Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... > > Jason wrote: > >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >>> (Jason) let us all know that: > >>> > >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > >> his free > >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > >> does not > >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He > >>>>>> wants > >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> . > >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. > >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of > >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you > >>>>> will do > >> before > >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > >> by your > >>>>> own statement, there is no God. > >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > >>>> will. > >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > >>> everything. Which will it be? > >> > >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please > >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > >> last time. > > > > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not > > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. > > > I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. > He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an > omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a wonderful dictator. I would not trust a dictator that was human but would trust God since God is perfect. I once heard a preacher say something that I agree with--Any form of government would work great as long as the leaders of the government are perfect government leaders. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>> proof that it ever happened. > >> errr HELLO! > >> > >> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >> evolved) from non-life > >> > >> What the hell are you on about? > >> > >> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > >> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > > non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > > materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > > believe. > > You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > > Are you now backtracking on that statement? > > > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live evolved from non-life. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f246qa$97k$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1178943780.445609.142300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >>> Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > >>> already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > >>> their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > >> I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am > >> truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and > >> frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will > >> accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on > >> my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. > >> > >> Martin > > > > That's your choice. I would prefer to not suffer for my sins. You do have > > options. > > > > > > That's childish at best. You are fully responsible for what you do. To > pass the blame and/or punishment to somebody else is ... ehm, no other > word for it... EVIL. > > Tokay I disagree. Jesus shed his blood for me thousands of years ago. The Bible makes it clear that he suffered and died in my place so that I could be delivered from my sins. I believe that it's an intellegent and wise thing to do to since that is what God and Jesus wants me to do. As per the 2005 Time Almanac, 76.7 per cent of Americans are Christians so it's my guess most of them agree with me. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f23v14$pbs$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f22pim$42r$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>> We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that > >>>> before life existed, there was no life. > >>>> What other explanation do you have? > >>>> Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a > >>>> supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. > >>>> So who created God? > >>> I have been asked this question before: My answer is "That I don't know > >>> how God came to be--when I get to heaven--I'll ask God or an angel how God > >>> came to be." > >> Which is hardly proof of anything. > >> > >>>> Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he > > finished--evolution > >>>>> took over. > >>>> Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? > >> None, of course. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories. > >> > >>> Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins---perhaps you are > >>> one of the ones that don't idolize Darwin.I have never idolized Darwin. > >> First, what the heck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who thinks evolution > >> is a valid theory and not disproven to date? Sorry to diappoint you. > >> That would be a rational human. And/Or a scientist. > >> Second, "idolize"? Where did you get that notion? > >> I might think he had a great mind to see what nobody before him saw. But > >> I don't idolize him. What he did in his spare time is of no interest to me. > >> (Side note, totally unrelated. Why it should be important how many times > >> a politician did marry? He did not get the post of prime minister or > >> chancellor or president because of his private life. But because what he > >> stands for on political matters. Ex german chancellor was married three > >> times (IIRC), once during his term. Ex foreign minister five times. > >> Nobody cared.) > >> So why should I care if Darwin liked blond women? Or obese ones? It has > >> nothing to do with his work, namely evolutionary theory. This is far > >> from "idolizing". > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Tokay, > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this theory. "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. Another interesting book: "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical version of creation. > > > There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. > > That is not evolution. Again. It is not. That is abiogenesis. > > You are intelligent > > enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would > > create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do > > it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail > > is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. God