each other over delusions. I think it is a learned behaviour, and one that will be eliminated through education. Eventually. > >You have no > >idea if this is true or not, because atheists have never been the > >majority. > > We could look at "godless" and atheistic communism and the states > where they _are_ the majority, or at least where atheists are in > power, for some evidence. Let's see. Under Stalin's godless communist > government, maybe 20 million dead? Here we go. Do you think the population of the USSR was actually atheist, or do you think they were forced to be atheist? Because there are plenty of religious Russians now that they're allowed to be. > Believe me, I haven't met a budding Stalin among the Atheists I've met > here on Usenet. But, you never know...in another reality, the name > "Neil Kelsey" could send shivers of fear down the necks of billions. Nice try. Besides being an atheist, I believe in freedom of religion. You can worship whatever imaginary friend you want to. I'm not a communist. I am also free to say what I think about religion. > >And we would eliminate religious conflict, wouldn't we? > > Like I said elsewhere, eliminating religious conflict will not really > solve any problems. Tell that to the people who died in the World Trade Towers. > People are good at devising conflicts over just > about any issue we can imagine. If you eliminate religion as a source > of conflict, people will start fighting over something even more > trivial like whether to button a shirt up or down. People that do that would be put in prison. Try again. > >And > >if that were eliminated, then a lot of the world's conflicts would be > >eliminated, wouldn't they? > > No. I try to be optimistic and hope that people will wake up and > realise how terrible we can be -- and to be honest, how terrible we > have been of late! But I am not so much of an idealist that I think > that merely eliminating one justification for violence will end all > violence. I never said it will end all violence, did I? But it would be a step in the right direction. You're saying we shouldn't even bother taking that step, it would be pointless. Religion sure does bring out the best in people. Quote
Guest Kope Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win the clash of civilization. http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:47:11 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <vaj2q2p8d6n2u0mlu6vb8v48u4q7fpdgrv@4ax.com> >On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:34:22 +1030, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown >><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <h571q2lv3s0qg8ln1jde6rbmed0cgbl9od@4ax.com> >>>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: >>> >>>>Grow the fuck up. >>> >>>Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! >> >>Perhaps you think that he should woken up on the side of the bed that >>infants pray next to? > >There is no reason to fall prey to insults or bad language. How thoroughly sanctimonious and arrogant to place your personal proclivities and preferences on to another, as thought they were in some way universal and mandatory, as if your opinion was the only "correct" one to hold. But I expect no than sociopathic hectoring from one who admits to holding a delusion dear to his thought processes. (And you actually seem proud of holding this infantile position!!) "Bad Language" is about the only way to get through to irrational metnal toddlers like you. I not that Mr. Kelsey's polite approach is having zero effect upon your pathetic justifications for belief in that for which there has NEVER been ANY eviudence, since recorded history began, and much evidence against. You appear to be terminally and wilfully deluded. Direct language is called for, as a slap in your pious face, if nothing else. It may just wake you up to reality. (But I doubt it) -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Neil Kelsey wrote: > Padraic Brown wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2007 17:55:23 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > Not at all. It admits that we could, and some day, will discover more. > > Do you assume that science and technology as they presently exist are > > perfect? There is nothing else to study? I hope that stagnating day > > never comes! > > Well. I'm glad you've changed your tune. Now I agree with you. The irony of course is that there are people who spend all their time working to disprove current scientific theories and come up with new theories to replace them. These people are called "scientists". Martin Quote
Guest Don Martin Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On 7 Jan 2007 14:11:11 -0800, "Kope" <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote: >i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win the >clash of civilization. > >http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha I'm a radical atheist. Please go the fuck away. Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view. The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/ Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Padraic Brown wrote: > > > On 6 Jan 2007 17:55:23 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > Not at all. It admits that we could, and some day, will discover more. > > > Do you assume that science and technology as they presently exist are > > > perfect? There is nothing else to study? I hope that stagnating day > > > never comes! > > > > Well. I'm glad you've changed your tune. Now I agree with you. > > The irony of course is that there are people who spend all their time > working to disprove current scientific theories and come up with new > theories to replace them. These people are called "scientists". Or "intelligent design" psuedoscientists. Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 On 7 Jan 2007 13:54:41 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 6 Jan 2007 17:55:23 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 4 Jan 2007 18:24:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> >> >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling >> >> >> >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. >> >> >> >> >> >> We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is >> >> >> simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more >> >> >> limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. >> >> > >> >> >Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty >> >> >spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can >> >> >sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles >> >> >of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and >> >> >below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that >> >> >the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone >> >> >says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god >> >> >then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find >> >> >god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. >> >> >> >> I'm not underestimating our achievments at all. It's amazing that we >> >> can see what a far distant star is made of (or at least what it was >> >> made of ten billion years ago). All of these machines tell us things >> >> about the universe we inhabit. No surprise there. >> > >> >Well yeah, you were underestimating our achievements. You said "...we >> >have a very limited array of senses and an even more limited corpus of >> >information about what exists and what doesn't." That just isn't true >> >and does the human mind a disservice. >> >> Not at all. It admits that we could, and some day, will discover more. >> Do you assume that science and technology as they presently exist are >> perfect? There is nothing else to study? I hope that stagnating day >> never comes! > >Well. I'm glad you've changed your tune. I have not changed my position at all. I still hold that our senses are limited and our science is in its infancy. This position neither lacks wonder for our natural senses nor underestimates our achievements. >Now I agree with you. If you agree with me now, you agreed with me before. Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. If so, then I apologise for that. >> >> >> I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that >> >> >> brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there >> >> >> is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >> >> >> time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >> >> >> exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >> >> > >> >> >We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter >> >> >Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? >> >> >> >> Indeed. Where are they? I'm not saying they're _anywhere_ around here! >> > >> >You seem as if you might be avoiding the question. >> >> I DON'T know where "the gods" are. It is true that I believe there is >> a creator of this universe, but that doesn't mean I have his address >> and phone number! > >If you don't then I think you're fooling yourself. We'll see! >If you do then give it to me so I can see for myself. > >> >> >> >> > To ask me to >> >> >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >> >> >> >The same >> >> >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> >> >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> >> >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> >> >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide >> >> >> >if we should believe that or not. >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no >> >> >> sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a >> >> >> "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some >> >> >> evidence should back up the claim. >> >> > >> >> >Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is >> >> >something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say >> >> >god exists, where's the evidence? >> >> >> >> It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are >> >> scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence >> >> becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like >> >> gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to >> >> accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily >> >> be denied or ignored. There is no objective data to discuss. There is >> >> nothing "reasonable" for science to come to grips with >> > >> >Reason is reason. "Spiritual reasons" is an oxymoron. "Reasonable" >> >implies reason. Without any evidence, there is no reason to think your >> >god exists. >> > >> >> >> >I've tried to prove that god exists, >> >> >> >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is >> >> >> >different than yours. >> >> >> >> >> >> Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though >> >> >> I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, >> >> >> there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know >> >> >> that God exists". >> >> > >> >> >Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and >> >> >other kinds of facts. >> >> > >> >> >> >You believe god exists despite the lack of >> >> >> >evidence, >> >> >> >> >> >> This is true. >> >> >> >> >> >> >whereas I don't. >> >> >> >> >> >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that >> >> >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient >> >> >> evidence. >> >> > >> >> >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. >> >> >> >> We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and >> >> everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. >> > >> >> >The universe can >> >> >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. >> >> >> >> I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a >> >> reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this >> >> position. >> >> >> >> >And if you think the >> >> >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. >> >> >> >> If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of >> >> entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. >> > >> >Entropy is chaos. Every closed system in the universe is being >> >destroyed by chaos. Stars explode, galaxies collide, species go >> >extinct, natural disasters kill thousands of people. How is that >> >orderly? >> >> In what way is it not? Events unfold as they unfold, one following >> another. Is your idea of an "orderly universe" one that is stagnant? >> Where nothing changes? > >Clearly you don't understand what entropy is. Not perfectly, no. But I can read the article as well as anyone and see nothing in it that contradicts what I said. >> >> >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god >> >> >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good >> >> >> >enough. