panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
news:1193536931.394564.309240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Oct 27, 9:12 pm, Will <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
>> innews:1193526101.420647.99240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > On Oct 27, 6:10 pm, Will <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
>> >> innews:1193516439.196563.101250@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > On Oct 27, 3:45 pm, Will <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >> >> innews:q527i3pmb02aagbk1f7f4i1ci6h7802m98@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> >> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:37:33 GMT, Will
>> >> >> > <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>"Bill M" <wm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> >> >> >>news:re3Ui.6130$b9.4174 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> >> >>> There are many hundreds of religious and god beliefs.
>>
>> >> >> >>> How do you know your belief is the correct belief and all
>> >> >> >>> the others are fakes?
>>
>> >> >> >>By the daily miracles, signs, and wonders. By the prophecies
>> >> >> >>that have been fulfilled, and are still being fulfilled
>> >> >> >>today? By the grace that He has extended me. By the answered
>> >> >> >>prayers. By the unanswered prayers. By faith and love.
>>
>> >> >> > IOW, you don't have a clue.
>>
>> >> >> I'm not the one asking the questions here, you are.
>>
>> >> > He's not "asking questions", he's asking somone who claims gods
>> >> > exist to put up or shut up.
>>
>> >> No, he's asking how anyone can be sure about how they chose to
>> >> believe. Read the question, it says "How do you know your belief
>> >> is the correct belief and all the others are fakes?"
>>
>> > A rhetorical question, and a common reply when someone invokes
>> > Pascal's Wager. It was supposed to demonstrate the lack of worth of
>> > the argument. If you're wor****ping the *wrong* god, you run the
>> > risk of angering the *right* one. So you run an equal risk of
>> > "hell" as the unbeliever.
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> Try reading my
>> >> >> answer, however, instead of writing your own IOW answer.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Why would any real God permit his creations to be so
>> >> >> >>> deceived?
>>
>> >> >> >>Why don't you ask Him with an open mind and an open heart?
>>
>> >> >> > Why don't you post objective evidence that "he" objectively
>> >> >> > exists?
>>
>> >> >> Because I'm not the one asking the loaded question, I'm not the
>> >> >> one seeking the answers to this loaded question, and I'm not
>> >> >> the one that's trying to convince others of my belief or
>> >> >> disbelief.
>>
>> >> > The question is not "loaded".
>>
>> >> A loaded question is "a question that presupposes something that
>> >> has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved."
>> >> (wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions,
>> >> 10/27/07)
>>
>> > I am not the one presupposing. You are. You are stating, without
>> > evidence that a god or gods exist. Because there is no evidence
>> > that they exist, I do not consider it im****tant whether they exist
>> > or not. The subject of religion I consider im****tant, because of
>> > the threat it poses to human development..but there is no worth to
>> > be found in the underlying question of existance.
>>
>> So, than a God that is more interested in the action of the
>> individual and his/her motives for such actions, whether than the
>> individual's religios affiliation, would be more acceptable to you?
>
> I don't find the subject im****tant enough to even speculate. There is
> not enough real world (i.e. measurable and repeatable) evidence to
> consider that such creatures might exist. If they do, they have no
> impact upon the practicalities of daily life. They are irrelevant to
> the world I exist in.
>
>> >> The question that was loaded is "Why would any real God permit his
>> >> creations to be so deceived?" In this, there is the underlying
>> >> presupposition that if God were real, than we either shouldn't be
>> >> permitted to deception, or that there must be a good reason for
>> >> such deception to be tolerated.
>>
>> >> Therefore, if deception exists, with the
>> >> abscence of a sound and valid reason for such deception, than the
>> >> question further assumes that God cannot exist, as the two would
>> >> need a sound and valid reason to co-exist together.
>>
>> >> Therefore, this question is a loaded question.
>>
>> > No, it is an exercise in logic. You call the question "loaded"
>> > because you do not accept the default position *as* the default
>> > position.
>>
>> And that is the definition of a loaded question. A question that
>> assumes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the
>> parties involved?
>>
>> > You
>> > presuppose the existance of something without demonstrating that it
>> > exists.
>>
>> But I'm not the one trying to prove to you that He does or doesn't
>> exist.
>
> Well, you certainly could have fooled me. I thought you were
> attempting to defend the rationality of believing in these creatures.
> If you will simply admit that it is not rational, even though it is
> your personal belief, we could leave it at that.
But you haven't proved to me that my belief isn't rational. Furthermore,
you seem to mistake my belief for a belief in magical little forest
creatures, or something of the like--in which case it's no wonder you
would think my belief isn't rational.
>
>> >> > There is no evidence any of mankind's
>> >> > hundreds of thousands of gods exist.
>>
>> >> That's a lot of gods. I only wor****p one.