created life. Einstein > > They did the experiments. The proved that you take the elements, add > energy and get amino acids as well as parts of DNA and RNA. You take > amino acids and add energy and you actually get reproducing "bubbles". > They tried and they succeeded. Did they produce a living cell? > > > was asked about this subject. His reply was something like this: "A watch > > needs a designer--life needed a designer". Of course, he was correct. > > jason > > Even if Einstein was asked about this and said what you claim he said... > He is an astrophysicist. Abiogenesis and evolution are fields of biology > (not sure about the first one. Might be chemistry. Or biochemistry). You > don't ask a plumber about your car based on his skills as a plumber, do you? > But I am pretty certain that this quote is bogus. > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f250it$6s8$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>>>> errr HELLO! >>>>>> >>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >>>>>> evolved) from non-life >>>>>> >>>>>> What the hell are you on about? >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier >>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >>>>> believe. >>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >>>> >>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live >>> evolved from non-life. >>> >>> >> Which is not evolution. Ad infinitum. A-B-I-O-G-E-N-E-S-I-S. >> >> Experiments showed that it is possible. >> >> Tokay > > As far as I know, those experiments have NEVER produced a living cell from > non-life. > > Still no concept of time? Back to top. You start from nothing and start up everything. But from the same nothing as I had to start. Nothing, nada, nix, null. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 <snip> > > I am sure that you believe everything that is stated above. You know more > > about science than I know and I respect your knowledge. However, I have > > read conflicting information in other sources. Do you concede that 50 > > years from now, scientists will know more about genetics than they > > presently know? > > Yes, of course. They can never say for certain that Neanderthals were > a separate species. But I have to respect their judgement when they > say that human / neanderthal offspring would probably be infertile. That was an assumption and there is proof that the offspring would probably be infertile. > > > Do you concede that there are people that know as much > > about science that you know that have different opinions than you related > > to this subject? > > You snipped the links. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_Magnon > http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon > http://www.answers.com/topic/neanderthal > > The different sources do not provide wildly different information. The sources that are advocates of creation science do provide information that is different than the advocates of evolution. > > > Please comment on this statement: > > When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of > > evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal > > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people > > would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? > > We don't know. Seriously. For all we know Neanderthals had orange > skin. We can only guess what they would have looked like from their > bones. The orange skin must be new information. Do you have proof that Neanderthals had orange skin or is it another assumption? > > > Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found > > evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced > > offspring? > > Did you notice that those reports were referenced in the links I > provided? > > > Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was > > impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when > > they mated due to vast genetic differences? > > Neanderthals and modern humans (let alone Cro Magnon man) are 99.5% > identical. Even so, the offspring they produced might have been > sterile. What would need to be shown is that there were genes that > originated in neanderthals that then got passed to modern humans > through interbreeding with Cro Magnon man. Sort of makes you wish you > were a graduate student in genetics and you could get involved in this > research, doesn't it? I hated genetic college classes. I hated the Punnett Square. > > The irony, of course, is that this research would be the final nail in > the coffin of creationism because if modern man is descended from both > Cro Magnon man and Neanderthals then modern man definitely was not > created "as is" but formed as a result of interbreeding between two > separate groups. > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are > > 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? > > I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I know such > research has been done: I remember reading that Japanese people share > a lot of genetic markers with Europeans and that Polynesian ancestry > can be traced back to Taiwan and the Philippines. There's even a > _European Journal of Human Genetics_ that (obviously) specializes in > human genetics but papers from it are not available on line. > > Problems arise because we are all part of the same species: race > accounts for only 5% of our variation ( See http://en.wikipedia/wiki/race > ) as variations in height, eye colour and skin colour within local > populations are not considered racial differences. As the total > variation between different people cannot be more than 0.5% then the > difference between people of different races can only be 5% of 0.5% or > 0.025% of our total genome, meaning that people belonging to different > races (European and Japanese for example) can be up to 99.975% > identical. You'd expect pygmies to be significantly different from > white people genetically but researchers claim that "genetically there > is no evidence that Pygmies are distinct from other Africans" (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies ) so it would appear that, > genetically, we are very close indeed to being 100% identical. > One of my concerns is that the researchers will try to manipulate the data to indicate what they want the data to show. For example, when they state that the offsping are probably sterile--that's is merely nothing more than an assumption based upon their wanting to make the data link up with evolution theory. When advocates of creation science do that--you get upset. However, when advocates of evolution do the same thing--you don't appear to get upset or even notice it. Have you heard the old saying--"it depends on whose oxen is gored". Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f24v38$480$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he >>>>>>> had a plan prepared. >>>>>> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. >>>>> Good point. They were NOT created perfect. >>>> The Bible says they were. >>>> >>>>> God did not want programmed >>>>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. >>>> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. >>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. >>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free >>> will. Neither God or people are robots. >> Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does >> what he is told is perfect. >> But forget it, thats not the issue. >> >> If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, >> omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. >> >> Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and >> benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew >> it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not >> believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in >> him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. >> >> And so on, ad infinitum... > > The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. During our time > on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On > judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him > (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people > that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on > God will go to hell. Ok, that's the proof for your god not being benevolent right there. He is omnipotent and can do anything. He is omniscient and knows everything. He made this test, fully knowing what would happen. You cannot argue that from your point of view. > > It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern > ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. But he has. You said so. This is what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean. > There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God > had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people > to go to hell. Again, "omniscient" and "omnipotent". So whatever happens is because your god did it. And he knew what would happen. Maybe on purpose, maybe not, but he did it and knew what would happen. Where does "free will" come in? Those Christians that believed that doctrine were > mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small > towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so > proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. Which your god must have known beforehand, because he knows everything. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178953436.055714.108100@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > There are no 8s and 9s in the 2000's. There aren't even any 6s and > 7s. How can you lie so boldly when you yourself are posting the > statistics??? Note that the murder rate peaked in 1991 and has been > dropping steadily ever since. That's true-there are not 8s or 9s in the 2000's--I made a mistake. However, there are NO 5s or higher in the 1950's and all figures in the 1990s and 2000s are above 5 and at least 9 figures from 1990 to 2004 are above 6. > > Martin > > > Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950=AD2004 > > Year Homicide > > rate > > 1950 4.6 > > 1951 4.4 > > 1952 4.6 > > 1953 4.5 > > 1954 4.2 > > 1955 4.1 > > 1956 4.1 > > 1957 4.0 > > 1958 4.8 > > 1959 4.9 > > 1960 5.1 > > 1961 4.8 > > 1962 4.6 > > 1963 4.6 > > 1964 4.9 > > 1965 5.1 > > 1966 5.6 > > 1967 6.2 > > 1968 6.9 > > 1969 7.3 > > 1970 7.9 > > 1971 8.6 > > 1972 9.0 > > 1973 9.4 > > 1974 9.8 > > 1975 9.6 > > 1976 8.8 > > 1977 8.8 > > 1978 9.0 > > 1979 9.7 > > 1980 10.2 > > 1981 9.8 > > 1982 9.1 > > 1983 8.3 > > 1984 7.9 > > 1985 7.9 > > 1986 8.6 > > 1987 8.3 > > 1988 8.4 > > 1989 8.7 > > 1990 9.4 > > 1991 9.8 > > 1992 9.3 > > 1993 9.5 > > 1994 9.0 > > 1995 8.2 > > 1996 7.4 > > 1997 6.8 > > 1998 6.3 > > 1999 5.7 > > 2000 5.5 > > 2001 5.6 > > 2002 5.6 > > 2003 5.7 > > 2004 5.5 > > Source: Crime in the United States, 2004, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178954706.988121.96280@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 9:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Good point--another factor is related to illegal immigrants that have > > committed murders. Back in the 1950's the numbers of illegal immigrants in > > America was much less than it now is. I read that 20 percent of the > > inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. > > This is rascist! You don't have any evidence that these illegal > immigrants are in jail because they have commited murder! Until you > have statistics stating why they are in jail you can't assume that! A > lot of them could be in jail for _being_ illegal immigrants. I don't know about other states but in California illegal immigrants are only placed in state prisons if they committed a felony. They may be placed in Federeal Prisons but NOT state prisons. If they catch illegal immigrants that have not committed crimes, they are usally sent back to Mexico. I live in California and have seen various stories related to illegal immigrants that have been convicted of murder. If you truly believe that NONE of the illegal immigrants that are in prison have committed murder--you are living in a dream world. There are at least two gangs--one is called the Mexican Mafia and the other one is called Nutras Familia (spelling??). The members of those two gangs have committed lots of murders. > > http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html > > "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by > Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: > > "Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place > other than as designated by immigration officers; or > > "Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or > > "Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a > willfully false or misleading representation or the willful > concealment of a material fact; > has committed a federal crime. > > "Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up > to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison." > > The fact that illegal immigrants are in jail should not be