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. >> >> > >> >> >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the >> >> >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence >> >> >from science. >> >> >> >> Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. >> >> >> >> >> If you want to take the agnostic >> >> >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether >> >> >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more >> >> >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. >> >> > >> >> >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter >> >> >Bunny. >> >> >> >> Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine >> >> that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours >> >> that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. >> > >> >Nah. Faith requires belief without evidence. >> >> Exactly. You believe there is no God without any evidence whatsoever. >> This is a faith based position. > >I guess you wrote that before you read the part about evolution, etc. >There is no evidence for god and there is plenty of evidence for an >alternative, contradictory, and natural (not supernatural) explanation. > >> >I can back up what I think with evidence. >> >> Then please do. I asked a while back for some evidence to be >> proffered. Thus far, the discussion has included about everything >> _except_ actual evidence to back up the initial assertion, which was >> that "We know that God does not exist". > >I know that you have no evidence for god's existence I never once claimed to have any. Apart from the existence of this current universe and the order present within it, which is satisfactory evidence, for me as I said before, of a creator. >(and theists have >had thousands of years to come up with some), and that there is a >natural and plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. It is a reasonable explanation only. It should NOT be understood as the factual explanation or indeed the only possible explanation. >I'm concluding god is a human delusion on this basis. > >> >That's not faith. >> > >> >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits >> >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability >> >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. >> >> >> >> Already agreed. >> >> >> >> > They'd at >> >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. >> >> >> >> Larger brains too. >> >> >> >> >But there is not one iota of >> >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is >> >> >populated with super beings. >> >> >> >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our >> >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. >> > >> >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are >> >impossible. >> >> Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those >> directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for >> people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else >> decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- >> that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 >> mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 >> thousand miles an hour! >> >> While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are >> impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility >> of a thing. > >Disagree. If that something vioaltes all laws of physics then it's best >labelled as fiction, because mass delusions can cause plenty of harm. >Like 9/11. Like the Crusades. The Creator didn't violate any of our natural laws of physics. Delusions aren't even an issue. >> >> >> But you up the ante when >> >> >> you make an absolute claim. >> >> > >> >> >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence >> >> >for that, too. >> >> >> >> Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the >> >> truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is >> >> readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. >> >> >> >> >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. >> >> >> >> That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be >> >> making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around >> >> the claim that "We know God does not exist". >> > >> >Have you checked the subject title? This discussion is about several >> >different things so far. >> >> Indeed so. The present discussion is about a particular claim, namely: >> "We know that God doesn't exist". This particular discussion doesn't >> have anything to do with the subject line. >> >> I've already posited one possible explanation for what "God" was doing >> the morning before creation (and have expanded the theme a little into >> a short story -- so I am duly grateful to the OP of this thread for a >> good story idea!). >> >> >Even if you want to evade the question, the >> >question still stands. Where is your evidence for god? >> >> OK, let's review recent history in this discussion. I've already >> stated that I find the existence of this universe and its orderly >> contents and events to be evidence sufficient for the existence of a >> creator. I've already said that I admit agreement with the statement >> that a creator is not actually required. And I've already said that I >> do not agree with the belief that God does not exist. Enought of my >> particular claim -- it is not in question within this discussion. This >> discussion is about an entirely different claim, namely: "We know that >> God does not exist." > >I've stated what I think about that above. Very well, then let's see your evidence in support of the claim. >> >> >> When you had claimed that God exists, you >> >> >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. >> >> > >> >> >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the >> >> >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing >> >> >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. >> >> > >> >> >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of >> >> >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist >> >> >> is in the exact same boat. >> >> > >> >> >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, >> >> >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. >> >> >> >> Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well >> >> be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new >> >> case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than >> >> opening arguments. >> > >> >God's greatest achievments are that it supposedly created the universe >> >and that it created humans. By studying nature we've learned that god >> >is not required for the universe to exist, and by studying evolution we >> >know that god did not create humans. >> > >> >However, the onus is upon those making the claim of god's existence to >> >provide proof; all I can do is say I don't believe you without proof, >> >and that another lawyer has come up with a much more solid case. I'm >> >tossing your case out. >> >> Good fodder for a different discussion. Let's stick to the claim being >> discussed here in this discussion! No one as of yet has been able to >> provide any shred of evidence that God does not exist. I can only >> conclude that the question is very much open. >> >> >> >> He has to provide not just a lack of >> >> >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim >> >> >> that in no way can God exist. >> >> > >> >> >Study some science. >> >> >> >> I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and >> >> agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of >> >> religion. >> > >> >Study more science. God IS psuedoscience. >> >> That will remain to be seen. We may yet meet "God" in the physical >> world. > >What other worlds are there? Well, the "physical world" is this universe as presently constituted. We may yet come face to face with the creator here. Or we may some day find a way to transcend this universe and seek him elsewhere. We can try to find his world. >> >> >God is not required for the universe to work. In >> >> >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. >> >> >> >> How so? >> > >> >A supernatural super evolved complex life form cannot spontaneously >> >spring into existence. Evolution happens in gradual steps, usually over >> >long periods of time. It took over 13 billion years for the universe to >> >produce us, such as we are, how would you think that the first thing to >> >exist would be god? >> >> Who ever said God sprang into existence? Certainly not me! > >Are you saying "god" had no beginning? No. Not at all. >> >Quantum physics also disallows for complex life >> >forms cannot spontaneoulsy occur. And, of course, you have no evidence >> >that the supernatural spiritual world exists in the first place. You >> >are tilting at windmills. >> >> Could be. I've never claimed to have proof of the spitiual world, >> either! > >You should have been a politiician. > >> >> >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers >> >> >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for >> >> >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". >> >> > >> >> >Well, it is. >> >> >> >> Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to >> >> the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. >> > >> >You can dismiss me all you want, but you're still deluded. >> >> You can insult me all you want, but you still haven't provided one >> single piece of evidence to support the original claim that God does >> not exist. > >That is not an insult. You call me deluded without any good reason. If you don't like my opinions, that's fine. I am sure you're capable of stating your case (whenever you decide to get around to it) without resorting to juvenile tactics. >If you believe in something for which there is >no evidence, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't exist (e.g. >evolution), then you are deluded. I find it entirely strange that you would think belief is delusional. Well, fair enough. You must have no room for love or trust -- for both of them are faith, things for which there is no evidence. Nope -- I guess there's no deluding you! >> >> >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a >> >> >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God >> >> >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? >> >> >> >> >> >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's >> >> >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour >> >> >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly >> >> >> not the stupidest thing people do! >> >> > >> >> >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat >> >> >to our safety. >> >> >> >> Only because they are the majority. >> > >> >That's crap. >> >> No skin off my nose if you don't like the truth. The fact is, given >> that a non-trivial hypermajority of the world's population believe in >> gods and are more or less religious. It can hardly be any other way >> but that religionists will be responsible for the vast majority of >> threats to our safety. > >I know it's true that the religious are a majority, it's just crap that >it's because they're the majority that they're a threat to our safety. >It's because they're religious that they're a threat. Given that the vast majority of religious people pose absolutely zero threat to you or anyone else disproves your hypothesis. You need to look elsewhere for the source of threats. >> >Just because there's lots of a certain group, doesn't mean >> >they will be dangerous. What if the majority of people were pacifists? >> >> A good question! I would hazard the guess that the instant an enemy >> nation figures this out, we'd be toast because we wouldn't fight back. >> We'd become our own worst enemy and the greatest threat to our own >> safety. > >I assume you're American? Doesn't matter. While I suppose Lichtenstein _might_ have some enemies in the world, it is not likely to be invaded just because all its people are pacifists. >Ethnocentricity does not become you. And >America is not a pacifist nation. I didn't say it was. >You don't seem to pay much attention >to current events if you think America would let another country walk >all over them. That's why there are all those past subjunctives in my response -- they indicate a contrary to fact statement. I may not understand entropy, but I know grammar. If Americans _were_ to become all pacifists, say over the next fortnight, that would satisfy the specifications of your question. The answer then is "yes, if the majority were pacifists, they would be dangerous to the country's security". >> >> If the majority were atheists, >> >> we'd still be in the same rickety boat. >> > >> >You like making assertions without evidence, don't you? >> >> I learned from you. Or are you now positing that Atheists don't share >> in human nature? > >I disagree that it's "human nature" to kill each other over delusions. Sure it is. You don't a religion or a god to become delusional. Given your above equation between belief and delusion, however, I can see why you think this way. >I think it is a learned behaviour, and one that will be eliminated >through education. Eventually. > >> >You have no >> >idea if this is true or not, because atheists have never been the >> >majority. >> >> We could look at "godless" and atheistic communism and the states >> where they _are_ the majority, or at least where atheists are in >> power, for some evidence. Let's see. Under Stalin's godless communist >> government, maybe 20 million dead? > >Here we go. Do you think the population of the USSR was actually >atheist, or do you think they were forced to be atheist? Because there >are plenty of religious Russians now that they're allowed to be. The one that is important is the one who calls the shots. >> Believe me, I haven't met a budding Stalin among the Atheists I've met >> here on Usenet. But, you never know...in another reality, the name >> "Neil Kelsey" could send shivers of fear down the necks of billions. > >Nice try. Besides being an atheist, I believe in freedom of religion. >You can worship whatever imaginary friend you want to. I'm not a >communist. I am also free to say what I think about religion. Sure, you're welcome to. I defend your right to both be an atheist and speak your piece. I'll also reserve to the right to disagree with your assessment, or challenge you if I think you're in error. >> >And we would eliminate religious conflict, wouldn't we? >> >> Like I said elsewhere, eliminating religious conflict will not really >> solve any problems. > >Tell that to the people who died in the World Trade Towers. Tell them what? Do you honestly think that if all religions were eliminated, that such a tragedy could not happen? Now I know you are the deluded one here! >> People are good at devising conflicts over just >> about any issue we can imagine. If you eliminate religion as a source >> of conflict, people will start fighting over something even more >> trivial like whether to button a shirt up or down. > >People that do that would be put in prison. Try again. Not at all. They would be repressed and hounded down and murdered in their homes, just because they choose to be different. Human nature again, see? People that are different pose a threat. It does not matter one whit whether that difference is ethnic, religious or direction of buttoning shirts. If a difference is perceived as a threat, people tend to react very uncivilly. Mind you, you have a good point above regarding education. That tends to be a civilising factor, which is a reason why you yourself (being an atheist) -- and me for that matter (for not being orthodox) -- are not hounded down and dragged over to the purifying fires of the inquisition. There is a better way to behave than the savagery of instinct. >> >And >> >if that were eliminated, then a lot of the world's conflicts would be >> >eliminated, wouldn't they? >> >> No. I try to be optimistic and hope that people will wake up and >> realise how terrible we can be -- and to be honest, how terrible we >> have been of late! But I am not so much of an idealist that I think >> that merely eliminating one justification for violence will end all >> violence. > >I never said it will end all violence, did I? Indeed not, but you pretend that religion is a great source of violence and that, for example, the attack on NYC would not have happened if there were no religions to serve as a catalyst. >But it would be a step in >the right direction. You're saying we shouldn't even bother taking that >step, it would be pointless. Not at all. What I am saying is that an honest assessment of human behaviour will show that, while you do have a good point, you're not looking in the right direction. I think you need a broader perspective and narrowing down on religion as the source of all evil won't really get us any closer to a solution. Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:23:32 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:47:11 -0500, Padraic Brown ><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > - Refer: <vaj2q2p8d6n2u0mlu6vb8v48u4q7fpdgrv@4ax.com> >>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:34:22 +1030, Michael Gray >><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown >>><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <h571q2lv3s0qg8ln1jde6rbmed0cgbl9od@4ax.com> >>>>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: >>>> >>>>>Grow the fuck up. >>>> >>>>Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! >>> >>>Perhaps you think that he should woken up on the side of the bed that >>>infants pray next to? >> >>There is no reason to fall prey to insults or bad language. > >How thoroughly sanctimonious and arrogant to place your personal >proclivities and preferences on to another, as thought they were in >some way universal and mandatory, as if your opinion was the only >"correct" one to hold. Suit yourself. Cuss all you want, then. The more you do it, the better you make me look, even if my argument has no actual merit. You make yourself look like an ignorant sixth grader who has no interpersonal and no conversational skills. >But I expect no than sociopathic hectoring from one who admits to >holding a delusion dear to his thought processes. >(And you actually seem proud of holding this infantile position!!) Proud, perhaps. Infantile, no. Belittle my faith all you like, it won't get you anywhere. I can say that it does have a foundation in facts rationally considered. There's nothing infantile or blind about this kind of faith. >"Bad Language" is about the only way to get through to irrational >metnal toddlers like you. You don't seem to be listening to yourself. You won't get anywhere with all the cussing and insulting. You only serve to make yourself look bad. I will respond favourably to intelligent discussion. This thread was going pretty well until the insults and foul language got trotted out. >I not that Mr. Kelsey's polite approach is having zero effect upon >your pathetic justifications for belief Mr. Kelsey still hasn't been able offer a single defence for the original claim. Neither have you. How pathetic is that? You'd think a totally rational atheist without any gods or religions to cloud his thinking should be able to come up with at least one piece of evidence to back up his claim. And if polite is not getting him anywhere, how exactly is this an excuse to start with profanity? Kindly explain to me how anyone is supposed to respond positively to abuse? >in that for which there has >NEVER been ANY eviudence, since recorded history began, and much >evidence against. Look -- we have been through this and it is not really germane to the discussion. The topic in this subthread is not the lack of evidence for a creator, but in fact is the interesting claim that "We know God does not exist". Thus far, I have heard nothing at all to support this claim. >You appear to be terminally and wilfully deluded. >Direct language is called for, as a slap in your pious face, if >nothing else. >It may just wake you up to reality. >(But I doubt it) No, I can tell you to chang tack right now. "Direct language" as you call it will be absolutely ineffective. I don't have to put up with it; and you don't have to engage in it. It belittles your own intelligence more than it hurts me, so, have at it if that's the level you operate at. If you want to "wake me up to reality", please, feel free to address the claim that we've been discussing but as yet have had no actual defence or evidence for. Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Christopher A.Lee wrote: > On 24 Dec 2006 19:39:33 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 23 Dec 2006 23:46:38 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > >> > >> >Al Klein wrote: > >> > >> >> 'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. > >> > >> >likewise physics: > >> > >> Only to the terminally superstitious, who see everything in terms of > >> religion. > > > > > >Translation: "I am superstitious about the nomenclature 'religion' and > >don't wish to understand it; it disgusts me , it even frightens me, > >because i have confused it with the manifestations of 'religion' viz. > >"religions [and their superstitions (when applicable)]." > > A liar as well as an idiot. > who is behaving like an idiot but he who presumes that 'religion' is equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? > >you erased the most significant aspect of the etymology, > >the 'stit' attached to the 'super' > > Liar. > who is the 'Liar' but he who denies the meaning of 'superstition' ? which 'religion' [i.e. fundamental proposal for existence/identity] does not begin in a claim to `ex perentia` [i.e. science] which scientific inquiry [ex perentia] is not rooted in a cultural context [root: cult /the binding: religare /religion] ...? the primary false dialectic is the failure to see science /ex perentia and religion /cult as a unit ; they arise symbiotically. > >> There really ARE some people who don't think about religion > >> or gods unless someone brings the subject up, even if you can't > >> personally understand how that's possible. > > > >i know such to be not only possible but a general condition among more > >educated persons since that is the very structure of the false dialect > >itself. > > Liar. > remain ignorant if you wish. > >in which you are presently entangled. although you obviously are > >frightened of ghosts. > > Liar. you're scared of the word "religion" and believe it is sophisticated to call 'religion' "superstition" --however in your ignorance you fail to understand the meaning of `super stit` itself, and thus miss the point that ALL constructs are super-standing. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >but he who presumes that 'religion' is >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence, since all religion is merely superstition, while all physics is science. >who is the 'Liar' but he who denies the meaning of 'superstition' ? That would appear to be you. >which 'religion' [i.e. fundamental proposal for existence/identity] >does not begin in a claim to `ex perentia` [i.e. science] None. >which scientific inquiry [ex perentia] is not rooted in a cultural >context [root: cult /the binding: religare /religion] ...? Cute, but brainless. >the primary false dialectic is the failure to see science /ex perentia >and religion /cult as a unit ; they arise symbiotically. Nonsense. Religion arose because there was no scientific knowledge. >remain ignorant if you wish. Why should anyone remain you? >you're scared of the word "religion" and believe it is sophisticated to >call 'religion' "superstition" You're proud of your believed ability to read the minds of others, even though you don't have such ability. > --however in your ignorance you fail to >understand the meaning of `super stit` itself, and thus miss the point >that ALL constructs are super-standing. No, you just fail to understand that you are super ignorant. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 "Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote in snip > It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are > scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence > becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like > gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to > accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily > be denied or ignored. T What physical evidence? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 snip > >> >> >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that > >> >> >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient > >> >> >> evidence. > >> >> > > >> >> >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. > >> >> > >> >> We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and > >> >> everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. > >> > > >> >> >The universe can > >> >> >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. > >> >> > >> >> I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a > >> >> reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this > >> >> position. > >> >> > >> >> >And if you think the > >> >> >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. > >> >> > >> >> If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of > >> >> entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. > >> > > >> >Entropy is chaos. Every closed system in the universe is being > >> >destroyed by chaos. Stars explode, galaxies collide, species go > >> >extinct, natural disasters kill thousands of people. How is that > >> >orderly? > >> > >> In what way is it not? Events unfold as they unfold, one following > >> another. Is your idea of an "orderly universe" one that is stagnant? > >> Where nothing changes? > > > >Clearly you don't understand what entropy is. > > Not perfectly, no. But I can read the article as well as anyone and > see nothing in it that contradicts what I said. Your first statement: "I do think that the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." If every closed system in the universe breaks down due to entropy, then the universe is one half order and one half chaos. Your statement is blind. You are ignoring the natural tendency of everything to decay because you are so bent on believing your god exists in the order. It doesn't. Offer some other evidence, because that isn't good enough. > >> >> >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god > >> >> >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good > >> >> >> >enough. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. > >> >> > > >> >> >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the > >> >> >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence > >> >> >from science. > >> >> > >> >> Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. > >> >> > >> >> >> If you want to take the agnostic > >> >> >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether > >> >> >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more > >> >> >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. > >> >> > > >> >> >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter > >> >> >Bunny. > >> >> > >> >> Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine > >> >> that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours > >> >> that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. > >> > > >> >Nah. Faith requires belief without evidence. > >> > >> Exactly. You believe there is no God without any evidence whatsoever. > >> This is a faith based position. > > > >I guess you wrote that before you read the part about evolution, etc. > >There is no evidence for god and there is plenty of evidence for an > >alternative, contradictory, and natural (not supernatural) explanation. > > > >> >I can back up what I think with evidence. > >> > >> Then please do. I asked a while back for some evidence to be > >> proffered. Thus far, the discussion has included about everything > >> _except_ actual evidence to back up the initial assertion, which was > >> that "We know that God does not exist". > > > >I know that you have no evidence for god's existence > > I never once claimed to have any. Apart from the existence of this > current universe and the order present within it, which is > satisfactory evidence, for me as I said before, of a creator. It is unsatisfactory to me, and it is a little objectionable that you co-opt the scientific discoveries of the natural world and use them to prove the supernatural world (which they don't). All it shows is a certain intellectual laziness on your part. You only look at the word "entropy" as far as you think it fits in with your fixed world view, and you look no further. > >(and theists have > >had thousands of years to come up with some), and that there is a > >natural and plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. > > It is a reasonable explanation only. It should NOT be understood as > the factual explanation or indeed the only possible explanation. I have no reason to entertain the idea of a supernatural explanation for the natural universe any further. It's obviously either a con game or a delusion, depending upon who is trying to convince me of it. > >I'm concluding god is a human delusion on this basis. > > > >> >That's not faith. > >> > > >> >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits > >> >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability > >> >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. > >> >> > >> >> Already agreed. > >> >> > >> >> > They'd at > >> >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. > >> >> > >> >> Larger brains too. > >> >> > >> >> >But there is not one iota of > >> >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is > >> >> >populated with super beings. > >> >> > >> >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our > >> >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. > >> > > >> >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are > >> >impossible. > >> > >> Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those > >> directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for > >> people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else > >> decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- > >> that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 > >> mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 > >> thousand miles an hour! > >> > >> While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are > >> impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility > >> of a thing. > > > >Disagree. If that something violates all laws of physics then it's best > >labelled as fiction, because mass delusions can cause plenty of harm. > >Like 9/11. Like the Crusades. > > The Creator didn't violate any of our natural laws of physics. > Delusions aren't even an issue. The creator violates all laws of physics. Study quantum physics. Complex super evolved life forms do not spring into existence fully formed, despite your previously avoiding the issue ("I did not say god sprang into existence," to paraphrase you; everything in the universe has an origin, so for god not to have one would be a further violation of the laws of physics. And biology). If you claim god exists you need to account for how it works, at least to a small degree, otherwise the skeptical among us will just write you off. > >> >> >> But you up the ante when > >> >> >> you make an absolute claim. > >> >> > > >> >> >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence > >> >> >for that, too. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the > >> >> truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is > >> >> readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. > >> >> > >> >> >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. > >> >> > >> >> That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be > >> >> making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around > >> >> the claim that "We know God does not exist". > >> > > >> >Have you checked the subject title? This discussion is about several > >> >different things so far. > >> > >> Indeed so. The present discussion is about a particular claim, namely: > >> "We know that God doesn't exist". This particular discussion doesn't > >> have anything to do with the subject line. > >> > >> I've already posited one possible explanation for what "God" was doing > >> the morning before creation (and have expanded the theme a little into > >> a short story -- so I am duly grateful to the OP of this thread for a > >> good story idea!). > >> > >> >Even if you want to evade the question, the > >> >question still stands. Where is your evidence for god? > >> > >> OK, let's review recent history in this discussion. I've already > >> stated that I find the existence of this universe and its orderly > >> contents and events to be evidence sufficient for the existence of a > >> creator. I've already said that I admit agreement with the statement > >> that a creator is not actually required. And I've already said that I > >> do not agree with the belief that God does not exist. Enought of my > >> particular claim -- it is not in question within this discussion. This > >> discussion is about an entirely different claim, namely: "We know that > >> God does not exist." > > > >I've stated what I think about that above. > > Very well, then let's see your evidence in support of the claim. The fact that no one has any evidence for any of the thousands of gods that have been postulated is evidence enough for me that (as I said above) they are either deluded or they are con-men. That is besides the contradictory fields of evolution, physics, chemistry, etc. > >> >> >> When you had claimed that God exists, you > >> >> >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. > >> >> > > >> >> >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the > >> >> >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing > >> >> >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. > >> >> > > >> >> >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of > >> >> >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist > >> >> >> is in the exact same boat. > >> >> > > >> >> >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, > >> >> >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. > >> >> > >> >> Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well > >> >> be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new > >> >> case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than > >> >> opening arguments. > >> > > >> >God's greatest achievments are that it supposedly created the universe > >> >and that it created humans. By studying nature we've learned that god > >> >is not required for the universe to exist, and by studying evolution we > >> >know that god did not create humans. > >> > > >> >However, the onus is upon those making the claim of god's existence to > >> >provide proof; all I can do is say I don't believe you without proof, > >> >and that another lawyer has come up with a much more solid case. I'm > >> >tossing your case out. > >> > >> Good fodder for a different discussion. Let's stick to the claim being > >> discussed here in this discussion! No one as of yet has been able to > >> provide any shred of evidence that God does not exist. I can only > >> conclude that the question is very much open. > >> > >> >> >> He has to provide not just a lack of > >> >> >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim > >> >> >> that in no way can God exist. > >> >> > > >> >> >Study some science. > >> >> > >> >> I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and > >> >> agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of > >> >> religion. > >> > > >> >Study more science. God IS psuedoscience. > >> > >> That will remain to be seen. We may yet meet "God" in the physical > >> world. > > > >What other worlds are there? > > Well, the "physical world" is this universe as presently constituted. > We may yet come face to face with the creator here. Or we may some day > find a way to transcend this universe and seek him elsewhere. We can > try to find his world. Clearly you do not understand what the word "universe" means. > >> >> >God is not required for the universe to work. In > >> >> >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. > >> >> > >> >> How so? > >> > > >> >A supernatural super evolved complex life form cannot spontaneously > >> >spring into existence. Evolution happens in gradual steps, usually over > >> >long periods of time. It took over 13 billion years for the universe to > >> >produce us, such as we are, how would you think that the first thing to > >> >exist would be god? > >> > >> Who ever said God sprang into existence? Certainly not me! > > > >Are you saying "god" had no beginning? > > No. Not at all. Then he sprang into existence. Unless you care to volunteer how you think god got there. Another option is god was created. Is that what you think? Because that kinda weakens the case for his existence even further. > >> >Quantum physics also disallows for complex life > >> >forms cannot spontaneoulsy occur. And, of course, you have no evidence > >> >that the supernatural spiritual world exists in the first place. You > >> >are tilting at windmills. > >> > >> Could be. I've never claimed to have proof of the spitiual world, > >> either! > > > >You should have been a politician. > > > >> >> >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers > >> >> >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for > >> >> >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". > >> >> > > >> >> >Well, it is. > >> >> > >> >> Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to > >> >> the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. > >> > > >> >You can dismiss me all you want, but you're still deluded. > >> > >> You can insult me all you want, but you still haven't provided one > >> single piece of evidence to support the original claim that God does > >> not exist. > > > >That is not an insult. > > You call me deluded without any good reason. No, I have a good reason. You believe in a super-evolved all powerful all knowing guy who is invisible (yet I look like him?), reclusive, all-loving, jealous, vengeful, micromanages my life, never reveals himself to anybody, and yet created the entire universe, with it's gazillions of galaxies, stars, and planets. And you have no evidence for this creature. That is delusional. > If you don't like my > opinions, that's fine. I am sure you're capable of stating your case > (whenever you decide to get around to it) without resorting to > juvenile tactics. It's not an insult. Richard Dawkins says it better than I ever could. Read the God Delusion. > >If you believe in something for which there is > >no evidence, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't exist (e.g. > >evolution), then you are deluded. > > I find it entirely strange that you would think belief is delusional. > Well, fair enough. You must have no room for love or trust -- for both > of them are faith, things for which there is no evidence. Nope -- I > guess there's no deluding you! I have lots of room for love and trust. Those things are not dependent upon religious belief. You are equivicating upon the word "belief." I just don't love or trust anything to do with god. It's just bizarre to me to use those words in that context. > >> >> >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a > >> >> >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God > >> >> >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's > >> >> >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour > >> >> >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly > >> >> >> not the stupidest thing people do! > >> >> > > >> >> >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat > >> >> >to our safety. > >> >> > >> >> Only because they are the majority. > >> > > >> >That's crap. > >> > >> No skin off my nose if you don't like the truth. The fact is, given > >> that a non-trivial hypermajority of the world's population believe in > >> gods and are more or less religious. It can hardly be any other way > >> but that religionists will be responsible for the vast majority of > >> threats to our safety. > > > >I know it's true that the religious are a majority, it's just crap that > >it's because they're the majority that they're a threat to our safety. > >It's because they're religious that they're a threat. > > Given that the vast majority of religious people pose absolutely zero > threat to you or anyone else disproves your hypothesis. You need to > look elsewhere for the source of threats. Huh. If I were to be plopped into Tehran (you too, for that matter) I don't like my chances for survival, based upon my religious views. Christians have a long history of oppression too, and I think they would be behaving the same way as the Muslims are if they were the third world and the Muslims were first world. I've long been unimpressed by moderate theists, because they attend the same churches as the extremists, and I don't see the moderates doing anything about the despicable acts the extremists are carrying out in the name of their religion. I think it's the group dynamics that are dangerous, and you're deluded even further if you don't think religious groups are dangerous. > >> >Just because there's lots of a certain group, doesn't mean > >> >they will be dangerous. What if the majority of people were pacifists? > >> > >> A good question! I would hazard the guess that the instant an enemy > >> nation figures this out, we'd be toast because we wouldn't fight back. > >> We'd become our own worst enemy and the greatest threat to our own > >> safety. > > > >I assume you're American? > > Doesn't matter. Yes it does. You just said "we." If you were a citizen of some military dictatorship, I would think your statement doesn't apply. I know it doesn't apply to the country I live in, we'd kick ass if someone marched in here with an army. And I live in Canada. I KNOW the US wouldn't put up with that for a second. So, instead of evading the question, why don't you just admit you were wrong? The US would fight back, they ARE fighting back, they've toppled two countries over a recent attack. > While I suppose Lichtenstein _might_ have some enemies > in the world, it is not likely to be invaded just because all its > people are pacifists. > > >Ethnocentricity does not become you. And > >America is not a pacifist nation. > > I didn't say it was. > > >You don't seem to pay much attention > >to current events if you think America would let another country walk > >all over them. > > That's why there are all those past subjunctives in my response -- > they indicate a contrary to fact statement. I may not understand > entropy, but I know grammar. Past subjunctives have to do with verbs, the problem I have is with your use of the indefinite pronoun, "we." I know grammar too. > If Americans _were_ to become all pacifists, say over the next > fortnight, that would satisfy the specifications of your question. The > answer then is "yes, if the majority were pacifists, they would be > dangerous to the country's security". You have bafflegabbed yourself out of the original question. The question was not whether the country would be attacked if it were comprised of pacifists, the question was would religious conflict cease if there were no more religious people? > >> >> If the majority were atheists, > >> >> we'd still be in the same rickety boat. > >> > > >> >You like making assertions without evidence, don't you? > >> > >> I learned from you. Or are you now positing that Atheists don't share > >> in human nature? > > > >I disagree that it's "human nature" to kill each other over delusions. > > Sure it is. You don't a religion or a god to become delusional. Given > your above equation between belief and delusion, however, I can see > why you think this way. No it isn't. As I said in the next paragraph, I think it is learned behaviour to kill each other over religion. Humans did not kill each other over religion before religion was invented. > >I think it is a learned behaviour, and one that will be eliminated > >through education. Eventually. > >> >You have no > >> >idea if this is true or not, because atheists have never been the > >> >majority. > >> > >> We could look at "godless" and atheistic communism and the states > >> where they _are_ the majority, or at least where atheists are in > >> power, for some evidence. Let's see. Under Stalin's godless communist > >> government, maybe 20 million dead? > > > >Here we go. Do you think the population of the USSR was actually > >atheist, or do you think they were forced to be atheist? Because there > >are plenty of religious Russians now that they're allowed to be. > > The one that is important is the one who calls the shots. Just because a dictator is not religious does not mean that the people living under the dictator's regime are not religious too. > >> Believe me, I haven't met a budding Stalin among the Atheists I've met > >> here on Usenet. But, you never know...in another reality, the name > >> "Neil Kelsey" could send shivers of fear down the necks of billions. > > > >Nice try. Besides being an atheist, I believe in freedom of religion. > >You can worship whatever imaginary friend you want to. I'm not a > >communist. I am also free to say what I think about religion. > > Sure, you're welcome to. I defend your right to both be an atheist and > speak your piece. I'll also reserve to the right to disagree with your > assessment, or challenge you if I think you're in error. And be wrong to insinuate I'm a communist or that I would put 20 million people to their deaths. > >> >And we would eliminate religious conflict, wouldn't we? > >> > >> Like I said elsewhere, eliminating religious conflict will not really > >> solve any problems. > > > >Tell that to the people who died in the World Trade Towers. > > Tell them what? Do you honestly think that if all religions were > eliminated, that such a tragedy could not happen? Now I know you are > the deluded one here! If there were no religious people then there would be no religious conflicts. 9/11 is a religious conflict. That specific religious event would not happen if there were no religion. Did I say that all conflict would end if there were no religion? You are grasping at straws. > >> People are good at devising conflicts over just > >> about any issue we can imagine. If you eliminate religion as a source > >> of conflict, people will start fighting over something even more > >> trivial like whether to button a shirt up or down. > > > >People that do that would be put in prison. Try again. > > Not at all. They would be repressed and hounded down and murdered in > their homes, just because they choose to be different. By whom? What group would kill people over how to do up buttons? And what group would tolerate such behaviour? > Human nature > again, see? You haven't proven anything. It's human nature to not tolerate oppression for very long. > People that are different pose a threat. WHAT!??!?! > It does not > matter one whit whether that difference is ethnic, religious or > direction of buttoning shirts. If a difference is perceived as a > threat, people tend to react very uncivilly. Some people do, they are called bigots. Not everyone is like that. Religion seems to breed paranoia, I've noticed. > Mind you, you have a good point above regarding education. That tends > to be a civilising factor, which is a reason why you yourself (being > an atheist) -- and me for that matter (for not being orthodox) -- are > not hounded down and dragged over to the purifying fires of the > inquisition. There is a better way to behave than the savagery of > instinct. The reason I'm not hunted down for being an atheist, or you for being unorthodox, is because our respective countries have evolved from theocracies. I am still disagreeing with you about instinct. Humans are social animals. It is our instinct to socialize. Instinct is not "savagery." > >> >And > >> >if that were eliminated, then a lot of the world's conflicts would be > >> >eliminated, wouldn't they? > >> > >> No. I try to be optimistic and hope that people will wake up and > >> realise how terrible we can be -- and to be honest, how terrible we > >> have been of late! But I am not so much of an idealist that I think > >> that merely eliminating one justification for violence will end all > >> violence. > > > >I never said it will end all violence, did I? > > Indeed not, but you pretend that religion is a great source of > violence and that, for example, the attack on NYC would not have > happened if there were no religions to serve as a catalyst. I'm not pretending, religion IS a great source of violence. Did you not study history? The attack on NYC would not have happened if there were no religions. > >But it would be a step in > >the right direction. You're saying we shouldn't even bother taking that > >step, it would be pointless. > > Not at all. What I am saying is that an honest assessment of human > behaviour will show that, while you do have a good point, you're not > looking in the right direction. I think you need a broader perspective > and narrowing down on religion as the source of all evil won't really > get us any closer to a solution. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't think there is such a thing as "evil," I think that is a loaded religious term. I also think you have a limited (by Christianity) perspective on the world, as exhibited by your knee-jerk opinion that instint is "savage." That's what Christianity teaches, that we are biding our time in this base world until God calls us home. I find it ironic that I have more love for people than you do, and I'm an atheist and you are a proponent of the religion of love. To me, we are a beautiful animal, like all the other ones are (well, hyenas not so much), and to you, we are barely holding back from murderous anarchy if it weren't for the believers. That's pathetic. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:26:50 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <50fctfF1f81erU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote in > >snip > >> It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are >> scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence >> becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like >> gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to >> accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily >> be denied or ignored. T > >What physical evidence? Brown has precisely NONE. As usual, it's all just sanctimonious hand-waving to justify their naive dogma. -- Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 On 8 Jan 2007 10:48:42 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > snip > >Your first statement: "I do think that the universe itself and the >order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." > >If every closed system in the universe breaks down due to entropy, then >the universe is one half order and one half chaos. Your statement is >blind. You are ignoring the natural tendency of everything to decay And? >because you are so bent on believing your god exists in the order. Don't put words in my mouth -- I didn't say God "exists in the order". The order that exists in the universe, including entropy, are present because the universe exists. >It >doesn't. Offer some other evidence, because that isn't good enough. Speaking of offering "some other evidence", let's hear your evidence that supports the actual claim we're discussing. Let me remind you: "We know that God does not exist." You have yet to address this claim, persuing my belief in stead. Let's stick to the topic for a bit. >> I never once claimed to have any. Apart from the existence of this >> current universe and the order present within it, which is >> satisfactory evidence, for me as I said before, of a creator. > >It is unsatisfactory to me, and it is a little objectionable that you >co-opt the scientific discoveries of the natural world and use them to >prove the supernatural world (which they don't). All it shows is a >certain intellectual laziness on your part. You only look at the word >"entropy" as far as you think it fits in with your fixed world view, >and you look no further. Fine. The discussion about my particular belief has been done over pretty well. We simply disagree on the matter. I'll let you have it: my evidence PRO is insufficient in your estimation. Let's now return to the original claim, then, which has not yet been touched. Let me hear your evidence that supports the claim "We know God does not exist" -- here we are after a very long subthread and much discussion and yet all you've addressed is my particular belief. Time to get back to the question at hand. >> >(and theists have >> >had thousands of years to come up with some), and that there is a >> >natural and plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. >> >> It is a reasonable explanation only. It should NOT be understood as >> the factual explanation or indeed the only possible explanation. > >I have no reason to entertain the idea of a supernatural explanation >for the natural universe any further. Fair enough. Let's entertain the claim at hand, then. >> >I'm concluding god is a human delusion on this basis. >> > >> >> >That's not faith. >> >> > >> >> >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits >> >> >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability >> >> >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. >> >> >> >> >> >> Already agreed. >> >> >> >> >> >> > They'd at >> >> >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. >> >> >> >> >> >> Larger brains too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >But there is not one iota of >> >> >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is >> >> >> >populated with super beings. >> >> >> >> >> >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our >> >> >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. >> >> > >> >> >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are >> >> >impossible. >> >> >> >> Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those >> >> directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for >> >> people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else >> >> decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- >> >> that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 >> >> mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 >> >> thousand miles an hour! >> >> >> >> While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are >> >> impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility >> >> of a thing. >> > >> >Disagree. If that something violates all laws of physics then it's best >> >labelled as fiction, because mass delusions can cause plenty of harm. >> >Like 9/11. Like the Crusades. >> >> The Creator didn't violate any of our natural laws of physics. >> Delusions aren't even an issue. > >The creator violates all laws of physics. Study quantum physics. The Creator can't violate what he is not subject to. >Complex super evolved life forms do not spring into existence fully >formed, despite your previously avoiding the issue ("I did not say god >sprang into existence," to paraphrase you; It's not avoiding the issue to say God didn't spring into existence. We have no idea what the circumstances are surrounding God's existence outside this universe, for the Creator is not a part of the creation. I have elsewhere (not in this discussion) speculated that he may well be a member of a very advanced race that is capable of creating universes in controlled circumstances. >everything in the universe has an origin, Yes. And? >so for god not to have one would be a further violation >of the laws of physics. And biology). Well, if you propose that the Creator is one of his own created beings, existing from within his created universe, then you certainly would have a point. I don't know what would lead to believe that the Creator is his own created being, or even that he would be a being OF the universe he created. I am not proposing a Creator that is a being within this universe. That doesn't make much sense. In order to create this universe, the Creator would have to already be in existence. Any description of him or his place would be pure speculation. I've speculated, as I said, that he is a member of a very advanced race: you can therefore conclude that I think God is probably a being something like ourselves. Having an existence, a beginning and an end, in a world and universe to which ours might bear some semblance. Total speculation, mind. What is important to note is that whoever creates a universe has to be around before that universe gets created. It doesn't make any sense to posit that the universe was created by someone who came along only after the universe was created. >If you claim god exists you need >to account for how it works, at least to a small degree, otherwise the >skeptical among us will just write you off. You're welcome to write me off as you please, as I'm welcome to write you off. You haven't yet addressed the claim central to this subthread, which I will again remind you, is "We know that God does not exist". I'll write you off if you can't offer even one little bitty shred of evidence to support the claim. >> Very well, then let's see your evidence in support of the claim. > >The fact that no one has any evidence for any of the thousands of gods >that have been postulated is evidence enough for me that (as I said >above) Well, it's no where near good enough. You are being lazy. You have a big task ahead of you and sitting there saying "well they don't have any evidence for, so that's good enough" is totally lame. Try again. >> >Are you saying "god" had no beginning? >> >> No. Not at all. > >Then he sprang into existence. Unless you care to volunteer how you >think god got there. You can read a speculation about this above. >Another option is god was created. Is that what >you think? Because that kinda weakens the case for his existence even >further. Not at all. There is no reason a created being could not have the necessary technology to create a universe. Just because we can't do this thing doesn't mean it can't be done. >No, I have a good reason. You believe in a super-evolved all powerful >all knowing guy who is invisible (yet I look like him?), reclusive, >all-loving, jealous, vengeful, micromanages my life, never reveals >himself to anybody, and yet created the entire universe, with it's >gazillions of galaxies, stars, and planets. And you have no evidence >for this creature. That is delusional. You assume too many things. I'm going to assume you can not prove your claim that "God does not exist", however. Let me know when you've got something. >I have lots of room for love and trust. Well, no you don't. >Those things are not dependent >upon religious belief. The "love" you think your wife (if you have one -- doesn't matter if you don't, the principle is the same) has for you is delusional. She's just a gold-digging female out to secure her own needs and desires. There is absolutely no evidence to support your so-called "love" and "trust". The simplest and most likely explanation is that you are simply a self-centered man whose only desire is to secure what you need. Whatever you do for your "wife" is just a means to an end: whether it's a cushy place to live or someone to buy your groceries for you. >You have bafflegabbed yourself out of the original question. Good one. Let's both return to the original question then, if you please. What is your evidence that actually supports the claim "We know God does not exist"? Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > > >but he who presumes that 'religion' is > >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? > > He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? not very scientific of you is it ? from O.Fr. superstitieux, from L. superstitiosus, from superstitionem (nom. superstitio) "prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods," perhaps originally "state of religious exaltation," related to superstes (gen. superstitis) "standing over or above," also "standing by, surviving," from superstare "stand on or over, survive," from super "above" (see super-) + stare "to stand," from PIE base sta- "to stand" (see stet). viz. the super-standing over raw reality of a construct. via language, religion [religare] produces a binding based on `ex perentia` -- an "out of proving" the very basis of science. science is inescapably bound to this cultural circumstance even if it uses mathematical language to explain its observations. both are constructs and inter-dependent. > >which 'religion' [i.e. fundamental proposal for existence/identity] > >does not begin in a claim to `ex perentia` [i.e. science] > > None. > false ; every cult proposal begins in the raw circumstances of the cosmology, including the facts of biological processes--birth,death. it cannot help but do otherwise. > >which scientific inquiry [ex perentia] is not rooted in a cultural > >context [root: cult /the binding: religare /religion] ...? > > Cute, but brainless. > all science occurs in a cultural context, it is inescapable. which is why many scientists are priests masquerading as scientists. > >the primary false dialectic is the failure to see science /ex perentia > >and religion /cult as a unit ; they arise symbiotically. > > Nonsense. Religion arose because there was no scientific knowledge. > no science could be possible external to a culture. Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> said: > >> >prokaryotic heterotroph floating on the frothy oceans 'accidentally' > >> >ingested an autotroph and then 'decided' that this would be > >> >'beneficial' and thus embarked on the first 'symbiotic' relationship > >> >for "mutual" benefit. > >> >the seminal story of men and women in a sense. > >> > >> I've never seen such a text. > > > > > >do you not subscribe to the notion that humans are descended from > >unicellular prokaryotes ...? do you not subscribe to the notion that > >sexual reproduction is derived from asexual reproduction ...? > > > Show me a text that says a ph decided anything. If there were one, I'd > interpret the term metaphorically. > what, then, is the mechanism for this transformation ? one proposes "evolution", another "God". the unicellular "organism" allegedly transforms based on a PREFERENCE which presumed it INCLINES toward a "better" model (in this case, symbiosis eventually leading to sexual reproduction). during the chaotic second and third centuries CE Mediterranean (Classical culture) the Neo-Platonists proposed the `autohypostasis` of the monad, where individual "cells" emerged voluntarily out of the `ousis` . the Chilean philosophers proposed a variant applicable to biology known to us as `Apoeisis` a.k.a. tectology, the ability of the "cell" to 'conserve' itself and maintain the integrity of its 'encoded instruction' --its "Nature". Luhmann expanded this to other disciplines but the notion is 'falsifiable' as demonstrated by the 'virus' which changes a cell and reprograms it --resulting in the death of the cell of course. again, the mechanism for adaptation and "natural selection" ? is it conscious ? is it telelogical ? is it 'chaotic' as the other poster ignorantly proposed not understanding that 'chaos theory' is simply a method to ascertain earlier ordinal (singular) states ? Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I'm going to assume you're conceding all those points you snipped without response. > > snip > > > >Your first statement: "I do think that the universe itself and the > >order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." > > > >If every closed system in the universe breaks down due to entropy, then > >the universe is one half order and one half chaos. Your statement is > >blind. You are ignoring the natural tendency of everything to decay > > And? And decay is the opposite of order. Everything decays. Decay is disorder. And you said the universe itself and the ORDER OF EVERYTHING is sufficient evidence (of god). You can pretend you don't understand how you are incorrect once again. You do not have evidence for god. > >because you are so bent on believing your god exists in the order. > > Don't put words in my mouth -- I didn't say God "exists in the order". > The order that exists in the universe, including entropy, are present > because the universe exists. No you didn't, you said "I do think that the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." You were referring to sufficient evidence for god. I can't believe you're trying to weasel out of something you said just several sentences before your last one. You could at least snip it out of your reply entirely to make yourself look better. > >It > >doesn't. Offer some other evidence, because that isn't good enough. > > Speaking of offering "some other evidence", let's hear your evidence > that supports the actual claim we're discussing. Let me remind you: > "We know that God does not exist." You have yet to address this claim, > persuing my belief in stead. Let's stick to the topic for a bit. My statement is you have no evidence for god, you have no evidence for the supernatural, in the meantime other people have presented me with plausible and convincing evidence for an alternative (scientific) explanation for existence that doesn't involve god. I'm going with them. I trust them and I don't trust you. You're too evasive. > >> I never once claimed to have any. Apart from the existence of this > >> current universe and the order present within it, which is > >> satisfactory evidence, for me as I said before, of a creator. > > > >It is unsatisfactory to me, and it is a little objectionable that you > >co-opt the scientific discoveries of the natural world and use them to > >prove the supernatural world (which they don't). All it shows is a > >certain intellectual laziness on your part. You only look at the word > >"entropy" as far as you think it fits in with your fixed world view, > >and you look no further. > > Fine. The discussion about my particular belief has been done over > pretty well. We simply disagree on the matter. I'll let you have it: > my evidence PRO is insufficient in your estimation. > > Let's now return to the original claim, then, which has not yet been > touched. Let me hear your evidence that supports the claim "We know > God does not exist" -- here we are after a very long subthread and > much discussion and yet all you've addressed is my particular belief. > Time to get back to the question at hand. I've already said several times what I think the evidence is. Evolution contradicts your bible. The lack of evidence screams delusion to me. Physics, biology, chemistry, even a rudimentary understanding of these subjects makes god obsolete. You've just ignored (or snipped) what I've said. > >> >(and theists have > >> >had thousands of years to come up with some), and that there is a > >> >natural and plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. > >> > >> It is a reasonable explanation only. It should NOT be understood as > >> the factual explanation or indeed the only possible explanation. > > > >I have no reason to entertain the idea of a supernatural explanation > >for the natural universe any further. > > Fair enough. Let's entertain the claim at hand, then. > > >> >I'm concluding god is a human delusion on this basis. > >> > > >> >> >That's not faith. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits > >> >> >> >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability > >> >> >> >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Already agreed. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > They'd at > >> >> >> >least need opposable thumbs for that. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Larger brains too. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >But there is not one iota of > >> >> >> >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is > >> >> >> >populated with super beings. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our > >> >> >> technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. > >> >> > > >> >> >You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are > >> >> >impossible. > >> >> > >> >> Perhaps not. But in so doing, we tend to no longer seek in those > >> >> directions. Long ago, it was thought that it would be impossible for > >> >> people to travel more than about 30 miles an hour. Someone else > >> >> decided that we should not think about so-called imposibilities -- > >> >> that we should strive towards the goal of travelling at 35 and then 45 > >> >> mph. Now, we've got people hurtling through space at, what, 15 or 20 > >> >> thousand miles an hour! > >> >> > >> >> While it may not be a bad thing to acknowledge that some things are > >> >> impossible, it is far better to admit even the slightest possibility > >> >> of a thing. > >> > > >> >Disagree. If that something violates all laws of physics then it's best > >> >labelled as fiction, because mass delusions can cause plenty of harm. > >> >Like 9/11. Like the Crusades. > >> > >> The Creator didn't violate any of our natural laws of physics. > >> Delusions aren't even an issue. > > > >The creator violates all laws of physics. Study quantum physics. > > The Creator can't violate what he is not subject to. You have not demonstrated that anything exists outside of this universe. All things in this universe obey the laws of physics. > >Complex super evolved life forms do not spring into existence fully > >formed, despite your previously avoiding the issue ("I did not say god > >sprang into existence," to paraphrase you; > > It's not avoiding the issue to say God didn't spring into existence. > We have no idea what the circumstances are surrounding God's existence > outside this universe, for the Creator is not a part of the creation. You have no evidence there is a creator. Chemical evolution explains the origin of life quite simply, no creator required. > I have elsewhere (not in this discussion) speculated that he may well > be a member of a very advanced race that is capable of creating > universes in controlled circumstances. Now you're getting weird. You are pulling that out of your ass. I've known people on LSD who are more rational than that. > >everything in the universe has an origin, > > Yes. And? You sure jump the gun a lot. > >so for god not to have one would be a further violation > >of the laws of physics. And biology). > > Well, if you propose that the Creator is one of his own created > beings, existing from within his created universe, then you certainly > would have a point. I don't know what would lead to believe that the > Creator is his own created being, or even that he would be a being OF > the universe he created. You don't know much about this proposed deity, yet you buy into it whole hog. It's simply bizarre to me. > I am not proposing a Creator that is a being within this universe. Universe means one reality. I guess you are proposing a multiverse, or at least a biverse, in which there is a supernatural world in which your deity resides, where the laws of physics don't apply. For someone who doesn't claim to know much about your god, you sure come up with a lot of intricate and weird details about the world in which it inhabits. What evidence do you have that there is another "universe?" > That doesn't make much sense. In order to create this universe, the > Creator would have to already be in existence. It makes more sense to conclude the "creator" never existed. >Any description of him > or his place would be pure speculation. Thank you for a rare moment of honesty. > I've speculated, as I said, > that he is a member of a very advanced race: you can therefore > conclude that I think God is probably a being something like > ourselves. Get out! Humans have no capacity to create an entire universe. How on earth can you make a speculation like that? > Having an existence, a beginning and an end, in a world and > universe to which ours might bear some semblance. Total speculation, > mind. What is important to note is that whoever creates a universe has > to be around before that universe gets created. It doesn't make any > sense to posit that the universe was created by someone who came along > only after the universe was created. It doesn't make any sense to posit that the universe was created by someone in the first place. > >If you claim god exists you need > >to account for how it works, at least to a small degree, otherwise the > >skeptical among us will just write you off. > > You're welcome to write me off as you please, as I'm welcome to write > you off. You haven't yet addressed the claim central to this > subthread, which I will again remind you, is "We know that God does > not exist". I'll write you off if you can't offer even one little > bitty shred