>>
>> >> > So the non-existence of gods is
>> >> > the default position.
>>
>> >> OK, this is both a false dichotomy and argumentum ad ignorantum.
>> >> First, just because you don't see any evidence of God doesn't mean
>> >> that He doesn't exist.
>>
>> > Would you have problems with it if it were speaking of leprechauns
>> > or Santa Claus?
>>
>> Yup. Haven't you been watching South Park ;-).
>
> Oh, no...we *invented* those jokes here in alt.atheism. They stole
> them from us! <g>
>
>> On that note, if someone
>> came up to me with an honest belief in leprechauns or Santa Clause, I
>> would leave them be and keep living by my belief.
>>
>> > You'd think me batty if I honestly believed in a tooth
>> > fairy.
>>
>> There are crazier things to believe in (i.e. a cosmic accident that's
>> somehow responsible for all the complexities of life throughout the
>> universe).
>>
>> > Why on earth should I allow special pleading for *your* god.
>>
>> I didn't know He was on trial?
>
> Then I have misinterpreted your actions.
I guess you have.
>
>> > It
>> > is only im****tant to you. To me, it's just someone else's silly
>> > superstition, and it is no more likely that your god exists than
>> > the Flying Spagetti Monster.
>>
>> Oh know, a flying spaghetti monster (and yet the Homer Simpson in me
>> is thinking Mmmmm...Spaghetti).
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Second, just because you can't find evidence one way
>> >> doesn't mean you need to default to the polar opposite.
>>
>> > I don't. Since there is no evidence of any creature existing
>> > outside the natural universe affecting change within it, I do not
>> > care whether or not gods exist. It is the actions of people who
>> > believe in gods that I percieve as the danger.
>>
>> Well, Jesus did warn us that there would be those who would come
>> falsely in His name, and that they would mislead many. But, if you
>> keep the two great commandments found in Matthew 22:35-40, which is
>> essentially to love God and love your neighbor, than you won't be
>> misguided by the counterfeit Christians.
>
> I do not believe Christian mythology is true. Can you not see that
> quoting from your traditions is no different to me than if you had
> read me something from a Japanese comic book? They have absolutely no
> value to me.
>
>> >> For example, I
>> >> can make the claim that I find no evidence that God doesn't exist.
>> >> Therefore, the default position is that He exists and it is up to
>> >> you to prove to me that He doesn't (especially since you seem to
>> >> want me to believe as you do).
>>
>> >> However, I could, if I chose to, take the position that there is
>> >> no evidence that if there is no evidence that God exists, and if
>> >> there is no evidence that He doesn't exist, than we are left with
>> >> the position of not knowing, subject to our own beliefs.
>>
>> >> > You are the one who claim gods exist,
>>
>> >> No, I BELIEVE God (one God) exists. Get it straight.
>>
>> >> > so it is
>> >> > your burden to prove they do.
>>
>> >> You're the one that claims that God doesn't exist, so it is your
>> >> burden to prove that He doesn't.
>>
>> > You lecture me on logical fallacies, and then turn right around and
>> > ask me to prove a negative? Odd strategy. *You* are the one making
>> > the positive claim.
>>
>> No, I'm not making a claim, I'm simply stating a belief. Are you
>> going to argue with me about what I believe? Furthermore, argumentum
>> ad ignorantum goes both ways, as neither the abscence of proof of
>> what is, nor the abscence of proof of what isn't, constitutes a valid
>> argument. Therefore, you are right that I used a logical fallacy,
>> but by recognizing that you should also recognize the fallacy of your
>> argument stating that the lack of proof of God means a default
>> position of no God, which is doubly fallacious, for it assumes only
>> two possible stances to take (false dichitomy) and appeals to
>> ignorance.
>
> Only if one considers the existence of gods *im****tant*.
Do you consider the non-existence of God (or gods) *im****tant*?
> Special
> pleading, pure and simple. What would be anything other than a lack of
> existence?
The false dichotomy wasn't in whether He exists or not, but whether you
chose to believe if He exists or you chose to believe He doesn't exist.
There is the third option that I had already provided, and perhaps, for a
mystical God, you may have given a 4th or 5th (though I wouldn't
concsider them).
> Partial existence (could that even be *defined*?)? Previous
> or future existence? Either something is, or it is not.
>
>> >> > If it were my duty to disprove every
>> >> > nutty claim people make about the alleged "supernatural", there
>> >> > would be no time to do anything else.
>>
>> >> Than why not just let people believe what they want to believe and
>> >> call it a day.
>>
>> > Because they would deprive women, gays and minorities of their
>> > rights.
>>
>> I see. So, because some of us who bare Christ's name have acted this
>> way, we all must be like that. What a gross overgeneralization.
>> Come on, how about practicing some of that tolerance you're always
>> preaching.