interpreted > as evidence that illegal immigrants commit any more murders on average > than any other group in the United States. In fact, they would be > expected to commit _fewer_ murders because commiting murder is an > excellent way to draw the attention of immigration officials to your > case! > > Even if statistically more murders were commited by illegal > immigrants, most illegal immigrants are from Latin American countries > and, thus, are predominently Catholic and not atheist. This goes a > long way to explaining why only 0.2% of the prison population is > atheist. > > Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178955578.365189.164140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > > small tracing. > > Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did > they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder > and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let > alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And > what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as > murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate > foul play? > > Martin Martin, The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <b3mb43lothcm5cn935vonne3lm0j5559ql@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On 12 May 2007 00:39:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in > <1178955578.365189.164140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > >On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > >> do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > >> earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > >> small tracing. > > > >Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did > >they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder > >and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let > >alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And > >what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as > >murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate > >foul play? > > I agree that the quality of the data is likely to be lower. The problem > for him is that his assertion cannot be supported by the data. I was > pointing out some of the problems with selective data collection. Martin made an interesting point about those statistics. The murder rate in the 2000's was less than it was in most of the years in the 1990's. That surprised me. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <5amg7qF2pqcqfU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1205071110350001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1178951000.275774.184040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 11 Maj, 19:01, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > > >> > snip > >> > > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > > By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy > >> > > to > >> > > determine whether a person that I know takes their religion > >> > > seriously. For > >> > > example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that > >> > > had > >> > > health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his > >> > > religion seriously. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow > >> > > Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion > >> > > that > >> > > he did not take his religion seriously. > >> > > >> > Hmmm, well Jimmy Swaggart appears to take his religion VERY seriously, > >> > yet > >> > he got caught soliciting the services of a prostitute - and had > >> > apparently > >> > inquired about screwing the prostitute's daughter. > >> > >> I wonder what the explanation would be for me as an atheist clearing > >> snow off of my invalid neighbor's sidewalk, or the explanation for me > >> cutting a year's worth of firewood for an old man tied to a wheel > >> chair and an oxygen tank. It is actually quite common for people to > >> help each other religious or not. As a side comment I would like to > >> point out that I do not see anything necessarily unchristian about > >> beating one's wife, after all maybe she spoke up in church or > >> committed some other henious crime. > >> > >> > -- > >> > Robyn > >> > Resident Witchypoo > >> > BAAWA Knight! > >> > #1557 > > > > Robyn, > > I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than > > Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. > > Whatever - I didn't write that part. > > And you've still shown yourself to be prejudiced against atheists. I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that rediculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics class. I have had other athest professors that I respected. I don't dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. I took a debate class in college. We appeared to not like each other during the debates but actually we were friends. I once witnessed a trial where the lawyers appeared to hate each other and be prejudiced against each other. During the noon break, I saw them eating lunch together in the courthouse cafeteria. They appeared to be close friends. jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f2550t$g79$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f24v38$480$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually > sin so he >>>>>>>>> had a plan prepared. >>>>>>>> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. >>>>>>> Good point. They were NOT created perfect. >>>>>> The Bible says they were. >>>>>> >>>>>>> God did not want programmed >>>>>>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. >>>>>> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. >>>>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. >>>>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free >>>>> will. Neither God or people are robots. >>>> Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does >>>> what he is told is perfect. >>>> But forget it, thats not the issue. >>>> >>>> If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, >>>> omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. >>>> >>>> Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and >>>> benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew >>>> it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not >>>> believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in >>>> him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. >>>> >>>> And so on, ad infinitum... >>> The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. During our time >>> on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On >>> judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him >>> (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people >>> that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on >>> God will go to hell. >> Ok, that's the proof for your god not being benevolent right there. He >> is omnipotent and can do anything. He is omniscient and knows >> everything. He made this test, fully knowing what would happen. You >> cannot argue that from your point of view. >> >>> It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern >>> ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. >> But he has. You said so. This is what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean. >> >>> There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God >>> had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people >>> to go to hell. >> Again, "omniscient" and "omnipotent". So whatever happens is because >> your god did it. And he knew what would happen. Maybe on purpose, maybe >> not, but he did it and knew what would happen. Where does "free will" >> come in? >> >> Those Christians that believed that doctrine were >>> mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small >>> towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so >>> proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. >> Which your god must have known beforehand, because he knows everything. > >> Tokay Ok, start again, and reality check with it. > > Tokay, > You are making it MUCH more complicated than it really is. Free will means > that God is letting us live our lives anyway we want to live it. Whether > we pass the test or fail the test--it's up to us. And god knew if we pass of fail. That's omniscient. > > For example, when I went to college, the college administrators made it > clear what we needed to do in order to graduate. All of the students had > free will. Some of us passed the test and obtained degrees. Lots of > students failed the test and did not get degrees. Let's say the > administrators (based on SAT tests and our high school grades and courses) > knew which students would graduate and also knew which students would > flunk out. That meant nothing to me and I did not worry about it. I done > my best to pass the tests. I obtained my degree. These administrators are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. They think they know who will pass and who will fail beforehand, but they don't know for sure. If they knew for sure, there would be no point in actually doing the test. Also, they never claim to be benevolent. > > Each of us can love God or turn our backs on God. If we want to spend > eternity in heaven--the logical alternative is to love God. If people > choose to turn their backs on God, it is NOT God's fault if they end up > in hell. It's that person's fault. No. It is gods fault (if he existed and had all these attributes). He did it and he knew what would happen (OMNISCIENT! THATS what that word MEANS!). So which way would you like it? Make your pick. Either he is omnipotent and omniscient (NOT benevolent) then it is his fault (he did it and knew what would happen), or he is not omnipotent or omniscient (you can have one, but not both), then, and only then can it be my fault. (If he is just omnipotent, he could do anything but would not know the result beforehand. If he is just omniscient, he would know what would happen, but could not do anything about it.) He can be omniscient and omnipotent, but then, he is one sick bugger playing games (which is the opposite of benevolent). So if he is omniscient AND omnipotent it is his fault and he is playing dirty games. Sick games. As crazy as a rabbit on speed. Worse, actually. Tokay P.S.: But since he doesn't exist, I don't worry about this particular cosmic zombie. -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f24v38$480$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>>>> It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > >>>>> had a plan prepared. > >>>> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > >>> Good point. They were NOT created perfect. > >> The Bible says they were. > >> > >>> God did not want programmed > >>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. > >> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. > > > > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does > what he is told is perfect. > But forget it, thats not the issue. > > If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, > omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. > > Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and > benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew > it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not > believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in > him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. > > And so on, ad infinitum... The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. During our time on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on God will go to hell. It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people to go to hell. Those Christians that believed that doctrine were mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. > > > > > > > >>> Instead, God created > >>> people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love > >>> him. > >> How could he possibly hope that, when he knew what would happen? > > > > It's like a parent that hopes their children will love them. > > Parents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. One would hope for them > to be benevolent, though. > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f250it$6s8$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>> errr HELLO! > >>>> > >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >>>> evolved) from non-life > >>>> > >>>> What the hell are you on about? > >>>> > >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > >>> believe. > >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > >> > >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > >>> > > > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > > evolved from non-life. > > > > > > Which is not evolution. Ad infinitum. A-B-I-O-G-E-N-E-S-I-S. > > Experiments showed that it is possible. > > Tokay As far as I know, those experiments have NEVER produced a living cell from non-life. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <N_ednW-ni55XYtjbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > (snip) > > Martin, > > That person was snipping half of my sentences in order to quote me out of > > context. That's a cheap way to win a debate. > > Such practices are quickly recognized for what they are. > > But where did you get the idea that anyone ever wins a > debate on Usenet? Good point--you are correct Quote