of evidence to support the claim. As I've said numerous times, I do offer evidence that contradicts the bible, you're just ignoring that I said it. One word: evolution. > >> Very well, then let's see your evidence in support of the claim. > > > >The fact that no one has any evidence for any of the thousands of gods > >that have been postulated is evidence enough for me that (as I said > >above) > > Well, it's no where near good enough. You are being lazy. You have a > big task ahead of you and sitting there saying "well they don't have > any evidence for, so that's good enough" is totally lame. Try again. I have offered more, but this is an important aspect (to me). Some humans prey on the gullible. If I can convince you that I have the ear of a superior being, I can relieve you of all sorts of things. Hello Ted Haggard. Hello Jimmy Swaggart. Hello Pope. Some people have ulterior motives, and certainly a lot of religious leaders fall into this category. > >> >Are you saying "god" had no beginning? > >> > >> No. Not at all. > > > >Then he sprang into existence. Unless you care to volunteer how you > >think god got there. > > You can read a speculation about this above. > > >Another option is god was created. Is that what > >you think? Because that kinda weakens the case for his existence even > >further. > > Not at all. There is no reason a created being could not have the > necessary technology to create a universe. Just because we can't do > this thing doesn't mean it can't be done. You have no concept of the vastness of the universe. > >No, I have a good reason. You believe in a super-evolved all powerful > >all knowing guy who is invisible (yet I look like him?), reclusive, > >all-loving, jealous, vengeful, micromanages my life, never reveals > >himself to anybody, and yet created the entire universe, with it's > >gazillions of galaxies, stars, and planets. And you have no evidence > >for this creature. That is delusional. > > You assume too many things. > > I'm going to assume you can not prove your claim that "God does not > exist", however. Let me know when you've got something. > > >I have lots of room for love and trust. > > Well, no you don't. Well, you're awfully mean sprited. You say that about me without knowing anything about me. > >Those things are not dependent > >upon religious belief. > > The "love" you think your wife (if you have one -- doesn't matter if > you don't, the principle is the same) has for you is delusional. That's a hideous statement. You ought to be embarrassed. > She's just a gold-digging female out to secure her own needs and desires. And here is the Christian love rearing it's ugly head. It's a good thing they separated church and state and not had despicable cynics like you in charge anymore. > There is absolutely no evidence to support your so-called "love" and > "trust". The simplest and most likely explanation is that you are > simply a self-centered man whose only desire is to secure what you > need. Whatever you do for your "wife" is just a means to an end: > whether it's a cushy place to live or someone to buy your groceries > for you. Yeah. There's no chance an atheist can find love and happiness with another human being. Your outlook is jaundiced beyond words. If that's what religion does to you, then I that's more evidence that it is delusional. I thought your religion had something to do with love and charity. All I'm getting from you is contempt. You're a hypocrite of the highest order. > >You have bafflegabbed yourself out of the original question. > > Good one. Let's both return to the original question then, if you > please. What is your evidence that actually supports the claim "We > know God does not exist"? Been there enough times, had you ignore my answer enough times. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 On 8 Jan 2007 22:14:25 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" >> >> >but he who presumes that 'religion' is >> >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? >> >> He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence >how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? >and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? How intelligent is it to claim to correct people by posting a definition you misrepresent? >all science occurs in a cultural context, it is inescapable. It is also an untrue distortion. >no science could be possible external to a culture. Proof? Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 On 8 Jan 2007 23:22:55 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >I'm going to assume you're conceding all those points you snipped >without response. Take it however you like! What I'm doing is drawing the discussion back to the actual point. The tangents about religion being the cause of all violence really isn't all that important. If it's so important to you, you can have the points. >And decay is the opposite of order. Everything decays. Decay is >disorder. And you said the universe itself and the ORDER OF EVERYTHING >is sufficient evidence (of god). You can pretend you don't understand >how you are incorrect once again. If decay is "disorder" to you, then I can see how you misunderstood me. >> >because you are so bent on believing your god exists in the order. >> >> Don't put words in my mouth -- I didn't say God "exists in the order". >> The order that exists in the universe, including entropy, are present >> because the universe exists. > >No you didn't, you said "I do think that the universe itself and the >order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." Good. You got it straight, now. >> >It >> >doesn't. Offer some other evidence, because that isn't good enough. >> >> Speaking of offering "some other evidence", let's hear your evidence >> that supports the actual claim we're discussing. Let me remind you: >> "We know that God does not exist." You have yet to address this claim, >> persuing my belief in stead. Let's stick to the topic for a bit. > >My statement is you have no evidence for god, you have no evidence for >the supernatural, in the meantime other people have presented me with >plausible and convincing evidence for an alternative (scientific) >explanation for existence that doesn't involve god. I'm going with >them. I trust them and I don't trust you. You're too evasive. You haven't offered a single piece of evidence to back up the claim. Talk about evasive! On the contrary, I haven't evaded you when asked for what I account evidence for a Creator. We disagree on the sufficiency of that evidence. That's fine, it's not my job to convert you or convince you. What I _am_ doing is asking you to provide evidence to support your claim. You have provided absolutely ZERO evidence. In stead, you cite my supposed "lack of evidence" and other people's "lack of evidence" and still other people's "plausible explanations". Rubbish. You're avoiding the issue, and THAT is evasive. >> Let's now return to the original claim, then, which has not yet been >> touched. Let me hear your evidence that supports the claim "We know >> God does not exist" -- here we are after a very long subthread and >> much discussion and yet all you've addressed is my particular belief. >> Time to get back to the question at hand. > >I've already said several times what I think the evidence is. You haven't offered even one little piece of evidence. Try again. >> The Creator can't violate what he is not subject to. > >You have not demonstrated that anything exists outside of this >universe. Not to your satisfaction, no. We've been through this and I conceded the point to you long ago. Let's get back to the claim at hand, now. >> >Complex super evolved life forms do not spring into existence fully >> >formed, despite your previously avoiding the issue ("I did not say god >> >sprang into existence," to paraphrase you; >> >> It's not avoiding the issue to say God didn't spring into existence. >> We have no idea what the circumstances are surrounding God's existence >> outside this universe, for the Creator is not a part of the creation. > >You have no evidence there is a creator. I have given you ample evidence. You disagree with it. That's fine -- I quite frankly don't care whether you agree with my position or not. I am not looking for you to convert. I am patiently waiting for you to offer some actual evidence that supports your claim that "we KNOW God does not exist". This indicates that you have some real knowledge and some real hard evidence to back up the claim. Saying that "the other guys are all deluded and lack evidence IS my evidence" is just plain lazy. >> I have elsewhere (not in this discussion) speculated that he may well >> be a member of a very advanced race that is capable of creating >> universes in controlled circumstances. > >Now you're getting weird. Weird? Just a little speculation. Nothing weirder than you'll find in any sci-fi magazine or anthology written in the last 75 years or so. >You don't know much about this proposed deity, yet you buy into it >whole hog. It's simply bizarre to me. And YOU are now the expert on any deity? You are making a whole lot of assumptions about what I believe. >As I've said numerous times, I do offer evidence that contradicts the >bible, you're just ignoring that I said it. One word: evolution. BS. _I_ can offer plenty of evidence that contradicts the Bible. It's a load of myth and wisdom literature and (classical) history. So what if you can offer something that contradicts the Bible? You're a fake. I'm just going to assume you can't back up your claim and leave it at that. I've given you plenty of opportunities and you've failed to come through on every single one. >> >I have lots of room for love and trust. >> >> Well, no you don't. > >Well, you're awfully mean sprited. You say that about me without >knowing anything about me. Oh, poor feckin babe! Truly, bleedeth mine heart! >> >Those things are not dependent >> >upon religious belief. >> >> The "love" you think your wife (if you have one -- doesn't matter if >> you don't, the principle is the same) has for you is delusional. > >That's a hideous statement. You ought to be embarrassed. You think so? You're the one who has no time for any kind of nonsense that you can't prove with good hard facts. Don't try to pin "hideousness" on me, sir! >> She's just a gold-digging female out to secure her own needs and desires. > >And here is the Christian love rearing it's ugly head. Well, look who's crying now! You decry the "delusions" of other people who believe in things they have no evidence for, and then when you're shown to be similarly deluded, you bawl. >All I'm getting from you is contempt. You reap what you sow, mister. >Been there enough times, had you ignore my answer enough times. Too bad you never actually offered an answer I could either ignore or address. Too bad, really. I still look forward to being convinced. Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On 8 Jan 2007 22:14:25 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > >> > >> >but he who presumes that 'religion' is > >> >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? > >> > >> He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence > > >how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? > >and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? > > How intelligent is it to claim to correct people by posting a > definition how else can one correct your ignorance of the word "superstition" ? to claim that 'religion' (which you obviously conflate with "religions") is 'super-standing' any more than physics merely perpetuates a fallacy. stop pretending to be a "sophisticated" and "scientific" atheist like your friend "stoney", the pair of you are on a very superficial level and have yet to even define your cartoon like puppet theatre enemies of "god" and "religion" ---you're ignorant. > > >all science occurs in a cultural context, it is inescapable. > >no science could be possible external to a culture. > > Proof? you are the "proof" (or, demonstration, or validation, rather), for example. your cult has defined nomenclature which you presume at the outset even prior to collecting data. so much for `ex perentia` `in pura` Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.