>>
>> [snip intolerant stereotypical text]
>
> Intolerant? For simply asking that you people keep your mythologies to
> yourselves?
What mythologies? First of all, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, but
I'm posting from a Christian ng (granted, you may be posting from
alt.atheism, but that's the way this ng was originally crossposted).
Secondly, would you have us Christians stay in the closet? If so, how
ironic? I'm here, and I'm a follower of Christ, so get used to it.
> For pointing out what the irrationality of religion leads
> to?
Who said anything about religion? We're talking about God here, not
religion. In fact, if you look at all the things Jesus said and did,
they stood as a harsh criticism to the existing religious structures of
the time.
> I often ask why religious opinions are seemingly immune to the
> kind of criticisms one would level at political or s****ts opinions. I
> keep recieving the answer, "..because it's personal." Perhaps if it is
> so personal, it should be kept to one's self.
OK. So I guess, according to you, that comming out of the closet should
be reserved only to gays, and Christians are to stay in the closet, or
behind closed doors. If you really want to know why religious opinions
are seemingly immune, it's for the same reason that alternative
lifestyles are seemingly immune.
>
>>
>> >> That way, you can do whatever nutty things you normally do
>> >> during the day.
>>
>> >> >> Why don't you ask yourself if He exists the next time you come
>> >> >> within a fraction of a second of sure death just to be saved by
>> >> >> some infinitesimal improbability (we call those miracles where
>> >> >> I'm from, though that's not the only kind of miracle)?
>>
>> >> > Been there, done that.
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/da05fd09c5e8309b?dm
>> >> >ode =s
>> >> > ource
>>
>> >> Funny.
>>
>> > And true. Read the entire thread. It is not unusual for an atheist
>> > not to think of gods when life is in danger. It's easy to find the
>> > atheist in the foxhole-he uses the most ammunition.
>>
>> >> >> Ask yourself if He exists next time the
>> >> >> timing is just too perfect for a personal petition (a prayer)
>> >> >> answered from that very deity that you chose not to believe in.
>>
>> >> > I petition no one. Two hands working do more than a thousand
>> >> > praying.
>>
>> >> That's because hands don't pray, hearts do.
>>
>> > Hearts pump blood. Minds pray.
>>
>> >> > I realize that the universe is an uncaring, difficult place
>> >> > sometimes, and I feel no need to make up fairy tales when bad
>> >> > things happen to good people.
>>
>> >> Good for you.
>>
>> >> >> When you finally
>> >> >> realize how blessed you are, ask yourself if He exists.
>>
>> >> >> Again, you're the one that wants to know, not me. You're the
>> >> >> one seeking answers, not me (for I have found all the answers
>> >> >> in Him).
>>
>> >> > You once again mistake a request for proof as a "search" for
>> >> > something.
>>
>> >> No, but apparantly I mistake your request for proof for your
>> >> willingless to receive such proof straight from the source.
>>
>> >> > I don't need your insipid little Bronze Age myth.
>>
>> >> Good, because I don't have an insipid little bronze-age myth. I
>> >> have Jesus Christ.
>>
>> > All serious searches for a Jesus Christ have been failures.
>>
>> >> > I do not
>> >> > have the void in my emotions that requires the `security
>> >> > blanket' of religion.
>>
>> >> When I was in my dark place, for many years away from God, I
>> >> thought I too was complete. But when I came to Him, it was only
>> >> than that I realized just how empty my former way of life was, and
>> >> how empty I really felt. When you live with such a conditin for a
>> >> long enough period of time, you don't realize that the condition
>> >> is there until that condition is removed.
>>
>> > Oh, please. You're a complete stranger on a newsgroup and you think
>> > you know who I am?
>>
>> last I checked you were panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > How I feel?
>>
>> OK. That wasn't where I was going or what I was asking, but sure,
>> how do you feel?
>
> See my previous comment below. I thought you were about to tell me I
> was unhappy and that I needed your mythology to make me happy.
>
>> > Get over yourself. I'm having the time
>> > of my life. There is happiness. There is joy. I lack nothing. The
>> > only blight right now is that my girlfriend has multiple sclerosis.
>> > Sometimes I wish I did believe in gods, so I'd have someone to
>> > blame for it.
>>
>> IC. Well, I'm sorry for yours and your g/f's misfortune. I wish
>> there was something I can do about it. I totally would understand if
>> you wanted someone to blame, just so you can let whoever or whatever
>> is responsible for this blight know what it's doing to you and your
>> g/f. I mean, you probably feel, needless to say, angry at the
>> situation, and want someone or something to blame.
>
> But there is nothing. Bad things happen to good people, and this
> happened to us.