Guest George Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 4:20 pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > I don't like weasel-word bullshit. I don't like idiots who > refuse to logically think out their position. Logic and religion cannot by their natures exist together. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <5amg9cF2oe4edU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator > > I could never worship a dictator. I could--if that dictator was God. I would never worship a human dictator. Back in the old days, people worshipped Caesar. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but > > that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a > > wonderful dictator. > > That is the fear talking. > > This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly > sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when > its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, > had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been > foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this > hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and > omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical > demon, you got there. > > You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it > might do you and infinite punishment. > > > I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > > trust God since God is perfect. > (snip) > > Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. I believe my choice is better. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>> errr HELLO! >>>> >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >>>> evolved) from non-life >>>> >>>> What the hell are you on about? >>>> >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >>> believe. >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >> >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>> > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > evolved from non-life. Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the hell are you on man? Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f2550t$g79$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f24v38$480$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> <snip> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > >>>>>>> had a plan prepared. > >>>>>> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > >>>>> Good point. They were NOT created perfect. > >>>> The Bible says they were. > >>>> > >>>>> God did not want programmed > >>>>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. > >>>> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. > >>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > >>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > >>> will. Neither God or people are robots. > >> Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does > >> what he is told is perfect. > >> But forget it, thats not the issue. > >> > >> If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, > >> omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. > >> > >> Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and > >> benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew > >> it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not > >> believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in > >> him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. > >> > >> And so on, ad infinitum... > > > > The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. During our time > > on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On > > judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him > > (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people > > that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on > > God will go to hell. > > Ok, that's the proof for your god not being benevolent right there. He > is omnipotent and can do anything. He is omniscient and knows > everything. He made this test, fully knowing what would happen. You > cannot argue that from your point of view. > > > > > It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern > > ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. > > But he has. You said so. This is what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean. > > > There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God > > had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people > > to go to hell. > > Again, "omniscient" and "omnipotent". So whatever happens is because > your god did it. And he knew what would happen. Maybe on purpose, maybe > not, but he did it and knew what would happen. Where does "free will" > come in? > > Those Christians that believed that doctrine were > > mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small > > towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so > > proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. > > Which your god must have known beforehand, because he knows everything. > Tokay Tokay, You are making it MUCH more complicated than it really is. Free will means that God is letting us live our lives anyway we want to live it. Whether we pass the test or fail the test--it's up to us. For example, when I went to college, the college administrators made it clear what we needed to do in order to graduate. All of the students had free will. Some of us passed the test and obtained degrees. Lots of students failed the test and did not get degrees. Let's say the administrators (based on SAT tests and our high school grades and courses) knew which students would graduate and also knew which students would flunk out. That meant nothing to me and I did not worry about it. I done my best to pass the tests. I obtained my degree. Each of us can love God or turn our backs on God. If we want to spend eternity in heaven--the logical alternative is to love God. If people choose to turn their backs on God, it is NOT God's fault if they end up in hell. It's that person's fault. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >>> wonderful dictator. >> That is the fear talking. >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> demon, you got there. >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> (snip) >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > I believe my choice is better. Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other choices open up. In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. I understand. I once feared the same demon. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >>> wonderful dictator. >> That is the fear talking. >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> demon, you got there. >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> (snip) >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > I believe my choice is better. I sadly notice that the total self contradiction in this mythology went right by you without any reaction. If logic ever comes to mean anything to you, you will look back at your present beliefs and wonder how you brain could ever hold them. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:52:36 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205071252360001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1178955578.365189.164140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What >> > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other >> > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly >> > small tracing. >> >> Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did >> they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder >> and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let >> alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And >> what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as >> murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate >> foul play? >> >> Martin > >Martin, >The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the >depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. But so have the events of the past fifty years. The world changes over time and our country changes with it. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f257ki$lcn$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f2550t$g79$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Each of us can love God or turn our backs on God. If we want to spend >>> eternity in heaven--the logical alternative is to love God. If people >>> choose to turn their backs on God, it is NOT God's fault if they end up >>> in hell. It's that person's fault. >> No. It is gods fault (if he existed and had all these attributes). He >> did it and he knew what would happen (OMNISCIENT! THATS what that word >> MEANS!). >> >> So which way would you like it? Make your pick. Either he is omnipotent >> and omniscient (NOT benevolent) then it is his fault (he did it and >> knew what would happen), or he is not omnipotent or omniscient (you can >> have one, but not both), then, and only then can it be my fault. >> (If he is just omnipotent, he could do anything but would not know the >> result beforehand. If he is just omniscient, he would know what would >> happen, but could not do anything about it.) >> >> He can be omniscient and omnipotent, but then, he is one sick bugger >> playing games (which is the opposite of benevolent). >> >> So if he is omniscient AND omnipotent it is his fault and he is >> playing dirty games. Sick games. As crazy as a rabbit on speed. Worse, >> actually. >> >> Tokay >> >> P.S.: But since he doesn't exist, I don't worry about this particular >> cosmic zombie. > > Tokay, > An omnipotent and omniscient God can do anything that he wants to do. In > this case, he gave us free will. At the end of our test period (on this > earth), he will make a judgement on whether we loved God or turned our > backs on God. I made the choice of loving God. It's up to you about > whether to love God or turn your back on God. If you end up in hell, it's > not God's fault--it will be your fault. I don't understand why anyone > would want to spend eternity in hell. One person told me that he did not > believe there was a heaven or hell. That person is taking a really big > gamble. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity in hell. > > Still not addressing what I said. It is your claim that god is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. Sure, he can give me free will. He can do anything, right? But if he knows everything, he knows what I will do. And since you claim that he is also all-loving, he lets me burn in hell. Ehm... Does not sound very loving to me.... Mind you, it was you who made these claims, not me. I don't claim to believe in this bozo. How can I? (yeah, on principle sure, but in this particular bozo?) Again: He can do anything (that's "omnipotent". Look it up in whatever dictionary you like. "Can do everything". That's what that word means). And christians said he did it all. Some differ on what amount of it he actually did "himself", but whether you start at the big bang or last Thursday, he did it. And also, if he is omniscient (look it up. Knows everything, that's what it means), he knew exactly what would happen. Only way. If he is omniscient, then he knew. Again. If he is omniscient, then he knew. Or he would not be omniscient. Correct, so far? Or do you want to argue that? So, he knows all. That means he knows also what I believe or don't believe. And he also knows if I ever would change my mind (hardly). He knows. He is omniscient. Still, your claim, not mine. So, he created everything, whether at the Big Bang, or 6000 years ago or last thursday. And knew what he created and would happen. Again, that's omniscient. No way around it. He knows what I do, he knows what I think and what I will think. Still. That's omniscient. And still your claim, not mine. So. Pay attention. He fully knew all that when he created everything. Whether that was last Thursday or 6000 years ago or at the Big Bang. So he did it on purpose. I had no say in it. What it comes down to is he created me that way (that is exactly what you are saying). Or do you want to argue that? That he didn't know then what would happen today? You claim he is omniscient, so he did know. Or he is not omniscient. So I have no choice. I am created that way. Ok, that deals with the "free will". Simply not possible. So he created me that way and because he did, I will burn in hell? So whose fault is it, then? Mine? When I never had a choice? Hardly. And if that cosmic zombie actually has the guts to blame it on me, how on EARTH can you stand there and still claim he is benevolent? Tokay P.S.: Oh, and if your only answer is "It is that way and basta" don't bother to answer. -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon 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.