"...for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:45)
> There's more good in being alive than bad, and we just
> remember that. Strange thing is, we're having the toughest time
> finding a single-storey house (she's having problems with the stairs-
> and the dogs are getting older, too) that's less than twenty years
> old! All the McMansions are 2 & 3 levels. Weird the things you
> discover through adversity.
>
>> >> > I reserve my love for humans, and my wonder for the natural
>> >> > universe. There is nothing missing. Nothing in my life for such
>> >> > a meaningless being to *do*.
>>
>> >> Great. Study nature, and all its complexities. If you can prove
>> >> that it's all some kind of cosmic accident void of any deity,
>>
>> > Accident? I will admit that humanity does not yet know where it all
>> > came from. But if I want to know, I'll read the work of the people
>> > trying to discover it, rather than wrap my ignorance up with a bow
>> > and call it "god". Life is the easy part. Simple chemistry.
>>
>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
>>
>> >> than I'm sure
>> >> you'll win the hearts and minds of many believers.
>>
>> > I just want `em to leave my tax money, my gay friends, and my
>> > nation's cities alone.
>>
>> And I just want your gay friends, your nation's cities, and God's
>> people to co-exist; and let God's people, who also pay taxes, have a
>> say in how taxes are spent. But as long as we are unfairly judged
>> (and I'm talking about both Christians and gays, for it is not for
>> the Christian to judge, nor should they be judged as a group by any
>> member of the gays), than I don't see this happenning.
>>
>> IOW, how about practicing some of that tolerance you're preaching.
>>
>> >> >> Just approach
>> >> >> the subject with an open heart and open mind, and you'll find
>> >> >> the answers that you need--not from me, and probably not from
>> >> >> any one particular church, synagogue, mosque, or other kind of
>> >> >> religious facility, but from Him whom I serve.
>>
>> >> > And whose existence you *still* have not proven.
>>
>> >> I already told you, I'm not here to prove these things to you.
>> >> Just like when a rumor spreads,
>>
>> > Most rumors are decidedly *not* true.
>>
>> >http://www.snopes.com/
>>
>> >> if you want to know the real truth of the matter,
>> >> you go straight to the source. Such is the same with God. If you
>> >> want to know the truth about Him, go straight to the source. Do
>> >> you want to know the truth?
>>
>> > I already know the "truth" about Christian mythology.
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2vhs39
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2kg43d
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3ay5hm
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2wskdr
>> >http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
>> >http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
>> >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm
>> >http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
>>
>> > Christianity was the ideological train wreck left behind by the
>> > reaction of ancient pagan people to the strange "new" Jewish idea
>> > called `monotheism'. The legend known as "Jesus" was either:
>>
>> > 1.) Based upon a series of heretical rabbis during the Roman
>> > occupation of Palestine..
>>
>> > 2.) Based upon the Essenes' "Teacher of Enlightenment"..or
>>
>> > 3.) Never existed at all and was a catch-all for the pagan faith-
>> > healer stories told before early xianity arose.
>>
>> > I don't believe in gods because I don't see any, but I don't
>> > believe in Christianity because I can read.
>>
>> That's not the source. Try asking God, for He is the source.
>>
>> Irregardless, I think you're confusing Catholocism and the Protestant
>> splinters of Catholicism with Christianity.
>
> "No true Scotsman...."? I somehow knew there'd be bagpipes before this
> was over.
???
I must have missed something. Only Scottsman I know are from Brave Hart
and the original Star Trek.
>
>> Christianity can't be found in
>> any one building, nor is their any one leader here on earth (for our
>> leader is God, and His son Jesus Christ). In fact, I'd even go so
>> far to say that Christianity shouldn't even be classified as a
>> religion, but more so should be considered a lifestyle, a way of
>> life.
>
> I have previously do***ented the truth behind the Christian myth, and
> will not comment upon it again.
>
>> Anyway, clearly you have animosity toward all believers of all
>> religions (especially Christianity) that you would sooner judge by
>> the minority and reject the tolerant majority.
>
> The "tolerant majority" seems to dismiss their more destructive
> cousins as "not real xians/muslims/buddists, etc." Someone needs to
> keep an eye on those people. If you won't do it, I will.
>
>> What would you do if your g/f turned to
>> Christ? Would you reject her as well?
>
> Honestly, I haven't really thought about it. It would depend upon how
> seriously she took it. I really don't believe there's much chance of
> that happening. Discovering gods are not im****tant isn't really a
> decision one makes-it's a discovery one achieves. From our point of
> view, it would be like returning to a belief in Santa. Down deep
> inside, we'd always know we were wrong. To use a religious term, once
> the genie is out of the bottle, you can never put it back in.
Than clearly you either haven't heard of or are dismissing the story of
the prodigal son. I'll let you do the google search on it should it peek
your interest.
Regards,
Will
|
